|
Politics
With Tucker Carlson
CNN Political Analyst
Thursday, Dec. 19, 2002; 2 p.m. ET
Should Trent Lott step down from his Senate leadership position for making racially insensitive remarks at retiring Sen. Strom Thurmond's birthday party? What lingering effects will Lott's statements have on the Republican Party? How does Al Gore's decision to not seek the Democratic nomination in 2004 change the political landscape?
CNN political analyst and "Crossfire" co-host Tucker Carlson was online to take questions and comments
on Al Gore, Trent Lott and the political news of the day.
In addition to his work on "Crossfire" Carlson has provided analysis for CNN's Inside Politics, writes for New York Magazine and is a contributing editor for The Weekly. Carlson's writing has also appeared in The Wall Street Journal, George, The New Republic, Forbes FYI, Slate and The Washington Post.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Prince George's County, Md.:
Tucker, last week on "Crossfire," when interviewing both Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, you attacked them for their instances of racial slurs. However, Tucker, attacking Sharpton and Jackson is a "red herring"; Sen. Trent Lott is an elected official and, more importantly, the Majority Leader of the Republicans. He needs to be held to a stricter standard than Sharpton and Jackson -- not higher, but stricter. Sen. Lott cannot support certain ideas or even imply support for certain notions like he did at Strom Thurmond's birthday party if he is a representative in the United States government. Tucker, why is it that you chose to attack Jackson and Sharpton's records when Lott is the elected official in question? Also, wouldn't stepping down as majority leader truly reflect contrition -- not just simply saying "I'm sorry?"
Keep up the good work, the show is great.
Tucker Carlson: Good point. Obviously it's worse when someone like Trent Lott (a U.S. senator) makes an ugly remark than when someone like Jesse Jackson (a national joke) does. And I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was only trying to make the point that Lott isn't the first person to say something appalling in public, and perhaps the rest of us could be a bit less santimonious in our condemnation of him.
Chevy Chase, Md.:
Tucker:
Why is that the online conservative pundits (Rich Lowry, Joshua Marshall, Andrew Sullivan) "banged the drums" to get Lott removed while members of the conservative traditional media (you, Hannity, Limbaugh) have argued that Lott should not go? Do you agree with the argument that the traditional media need guests like Lott and other conservatives, while the online folks can just freewheel it.
Tucker Carlson: Interesting theory. It's not, strictly speaking, true -- there is, sadly, no organized conspiracy of talk show hosts -- but I do think on-air people might be somewhat more forgiving, simply because we're more likely to come into contact with people like Trent Lott as guests. And it's hard to really hate someone if you know him. At least it is for me.
Harrisburg, Pa.:
Why aren't more Republicans upset at Trent Lott for the obvious reason that a Republican leader should have said Tom Dewey should have won the 1948 elections? Isn't that an indication that leaders such as Sen. Lott are so far to the right that the Republican Party has forgotten about political moderates?
Tucker Carlson: I think it's because not many Republicans remember that Dewey ran in 1948.
Last night on Crossfire we played a newly-discovered third tape of Lott praising Thurmond in almost exactly the same way. In this one, Lott said Thurmond should have won the election of 1947.
So, in addition to everything else, he's a weak historian.
Houston, Tex.:
Lott has put the president in an extremely difficult position. If he tries to stay above the fray, he looks like he tacitly supports Lott. If he tries to have him replaced, he's meddling in the affairs of the senate. At what point does Bush pick up the phone and say, "Trent, I know this may be unfair, but you're crippling the party. Step aside or I'll go public and call for your ouster?"
Tucker Carlson: I think that point is coming soon (though I hope not on Christmas day, which I plan to take off). I imagine Bush will use a cut-out to do it, maybe Jim Bakekr or his father.
New York, N.Y.:
Hey Tucker, I'm a big Crossfire fan and I know you can't bash Carville but the show really takes a downturn when he is on. Begalia, Novak, and you do a much better job of asking questions and arguing issues.
Anyway, my question for you is do you think FOX News leans to the left, leans to the right, is a "mouthpiece of the RNC," or is "fair and balanced" (i.e. plays it straight down the middle). COME ON TUCKER don't duck this question PLEASE.
Tucker Carlson: If you think Carville seems demented on the air, keep in mind that's he's far crazier in real life. And I mean that as a compliment. He's one of the most entertaining people I know, the only person I've met able to conjugate the F word eight different ways in a single sentence. I'm a fan.
As for Fox, of course it's not Fair and Balanced. They only say that to irrirtate liberals. (It works.) But I don't think the network has succeeded simply because it's conservative. Fox producers understand television. They're not afraid to cover topics that are by no definition news. Given the choice between a natural disaster in Peru and the Hooters girls going on strike, they'll choose the latter without hesitating. Plus, the shows are visually compelling. I don't watch Fox much, but I can see why they're winning.
Richmond, Va.:
Tucker, the bow ties seem like an affectation. No problem there -- ndividual signatures are the essence of style. But I was wondering, is there an explanation, or at least an interesting history, for your preference in neckwear?
Tucker Carlson: Affectation? That hurts, true as it may be. Actually, I've worn bow ties since the ninth grade. I started wearing them because my father did.
I've kept wearing them because they arouse women. (That's a lie of course, but I like the way it sounds.)
Laurel, Md.:
If we were to try to capture the basic essence of modern conservatism, it would probably come down to limiting the role of the federal government. There is nothing inherently racist about such a position, but racist politicians have used the limited government philosophy to justify federal non-intervention in slavery and Jim Crow under the rubric of "state's rights" and conservatives today advocate "local control" of schools, which translates to wealthy white suburbs shouldn't fund poor black cities.
Perhaps conservatives can win with this argument, but hasn't the Lott episode focused attention on how conservatism isn't really offering blacks anything?
Tucker Carlson: You're right that the phrase "states' rights" has been totally discredited by racists, but I don't think there's anything inherently immoral about the idea of less federal control over the states.
As for what the GOP can offer black Americans, the question itself makes me uncomfortable. There's something creepy about politicians who promise to help specific racial or ethnic groups more, since it implies that they'll be helping other groups less. Which would be racist.
Seems to me that an idea is either good for the whole country -- black, white, none of the above -- or it isn't.
Indiananpolis, Ind.:
How do you define what you and the "cast" do on "Crossfire" -- news, political commentary -- entertainment?
Do you consider yourself a journalist?
Tucker Carlson: We don't give you the news of the day on Crossfire -- that's what the Washington Post does -- we chew it over, and on our best days help viewers make sense of what the news means.
Yes, I am a journalist, and have been one since I left college and went to work in magazines and newspapers. Obviously I deal in opinion quite a bit now that I work on Crossfire, but I only say what I believe is true. I don't lie. And I don't flack for a political party. The GOP comes closest to my political beliefs, but when it deviates from what I think is right, I hope I'm honest enough to say so.
Lyme, Conn.:
Improbable but possible scenario: Joseph Lieberman versus John McCain for president. Who do conservatives such as yourself vote for?
Tucker Carlson: McCain. No contest. He's an odd guy, but thoroughly decent, despite what his fellow Republicans say about him.
Somewhere, USA:
"There's something creepy about politicians who promise to help specific racial or ethnic groups more, since it implies that they'll be helping other groups less. Which would be racist. "
But isn't that the essence of government, and why K St. exists? Why is this notion so creepy when it comes to race?
Tucker Carlson: Because you can't control what race you are. You can make yourself a union member or an oil man or a trial lawyer, but you can't make yourself black or white. So it's unfair and immoral for government to treat people differently based on their color.
San Bruno, Calif.:
Will the economy derail President Bush as it did his father?
Tucker Carlson: It certainly could, and the White House fears that.
On the other hand, we're likely to have a war soon, which changes the political calculation entirely.
Herndon, Va.:
Lott seems to not have been the effective Senate leader, majoritywise, minoritywise or otherwise, so he should go on that basis. But for every Trent Lott, there is a Robert Byrd, and why the Democrats claim this big monopoly on improved race relations is both embarrassing (that the GOP hasn't refuted this with more passion) and insulting (that the Democrats seem to get a pass on similar incidents).
Rant over, thanks for letting me spill Tucker.
Tucker Carlson: That's for sure. Sen. Fulbright (Clinton's "mentor") signing the Southern Manifesto against Brown v. Board, voting against the Civil Rights Act, etc, etc, etc. Segregation was created and maintained by Democrats, soemthing nobody seems to remember.
On the other hand, is "They did it too" really an honorable response to what Trent Lott said? It's not. I'm glad more Republicans haven't used Democratic sins to excuse their own.
Canton, Miss.:
Hi, I love your show! Trent Lott may have misread a lot of his fellow Mississippians. Every Republican I have talked to here is upset with him. He has made our state look bad and everyone here REALLY doesn't agree with the views he sounded like he has. They not only disagree, they think he is stupid for saying it.
Tucker Carlson: Exactly. Where are these millions and millions of right-wing racists we keep hearing about? If they exist in the numbers Democrats claim, where's the evidence? Where's the poll data? Why don't we ever hear from them?
There are racists out there, unfortunately. I just don't think there are enough of them any more to form an important voting bloc.
Washington, D.C.:
Assuming Lott is ousted, I don't think any of the four Senators mentioned in media reports will make it to 26. Who do you see as a dark horse candidate?
Tucker Carlson: Frist would likely get it. He's who the White House wants. McConnell is the dark horse, and my personal favorite.
Virginia:
What are your thoughts on war in Iraq? Do you believe it will happen and, if so, care to predict when?
Tucker Carlson: Unfortunately I think it will happen, probably next month, though maybe in February.
The under-reported story of the year is how many American troops are already in the region or headed there now.
Jackson, MS:
I think one of the most disturbing things about the coverage of the Lott story is that the only issues discussed are the polictical scheming around whether he will keep his job and whether his various apologies are good enough to appease people. Why are politicians not using this as an opportunity to meaningfully discuss substantive issues, i.e., why policies attacked as "racist" are not (or are); and the role race does/should/or should not play in our public life? Does it have to do with the Republicans being uncomfortable about admitting their "southern strategy?" Why are journalists not asking substantive questions? We will never begin to get over race baiting and our racial problems in this country until we can have frank discussions about the role of race in both our past and our future.
Tucker Carlson: I couldn't agree more. The short answer is: Because it's too painful. Someone always gets wounded when you talk honestly about race. Which is why no one ever does.
It's striking to me how the candidates who set out to have a real discussion on the subject -- Bill Bradley, for instance -- always sink immediately into meaningless, circular platitudes.
Moscow:
Did you see today that CNN reports there are Trekkies in the Bush Administration? http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/18/offbeat.trekkies.reut/index.html
Any idea who they might be, and should the country really be comfortable with such nerds running the show?
Tucker Carlson: I hadn't seen the story. Very disturbing.
Albemarle, Va.:
Hi Tucker!
Forget Lott and Gore, more importantly there's talk of regulation over telemarketing. You once wrote a scathing (and hilarious) column about the hijinx you use to ward off those dinnertime pests. How do you feel about the FTC's proposed restrictions on telemarketing? Should consumers win privacy demands or industry win speech claims? And also, where is that column? I searched the Web under your name and couldn't find it.
Thanks!
Tucker Carlson: I'm against restrictions on telemarketing, mostly because I love to torment telemarketers when they call (a reflection, I suppose, on how much free time I have). I just looked for the piece you mentioned, and can't find it. Sorry. It was recently reprinted, though, in a book called Right Hooks, Left Crosses, from which, sadly, I won't get royalties.
Charleston, S.C.:
Suppoe Nickels is the next Leader.
Doesn't he strike you as a man who'll be so strident he'll get nothing done or just very little done?
Tucker Carlson: You can't be too strident if you're the leader. It doesn't work. Other senators won't put up with it.
What I'd worry about more is how long he's been there. He entered the Senate at 31, the youngest Republican ever. Based on what has happened to Biden and Byrd after a lifetime in the Senate (neither one has any idea when to stop talking) I'm a little concerned about him.
Somewhere, USA:
Never got the chance to congratulate you on your 2002 election prognostications. Someone should put a little extra in your paycheck.
Tucker Carlson: I've told my agent the same thing.
re: Somehwere USA:
Nobody's talking about treating races differently or "giving more to one group, less to another." There is no denying that there exists a disparity of wealth, education, and opportunity between blacks and whites, demographically speaking. If we have a nation a truly interested in providing equal opportunity to all, then the government must examine what causes these disparities to exist and actively work to erase them. Pretending a lotto system for educational access (vouchers) or a sink or swim attitude will materially affect the lot of millions of citizens, black or white, will not cut it, and voters will continue to see through it.
Tucker Carlson: No one's against providing equal opportunity, least of all me. But haven't we learned through terrible experience that favoring one racial group over another is wrong? That it's unfair and makes people hate each other?
I thought that's the one thing all Americans agreed on.
Harrisburg, Pa.:
When are you going to come out with a book. I am a staunch Democrat and an avid reader of Carville and Begala's books. However, I would enjoy the opportunity to read your insights.
Tucker Carlson: My editor just asked me that. He's still waiting for the manuscript, which is a year late.
The problem with books is, you have to write them. I should have realized that going in.
Washington, D.C.:
Does Trent Lott think he can remain Senate Leader? I jsut can't see how he can win with so many knives in his back already.
Tucker Carlson: Apparently he does think it. I guess he doesn't read the papers.
On the other hand, you may remember what smart people were saying about Clinton when Monica broke. "Gone by Friday," is the line that sticks in my mind.
Chantilly, Va.:
Tucker: I laughed out loud when I read about Lott's "1947" comment. How many elections -- other than in our lovely Commonwealth -- are held in odd years?
I think he needs to go, on grounds of general stupidity.
Tucker Carlson: New Jersey and the New York mayor's are the ones I've covered. There are others, but it would take me another Diet Coke to remember them.
Washington, D.C.:
What do you think about Clinton's comments on Lott and the Republican party?
Tucker Carlson: Totally hateful and glib and unfair. I thought he was for racial healing.
Harrisburg, Pa.:
What is your take on the Libertarian party? Do you think they are harmful to the GOP?
Tucker Carlson: They're wackos, but I admire and like them. I they they help remind the GOP what it stands for.
Hibbing, Minn.:
As William Saletan said in Slate, Lott would not have intentionally endorsed segregation in public unless he was trying to commit suicide. So the question is presumably what he subconsciously revealed. But divining what someone "really thinks" seems an arrogant and futile exercise. If "words matter" -- the reason for the uproar in the first place -- shouldn't there be at least discounted credit for his mutliple retractions and groveling apologies? Lott seems like an idiot, but I find few things more unappealing than a sanctimonious Washington feeding frenzy.
Tucker Carlson: As someone who has participated in more than one sanctimonious Washington feeding frenzy, I'm in total agreement. I don't like Lott. I never have. (I had contempt for him before contempt for him was cool.) But I'm defending him anyway, just as I defended Gary Condit, because what's happening is unfair.
Tucker Carlson: I've got to go to work before I get fired. Thanks a lot for having me. I enjoyed it.
Best,
Tucker Carlson.
Automatically Update Page
| Get New Responses | Submit Question
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
