The Race Debate

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:00 AM

Maybe something good will come out of the Imus mess.

It was absolutely riveting television, watching the Rutgers women's basketball team yesterday, from the coach, Vivian Stringer, to the players who took the microphone. In the course of denouncing Don Imus for his terrible racist crack about the team, they did more than show that they have great class. They did more than shatter every negative stereotype that might be floating around about African American women. They made us all confront the issue of race.

Imus's remarks were repugnant, as he himself now recognizes, which is why he's spent the last two days apologizing--on his show, on Al Sharpton's show, on the "Today" show. The two-week suspension by CBS Radio and MSNBC was entirely appropriate, as Imus has acknowledged.

But without excusing in any way what Imus said, where did he get the term "ho's" in the first place? From a polluted culture that regularly gets a pass from big corporations and critics. I don't see anyone calling on rap artists like Eminem, who fill their music with racist and misogynistic lyrics about abusing and even murdering women, to apologize. No, they get big-money contracts because they sell a lot of CDs.

What about Imus's critics? Jesse Jackson fathered an out-of-wedlock child with a top aide -- he said he was sorry -- and used the anti-Jewish slur Hymietown in his first presidential campaign. And I'm still waiting for Sharpton to apologize for slandering a white detective in backing Tawana Brawley's false claims of gang rape two decades ago.

Journalists like me who have gone on Imus's show have done so because we enjoyed the opportunity to talk about politics and media without the stuffiness of so many other programs. And it's probably true that too many of us looked the other way when he went over the line with some of his cruder comedy bits. He's now vowing to clean up his act, and I hope he does. It's one thing to make fun of politicians or journalists as liars and weasels; we're in the public arena and fair game. A group of hardworking student athletes isn't. They didn't do anything to warrant being slimed.

What will the presidential candidates do? John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, after criticizing the Rutgers crack, say they'll continue to appear on the program. Chris Dodd announced on "Imus in the Morning." It's not an issue for Hillary Clinton, who's never come on--not surprisingly, considering that in the mid-90's Imus ran a song parody called "That's Why The First Lady Is a Tramp." But it was Clinton's husband who put Imus on the national map by bantering with him during the 1992 New York primary.

In my view, Imus is not a hater or a bigot. He supported Harold Ford when the African American congressman ran for the Senate. He's raised tens of millions of dollars for kids with cancer, of all races, who are put up at his New Mexico ranch. Imus practices a form of insult comedy that too often goes up to the line of decency, goes over the line or, as in this case, obliterates it. But he seems truly chastened by this bit of stupidity.

I was struck by two things that the Rutgers women said. One was to ask of the networks that are now pestering them for interviews, where were you when we were just an underdog team fighting for a national championship? The other was their willingness to meet with Imus. They showed that, despite the unwarranted insult, they're willing to engage in dialogue.

"It was not the first time Don Imus uttered something racist, homophobic, sexist or anti-Semitic," says the L.A. Times. "But the shock jock's comments last week about the Rutgers University women's basketball team continues to eclipse any controversy created by all of his previous slurs, sparking soul-searching from past guests and supporters."

Even the White House had to weigh in: " 'The president believed that the apology was the absolute right thing to do,' spokeswoman Dana Perino said. 'And beyond that, I think that his employer is going to have to make a decision about any action that they take based on it.' "

And then there's Obama: "With the Rev. Al Sharpton leading calls Monday for radio host Don Imus to be fired over racially insensitive remarks, Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign avoided the controversy throughout the day," says the Boston Globe.

"Not until Monday evening, five days after Imus's comments were uttered and hours after CBS Radio and MSNBC announced a two-week suspension for the radio host, did Obama weigh in, saying in a statement: 'The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds.' Obama did not address whether he thought Imus should be taken off the air . . .

"The candidate's reticence on the Imus issue set off alarms yesterday among some black activists who are anxious to see him more forcefully push for racial justice."

Dick Polman questions the role of Reverend Al:

"Sharpton was playing judge and jury early this morning, on NBC's "Today Show," declaring that Imus' Monday apology was 'too little, too late,' that it was 'business as usual,' and that Imus should vanish forever because 'people should not be attacked for their gender or their race.' And yet Matt Lauer never bothered to ask Sharpton to explain why he deems himself qualified to sit in judgment. Lauer mentioned that Sharpton has been a figure of 'controversy' in the past, but never hit the preacher with the actual facts.

"Such as: In 1987, Sharpton concocted the Tawana Brawley hoax, charging that a 15-year-old black girl had been abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men. He targeted one particular guy, who turned out to innocent. In fact, the crime itself never happened. Sharpton taunted his white target, saying: 'If we're lying, sue us.' The guy did sue -- and wound up winning a $345,000 defamation verdict against Sharpton . . . who, to this day, has refused to recant his slander or to apologize."

By the way, if you think Imus was rough on the Rutgers women, check out this piece on director David O. Russell and his expletive-filled tirade against Lily Tomlin.

On to politics. This may not qualify as breaking news, but the New York Times says the GOP is nervous about next year:

"Republican leaders across the country say they are growing increasingly anxious about their party's chances of holding the White House, citing public dissatisfaction with President Bush, the political fallout from the war in Iraq and the problems their leading presidential candidates are having generating enthusiasm among conservative voters.

"In interviews on Tuesday, the Republicans said they were concerned about signs of despondency among party members and fund-raisers, reflected in polls and the Democratic fund-raising advantage in the first quarter of the year. Many party leaders expressed worry that the party's presidential candidates faced a tough course without some fundamental shift in the political dynamic."

Two strikingly different views of the Giuliani candidacy. Roger Simon is positively upbeat:

"Rudy Giuliani will hold your baby, hug your dog, autograph your T-shirt and blow you a kiss. All in the space of 15 minutes.

"I watch him do these things as he makes his way down Market Street in Charleston's famed Historic District, which on this bright and warm spring day is packed with tourists.

"They call his name -- 'Rudy! Rudy! Over here, Rudy!' -- and take his picture and, though often lacking both paper and pen (he will provide both), they ask for his autograph.

"He is glad to oblige. He is delighted to oblige. Thus far in the 2008 presidential race, Giuliani has opened up a clear enthusiasm gap. He actually seems to enjoy campaigning. (Even if he is faking it, most of the other candidates aren't even bothering to do that.) . . .

"Giuliani is selling competence, not ideology. He ran America's largest city for eight years, and now he is ready to run America. That is his message."

But New York Post columnist John Podhoretz tells Rudy he's in danger of blowing the campaign:

"As a presidential candidate, you seem to be winging it these days -- giving off-the-cuff, ill-considered answers to delicate questions. If you keep winging it this way, you're going to fly off a cliff.

"For example, the answer to your pro-choice difficulty with social conservatives on the matter of abortion isn't to blather about how much you 'hate it' and then ruminate on whether the government should be responsible for helping pay for one. That's what you did last week, and you must never, ever do anything like it again -- if, that is, you actually want to become president.

"The answer to dealing with the abortion question is to do what you did as mayor -- to master the issue the way you mastered the weird particulars of zoning law in Manhattan.

"By which I mean, all the jurisprudence. All the arguments. The history of legislation on the matter. The history of court rulings. Immerse yourself in it and then argue your point from a position of strength, rather than relative ignorance.

"The same is true on issue after issue. You've been speaking to adoring audiences for five years now and they hang on your every word. But, as a presidential candidate, the situation is very nearly the opposite: Your words can hang you, and many of those in the audience are hoping to serve as the executioner."

There must be a solar eclipse: I've found an instance of the Wall Street Journal editorial page (whose members appear on Fox) agreeing with the Nation about the Dems pulling the plug on that presidential debate:

"The Internet vigilantes would like to drum Fox News out of polite society, but it's clear from the Black Caucus episode that this isn't really about Fox. This is about who runs the Democratic Party. Ever since they came close to nominating Howard Dean for President in 2004, left-wing Web activists have tried to punish any Democrat who dares to step out of line. They tried to run Joe Lieberman out of the Party for his views on Iraq, and they want to banish California Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher because she's voted for free trade agreements.

"The pitchfork carriers now want to tell elected Democratic officials which journalists they can appear in public with. Messrs. Edwards and Obama are bowing to those orders because they've decided they can only defeat Hillary Clinton by running to her left. Of course if by some miracle one of them wins the nomination, he'll be known as the candidate from MoveOn.org in the general election too. Republicans will have fun with that one."

The Nation's John Nichols, writing when John Edwards was the first to pull out, questions the ex-senator's logic:

"Edwards was flat wrong to decide to announce that he would not participate in a Congressional Black Caucus Political Leadership Education Institute-organized debate [planned] for September 23 on the Fox News Channel.

"It's nothing against the CBC, says the Edwards campaign, which promises the candidate will appear in another CBC-organized debate that is set for CNN. Edwards is objecting to appearing on Fox -- just as he did when he declined earlier to join a August 14 debate in Reno, Nevada, that is to be co-hosted by Fox News and the Nevada Democratic Party. (Plans for the Reno debate were ultimately cancelled.)

" 'We just called the CBC to let them know that we're looking forward to their debate with CNN but we're not going to participate in the proposed debate with Fox. There's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending to be objective,' explains Edwards for President deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince. 'If there was any uncertainty as to Fox's objectivity, it was put to rest when they attacked Democratic candidates, Democratic constituency groups, and the Nevada Democratic Party when their last proposed debate was canceled for lack of support.' . . .

"Nothing that the Edwards campaign is saying about Fox is untrue. The network is over-the-top in its Republican partisanship. Its hosts attack Democrats on ridiculous grounds. They defend the Bush administration even when leading conservatives part company with the White House. But Democrats need to get a whole lot better at dealing with conservative media."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff isn't happy with Newt calling the U.S. attorneys business "the most mishandled, artificial, self-created mess that I can remember in the years I've been active in public life":

"Although Gonzales certainly mishandled the matter, Gingrich's claim is a gross exaggeration. If he really believes what he's saying, then the former Speaker has been unduly influenced by the huffing and puffing of the Senate Democrats and their friends in the liberal media."

Newt, influenced by the liberal media?

"I will shed no tears if President Bush decides to sack Alberto Gonzales. But Gingrich's suggestion that the adminstration can get a fresh start with a new Attorney General is silly. The Dems aren't declining to cooperate with the Bush Justice Department because Gonzales mishandled the firing of eight prosecutors. They are making a mountain over this molehill because they wish to undermine the Bush Justice Department. Those who think differently should ask themselves how much Democratic cooperation the administration obtained by appointing Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense and changing course in Iraq."

The spat of the week involves law professor Ann Althouse and blogger Amanda Marcotte, who resigned from the John Edwards campaign amid controversy over past inflammatory writing. This time, Marcotte, who was upset about criticism of Nancy Pelosi's attire in the Middle East, mistakenly accused Althouse of criticizing the House speaker, then pulled back:

"Wingnuts have manufactured a controversy about Nancy Pelosi wearing a headscarf in a mosque in Syria, even though it's pretty standard operating procedure for politicians to dress diplomatically in foreign countries. My first post on this was a mess because I wanted to take a dig at Ann Althouse for her routine obsessions with picking at what women wear and was unfair to her."

Althouse is less than satisfied:

"Here's Amanda Marcotte's summary of this post: 'Ann Althouse wants Pelosi to be a little bit more of a sexbot.' Whaa? Marcotte seems to be pulling in signals from outer space. Just flat out nutty, Amanda. Or did you even read this post?

"After I wrote that, she got a clue and tried to cover up her embarrassment, by inserting a parenthetical (without noting that it was a later insertion):

"(To be fair, she does grant that it's done out of politeness, but generally revolts against covering. I agree with her that mandatory covering is crap, and that's why I dislike it when she tells women to hide our breasts in public. I typed this up a little fast, and got lazy. Apologies. I recommend the first link on this page if you want to read some non-lazy blogging on this subject.)

"Oh, yeah, Amanda, that's really fair. How did I 'generally revolt against covering' other than in exactly the way you have to be opposed to it too? Or is it 'fair' because you hate the old Clinton-and-the-bloggers post so much you're entitled to lie about me whenever you feel like it? When did I ever 'tell women to hide our breasts in public'? Clue: I never did. You are simply a liar. Or is that okay because you were in a hurry?"

Line of the day, from Barack Obama on Letterman: "I'm not getting back to Chicago very often . . . my wife is starting to refer to me as her first husband."