|
Talking Points Live
With Terry Neal
washingtonpost.com Chief Political Correspondent
Friday, Jan. 31, 2002; 1 p.m. ET
How do you rate Bush's State of the Union speech? Now that the Republicans control every branch of government what issues can we expect to dominate the next two years? Which Democrat is best able to run a successful presidential campaign in 2004?
washingtonpost.com Chief Political Correspondent Terry Neal brings his Talking Points column live to field questions and comments on the
latest in political news.
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.
Terry Neal: Hello everyone. It's good to be with you. I hope all is well with each and every one of you. Let's get started!
Arlington, Va.:
I enjoy your columns. I also appreciated the Post's editorial yesterday about "affirmative access." I keep hearing the GOP and their conservative friends keep saying that the Dems, liberals, and civil rights communities are the ones that keep making race a polarizing force in the country. I think if the GOP really learned their lesson about Trent Lott they wouldn't have re-nominated Pickering or submitted the brief in the Michigan case. It seems to me that they are only interested in "affirmative access" when they can see some benefit in it for them. I think this is just the beginning of a lot of unfortunate racial tension for the Bush Admin. washingtonpost.com:
But Don't Call It Affirmative (Post, Jan. 30, 2003)
Terry Neal: Thanks much for your question, and I'm glad you've been reading my columns. Yes, I too found it interesting that GOP opponents of affirmative action in Congress have announced a plan to hire 200 black staffers over the next couple years. Armstrong Williams, a black conservative who opposes affirmative action, reportedly told Congressional and RNC leaders at a recent meeting that "we need to do something about this lily white party." The contradiction, I think, is quite apparent.
Wheaton, Md.:
It appears that Republicans are much stronger in their stand against terrorism. Democrats seem to want to appease those who wish for our distruction and most Americans find that offensive. Appeasement doesn't work and that is why Democrats have lost power. Would you agree?
Terry Neal: I think you take the rhetoric a bit further than I would. I don't think Democrats want to appease those "who wish for our destruction." I think many opponents of the war have serious questions about whether war is the best way to protect country. I may not necessarily agree with them--I tend to think that if there's proof that Saddam Hussein is consorting with terrorists, such as al Qaeda (and the administration says it will begin revealing its evidence next week), there's no other choice than to take him out--but I don't question their motives or patriotism because their opinions may differ from my own. I also think many of the people who are on the fence now are on the fence because they don't believe their government has fully made the case. But I suspect that will change for many people when/if some proof is supplied.
Arlington, Va.:
Sorry, but there is a huge difference between a group saying that it needs more diversity and a government mandating diversity. The GOP has decided that it needs to look and be more diverse. I think that is great. When the government starts mandating the same it is wrong.
Can you not see the difference?
Terry Neal: No, there isn't a difference. First of all, the government isn't mandating diversity. It's interesting to me that, with regards to the University of Michigan case, opponents of affirmative action only get worked up over points being awarded to black and Hispanic students. But never do we hear a peep from you about the points awarded to students who are
the children of and grandchildren of alumni. That sort of affirmative action rewarded President Bush, who got into Yale and Harvard (his father's schools) with lower grades and SAT's than many of the black and Hispanic students getting into Michigan and other public schools. This sort of affirmative action also blatantly discriminates against blacks, because their parents and grandparents were barred by law/practice/social custom from attending many of these universities as little as 30 years ago (that's within my lifetime--I'm only 35). Did you know at the University of Michigan awards 4 points just for being a legacy applicant? Did you know that UM awards 16 points to applicants who come from the "underserved" Upper Peninsula area of the state--which is virtually all white? So a white legacy student whose had a parent or grandparent who attended UM and lived in the Upper Peninsula could get 20 points--the same as black and Hispanic applicants are awarded. Yet I've heard any outrage from conservatives about this sort of affirmative action. I agree with J.C. Watts, Colin Powell and yes, Condoleezza Rice, that race should, in some circumstances, be one of many considerations used in college admissions. The only difference between what UM is doing and the congressional GOP is that UM has tried to put down some rough standards for how to achieve that diversity.
Arlington, Va:
Hi, Terry. I enjoy your columns -- keep up the good work.
What do you think about Martin Sheen endorsing Howard Dean?
Terry Neal: Not surprised at all. Sheen is an outspoken liberal, as is Dean.
Davenport, Iowa:
John Kerry seems to be threading the needle pretty effectively on some issues where someone could charge him with backsliding or contradiction, namely the war and his support for eliminating dividend taxation. (His support for eventual use of force while continue to ask tough questions seems reasonable, and his call to include dividend tax reform inside a larger tax code reform is echoed across the political spectrum). How long can he keep this up, and when will he shed the presumptive front runner label and assume the actual mantle?
Terry Neal: I'm not sure how effective he is being. Dan Balz, the Post's senior writer had a good story today about Kerry's efforts to thread the needle on the Iraq issue. Some of Democratic candidates have a bit of problem on this. Most Democratic primary voters oppose a military strike on Iraq, will a majority of Americans (anywhere between about 52-57 percent) of Americans say they support a strike (albeit, with reservations). The larger problem is that in those same polls the gap is growing between those who give Republicans an advantage in protecting America's security. I think Kerry's effectiveness as this point has more to do with the fact that most people aren't yet paying close attention to what the candidates are saying. But read Balz's story. He lays it out there pretty well.
washingtonpost.com:
Democratic Rivals' War Dilemma (Post, Jan. 31, 2003)
Atlanta, Ga.:
Do you think that the Democrats inability to come up with a strong message is largely due to the fact that they have given up on 2004 just as they did with Reagan. Or, is Bush such a charmer and capable leader that he is systematically destroying the Democrats?
Terry Neal: Hey, great question. I agree with you that Dems don't have much of a message these days. But I don't think they have in any way given up on 2004. In fact, I think there's a widespread feeling among Democrats that Bush's support will serious weaken or erode over the next couple years, leaving them with a good opportunity in 2004. Now this may be wishful thinking on their part--who knows. But all you have to do is look at the size of the Democratic field to know that the party is not shrinking from 2004.
Boston, Mass.:
Mr. Neal,
I enjoy your columns. Why does it seem that many pundits are already caling the 2004 election. Bush's ratings are down, and the electorate is very divided. I see another close race, with the usual 5-8 states deciding it. Your early thoughts?
Terry Neal: See answer to the previous question...Anyone who thinks they can predict what the political environment is going to be 20 months from now should be playing the lotto every day. Who knows what Bush's standing is going to be. So much will happen between now and then. All you have to do is look at what happened to the 41 (that would be President George Herbert Walker Bush) to know that there's nothing more volitile and unpredictiable than public opinion. The bottom line: Even if Bush's approval stays about where it is now (between 54-60 percent in various polls), he'll be almost impossible to beat. I don't know if this is true, but I was at a conference yesterday in which Ken Melman, the president's deputy political director was speaking, and he asserted that no president with an approval rating of more than 50 percent has ever lost re-election. So we'll just have to see.
Boston, Mass.:
I saw some reports of support for war going up in some "snap" polls. Are snap polls scientific?
Terry Neal: I usually don't put too much credence in snap polls. But it depends on a number of things, such as sample size. Often the sample size is smaller than what you would see in larger, more comprehensive polls. Also, all polls are, to some extent, just a snapshot in time. But snap polls are an exaggerated form of that. I think the president made a compelling, articulate case that may very well have persuaded some of those on the fence. But I'd give it another week or two and look at the next round of polls to make a more accurate determination.
Wilkes-Barre, Pa.:
Why has there been so little information on the Bush administration's moving the Head Start Bureau to the Department of Education and the possible results for local programs?
Children need the opportunity to develop as a whole in oorder to be ready to learn and become literate. Someone once said "You must be well to do well."
Terry Neal: Good question. My guess is that it has something to do with the fact that:
a: A war Iraq is looming
B: Korea is developing nuclear weapons
C: The economy is tanking
These things, and related matters, are dominating the news right now. Not much else getting through.
Ann Arbor, Mich.:
I don't live in the "underserved" Upper Peninsula. I am not black or latino. None of my parents or grandparents attended college, nor have they given large sums of money to a university.
I do get good grades and score high on my SATs. Shouldn't I get more points toward admission for my accomplishments then for being born black or latino -- or being a member of any of those other groups?
Terry Neal: You do. My numbers may be off slightly, but generally this is how it works. You can receive more than 100 points for academic related things, such as SAT, GPA, honors and activities, etc. You get a max of 20 points for being an ethnic minority, just as you would get a max of 20 points for being a poor white person from the Upper Peninsula.
Washington, D.C.:
What was the political (or other) point in making a joke about how many al qaeda have been killed? I found that line highly offensive, both as an American who thinks I have a fairly moral outlook on the world, and as a former naval officer who was taught never to revel in the death of anyone -- even enemies we might meet in combat.
Terry Neal: I don't think the president was trying to make a "joke" of it. It was actually an unscripted line. It came off, at worst, as perhaps not as presidential sounding as people have come to expect, given the typical formality of the State of the Union address. Each person can judge on his or her own whether it was appropriate. But I don't think he was making a joke of it.
New York, N.Y.:
As a Democrat, I get a headache listening to or watching any of the Democratic Presidential candidates dance around the issues of Bush, war, and our domestic slide into depression -- with the notable exception of Howard Dean, who seems to be the only guy willing to speak up and define himself. He's a pleasure to listen to, straightforward, smart, and not afraid to say what he thinks. (and of course after all that it follows naturally that I think a lot of the same things that he does on a number of issues, and I like his general approach)
Do you think that he is getting past the novelty-candidate stage and achieving some sort of credibility?
Terry Neal: I think Dean, at this point, is still not considered a top tier candidate. But then again, Bill Clinton wasn't at this stage of the 1992 race, either. I think Dean eventually will be a factor though, for this reason: Guys like Kerry, Lieberman and Edwards spend a lot of time trying to appeal to the middle. Dean is an unabashed liberal. And there are a lot of liberals who vote in Democratic primaries. Their only other real option at this point is Al Sharpton, and even for many liberals, he's not a real option at all. This is not to say that Dean will win it all--I'm making no prediction at this point about the primary--but I think he will be a factor.
Terry Neal: Well folks, that's about it for me today. Gotta run. But, as always, this has been fun. Very sorry I didn't get to answer every question. But if I missed yours, try back in two weeks, same time, same place.
Terry
| |
© Copyright 2003 The Washington Post Company | 
