E-mail a friendJ.C. Watts
airdate January 21, 2004
A former University of Oklahoma quarterback who led his team to two consecutive Big Eight championships, Watts was ordained as a Baptist minister before being elected to Congress. He served four terms, becoming the fourth ranking Republican in the House. Watts opted not to seek a fifth term, but remains active in politics as the chairman of GOPAC, a training organization for Republican political candidates.
J.C. Watts
Tavis: J.C. Watts served 8 years in Congress representing the fourth district of Oklahoma. In 1998 he was elected by his peers to serve as chair of the Republican Conference, one of the top leadership positions in the House. He's now a regular contributor to my NPR radio show, and I'm pleased to have him join us tonight here on PBS. J.C., nice to see you.
J.C. Watts: Tavis, good to be with you.
Tavis: Let me jump right into this and pick up on the conversation we had earlier today on the radio program about the president's State of the Union address last night. Let me start tonight where I began earlier today with your initial thoughts. You've had a few extra hours to think about it now. So what do you think the president, how he did last night overall?
Watts: Well, Tavis, obviously I think State of the Union addresses are times for Republican and Democrat presidents to kind of, I think, frame issues and talk about their agenda and, if you will, lay out a blueprint for the year. I think the president did that. And I think the interesting thing is, Tavis, he drew a real contrast, I think, diplomatically and graciously drew a real contrast between his vision for the country and what we've seen with the Democrat lineup over the last 8 or 9 years--8 or 9 months.
Tavis: What do you make of... Let me talk about some specifics, some things that I found interesting about the speech, not the least of which is the suggestion, the assertion that President Bush made last night, that had we--had America not intervened, that Saddam Hussein would still be engaging his program of weapons of mass destruction. You and I both know we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction yet. For the president to assert that Saddam would still be on this mission had we not intervened, some people find that a bit curious.
Watts: Well, Tavis, to this point, you're right. We have not found anything that's proven out to be, but that doesn't mean that there's not any weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein himself admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction. He has used those chemical weapons against his own people, against the Iranian people. The Clinton administration was convinced that he had them. Russia, France, Germany, 15 other nations voted unanimously to say that he had them. They have not been found, but I think the work is only just beginning, what we've seen over the last 7 months. I think there are a lot--a lot more sites that need to be inspected, a lot more things that need to be done there. So I am not very quick to say that we're not gonna find weapons of mass destruction.
Tavis: Let me talk about the economy and ask you in a very forthright and direct way. If the president is in fact vulnerable, if George W. Bush can in fact be beaten, isn't he vulnerable in the same way that his dad was? That is to say he's vulnerable on the economy. He's vulnerable on jobs, no matter how he tries to spin it.
Watts: Well, I think when people look beyond the rubbish and they look beyond the rhetoric, I think they'll see that there's been an effort put in place to get the economy going again. George Bush inherited a weakened--a weakening economy that went into a recession, and then we were attacked on September 11 of 2001. That made matters even worse. And so I think, post-September 11 of 2001, President Bush has done some things to kind of stimulate the economy, with the cornerstone of that stimulus being the tax relief package, and, as you and I have talked about on the radio show, many were opposed to that tax relief package.
But you know, tax relief is just like novocaine. Give it time. It'll work, and we've seen it work. We're seeing the job market come back. We saw 8.2% growth, phenomenal growth in the third quarter of '03, and we're gonna see probably 5% in the fourth quarter once those numbers are out. So I do think that we're on--we're on track to see some real growth in '04, and I think it'll be pretty good in terms of the job market.
Tavis: I'm trying to move through these issues, 'cause he said so much last night in that almost hour-long speech, and I've just got a few minutes here with you to kind of pick apart what the president had to say. One of the things I noticed last night absent in the speech--one of the things he did not address was the whole, uh, notion of this mission to Mars. Now just a week ago, days ago, he made a big whoop-de-do about going to Mars. I noticed in the State of the Union last night, it didn't even address that. Has the president gotten the word that a lot of folk are a little suspect about spending billions of dollars going to Mars, particularly in election year when folk are feeling issues right in their pocketbooks here on planet earth?
Watts: Well, and, Tavis, that was very--that was suspect. You know, I was--going into the speech, I would've anticipated, considering that we had such a hoopla about it over a week ago, that something today or something last night in the speech would've been said. But it wasn't. But you know, I can save him a whole lot of money and tell him I know for a fact, if they're looking for life on Mars, it's not there, because they've never asked for any money from the U.S. government, so...
Tavis: Ha ha!
Watts: So that tells you there's no life on Mars.
Tavis: Ha ha! I like that, and I may use that in the coming days, and I might use it without attribution. But thank you for sharing it anyway.
Let me tell you something that I found really interesting, and I think that you and I as 2 African Americans might have an interesting conversation in brief here about this. When the president stepped up last night and talked about preserving the sanctity of marriage and suggested that he might even push for a constitutional amendment to protect a marriage as we know it in our society, I was struck by something that I thought was a little interesting, a little bit different.
I saw in that particular statement or threat, depending on one's perspective, an issue that he could use to play to African American voters. You, of course, were the only member of Congress who happened to be black and a Republican. So I think you feel me on this issue already. Black folk have always been more conservative on moral issues, more liberal on social issues. But here's an issue that black folk, by and large, support the president on in terms of preserving the definition of the sanctity of marriage. Might that become an issue that George Bush really can use to get black votes, to get brown votes, and to get reelected with a number of supporters from those communities that people otherwise might not have expected him to get?
Watts: Well, Tavis, I think Republicans--we've got a lot more work to do when it comes to capturing more of the black vote than I think any one issue or surely that issue. But I think-- Or the issue of gay marriage. But that is a very interesting assessment that you make. I've never thought about it like that. But I can say this: I am confident that in the black community that most Americans of African descent believe that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. Now again, will that--will that result in votes for George Bush? I think we as Republicans, we've got a lot more work to do than just connecting with the black community on the sanctity of marriage. But again, I do think one man/one woman is a good sell with black Americans.
Tavis: What do you make of President Bush going to the gravesite, to the crypt of Dr. King last week on his birthday, and then the very next day, using his presidential power--he has the right to do it--to put Charles Pickering on that federal appellate court in New Orleans, the fifth circuit-- a big debate. Most black folk of this country are adamantly opposed to Pickering. He goes and lays the wreath at King's gravesite, and the very next day, slides in over the weekend this appointment of Charles Pickering. What do you make of that move?
Watts: Well, you know, Tavis, and we've talked about this. We touched on this just a hair a couple of weeks ago on your radio show concerning Mr. Pickering. He came up in some way in our conversation. Uh, I think President Bush, you know, with these nominees, with his nominees being tied up and being manipulated and, uh, being held up, I think that hurts the country when they are being tied up.
You know, Charles Pickering is an interesting nominee, considering the fact that you've got the NAACP and the Ku Klux Klan that both were opposed to him. So I think when you talk to people in Mississippi and even black people, I think many people down there believe that he was fair, that he did do a good job, that he has opposed many of the things that they stood for. He's put Ku Klux Klan members behind bars. So, you know, this is the political season, and I didn't take anything from that, the fact that he would be at Dr. King's gravesite on one day--which he should've been--I think that was very appropriate, and then appointing Charles Pickering the next day.
Tavis: We've only got a minute and a half left with you, J.C. It's not lost to me that you are not just a former member of Congress, but you are still a minister of the gospel. What do you make of the notion that President Bush continues to push about faith-based institutions getting more involved in our lives, whether it's prisons or outside of prison walls?
Watts: When I was in Congress, Tavis, I led that charge to get the faith-based bill passed even before President Bush was sworn in as president. I think that has merit to it, and I think there's a tremendous foundation, a tremendous infrastructure in America, especially in the under-served community. The church has been the cornerstone, and I think those resources can be used to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, and to house the homeless. Nobody is saying that we should mandate that faith organizations get federal dollars, but we do believe that they should not be discriminated against in trying to feed the hungry and help the under-served simply because they hold themselves out as Jewish or Christian or Catholic or whatever. That's just--that, to me, makes no sense, so I do agree with that concept.
Tavis: J.C., I got about 20 seconds here left for you. We don't always agree, uh, but I always respect you for the work that you've put in, but the Republicans no longer have you, at least in the well of Congress, as their one example. Will your party--in 20 seconds--ever do a better job of reaching out to black and brown people and pulling them into this party?
Watts: Tavis, I think we will, and beyond the federal level, if you go to the state level, in Missouri and Michigan and Virginia and other states around the country, you'll see that we're making some real gains in those elective offices on the state and local level. That's good.
Tavis: I always enjoy talking to you, and I always appreciate your opinion. Thank you, my friend.
Watts: Thank you, man.
Tavis: Be well. We'll be right back with Deepak Chopra. Stay with us.
Back to January 21, 2004