NBC's news investigative unit, Lisa Myers and Adam Ciralsky, reports:
For troops in the line of fire, body armor can spell the difference between life and death.
Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, who oversees body armor for the Army, told NBC, “The body armor that we issue to our soldiers today is the best in the world. Bar none. It’s proven by live-fire testing, and it’s proven in combat.”
But is it really the best?
An NBC News investigation — including independent ballistics tests — suggests there may be something better called Dragon Skin. Military families and soldiers have tried to buy Dragon Skin believing it offers better protection. But the Army banned the armor last year even before formally testing it.
The Army’s current body armor is called Interceptor. NBC News tracked down the man who helped design Interceptor a decade ago, Jim Magee, a retired Marine colonel:
LISA MYERS: What is the best body armor available today in your view?
JIM MAGEE: Dragon Skin is the best out there, hands down. It's better than the Interceptor. It is state of the art. In some cases, it’s two steps ahead of anything I’ve ever seen.
MYERS: You developed the body armor that the Army is using today.
MAGEE: That's correct.
MYERS: And you say Dragon Skin is better?
MAGEE: Yes. And I think anybody in my industry would say the same thing were they to be perfectly honest about it.
Why? He says more stopping power and more coverage.
According to Magee, the Army’s Interceptor uses four rigid plates to stop the most lethal bullets, leaving some vital organs unprotected. Dragon Skin — with discs that interconnect like Medieval chainmail — can wrap most of a soldier’s torso, providing a greater area of maximum protection.
Magee, who has no financial stake whatsoever in Dragon Skin, told us, “If you would ask me today, ‘Jim we’re sending you to Iraq tomorrow. What would you wear?’ I would buy Dragon Skin and I would wear it.”
Sunday, May 20, 2007
| [+/-] |
Are U.S. Soldiers Wearing The Best Body Armor? |
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
| [+/-] |
On Hardball with Chris Matthews, April 10, 2007 |
Guests Clarence Page, Al Sharpton, Sabiyha Prince, Deforest Soaries talk with Guest Host, David Gregory
Transcript of Hardball for April 10, 2007:
Good evening. I‘m David Gregory, in tonight again for Chris. NBC News and CBS radio have suspended radio talk show host Don Imus for two weeks starting April 16, condemning his racist and sexist comments about the Rutgers women‘s basketball team. This morning, Imus appeared on NBC‘s “Today” and again apologized.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):DON IMUS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I am going to apologize to them and ask them for their forgiveness. I don‘t expect that, and I don‘t think they have any obligation to either forgive me or to accept my apology.
GREGORY: As we mentioned, today the young women at the center of the controversy, the Scarlet Knights, told reporters they will, indeed, meet with Don Imus. Later, we are going to talk with the Reverend Al Sharpton about the controversy and also take a larger look at this incident and what it says about race relations and decency in our country.
But first the background and HARDBALL‘s David Shuster with this report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE):DAVID SHUSTER, HARDBALL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was the announcement from the Rutgers women‘s basketball team that Don Imus had been hoping for.
ESSENCE CARSON, RUTGERS BASKETBALL PLAYER: We have agreed to have a meeting with Mr. Don Imus. This meeting will be a private meeting at an undisclosed location in the near future.
SHUSTER: That means Imus will get an opportunity to explain and apologize in person for the comments he made last week on his broadcast.
IMUS: Oh, some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Some hard-core ho‘s.
IMUS: That‘s some nappy-headed ho‘s there, I‘m going to tell you that!
(LAUGHTER)
C. VIVIAN STRINGER, RUTGERS WOMEN‘S BASKETBALL COACH: It‘s not about the Rutgers women‘s basketball, it‘s about women. Are women ho‘s? Think about that. Would you have wanted your daughter to have been called that?
PAGE: Yesterday, NBC News announced that the simulcast of Imus‘s radio program on MSNBC will be suspended for two weeks starting next Monday because this week, the show is conducting a charity telethon. Imus reacted this morning on the “Today” show.
IMUS: I think it‘s appropriate, and I an going to try to serve it with some dignity and—a lot of dignity, if I can. I‘ve had a long relationship going back to 1971 with people at NBC and a long relationship with CBS. And when I talked with Phil Griffin last evening and he told me that he was—they were suspending me, I expressed to him that—how I felt about that and accepted it in the spirit in which it was—in which it was rendered.
SHUSTER: But when pressed by Matt Lauer about a pattern of racial humor on his program, Imus was defensive.
IMUS: This is a comedy show. I‘m not a newsman. This is not “Meet the Press.” We don‘t—anything we say—it‘s not an excuse, but context is important. There‘s a difference between premeditated murder and a gun going off accidentally. I mean, somebody still gets shot, but the charges are dramatically different.
SHUSTER: And Imus insisted his comments about the Rutgers team were not intended to be offensive.
IMUS: But it was comedy. It wasn‘t a malicious rant. I wasn‘t angry. I wasn‘t drunk. I wasn‘t stating some sort of philosophy. As I said yesterday morning, I‘m not a racist, I‘m—and I‘ve demonstrated that in my deeds, in my work. And if we can only cite three or four instances in a comedy program...
MATT LAUER, “TODAY”: Well, wait a second, Don...
IMUS: ... which is designed to push the envelope over 30 years—you know—what I did is made a stupid, idiotic mistake in a comedy context.
LAUER: Well, let me...
IMUS: I didn‘t open the microphone to say, This is what I think of these Rutgers women.
LAUER: Let me put it this way...
IMUS: Does it mean I should be excused for the remark? Absolutely not.
SHUSTER: Also on the “Today” show this morning, Reverend Al Sharpton, who has called for Imus to be fired.
REV. AL SHARPTON, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK: What precedent are we setting now, that you can apologize every 10 years when you go over the line and maybe you‘ll get a two-week suspension? I think that this is something that is unhealthy for everyone in America, and he should be fired.
SHUSTER: Despite the joint appearance on the “Today” show, Don Imus attacked Sharpton for declining an invitation to appear on Imus‘s program following an Imus appearance yesterday on Sharpton‘s broadcast.
IMUS: I talked to Reverend Sharpton yesterday for two hours, Matt, and I told Phil Griffin and everybody else that I didn‘t intend—I invited Reverend Sharpton to appear on my program, and he didn‘t have the courage that I had.
SHARPTON: No, I decided I would not...
IMUS: Because I walked—I‘m talking, Reverend Sharpton!
(CROSSTALK)
IMUS: I walked in his studio yesterday, and there were hundreds of people there. And my hands weren‘t shaking and I don‘t get up and run out of the studio every five minutes when the mikes went off. I sat there and I talked to Reverend Horgans (ph) like a man—Reverend Sharpton like a man, and he did not keep his word. I asked him to appear on my program. He said he didn‘t want to appear at the scene of the crime!
SHUSTER: As for Imus‘s request to meet with the Rutgers women...
IMUS: And I am going to apologize to them and ask them for their forgiveness. I don‘t expect that, and I don‘t think they any obligation to either forgive me or to accept my apology.
SHUSTER: The Rutgers players said they would wait to hear what Imus said before making any judgments, but they added that Imus has a lot of explaining to do.
HEATHER ZURICH, RUTGERS BASKETBALL PLAYER: And we were insulted, and yes, we were angry. Worst of all, my team and I did nothing to deserve neither Mr. Imus nor Mr. McGuirk‘s deplorable comments.
PAGE: A few of the players noted that the language used by Imus is used every day by some African-American hip-hop and rap artists. But the players quickly added...
CARSON: But that doesn‘t make it any more right for anyone to say it, not only Mr. Imus, but if I were to say it, it doesn‘t make it any more right. It doesn‘t matter if you‘re African-American or whether you‘re Caucasian, Asian. It really doesn‘t matter. All that matters is that it‘s wrong.
SHUSTER: But will they accept Imus‘s apology?
MATEE AJAVON, RUTGERS BASKETBALL PLAYER: Right now, I cant really say if we—you know, we have come to a conclusion of, you know, whether we will accept the apology. What I can say is that I think this meeting will be crucial.
SHUSTER (on camera): Amidst the ongoing protests against Don Imus and the questions about whether journalists, including those at this network, will continue to appear on his program, Imus today pledged to make changes. He said he would revamp his show, put on more African-American guests and talk more about issues of race.
I‘m David Shuster for HARDBALL in Washington.
GREGORY: David, thank you very much.
We go now to “The Chicago Tribune‘s” Clarence Page and “The Congressional Quarterly‘s” Craig Crawford. Welcome to you both. Thanks for being here.
I want to read a couple of things, Clarence, and then have you respond. Gwen Ifill, a colleague of ours who works for PBS, used to work for NBC News, wrote the following in a very thoughtful op-ed piece in “The New York Times.” Quote, “The sincerity”—and she‘s talking about the sincerity from Imus—“seems forced and suspect because he‘s done some version of this”—these comments, she means—“several times before.”
Next, this is an exchange you had with the I-man on his program back in 2000, and I‘m going to read through it for our audience and for you to see. Imus—this is—you introduced the idea of him taking a pledge here.
CLARENCE PAGE, “CHICAGO TRIBUNE”: Want me to do my part here?
(LAUGHTER)
GREGORY: “I, Don Imus”—Clarence Page—“do solemnly swear,” “do solemnly swear,” “that I will promise to cease all simian references to black athletes,” “that I will promise to cease all simian references”—he repeats it—“a ban on all references to non-criminal blacks as thugs, pimps, muggers and Colt 45 drinkers,” “I promise to do that.”
Clarence Page, you‘re here with us now. There was some laughter in the middle of this, but this was a serious...
PAGE: That was Bernard.
(LAUGHTER)
PAGE: That was Bernard in the background, yes.
GREGORY: This was a serious point you were making.
PAGE: Yes, it was, and I wanted to lighten it up a bit because this is a light show. You know, part of the problem here, David, is that Don‘s successful. He gets it both ways. He‘s a combination shock jock and morning political discussion leader.
GREGORY: Right.
PAGE: You know, he says he is—you know, he is an entertainer, not a newsman, but you know, he...
GREGORY: All right, but the point is...
PAGE: He does both.
(CROSSTALK)
PAGE: And so that‘s why I...
GREGORY: ... serious in making this pledge.
PAGE: That‘s why I wanted to get this in the right spirit of the program because at the time, this was the subject of—what, it was Tompaine.com had run a big piece about why are Washington‘s pundits supporting bigotry on Don Imus. They ran a quarter page ad in “The New York Times” op-ed page. And it quoted me saying, Well, I‘m concerned. I‘d like to talk to Don about this...
(CROSSTALK)
PAGE: So that‘s what led to all this.
GREGORY: All right. And now these comments, “nappy-headed ho‘s” is what he called these young women on the basketball team at Rutgers.
PAGE: Right.
GREGORY: Is he a racist or a serial offender, or both? What, in your mind?
PAGE: I like Don Imus personally. I can‘t read his heart and say if he‘s a racist. All I know is he says racist things from time to time. That‘s what I told him back in 2001, as he was telling me he wasn‘t a racist, et cetera. Gwen‘s right. There are echoes in his current series of apologies to what he was saying in 2001, on various other occasions.
Don‘s done some great things for a lot of black folks, for people of color, including me. When my book came out in ‘96, he gave me the kind of promo on the air there during his show that authors hunger for. I have nothing personally against him, but I have certainly been on the air talking about his racially inflammatory humor on the show, him and Bernard. It‘s all part of the package. So this is not new.
Now, you know, my old daddy always said, Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Now that, you know, he‘s gone back on that pledge, I‘m even more troubled than I was before.
GREGORY: Craig Crawford, is it time for Imus to go?
CRAIG CRAWFORD, “CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY,” MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST:
Not at all. I don‘t see how that helps anything. I would say this man—you know, in my experience on the show—I‘ve done it nearly 70 times in the last three years—this—his heart is as big as his mouth, and the mouth gets him in trouble, as it has now.
(LAUGHTER)
CRAWFORD: And I think there‘s an opportunity here. I was struck by how these students, these Rutgers students—they were so reasonable and calm and willing to listen and try to understand, hard as it might be for them, what his motivations were. And they are going to meet with him. And tell you the truth, I think a lot of us adults who are talking about this ought to just step back and let these 20-year-olds...
GREGORY: All right, well, so...
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: ... if this is a positive meeting—I mean, Don Imus—we both know him, we all know him—Certainly sounds contrite to me, that he gets it. This is going to be a tough meeting. Does this gesture mean something important, Clarence?
PAGE: Oh, it means that he has escalated things. And so has the public, in my view. You know, I haven‘t been invited back on the show, by the way, since the pledge, so I can‘t—I haven‘t had further discussions with him.
GREGORY: Do you think that was the reason?
PAGE: Maybe you got my slot, Craig.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: Is that a reaction to that? Did he feel embarrassed by that?
PAGE: I have no idea, you know?
(CROSSTALK)
PAGE: ... when he broke some bones on the ranch, I sent him a get well card, but I haven‘t talked to him, though, since I was on the show. And I mean, what‘s important is not whether I‘m on the show or not. I think what‘s important here is the show itself and how it‘s conducted. The fact is, he‘s gotten away with more than a lot of other shock jocks have in terms of—the Greaseman, used to be here in D.C., and various others lost their jobs over just one case like this.
And now finally—you know, he thought he was going to get by with the one apology last Friday. As of Monday, he was apologizing all day long, going to Al Sharpton‘s confessional, if you will. And obviously, you know, for CBS and NBC to drop him for two weeks, it‘s a slap on the wrist in one sense, but the fact that it‘s kind of a slap at all is serious. It shows that there‘s some teeth behind this, as there should be.
GREGORY: But Craig, you feel a little bit differently here. You think that people are overblowing this, that he‘s apologized, that we should move on.
CRAWFORD: I think in the context of this show—I know, as you know say, that much of it is serious commentary. And when they do the sports, as they were doing here, that‘s where you see more to the comedy elements, some of the skits they do. It‘s not just racial. We see jokes about Catholics, about Jewish people, gays, I mean, and my argument would be that when you stifle that kind of speech, when you stifle it, you‘re not dealing with the sentiment behind it. And to actually say someone should be fired for making jokes about this kind of stuff doesn‘t really get us down the road toward discussing what‘s behind it and how—how...
PAGE: I‘m not calling for his firing, but if he were fired, what would happened, Craig?
CRAWFORD: Well, I think he‘d become a martyr and...
PAGE: What would happen, Craig? He‘d get a job someplace else, wouldn‘t he.
CRAWFORD: Yes, probably.
PAGE: Of course he would. Of course he would.
CRAWFORD: And—and...
PAGE: Or he‘d go to satellite like Howard Stern.
(CROSSTALK)
CRAWFORD: ... is better off if Imus goes forward, if he gets to know these students, they get to know him. When he takes up a cause, as we all know, he puts his heart into it. I think he will here, not just to save his job, but I think he‘s—I disagree with Gwen. I think his—his remorse is genuine, and I think he will go forward and take up this cause and do some things that will make a big difference, more of a difference than if he were fired.
PAGE: That would be great, but let‘s not feel sorry for Don. I mean, Don Imus is a really—if he wasn‘t as successful as he is, NBC, CBS—you know, well, how about two weeks, Don? I mean, that‘s what it looks like to me. I don‘t see him being severely punished. But I think that he is contrite, and I think he does want to do good. And he has done good with his ranch, with the kids out there who have cancer, autistic kids. All of this...
GREGORY: Is there room for...
PAGE: As I told him, that doesn‘t give you a license to...
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: Is there room for him to refashion this program in a way that can heal this wound?
PAGE: Well, I don‘t know if it has to be refashioned necessarily. But I just think you can‘t have it both ways. You know, I think it‘s—the fair thing is for—if you‘re going to try to be a shock jock, you ought to be treated like a shock jock. That‘s what happens. And—but he does bring on great, reputable folks like Craig and various others, you know, who help to give him some credibility, and he helps to expand our audiences and all. You know, everybody wins in that arrangement. But you know, a host should not embarrass people who appear on the show. And when you go and embarrass yourself in this kind of a fashion, he‘s now put people who want to appear on the show on the spot. I understand Cal Ripken‘s dropped out of an engagement...
CRAWFORD: Yes, I—I think—you know, two things. You know,
first, I think, you know, getting into the—you know, the actual words
that he used, he was wrong and he should be punished for that and is being
punished. But I think further discussion as he goes down the road on this
you know, some of these terms, particularly the term “ho,” comes from gangsta rap.
PAGE: That‘s right.
CRAWFORD: And that needs to be condemned...
(CROSSTALK)
PAGE: And it is, too.
CRAWFORD: ... and discussed...
PAGE: I just did a column last Sunday I commend to your attention...
(CROSSTALK)
PAGE: ... Sharpton has, too, Jesse Jackson...
(CROSSTALK)
CRAWFORD: You know, that is a discussion I think whites and blacks need to have, rather than just saying someone should be fired for having said that. I think to be a racist, you have to hate black people, and I do not believe Don Imus hates black people.
GREGORY: I‘m going to let that be the last word. Thank you very much, to Clarence Page and Craig Crawford.
Coming up, the Reverend Al Sharpton. We‘ve been talking about him.
He is calling for Don Imus to be fired, and he‘s coming right here next.
You‘re watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):KIA VAUGHN, RUTGERS BASKETBALL PLAYER: I‘m not a ho. And at that, I‘m a woman, and I‘m someone‘s child, and you know, it hurts a lot. It does hurt. And there‘s a lot that should be said. There‘s a lot that I want to say, but you know, you can‘t say it. And I would like to speak to him personally and, you know, express how I feel face to face and ask him, After you‘ve met me as a person, do you feel in this category that I‘m still a ho, as a woman and as a black African-American woman, at that? I achieved a lot, and unless they have given this name, a ho, a new definition, then that is not what I am.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):IMUS: I am going to apologize to them and ask them for their forgiveness. I don‘t expect that, and I don‘t think they have any obligation to either forgive me or to accept my apology.
GREGORY: Welcome back to HARDBALL. That, of course, Don Imus on the “Today” program this morning, apologizing once again for his comments about the Rutgers women‘s basketball team. On Monday, he sat down with Reverend Al Sharpton to apologize on the reverend‘s radio program. And Reverend Al Sharpton joins us now. Welcome.
SHARPTON: Thank you.
GREGORY: Imus has apologized, and now the Rutgers lady basketball team will meet with him. What has to come out of that meeting for you to be satisfied?
SHARPTON: It‘s not about coming out of the meeting. I think that that‘s a private meeting is between he and those that he victimized with his statements. Our drive, from National Action Network and other organizations, is to deal with how the airwaves and those that use them must be accountable. That will not be impacted by a private meeting. That will be impacted by how the stations, how advertisers and how FCC deals with the policy of the airwaves.
GREGORY: But Reverend, you said on your program yesterday you were eager to see what the outcome of that meeting was.
SHARPTON: No. He said he wanted to be forgiven and he did not want to be perceived as racist. I said, I‘ll see what happens in that meeting. I did not say that would determine how we would deal with dealing with the airwaves and how they ought to be policed. That‘s absurd.
GREGORY: All right.
Your view on the suspension by NBC News and CBS Radio is what?
SHARPTON: I think that it is too little and I think it‘s too late.
We must remember that Mr. Imus made these statements Wednesday. Had the groups not raised this by Friday and over the weekend, I doubt if any action would have been taken at all. He barely apologized the day after. Then, he got a little more specific Friday. He really did not start apologizing until we raised public attention. And that is the point.
We cannot allow the airwaves to be used in a blatantly sexist and racist way, and unless somebody catches you, it‘s all right.
GREGORY: All right.
SHARPTON: When you heard today those young ladies talk about how this hurt them, how this will affect them the rest of their lives, I mean, it is amazing to me how people will sit up and just objectively discuss somebody else‘s pain.
GREGORY: Reverend, let‘s—let‘s—you have called for him to be fired—you just reiterated that now—taken off the airways.
Listen to what Imus said this morning during your appearance, your joint appearance, on the “Today” program, about what changes he would make to his program.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “THE TODAY SHOW”):DON IMUS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I have a record of a—of a relationship with the African-American community, whether Reverend Sharpton likes it or not.
I am a—I am a good and decent person. And I have been conducting a comedy show for 30 years. I can come back, and serve, hopefully—will hopefully serve this—the suspension with dignity, and come back and create a dialogue.
One of the things that we‘re going to—that we‘re—we‘re going to do, that we have been talking about for years...
MATT LAUER, CO-HOST: Quickly, if you can, Don. I‘m running out of time.
IMUS: There ought to be a black person on this show every single day to add some perspective. And—and we ought to have more black guests. And—and me and the rest of white America ought to understand what is going on in the black community. And I will make an effort to do that.
GREGORY: Reverend, if—if Don Imus could make good on that commitment, would you support him staying on the air?
SHARPTON: First of all, he made the same pledge, as you just said, with Clarence Page. I mean, why don‘t we just play his last apology and last confession, and he wouldn‘t have to get up so early in the morning and do “The Today Show”?
Second of all, am I supposed to applaud, after 30 years, he says, let‘s put a black in the studio? I mean, what are we talking about here?
This is not about Imus. This is about accountability on the airwaves.
GREGORY: No. OK, I take that point. But is this also not an opportunity to put the issues that you care about, confronting this kind of racist talk and sexist talk, on the public airwaves, with a huge, large platform? Can you see him playing a positive role? And if—if—NBC and CBS does not listen to you, and he stays on the air, would you agree to be part of his program, as a commentator?
SHARPTON: I think the—I think the larger—No, I would not.
The largest—or the larger stage, the larger picture, I think, cannot include that, if someone misuses the airwaves, that all they have to do is make a tour of apologies, and then it‘s business as usual.
I—I—I see people sincerely struggling to try and come and set a bigger picture here, but they can‘t put in the picture there‘s no penalty for the racist, sexist use of the airways. That is what everyone seems to miss. This is not about Imus. This is about accountability and a standard on the airwaves that protects citizens from those airways being used in a racist, biased, sexist manner.
GREGORY: Let me ask you a question, based on your standing in the community, as a politician, as a former candidate for the presidency. Do you believe in redemption?
SHARPTON: Oh, absolutely.
I think that there has to be redemption. I have—as I said this morning on “The Today Show,” a man of a different race, a white man, stabbed me once for leading a nonviolent march. I not only forgave him. I went to jail and met with him and forgave him. But I didn‘t say he shouldn‘t pay for the crime.
There‘s a difference between redemption and amnesty. A lot of people are not talking about redemption. They‘re talking about amnesty.
GREGORY: But, in your case, as critics would point out, you didn‘t go as far as Imus in a controversy that had to do with you and the Tawana Brawley case, a woman who the court...
SHARPTON: Nor did I castigate a whole race of people.
GREGORY: I‘m sorry. If I could...
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: Sir, can I...
SHARPTON: Nor did I castigate a whole race of people.
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: I just want to finish the question.
You—you didn‘t go as far as apologizing to the people who you hurt through that incident. This was, the courts have concluded, a hoax, accusations against whites by a young black woman about a race-based assault. A court ordered you to pay restitution for a defamation suit against people‘s whose reputation you hurt. You didn‘t apologize for that.
SHARPTON: And I still don‘t apologize. This was a case, as you said, of a young lady accusing people of doing something to her.
To compare that to a man castigating a whole race—nobody came to him, like this young lady came to me. He was not talking about did he believe in a case.
So, the—to the extremes people will go to compare an individual case, a civil case that, when the courts ruled...
GREGORY: Right. I‘m not—but, Reverend, I‘m not comparing the cases.
SHARPTON: Wait a minute. You wanted me to let you...
GREGORY: I just wanted to ask the question.
SHARPTON: You wanted me to let you ask it. Let me answer.
GREGORY: OK.
SHARPTON: And to compare that shows how far people will reach. This man was not talking about a specific case, with some information somebody gave him, whether you believe the information or not.
This man was talking about a race of people and a sex of people. There is absolutely no comparison. And, when the courts ruled against us, we paid that. That case happened 20 years ago. We‘re not talking about that.
What you are talking about is—is maligning a race, and him not having to pay for it.
GREGORY: Well, I‘m not—I am not talking about it. The question has to do with...
SHARPTON: Oh, I thought you were the one talking.
GREGORY: ... redemption.
SHARPTON: Maybe somebody else...
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: No, sir, I don‘t think that is not fair to talk about that I‘m talking amnesty. I am asking a question about your belief in redemption and people whose reputations you hurt, people that you hurt...
SHARPTON: Well, if I felt...
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: ... that you haven‘t apologized for.
SHARPTON: If I felt—if I believed...
GREGORY: And you are a strong person in middle of this debate.
SHARPTON: If I believed that young lady was telling the truth, as I do, what am I apologizing for?
And how do you compare that to a man condemning a whole race? Did I go and condemn a whole race of people? Or did we say we believed this young lady‘s statement about an individual? I don‘t how you even compare the two.
GREGORY: All right.
We‘re going to take a break here, the Reverend Al Sharpton staying with us—when we come back, questions about the larger questions raised by this incident.
Then, coming up later: a look at race relations in this country, how far we still have to go.
You are watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GREGORY: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
We are back with the Reverend Al Sharpton.
Reverend, I have got just about a minute-and-a-half here. But I want to ask you a larger question.
If there is a national conversation that has started as a result of this incident, what is it and what should it be?
SHARPTON: I think the national conversation should be, how do we hold those that use the public airways accountable?
I think people have the right to free speech. I think we have the right to free comedy. I do not think they can use public airways recklessly. I do not that think we can have regulators in government that call some things indecent and other things permissible.
We need to have a conversation on what is permitted. And I think that this Imus incident will bring us to that conversation.
GREGORY: Imus challenged you during the “Today” program today about taking on the black community, about where the kind of language like “ho” originates in the hip-hop culture.
He may be an imperfect vehicle to bring that point up to you, in—in your estimation, in a lot of people‘s estimation.
Is that a fair point? And what can you do to advance that, to challenge the black community on that—on the use of that language within the black community, within the hip-hop community?
SHARPTON: The only reason it is not fair is because we have been dealing with that for some time.
I have been one that has been very vocal, as I think was stated in the segment earlier by Clarence Page and them, about the use of the N-word, the use of ho by people of my own community. I—I was one that was very upset with the movie “Barbershop” that denigrated black icons like Rosa Parks.
I only think him challenging me showed that he has not been in touch with what is going on. I think that there is a place that we need to have that discussion. It is wrong for anybody to call anyone a ho. It is wrong for anybody to use the N-word. I think that should not be used as an excuse to cover Imus, because I think, if you don‘t deal with Imus, then you lose the moral authority to join people like me in dealing with some of those bad elements of gangster rap—not all rap, but gangster rap.
You can‘t have it both ways. If you‘re going to join us in saying that these young artists ought to stop it, then you have got join us in stopping Imus.
GREGORY: The Reverend Al Sharpton—Reverend, thank you very much for coming on tonight.
SHARPTON: Thank you.
GREGORY: Up next: the big picture that we have been talking about.
We will talk right here about where we are with race and gender in our current politics and in this country, what role all of this plays in the 2008 election, and more about this conversation that Reverend Sharpton talked about Americans having as a result of this incident—when HARDBALL returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DARBY DUNN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I am Darby Dunn with your CNBC “Market Wrap.”
The Dow Jones industrial average ended higher for an eighth straight session, its longest winning streak in four years. The Dow gained more than four-and-a-half points, the S&P 500 up almost four, and the Nasdaq almost eight-and-a-half.
Dow component Alcoa kicking off earning season after the closing bell, reporting first-quarter profit jumping nearly 9 percent—however, earnings fell short of analyst estimates. In after-hours trading, Alcoa shares are up fractionally.
Oil prices rising slightly today, climbing 38 cents in New York, closing at $61.89 a barrel.
And another sign of woe in the housing market—D.R. Horton, the nation‘s biggest homebuilder, says second-quarter orders are down 37 percent. That is due in part to steep declines in California and the Southwest.
That‘s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide—now back to
HARDBALL.
GREGORY: Welcome back to HARDBALL. I‘m David Gregory, in for Chris tonight.
There are larger questions coming about of the reaction to Don Imus‘ words. What does it tell us about race and decency in our country right now?
In a moment, we‘re going to talk with Reverend DeForest Soaries, who is going to moderate this meeting we have been telling you about between the Rutgers players and Don Imus.
But, first, let‘s bring in “Newsweek”‘s Jonathan Alter, who is an NBC News contributing correspondent. And we are also joined here in the studio by Sabiyha Prince, an anthropology professor at American University.
Welcome to you both, professor Prince and Jonathan Alter.
(CROSSTALK)
SABIYHA PRINCE, ANTHROPOLOGY PROFESSOR, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Hi.
GREGORY: Jonathan, let me start with you.
We talked a little bit earlier on the phone about whether this incident has created a race moment for America. Do you think that is the case? And how would you define that?
JONATHAN ALTER, NBC NEWS CONTRIBUTING CORRESPONDENT: I think it has created what you could call a teachable moment, the same way that, a couple of weeks ago, when Elizabeth Edwards‘ cancer recurred and Tony Snow‘s did, you know, we had a kind of a national conversation about surviving cancer.
And I this does give us a chance to talk about the coarsening of discourse in America, about accountability. As—as Reverend Sharpton said, what does accountability mean? Does it necessarily mean firing the person? Or is sometimes changed behavior enough form of—of accountability?
You know, David, in the YouTube culture that we have now, everything that somebody says is going to get replayed, and replayed again. And the question becomes, what is the response?
And I think something that has happened in the—just in the last couple of years, there has been such a negative reaction against President Bush‘s failure to apologize, failure to seem like he is being accountable to where the people are, that we have got more of a thirst for people apologizing when they screw up, and then changing their behavior as a result of having been called to account.
GREGORY: Professor Prince, let me pose that same question to you.
Is this a moment here, a teachable moment, a race moment, call it what you will?
PRINCE: Well, I think, David, that the history of the United States has been punctuated by a number of race moments.
So, the question becomes, what are we going to do with this, and where do we go from here? I would agree that, if we use this as a chance to perhaps educate America about the history of diverse peoples—for example, taking this Imus case, there‘s a historical context of African-American women being animalized, of African-American men being likened to animals, a dehumanization, if you will.
There is a precedent for that. It has happened on numerous occasions. And, perhaps, if—we can use this opportunity to share with America some of the literature about this context, a broader context, and about the experience of women, and the works of black feminists and other scholars, who have a lot to say on these topics.
GREGORY: It was also something about this incident.
It was not—as—as condemned as it is in—in hip-hop songs and rap music, where these artists talk about hos in a general sense, which has been condemned, this was, unfortunately, the specific application of that term to a group of young women who are exceptional young women, good students, and terrific athletes. And it really sort of woke people up and said, hey, wait a minute. This is really out of bounds.
PRINCE: I agree with you. So this is pointing to issues sexism, as well as racism, and how those things intersect. These are athletes. Haven‘t we not seen in the past women athletes being characterized as not being feminine, as somehow not being women. That is not at all appropriate and we need to get at the root of some of these things.
GREGORY: We have been looking at these pictures of the players and the coach. I want to listen to the Rutgers coach, Vivian Stringer, and what she had to say. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):VIVIAN STRINGER, RUTGERS WOMEN‘S BASKETBALL COACH: The truth of the matter is that it is not even black and white. The color is green. The color is green. You see, because if we can tolerate as a society what has just taken place, the remarks that have been directed toward young women, I do not know how anyone could have heard this and not been personally hurt and offended.
GREGORY: I also want to bring in the Reverend Deforest Soaries, who will moderate the meeting between Don Imus and the players from Rutgers. Reverend, welcome.
REV. DEFOREST SOARIES, WILL MODERATE IMUS/RUTGERS MEETING: Thank you very much for having me.
GREGORY: Talk about this meeting that is going to occur. You‘ve been talking to Imus. You‘ve been talking to the players and the coach, and the folks at Rutgers. What is going to happen at this meeting?
SOARIES: Well Mr. Imus has confessed, as it were, of his sin or his crime. What seems to be in disagreement is whether or not there should be any sentence. The remarkable outcome of this, from the Rutgers women‘s perspective, is that these young women, 17, 18, 19 years old, see the need to have a dialogue with Mr. Imus.
They could be so bitter or so hurt that they would simply dismiss him or they could be so angry that they would want to retaliate. But they‘ve decided—
GREGORY: To say nothing of their parents, by the way.
SOARIES: I mean, this is a level of maturity that I have not seen in recent years, particularly around very volatile race and gender issues. And so in this meeting Mr. Imus will have a chance to say directly to them what he has said to the public, and that is “I‘m sorry.” He will also have a chance to answer questions that they would like to probe, in terms of who he really is.
He has said it is important for America to know who he is, but it should start with the persons that were victims of his ugly conversation. They then will have an opportunity to share with him exactly how they feel. I have said to Mr. Imus, I am not sure he understands the depth of complexity that he has caused in these ladies‘ lives. This is more than a passing insult. This is a deep stain, which one player said would be a scar for the rest of her life.
We will have a dialogue. He will have an opportunity to express his views; they theirs. And then we will see what the next step should be.
GREGORY: Reverend, we are talking here about whether there is a larger important conversation to have as a country, about the power of words, about decency and about racism. And I think you said on Reverend Sharpton‘s program yesterday that for a lot of black people in this country, this may have been a confirmation to them to their sort of deep cynical belief that white people do not like them. It may have been a kind of ugly confirmation of that.
SOARIES: What‘s interesting is that pundits and leaders have a tendency to think in terms of left and right. And left would be more progressive and liberal. Right would be more conservative. And, in that sense, this becomes an enigma, because Mr. Imus is traditionally identified with the left. And one would have to imagine, how could somebody who supports black children, who supports black causes, who has been a philanthropist, really say those kinds of words and then admit he has no idea from whence they came.
This speaks to a deeper problem that we explore in black America, quite often, and that is that there is a deep fault of racism that exists, and it is like Anthrax. It will kill you, but you can‘t be seen. Every now and then it emerges, and we act surprised, but I think until we have a genuine conversation about gender and race and about green—that‘s what Coach Stringer was trying to get at.
The fact is, in this country, the problem is not race or gender. The problem is that we will do anything to earn a dollar. And if it exploits people or hurts young people, it does not seem to matter as much.
GREGORY: Reverend Soaries, Jonathan Alter, and Dr. Sabiyha Prince all staying with us. We‘re going to take a short break and come back and continue this conversation. You are watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: I am the father of a daughter who is in college. I can guess at some of your rage and anger, but I can‘t know all of it. Can you really turn this into a positive and redemption? Can this be the lesson from this, some day?
STRINGER: I hope so. And I think that with all things that are bad, I do not think bad can overcome—I don‘t think that evil can overcome good. These young people are good. What he did was evil. But I need everybody‘s help. We need everybody‘s help.
GREGORY: That was C. Vivian Stringer, the coach of Rutgers, speaking to Brian Williams, who interviewed the players as well as Coach Stringer. You can see more of Brian‘s interview on NBC Nightly News on your NBC station later today.
We are back with “Newsweek‘s” Jonathan Alter, and Professor Sabiyha Prince, and the Reverend Soaries, who will moderate the meeting between Don Imus and the players from Rutgers. Jonathan Alter, you wanted to make a point. Go ahead.
ALTER: Well, I was just going to say that I think there is a kind of an interesting power relationship here that is also come into view. You know, Don Imus is a powerful broadcaster, at least he has been. And he will now be judged and his fate will determined by how these young politically powerless, until now, women react to him. And I think there‘s something that is exquisitely American about that. It is almost like a form of our jury system, where his fate will depend on how these young women react, what their view is toward redemption, towards punishment, towards some of these very complex and deep issues about how we deal with bad behavior and racist words in our society.
GREGORY: Professor Prince, do you think that there is a racial divide, in terms of how people evaluate this?
PRINCE: Undoubtedly, and that is something that I think probably disturbed me perhaps even more than the comments themselves. And what I‘m referring to would be the responses to people, in particular I have to say powerful white people in the media, and in politics, and particularly males. There has been this excuse, this discussion about, well, he is a friend of mine, and I don‘t think he a bad person. And I have to wonder if the ethnic group that was slurred in such a way was not African American, perhaps another group, perhaps another group that has a history of --
GREGORY: Jews, for instance?
PRINCE: That would be a good analogy I think. What would be the response from individuals like John McCain, individuals like Ed Schultz. Barbara Walters, I think, has weighed in. James Carville.
(CROSS TALK)
ALTER: He has done this kind of thing to Jews. I am Jewish. I have heard him call people, you know, in very unflattering terms—refer to our Jewish background. He hasn‘t done it to me, but I have heard him do to other people. It is in the nature of the show, so it is simply not accurate to say that if the show were on the other foot, and he were attacking other ethnic and religious groups, people would react differently.
What is different about this, just so we are really clear, and, I think, why this is really a problem, and why it was such a deplorable thing for him to say, is that on his show, when he goes after people, almost all of the time, it is powerful people in the media, in politics. They can take it. They are public figures. We want that robust debate, even when it does go a little bit over the line.
What is not acceptable is to do it to people who are powerless, who have done nothing wrong and are not public figures.
GREGORY: Reverend Soaries, let me ask you, you have talked to Imus. Do you think he gets it? Do you think he is surprised by some of the reaction or do you think he understands this?
SOARIES: I think he gets it now. The problem is he did not get it then, and when you get it retroactively, you can‘t withdraw the pain. In order to have a civil society, we must have moral consensus. And moral consensus then compels us to call a spade a spade, whether the spade is from our tribe or not.
I think our divide today is not between so much black and white, but between just a generic consensus over what is acceptable and unacceptable in civil society. When African-Americans become as angry about anti-Semitism as we are racism, then I think we are growing up. In America, we have not grown up, and we have allowed profit driven media to drive wedges between us. So we are living below our Homo Sapiens status.
GREGORY: And, Professor Prince, quick reaction to this: Imus‘s claim that has to be seen in the context of comedy.
PRINCE: It think that‘s completely absurd. First of all, he was not funny. So let‘s just start there. Comedy is no excuse to disparage people and to dehumanize people. And so I agree with the reverend that we need to arrive at some sort of standards. And let me just cut off at the knees folks who may want to make comparisons with perhaps the Chris Rocks and the Dave Chappelles. I think we‘re talking a little bit about apples and oranges, because these people are making political commentary and they are speaking historically from a place where people have not had the power to critique white people and to critique white privilege.
GREGORY: I just have to take a quick break here. We will come right back.
(CROSS TALK)
GREGORY: Reverend, I‘m sorry. I‘ve got to take a break here. We have a satellite issue, which is cutting us off a little bit. We‘re going to come back with our guests. You‘re watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):RUDY GIULIANI ®, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: My reaction is it was wrong. It was very wrong. He has acknowledged that. I have to say that I generally feel about things like that, when people make big mistakes like that, what I look to is do they understand it, do they acknowledge it, do they seem to be really sorry for it, and are they going to make a pledge not to do it again. He seems to have done those things.
GREGORY: Rudy Giuliani today on the campaign trail, talking about Don Imus. I want to thank the Reverend Deforest Soaries, who we‘re going to lose. He‘s got another interview to do. He will moderate a meeting between Don Imus and the Rutgers women‘s basketball team. “Newsweek‘s” Jonathan Alter and American University Professor Sibiyha Prince are still with us.
Jonathan, let me start with you. As a kind of concluding point in this conversation, about what this incident tells us about the kind of conversation we need to have as Americans, about race and decency in our politics and in our public discourse. And by that I mean has there been a kind of defining down of decency, that has gone on to the point where it took something like this to be a tipping point to really wake people up and say, this is way out of bounds?
ALTER: Absolutely. You know, what happened is that we had the rise of what was called political correctness in the 1980s, and then there was a backlash against PC behavior. And everybody kind of said -- or lots of people said, hey, lighten up. You know, don‘t go to the ramparts every time somebody said something a little bit offensive or objectionable.
And so that mentality existed in this country for a long time, that
sort of lighten up, anti-PC mentality. Then something like this comes
along, where somebody says something that is not politically incorrect, but
actually much, much, much worst, and it reminds us that that backlash
against PC may have gone too far, and that the people who talk about
sensitivities to language within bounds have a real point. The question is
GREGORY: You know what, I am simply out of time. Jonathan Alter and Sibiyha Prince, thank you very much. Join us again tomorrow night at 5:00 and 7:00 eastern for more HARDBALL. Right now it‘s time for “TUCKER."
Monday, April 9, 2007
| [+/-] |
On Hardball with Chris Matthews, April 9, 2007 |
Guests: Phil Gingrey, Chris Van Hollen, Eugene Robinson, Tony Blankley, Howard Fineman talk with Hardball with guest host David Gregory.
Transcript for Hardball, Monday, April 9, 2007:
GREGORY: Good evening. I’m David Gregory, in tonight for Chris. And welcome to HARDBALL.
Late today, breaking news, NBC News President Steve Capus has announced that Don Imus will be suspended from MSNBC for two weeks for his comments about the Rutgers University women’s basketball team. In a statement, News President Capus said the following: “Don Imus has expressed profound regret and embarrassment and has made a commitment to listen to all of those who have raised legitimate expressions of outrage. In addition, his dedication—in his words—to change the discourse on his program moving forward, has confirmed for us that this action is appropriate.”
(I) should clarify that, of course, Imus’s program, which originates out of WFAN in New York, is simulcast on MSNBC. And again, the decision by Steve Capus, the president of the News division here at NBC News, is that he will be suspended for two weeks.
We want to talk about this today, including Imus’s appearance on the Reverend Al Sharpton’s radio program, his apologies and where it all goes from here.
We’re joined by Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, from the Washington Post, who will be writing about this in tomorrow morning’s edition, as well as MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle.
And Mike, I think I speak for both of us, we are both, as the audience may know, frequent guests on the Imus program. You have known him and been on the program even longer than I have. And this is a difficult time, not just because of the hurt that he has inflicted and what he said, as he tries to deal with it, but for all of us who are on the program and certainly don’t want to be associated with this kind of thing that he’s done, as all of this plays out.
So, first, your reaction to this as we go forward.
BARNICLE: David, you’re right, it is a difficult thing to endure, it’s a difficult thing to hear for any of us, no matter whether you’re on the program or not. I’ve known Don a long time. I can tell you, as he has indicated several times today and last week, he is a good man, he is not a racist. I mean, it sounds pitiful to have to say something like that, but he’s a good man.
I would hope that if there is anything positive to come out of this, it might be that we continue, or have a discussion about race in this country, something that we sometimes willfully ignore in the media. Gene Robinson is sitting there with you. I think both Gene and myself—I can’t speak for Gene, obviously—will in a couple of minutes—but in the print media, writing newspaper columns, you see it much more often evidenced than you do in the electronic media, the fact that there is a double standard when it comes to dealing with race in this country.
A young white woman can get killed in the inner city and it’s on page one, young black men get killed—fifteen, sixteen years of age—on a Thursday night or a Friday night, go find it in the news. The status of public schools in this country, many of them largely black, urban, poor, of no—they don’t have a constituency of clout, their parents cannot call superintendents of schools to complain. We ought to discuss race in this country. We’ve neglected it for too long.
GREGORY: Let me bring in Gene Robinson, here. First of all, again, the decision by NBC News is to suspend, simulcast of the IMUS IN THE MORNING on MSNBC, starting April 16.
First, your reaction to that.
ROBINSON: Since we’re into full disclosure here, I don’t know Don Imus and I’ve never been on his program. So I’m completely detached here.
It is what you do, if you’re not going to fire somebody, you suspend them for a grave violation. So in that sense, I think it’s an appropriate step. I do not think it ends the controversy, I do not think it will be satisfactory to people who have been calling for him to be fired, to be banished from the airwaves, or whatever.
GREGORY: What is not in dispute—whether you know him or not—no matter where you come from, this was racist, abhorrent language no matter where it is said, on the radio or otherwise. It is magnified that this is a program that is listened to by millions of people. What is the appropriate response here, in your judgment?
ROBINSON: You know, I don’t know. I think every—individuals and companies will make the response that they deem appropriate. People who might have listened to Don Imus may not listen to him anymore. And they’ll to have make that decision. Some people who might have gone on his program in the past will not go on it now, perhaps. Or perhaps they will go on the show.
But I think—I believe in free speech. I don’t believe in censoring people’s speech. But speech does have consequences. And while I’ve heard
I know a lot of people who know Don Imus and think a lot of him, what he said—the ‘nappy headed hos,’ let’s kind of just get it out there—
GREGORY: He was talking about the Rutgers basketball team and said those words and they had tattoos. These are some mean looking girls, he said.
ROBINSON: ‘Mean looking girls,’ and then the producer went on to ‘jiggaboos’ and the whole thing. That came from someplace. He may be even know where it came from. It may have been someplace buried, that is inaccessible to him. But it came out and that is something he will have to deal with, going forward.
GREGORY: Mike Barnicle, I want to ask you a question about whether you think Imus gets it on this one.
But before I do that, let me just bring the audience into some other thing that happened today. Imus apologized on the program this morning.
We might have some tape of that. We’ll be looking for that. And maybe we have a couple of clips, as well, from him speaking on Al Sharpton’s program this afternoon, where he spent about an hour, took some calls and there were some other guests who were on the program as well.
And again, the message throughout, Imus apologized, said he does understand the depth of the hurt, wants to make it right. What he wants to do is meet, he has said, with the women on the Rutgers basketball team, wants to meet with them, wants to apologize to them, meet with their families as well. He’s been in contact with the athletic department at Rutgers, Governor Corzine has met with the basketball team as well and talked about the champions that they are and what remarkable young women that they are as well.
So all of that is going on. We don’t know where it’s going to play and where it’s going to go.
Mike Barnicle, one of the things that Sharpton said, who has called for him to be fired, is that he wants to see how Rutgers and these teammates respond to him as well. So with all of that background, do you think that Imus gets it?
GREGORY: Oh, David, he absolutely gets it. He, more than any of us, more than you, more than Gene, more than myself, more than a lot of people realizes that word are weapons, that the hurt that these words inflicted are deep, lasting, historical in some sense. The historical pain is resurrected here. He certainly understands that. He also knows that something the two of you just alluded to, this is not over, that we live in a nation, given the power of the Internet and bloggers, that we are a nation of 300 million newspaper columnists today and everyone will weigh in on this, from coast to coast. And at some point, some blogger in Pocatello, Idaho, carries somewhat equal weight to, like, George Will.
That’s the country and the culture we’re a part of. He gets all of that.
GREGORY: We’re also joined by Newsweek’s Howard Fineman, who was on the program today, meaning the Imus program, and is also a frequent guest.
Howard, your thoughts tonight as you see the response from NBC News, and just the way the day has unfolded today?
FINEMAN: I think it has been pretty remarkable, David. I think it shows you the power of this issue, and it shows you that Imus was so far over the line that it has caused a shudder throughout the establishment media and throughout the country, especially in the African American community.
To answer your earlier question about whether Imus gets it, I think he does get it. But he said what he said, and there will be consequences for what he said. And NBC made it clear tonight what those consequences are. And I think NBC is hoping, as I do, when I spoke with Imus this morning on the radio, that he uses this as what I call the teachable moment, that he learn from this. And as I think he said at one point this morning when I was talking to him, he said, I need to grow up, at least a little. And that’s a humorous way of saying the obvious truth here, that he does. He’s 66 years old. People learn.
I think the form of humor that he was using is not only risky but has probably outlived its usefulness. I think times have changed, things have changed. But in any era, at any time, to say what he said about those women was, as I think Steve Capus of NBC News said tonight, just reprehensible and outrageous and completely unacceptable in any framework.
So these are the consequences of it. I think NBC is right. And I think, if I understand what Steve Capus says correctly, here, Imus is on notice that he has got to change the tenor, the tone and the content of the show. He has got to think up a new schtick if he is going to continue doing what he’s doing and having us participate. That’s just the way it is.
GREGORY: Let me do a couple things here—I’m going to ask our producers to get a clip from Imus from his apology this morning. But while we’re waiting for that, I want to play a portion of his interview on the Reverend Al Sharpton’s radio program today.
(VIDEO CLIP IS PLAYED)
GREGORY: I also want to play—we’ve got the Reverend Jesse Jackson on the phone, and let’s speak to him first, and then I want to play a little bit of the tape from Imus, from his morning program this morning.
First, let me speak to Reverend Jackson.
Thank you for being with us. First, your reaction to the statement and the action that NBC News and MSNBC have taken, with regard to Don Imus.
JACKSON: Well, two weeks does not correspond to the depth of the infraction, but a pattern of racial infractions and bigotted statements.
This is a kind of cooling-off period. Not only did they refer to these young ladies as hard-core hos and nappy-headed hos, and then a conversation comparing them to the Toronto Raptors men, or even the Memphis Grizzlies, the Bears—that was a very in-depth conversation, but not too different from when Venus and Serena Williams were in Playboy, saying that they should have been in National Geographic, kind of animalizing them. Or when Hillary Clinton spoke in Selma, about three weeks ago, to blacks, and next she’ll be wearing corn rows, with gold teeth and giving Crip or gang signs.
So here’s a rather in-depth pattern of bigotry that puts a tremendous burden on NBC and CBS as to what will be the character of the expectations of the on-air talent.
GREGORY: Reverend, do you think that NBC and others—NBC in this case
-- effectively lets Imus get away with it, as some have said, because he’s part of the establishment? And again, I appear on his program—you know that—there’s many people at NBC who do, and I certainly know that our audience understands that as well.
JACKSON: Well, yes, number one, his show is no longer a shock jock show.
It is a very political show. He said, even today, he would not let Clinton be a guest on his show. When he has people like you on his show, and people like Tim Russert and Harold Ford and Joe Lieberman, it is a political show with a point of view.
The other side of it, there is not one black or Latino host of a show on MSNBC. So there is no sense of balance, no sense of diversity in the programming options. So we cannot settle just for the two-week cooling-off period. We must now look at MSNBC’s hosts and writers and producers and the breadth of its news coverage.
GREGORY: You say that there isn’t any diversity at MSNBC. I don’t know that’s quite a fair charge. There certainly—in other words, there is not somebody who has a program like his—
JACKSON: Is there a show on MSNBC hosted by a black?
GREGORY: Alison Stewart is one of our hosts during the day, yes.
JACKSON: Name one. There’s Scarborough and there is you and there is Chris and there is not a single show on any network, I might add. MSNBC, CNN—all day, all night, all white. It is not fair. We deserve more access to broaden and diversify, more points of view.
So beyond the Imus pattern of rather bigoted statements, there’s the issue of fair access. That’s for all people.
GREGORY: All right. I just want to point out that Alison Stewart is an African American anchor at MSNBC TV. I don’t want that to be overlooked by you or anybody else. But nevertheless, I think you’re trying to make a different point about the overall diversity at MSNBC.
JACKSON: I am. She hosts a show. A show host has writers, producers, guests, content. We had Arsenio Hall on night time comedy show 15 years ago. We had Max Robinson, the anchor for NBC News 25 years ago. That doesn’t exist today. So it really is a cry out, really, for participation and for diversity which represents America, a very diverse population.
GREGORY: Let me ask you this, Reverend: is there an opportunity for somebody like Don Imus, who has the sort of huge platform, as you know and you’ve talked about, who has thrown himself behind causes like his ranch in New Mexico for kids with cancer, like autism, like the fallen heroes fund for Iraqi war vets. Is there an opportunity for him to change the structure of his show, to work this problem, to try to heal this wound by using that platform in a way that you could support?
JACKSON: Well, yes. The question is how long does it take and how many chances does one need for rehabilitation? I mean, for all the good work he does. this bigotry appears to be the fly in his ointment. He makes his money kind of peddling fear and bigotry. And then he does some good things with the money he makes.
We must, in fact, take the prosperity out of bigotry and make it more expensive, so others who are in this lineage (ph) will not ever again use degradation as a way of appealing to people. We must use dignity, not degradation, to appeal to people.
GREGORY: Eugene Robinson, who is also with us here, you’ve heard some of what Imus has discussed today in his apologies, his appearance on the Sharpton program. Do you agree with Reverend Jackson, that he is bigoted and that he doesn’t really understand the attack on the dignity of these young women that he has committed?
ROBINSON: Well, you know, I think he understands, but this is not a first offense. Reverend Jackson is right. There have been previous statements and incidents. And look, lets face it—Don Imus, you know, was one of the original shock jocks. And this is his schtick. By being outrageous, by being politically incorrect, he became a big star.
He went way over the line and over the cliff this time, and you know, is facing the consequences, which I think are, you know, are justified in this case, and are not over.
GREGORY: Reverend Jackson, I just want to be very clear on your point of view on this. You believe that he should be fired?
JACKSON: Absolutely. And I think that there must be some punishment that corresponds to the infraction. And we must have it extended (ph) that all of us can live with. Now the burdens is upon NBC, how it handles this, and upon CBS radio, how it handles this. It says something about the character and the expectations of the networks that are his foundation. He is not just playing shock jock now. He is, in fact, represent a political point of view that has influence, and there is no corresponding balance in programming and hosts on that show. And that offends me as much as his right to say what he said, even though I disagree with what he did say.
GREGORY: You’re saying there is no balance on his program.
JACKSON: On MSNBC’s programming. There is Chris Matthews and there is Scarborough and there is name it—there is no African American host that can operate with a point of view and have guests that represents a broader point of view. That’s important, too.
GREGORY: All right. Reverend Jackson, I know you have a flight to catch.
I do appreciate you taking a few moments to share your views with us.
We are going to continue here on MSNBC with Eugene Robinson and Mike Barnicle. We’ll get the latest from our WNBC reporter outside the Rutgers Athletic Center, where I mentioned there are some meetings going on tonight with the athletic department and with the young women, the national champions from Rutgers University, the women’s basketball team, who of course were the victim of these remarks, after all. And we’ll have the very latest on that and continue our conversation.
Again, MSNBC suspending Don Imus, the simulcast of his morning program on MSNBC, effective April 16th.
You’re watching HARDBALL on MSNBC. Don’t go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GREGORY: We’re back on HARDBALL, covering the news today by NBC News that it has suspended the simulcast of IMUS IN THE MORNING here on MSNBC, effective April 16th, for two weeks. The reaction to his racist comments last week referring to the Rutgers lady basketball team.
We’re joined now by Michael Gardiulo, of WNBC, who has been outside Rutgers, where there has been a meeting taking place with Governor Corzine and members of the Rutgers women’s basketball team.
Michael, what can you tell us about what Governor Corzine has said? And we know that Imus wants to meet with the team. Any news on that?
GARDIULO: He does. As a matter of fact, David, we were able to see some members of the team leaving what they call the RAC, here, the Rutgers Athletic Center. They had no comment today. They said they may be making some comments tomorrow. So no word as to whether they’re accepting his apology or will plan to meet with him. Governor Corzine, left with a statement for members of news organizations. And in the statement, he said—this is quoting the governor, here—“I strongly I condemn his words”—Don Imus’s words—“There is absolutely no excuse for his conduct and he is right to apologize.” The governor goes on to say, “Only the Rutgers women’s basketball team, however, can decide whether or not to accept his apology.”
So the governor is saying, really, it is up to members of the team—member of the team saying that they may let us know, in the coming hours, whether or not they are willing to accept his apology.
GREGORY: All right, Michael. Thank you very much.
Eugene Robinson also with us, from the Washington Post.
This was a key part of his conversation with Reverend Sharpton today.
And Reverend Sharpton, who has called for him to be fired, also wants to see whether the team will accept his apology, and whether that is a starting point for Imus to do something on the program to keep his job and to be able to have some kind of conversation to heal this wound.
ROBINSON: Yes. As everyone said, that is a decision that is up to the team. I can tell you if it was me, I would see this as a step in Imus’s, perhaps, in his own self-healing, but certainly in his public rehabilitation. And I would not be inclined to participate in it. I would say no.
GREGORY: Because you think it’s not worth it, because you think it’s not going to happen? You think there’s posturing on his part? What?
ROBINSON: Well, my attitude would be, well, he has already said what he feels about me. And you know, to the extent that my appearing with him or my meeting with him would help kind of paper it over, I would not be inclined to participate. But again, the members of the team will have to make their decision.
GREGORY: I’m asking our producers as well—Nightly News tonight aired a piece about this, including a sound bite from Clarence Page, who some years back, actually made Imus, on the air, pledge that he would never use any racist language again. And he had a reaction to this today, which we will try to show you in just a moment.
For now, however, I want to turn to Armstrong Williams, who is a radio talk show host and syndicated columnist who joins us now.
Armstrong, thank you. Give us your reaction to the decision by our company here, NBC News and MSNBC, to suspend Imus for two weeks, the simulcast of his show here on MSNBC, effective April 16.
WILLIAMS: Obviously, David—thank you for having me—NBC did not see a need to suspend or fire Imus until there was a public outcry, and they realized they could not bring this under control. So they felt they did the best thing, was to suspend him. I think what he said is outrageous.
I remember when they said, a couple years ago, referring to Venus and Serena Williams as apes, I remember what they said about Gwen Ifill and others. But you know, he also uses the same derogatory remarks and says things about Jews and others. This is his shtick. He also talks about his bosses, the people who write his pay checks, and he has gotten away with it.
I believe in freedom of speech, and I think it is outrageous. I’m offended, but I don’t think a person should be fired or suspended. I think the marketplace should decide; if people don’t want to listen to Imus anymore, there’s 24 hour programming, people can always turn to somewhere else. I just believe in the ultimate in freedom of speech and for people to express themselves.
And my outrage would be, that I would never want to listen to him again.
Of course, you guys are his bosses, you have the right to make that decision. But I never would advocate firing someone or suspending someone because they were exercising their freedom.
GREGORY: Do you think there is an opportunity here, Armstrong, for Imus to take on this issue of his hurtful words, to make it a part of his radio program—what I mean, by making the healing a part of his radio program, and throwing himself, whether it is the issue of race relations or racist speech, in the way that he has thrown himself behind his camp for kids with cancer or autism or the treatment of Iraqi veterans and so forth?
WILLIAMS: You know, I tell you what, look, I think sometimes, you have to take the whole of a person. I will never forget during Hurricane Katrina, Don Imus was one of the few people in the country with a national audience to talk about the fact that a lot of these people were neglected because they were black and it was unfair, it was an outrage.
He repeatedly said this on the airwaves. So many people’s hearts were warmed by his comments about Hurricane Katrina. So as we condemn him and criticize him about his racist and bigotted and divisive remarks, let’s also remember the good that he has done when those people were affected by Hurricane Katrina.
I believe that Imus is sincere. I think, for the first time in his career, he has realized that he has, at age 65, to change his rhetoric on the air waves because words can be very painful. They can hurt people in ways that he could never imagine. But I also believe, from the things that he’s said in the past, if you look at his entire history, that he’s deserving of forgiveness, he’s deserving of another chance. And I sincerely believe that he can use the airwaves to uplift people and find more socially redeeming value in this issue on race, and say, I’ve been reformed, I’ve made mistakes, I’ve been punished by the public. And there is nothing like being punished by the public. And I think he can learn and do a lot of good on this issue.
GREGORY: Eugene, I know firsthand that Imus is a good man. I know the good work he does. I have a relationship with him. I’ve been on his program now for six years. But Reverend Sharpton said, this is not a debate about whether as he good man. It is a debate about the words that he used, the way he expressed himself, the hurt that he cause, and what the consequence of that should be.
Should you evaluate Don Imus as the whole guy? Can we make a judgment about whether he is a racist in this case?
ROBINSON: We can’t look into somebody else’s soul. We don’t know. I know you know him. But where did that come from? Where did that eruption come from? It came from someplace. It was in there. And we don’t know where it came from. He may not know exactly where it came from.
But just, one thing that Armstrong said, I believe in freedom of speech, too. But MSNBC’s product is words. And its medium is words and pictures.
And so there is a corporate responsibility here to react to something that was really, really beyond the pale. And I think CBS radio has a similar responsibility to react in some way, and we’ll see what they do.
GREGORY: Final comment, Armstrong, before a break.
WILLIAMS: I think it is always best for the marketplace to decide on issues like this. We don’t need to start citing precedents, in terms of censoring people, no matter what they say. This is a country that we separate ourselves from everybody else by the freedom of speech.
I think Don Imus deserves another chance. I’m offended, I found it just to be incredible, what he said. But I also believe that he can learn from this. He can grow from it. And I remind people about his remarks, about Hurricane Katrina. He was one of the few people out there saying, this is a racist situation. America is better than this. Where is America? Where are the people while these people are suffering? I can’t forget that also.
GREGORY: We’ll leave it there.
Mike Barnicle, on the phone, Eugene Robinson, and Armstrong Williams, thank you to all of you for appearing.
We’re going to take a break here. More HARDBALL right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BRZEZINSKI: I’m Mika Brzezinski with breaking news.
NBC News announced tonight, radio host Don Imus is being suspended. His national radio program won’t be simulcast on MSNBC for two weeks—hat begins next Monday—because of comments he made about the Rutgers women’s basketball team. NBC News called his remarks racist and abhorrent and said Imus has promised to change the discourse on his program. Imus has apologized repeatedly for his comments, and expressed his embarrassment.
(NEWSBREAK)
GREGORY: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
As we enter the fifth year of the American occupation of Baghdad in Iraq, Congress is still debating how to bring our troops home.
Congressman Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat of Maryland, is the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and sits on the Ways and Means Committee as well. And Congressman Phil Gingrey, a Republican from Georgia, who is a member of the member of the Armed Services Committee.
Welcome to you both.
REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D), MARYLAND: Good to be with you, David.
REP. PHIL GINGREY ®, GEORGIA: Thank you, David.
GREGORY: This is another somber milestone in the war in Iraq. And I want to start off your debate with a simple question.
And, Congressman Van Hollen, I will pose it to you first.
Is the war in Iraq salvageable?
VAN HOLLEN: Well, I think it is potentially salvageable, but only if we learn the mistakes of the past four years and begin to hold the Bush administration accountable.
And, as you know, salvageable is a quite—is an issue that has many interpretations.
GREGORY: So, how you hold them accountable?
VAN HOLLEN: Well, I think by doing something like the Congress has done.
Both the House and the Senate, they have slightly different version, but what we have said is, for the first time in four years, we are going to give the president the money he has asked for, but, this time, we are going to ask him to hold the Iraqi government accountable for meeting the benchmarks that the administration and the Iraqi government themselves have said are absolutely necessary if you are going to achieve any kind of political reconciliation in Iraq.
That is a starting point. When you have failure for four years, and you ignore failure, you are going to get more failure. We think it is time to hold the administration and the Iraqi government accountable for the progress that they themselves have said is necessary, if we‘re going to achieve some kind of stability in Iraq.
GREGORY: Congressman Gingrey, respond to that. And you weigh in on whether the war is salvageable.
GINGREY: Well, look, David, it‘s not just the money with strings attached. It‘s the money with a rope tied around General Petraeus‘ hands and his hands handcuffed behind his back. This is no way to conduct a war.
And what the House and the Senate have done is atrocious, to say that, no matter what, March of ‘08 in the Senate bill, that we got to come home—in the House bill, August of ‘08 -- no matter what, no matter whether we have got the bad guys on the run, that we have to pull our troops out.
That makes no sense. We need to give this new way forward a chance, victory a chance. And I think that‘s the bottom line.
And I think, frankly, I don‘t know what we‘re doing back home here in the District right now. Chris could drive to Washington in 45 minutes from his district. I could be on a plane from Atlanta in two hours. And the whole House could be in Washington tomorrow to let Ms. Pelosi, Speaker Pelosi, go ahead and appoint a conference committee, send this bill to the president, let him veto it, as he darn well will and must.
GREGORY: All right.
Let me ask you this, though, Congressman...
GINGREY: And, then, as Senator Levin said, let‘s go ahead and be responsible about this.
GREGORY: All right.
But, Congressman Gingrey, what Senator Levin wants is also more leverage on the Maliki government.
Tell me why—justify your position. Why doesn‘t it make sense for Commander Petraeus to say to the Iraqi leadership: “Look, I‘m getting a lot of pressure here from a Democratic Congress in Washington to hold you accountable, to get together with Sunnis, to get together with Kurds and to make this idea of a national government work. If you can‘t do this, if you can‘t shut down the militias, if you can‘t end the sectarian violence, America is going to pull out here. Get your act together”?
GINGREY: Well...
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: Why doesn‘t that make sense at any level to you?
GINGREY: Well, David, that does make sense. And, actually, if you look at the new way forward...
GREGORY: But that‘s—well, that‘s what—that‘s what the intent of these bills is.
GINGREY: This is—this is just—this is not just a surge of troops.
Now, let me make this point.
The Dems want to say that this is just surging troops forward. It‘s bringing Iraqis into the fight. It‘s making sure that the Iraq government and Maliki puts up $10 billion for infrastructure repair. It‘s making sure they have provincial elections with a date—a date certain.
So, this is all part—these are benchmarks. And they‘re in this new way forward. I don‘t think we need to further tie the president‘s hands or General Petraeus‘ hands.
GREGORY: Congressman Van Hollen?
VAN HOLLEN: Look, this is just more happy talk. And the president‘s had his way with Congress for four years. And now he‘s got a Congress that is beginning to hold him accountable.
You had the president go aboard the Abraham Lincoln back in 2003 with the “Mission Accomplished” banner. You had Vice President Cheney say, in 2005, that the insurgency was in its—quote—“final throes.” You had the president‘s so-called plan for victory in November 2005.
The administration has lost credibility. The only way to regain credibility and provide some accountability is for us to say to the Iraqi government, “You have said that you need to do certain things in order to achieve political stability and reconciliation.”
We didn‘t pick these accountability benchmarks out of a hat. These are the issues that the Iraqis themselves, as well as the Bush administration, have said are absolutely necessary.
GREGORY: But are you...
VAN HOLLEN: And...
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: But, Congressman, are you prepared—by that date certain of next March, if Iraq is no better, if Baghdad is no more secure, you‘re prepared to pull American forces out? And then, what about the consequences of that?
VAN HOLLEN: Well, under the House bill, you are talking about August, 2008. And at that point, you would still have American forces there to continue the training of Iraqi forces. After all, the president has said the strategy from the beginning is as they stand up, we stand down. And it would leave forces in Iraq for anti-terrorism activities, to go after al-Qaeda type threats. Those are the sort of missions that the Baker/Hamilton report said would be important to continue.
But we do think that if you continue to ignore the failure of the Iraqis to meet the objectives, which we and they have said are necessary, you are simply rewarding failure, and looking the away, and that‘s been a failed policy.
GREGORY Take about 15 seconds for the final word.
GINGREY: Well, they want to bring that same old rhetoric, talking about what the president said, mission accomplished, and all of that, that we‘ve got them on the run. The point is we have a new secretary of defense. We have General Petraeus, who was confirmed by the Senate unanimously. And we have a new plan, and it makes no sense not to give victory a chance. We owe that to the American troops, to those who have given their lives, to their families and their loved ones.
Let‘s give victory a chance. And then, in August of 2008, if it is not working, then, indeed, this president and the Republican majority from the last Congress, we do have a plan B. But we are not going to give it to the enemy.
GREGORY: And Congressman Gingrey, if by this fall there‘s no measurable progress, do you think that the president has to change course?
GINGREY: I think adjustments, absolutely, have to be made, depending on what‘s going on on the ground.
GREGORY All right, I‘m going to leave it there. Thank you to Congressman Chris Van Hollen and Congressman Phil Gingrey for your views.
Up next, with as many as 20 states moving their primaries up to February 5th of next, which presidential candidates benefit most from a mega-primary so early in the campaign? This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GREGORY: Welcome back to HARDBALL. The early bird gets the worm. States are now competing hard with one another to have the earliest presidential primary. It is a scramble for power that could very well shake up the entire presidential nominating season as we know it. HARDBALL‘s Jeremy Bronson has some background.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE):JEREMY BRONSON, HARDBALL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In an effort to boost their clout in picking the next president, as many as 20 states could move their primaries up to February 5th, essentially creating a mega-primary, with over half the country voting in a single day. In the past, primaries were spaced out through the summer. Candidates raced from state to state, winning one contest at a time.
Traditionally, early states, like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, attract the most campaign attention. Doing well there gets you major media attention, not to mention the deluge of campaign dough. But plenty of primaries occur after a candidate has already locked up the nomination. And voters in those states are tired of being an afterthought.
New York and New Jersey just passed bills to move their primaries up to February 5th. And last month, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger brought that same muscle to California.
GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER ®, CALIFORNIA: Up until now what has happened is that all those candidates came out here to do fund raising, collected millions and millions of dollars, and they left. And they could care less about what our important issues are in this state. Now they are concentrating on the issues.
BRONSON: The big question is: Which candidates stand to gain the most? Would New York‘s move from March to February 5th help New Yorkers Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani? Would an Illinois move boost Barack Obama? Kansas, Sam Brownback; North Carolina, John Edwards; New Mexico, Bill Richardson; Arizona, John McCain; and Utah, Mitt Romney.
The fight to be first is already changing the way candidates are campaigning. With the biggest media markets, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, holding early primaries, candidates need major, expensive advertising blitzes. They also need to build bigger campaign organizations in more states, and that means they need more cash.
It also means that doing well in Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire could be more important than ever. If a candidate places poorly in those states, there may not be enough time to bounce back before the mega-primary right around the corner. So is all of this good for democracy?
JENNY BACKUS, DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN CONSULTANT: I think that a longer primary season makes candidates better candidates. For example, 2004, John Kerry would have been a much stronger candidate in the general election had he had a couple more weeks of fighting with Edwards.
ED ROGERS, REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST: We are going to have much more intensity. And I think that brings more people into the process, so probably a good thing.
BRONSON (on camera): The front loaded primary schedule also means that a candidates have time to introduce themselves door to door, living room to living room. And that could give an advantage to the better known candidates.
Jeremy Bronson, MSNBC, Washington.
GREGORY: Jeremy Bronson, thank you. Let us bring in Eugene Robinson of the “Washington Post” and Tony Blankley of the “Washington Times.” Welcome to you both.
Tony, let‘s pick up on this point. You‘re talking about this mega super Tuesday. It does place more importance on the early states. Is this just a matter of money though? In other words, you are going to need a lot of money, not only for the early states, but to spend your way out of a poor showing there?
TONY BLANKLEY, “THE WASHINGTON TIMES”: Well, it is never just a matter of money. I mean, money is necessary, but a lot of money does not guarantee that you can sell your product to the voters. I don‘t know how you play this game without having a whole lot of money, but having raised that money—There‘s also no chance for momentum to build and more money to be raised off of the increased momentum, because it is all so compacted that you can‘t sort march through over several weeks, and do well in one, get momentum, raise money, do well in the next one.
It‘s all compacted in. And, in and odd way, if somebody doesn‘t break out—if you have three—say on the Democratic side—three relatively strong candidates, in Edwards, Obama and Hillary, I mean, we always talk about it, but it is conceivable that with all those votes going in and being divided up evenly, you might get past that and not be decided yet.
GREGORY: Right, and Eugene, voters are not going to be have a real chance to digest everything. It is incumbent upon voters to start paying attention now and start forming their opinions.
EUGENE ROBINSON, “THE WASHINGTON POST”: Yes, so, you know, we think of this as a tremendously early starting primary campaign process, but, in fact, it is time to start paying attention, because by the time we get to February 5th that could be the whole ball game. People need to start knowing what they think about Obama, knowing what they think about Hillary, knowing what they think about Edwards. And it definitely favors the candidates that have proven they can raise the money to compete in those big states.
BLANKLEY: I don‘t know what raising a lot of money means in this context. You have got to run a three-month media campaign in California. That alone could cost 40 million dollars. New York another 30 million. I mean, as much money as they are raising, you may not be able to run a full media campaign in these states that have five, six, seven, eight large media markets and the huge costs.
So, I don‘t know if we‘ve ever been here before.
GREGORY: Let me turn to a political question about Iraq, and something that‘s interesting, that we‘ve been talking about now for several days. We know about the impact of the Iraq war on Senator McCain, principally. And yet, if you look at all of the polling, despite the funk that Republicans are in, a Republican, in a head-to-head battle, in a lot of the polling, is still beating a top Democrat. Eugene, what does that say?
ROBINSON: I have no idea. I have no idea. I don‘t understand it, because everyone agrees the war is the big issue.
GREGORY: Is a matter that Democrats have not yet sold the deal with the American public about being able to take over the reigns of foreign policy or management of the war?
ROBINSON: It could be. It could be that voters are waiting to hear a Democrat, the Democrat, enunciate, to use President Bush‘s phrase, the way forward, and preferably, by the country‘s likes, the way out of Iraq. I think that voters probably have not heard that yet. I mean, the timetables, benchmarks, whatever you call them, there is a little vagueness there.
GREGORY: Tony, how do you explain this?
BLANKLEY: Well, I don‘t know, but I‘ll give it a shot. With McCain and Giuliani, who are the two Republican who can match or beat any Democrat in a nationally head to head, they have real resistance within the Republican ranks because they are to the left of the Republican party, and probably dead center in the broader American electorate.
The Democratic leaders are on the left side, not Hillary so much, although historically she seems to the left. So they are actually better positioned to win a general election, and arguably poorer position to win the Republican primary.
GREGORY: All right. We are going to take a break here. We are going to come back with Eugene Robinson and Tony Blankley, talk some politics, as well as some other issues of the day. You‘re watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GREGORY: We are back with Eugene Robinson of the “Washington Post,” and Tony Blankley of the “Washington Times” to talk some more politics and also to take up this other hot issue of Don Imus as well.
Tony, let me start with you on the issue, on the Republican side, of Mitt Romney. There is a question about authenticity in this race, obviously, and a lot of questions about Romney‘s evolution as a conservative. And so he got in some trouble here recently talking about being a lifelong hunter, when, in fact, he had been just a couple of times in his life. including in Georgia, which was actually a fund-raising event for Republicans. A problem for him?
BLANKLEY: Can Mitt Romney mitigate his appearance in authenticity? Look, inauthenticity is not a monopoly of either party. Most candidates are relatively inauthentic. The ones who can fake authenticity get elected president. Yes, he has a problem because he has been all over the map over time, claiming things. So has Giuliani. So has Gore and Edwards on energy consumption, given their lifestyles.
It‘s a very tricky business to be able to live out your authentic personality as a presidential candidate, because you are pulled from so many different ways to respond to the different pieces of the American electorate, and very few politicians succeed at it. So far, I don‘t see many who are.
GREGORY: You saw John Kerry get caught in this a little bit back in 2004, as well. Does this start to fit a narrative, a pattern for Mitt Romney?
ROBINSON: I think Romney is writing his own narrative. I mean, he seems to be going out of his way to create this problem for himself. Why did he have to say he was a life-long hunter? Why didn‘t he, kind of, dial that down a little bit?
BLANKLEY: He just joined the NRA last year.
ROBINSON: Exactly, and he‘s been a couple of times, and he hunts, you know, small varmints, or whatever. So I think that‘s a real problem.
GREGORY: All right, let‘s talk about Don Imus and his comments on the air about the Rutgers Women‘s basketball team. He appeared on Al Sharpton‘s radio program apologizing today and is trying to meet with members of the team. Eugene, you are going to write about this, and say what?
ROBINSON: Well, you know, I—philosophically, I think people should—
I believe in free speech. People should be allowed to say what they want
to say. I think it was a terribly racists thing to say. And people will
have to make their decisions about whether to go on Imus‘ show, whether
to listen to Imus‘ show, whether to continue to broadcast Imus‘ show.
I mean, these are all decisions that people will make, as Imus tries to get back in the game.
GREGORY: The question is about sanctions though. Should he lose his job or should he do something else? What is the something else, if you think he should not be fired?
ROBINSON: Well, you know, I don‘t know what the something else is. He has lost me. And I suspect he lost a lot of people. To gain them back, you don‘t do that immediately. You do it over time. I‘ll tell you one thing, if I had a daughter on that team, and, you know, she was being approached by Imus‘ people for a meeting of some sort, I would say, you know, don‘t you dare go meet with them, and he has already said what he thinks of you.
BLANKLEY: I like the Imus show. I always have. I listen to it. This is what he does. He is outrageous regarding every ethnic group. I don‘t see how he can self-censor his show, and still have the show that get millions of listener and hundreds of thousands of viewers. So if he becomes a straight-forward, sincere lovely fellow, I think his audience leaves him.
GREGORY: All right, we‘re going to leave it there. My thanks to Eugene Robinson and Tony Blankley. Join us again tomorrow for more HARDBALL. Our guests include former CENTCOM Commander Anthony Zinni. Right now, time for “TUCKER.”
