The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election - Bush, Kerry receive different reax from Unity Conference

August 07, 2004

Bush | Bush, Kerry receive different reax from Unity Conference

From the Chicago Tribune (reg. req’d) Bush urges fairness in college entry:

One day earlier, Kerry received standing ovations at the Unity conference of black, Asian, Hispanic and Native American journalists. Initially, Bush faced skeptical laughter, and a lone heckler in the audience interrupted the president’s opening remarks, shouting, “Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Liar.” By the conclusion, the audience applauded graciously.

From Reuters’ Bush Defends Terror Alert:

Journalists attending the Unity conference in Washington gave Kerry loud applause when he appeared before them on Thursday, so Bush had little doubt about the group’s political leanings when he agreed to talk to them.
Still, the derision that greeted some of his answers to their questions was a stark contrast to the fawning crowds Bush usually faces on the campaign trail.

Many in the crowd laughed when Bush struggled to answer a question about what tribal sovereignty means for Native American tribes in the 21st century.

“Tribal sovereignty means that; it’s sovereign. I mean, you’re a — you’ve been given sovereignty, and you’re viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities,” Bush replied.

The crowd applauded a questioner for asking Bush about his views on whether race and ethnic background should be used in college admissions and hiring. Bush has already stated his opposition to racial quotas in schools and hiring.

From the Houston Chronicle’s Bush: Colleges should end ‘legacy’ admissions:

During his hour-long appearance at the convention, Bush’s comments were greeted with skepticism and, at times, derisive laughter and a smattering of jeers at his rambling answers to questions about government relations with Indian tribes and guaranteeing voters’ rights in Florida.
A day earlier, the conference of mostly black, Hispanic, Asian-American and Native American journalists, public relations officials and academics loudly applauded Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, greeting him with a standing ovation.

Unity President Ernest Sotomayor, Long Island editor of Newsday.com, pointed out that conference members “extended the same courtesy (to President Bush) at the beginning and the end, but they were certainly less enthusiastic.”

While some audience members found the open disdain of the president off-putting, especially from a crowd mostly of journalists, Sotomayor defended the group’s behavior.

“They are individual voters and when they go back (to their newsrooms) they will be professional in their jobs as working journalists,” he said. “They have the same rights to free speech that we are advocating.”

Posted by Bryan M at August 7, 2004 11:33 AM | TrackBack

Comments

This is the unbiased proffesional media I keep hearing about?

Posted by: jones at August 7, 2004 11:48 AM

Many in the crowd laughed when Bush struggled to answer a question about what tribal sovereignty means for Native American tribes in the 21st century.

I saw this particular part of the Q&A, and I still don’t understand the point of the question. Yes, Bush did seem to be confused about the point of the question also. Unless there is some move underway by the US to challenge the sovereignty of NA lands, what is the point of this question? The only thing I can think of is the situation in Texas where the Coushatta’s want to open gambling on their reservation.

Perhaps some one familiar with NA issues could explain the point of that question.

It just seems to me that “What tribal sovereignty means for Native American tribes in the 21st century” is more of a topic for a dissertation not a question for the President of the United States.

Posted by: TexasGal at August 7, 2004 12:36 PM

I kinda agree with you TG. A hearty What’s the point? Seems to be in order. I wasn’t aware that we had to have sovereign nations within our borders.

Chads

Posted by: Chads at August 7, 2004 02:47 PM

I don’t think nation is the exact word for it, even though that is what is used. The Nations are still under the Federal Law for the most part. They can issue driver’s liscenses, have harvest rights, can set their own laws, have their own government. Gambling has to be negotiated with the states, but with Federal oversight.

There are still court cases pending over sovreignty. It is a question for the Federal Government, but not one of import to most folks. I would guess those affected have a lot of interest though.

Posted by: jones at August 7, 2004 04:46 PM

I have some experience with Indian issues and I think it was a BS question. It’s a handy cheap shot (typical of the left, I might add) that panders to a minority with some longstanding grievances without addressing them in any substantial way.

The Democratic party by and large figures all minorities have the same grievances and has a one-size-fits-all solution called affirmative action. Awhile back Andrew Sullivan, speaking in another context, came up with a great word to describe Kerry - “pandescending” meaning the art of pandering and condescending at the same time. IMHO this is the typical leftist stance towards all racial minorities, and nowhere is it more blatant and shameless than when they’re sucking up to Indians, whom the leftists love to keep around for status but sell down the river in a heartbeat once the sainted red brethren stop acting like aboriginal hippies and show themselves to be ordinary human beings.

Up until recently, questions of sovereignty usually involved longstanding, incredibly complicated disputes over things like mineral rights, and the typical Democratic party activist knows as much about these things as I know about quantum physics, which is nothing. Well, except for Don, of course, who knows all and sees all…

Anyway I’d be amazed if any of those cheering activists could even define the term, much less give a satisfactory answer to that question. TGal is on the money - it’s a subject for a dissertation maybe, but that’s about it. As stated, it’s just a cheap appeal to emotionalism, like so much of the left’s so-called civil rights rhetoric and one I find pretty insulting, frankly.

Posted by: marymcl at August 7, 2004 05:42 PM

Whether or not the question was a cheap shot (a matter of perspective), and whether or not any member of the audience could answer it, GW Bush once again proved that he has less of a mind than the average college debate team member, in my opinion demonstrating how unfit he is to serve as the “leader of the free world”. He should at least be able understand the question (even if he doesn’t have the correct answer), and in response be able to construct a coherent English sentence devoid of circular logic and rambling tangents. I wouldn’t trust him to mow my lawn, much less run my country.

Posted by: bill at August 12, 2004 03:23 PM