TONIGHT

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Archives
• Young Voices
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Article by Mr. Page
• Mr. Page in the Chicago Tribune
• Mr. Page's bio

E-mail a friend

Tavis: Clarence Page is a Pulitzer prize-winning columnist and longtime editorial staff. His highly regarded columns are also nationally syndicated through Tribune Media Services. Tonight, I am delighted to add this program to his long list of TV appearances. He joins us this evening from Washington. Clarence Page, nice to see you, man.

Clarence Page: Hey, glad to be here, Tavis. Thank you.

Tavis: Glad to have you on. So, as my grandmother used to say, uh, after all that's been said and done, I wanna know how much has been done, but something has at least been said, speaking, of course, of Bush and Cheney testifying earlier today before the 9/11 Commission. Again, I know something's been said. I don't know what's gonna come out of this. Uh, I'm not even sure what they said, because there were no cameras, there's no transcript, they weren't under oath, but what do you make of this testimony today with Bush and Cheney?

Clarence: Well, Tavis, as the old saying goes, everything has been said, but not everyone has said it, and that's kind of where Bush and Cheney were. This administration has been very good at staying on message, and their message all along has been that there were structural problems, there were historical problems that were there before they got into the White House, before they were put in charge of our national security, before the tragedy of 9/11 occurred. And that's their story, and they've been sticking to it. What's interesting with this session of Bush and Cheney together is that it certainly feeds into the stereotype that President Bush can't handle the job without having Cheney at his side, as editorial cartoonists have portrayed Bush as a ventriloquist dummy on Cheney's lap. And this kind of thing just sort of plays into it. At the same time, there has been, uh, a lot of secrecy surrounding this administration with a number of issues, not just this one, but earlier in the week, you had Cheney's people at the Supreme Court fighting for Cheney's right to keep the minutes and other business of his energy commission secret, keep it out of the public eye, claiming executive privilege, which he has the right to do. But it does tend to sound to the public like you're claiming the fifth, which gives the idea to the people that you've got something to hide. I think where they've been kinda ducking and dodging the 9/11 Commission gives that same impression.

Tavis: What's the White House's official statement about why the two of them are in fact testifying--or testified together today?

Clarence: What's their official statement, Tavis? The only statement I know is when President Bush was asked directly in his news conference, and he responded that, "the vice-president and I look forward to answering questions for the American people," which is a nonanswer. They don't have an official explanation for why they must sit there together. Uh, but, again, the reaction of this falls along party lines, like so much else in these polarized times. People who want to support Bush and Cheney defend them, and those who are critical of them say, "What's the deal here?"

Tavis: Yeah. Speaking of polarizing, what do you make of the fact--I saw a piece the other day. I'm not sure that there's anything we can draw from this, but I certainly found it fascinating. Cheney's negative numbers are considerably higher than the president's negative numbers, even, and typically, you know, the guy that's at the top of the ticket takes the heat. But what do you make of the fact that Mr. Cheney's numbers are much higher in the negative column than even Mr. Bush's numbers are?

Clarence: Well, they always have been. He's, uh--I remember when the administration came into office, one observer said that Dick Cheney was sort of like a Tom Clancy character or the wizard of Oz, a behind-the-curtain operating the wheels of the executive office while Bush was the frontman. You know, there's always been that image sort of hovering over the administration. Cheney has not been one to be the glad-hander, the one with the high E.Q., Emotional Intelligence Quotient. Bush has been the man who is--who's been able to shake hands and show the empathy that has given the White House the support that it has. But at the same time, Colin Powell has had higher approval ratings than both Cheney and Bush. In fact, higher than just about everybody else in Washington. I think higher than just about everybody in the country except Oprah. But still Colin Powell is the one who's working for Bush and Cheney essentially, when it comes to the pecking order.

Tavis: Tell me--you're a columnist and you talk to the people every day, millions of them, who read your columns all the time. Tell me what you think, what Clarence Page thinks the American people ought to think about Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney finally testifying after all the hand-wringing and all the stonewalling, et cetera, et cetera, and then no camera, no transcript, not under oath. What should the American people, and I guess more directly, what should the families of the victims feel about the way this was handled or mishandled, perhaps?

Clarence: Well, the families were not pleased with the administration's response and with the final settlement, and this is a compromise that came from the families on the one side, wanting the administration to testify, wanting Bush and Cheney to testify under oath, in public, Bush and Cheney not wanting to testify at all, and so, you had a compromise here, where they testified, but not in public and not under oath. Like all compromises, both sides are unhappy with the result, but that is what's happened. I think as far as the general public goes, the public needs to ask themselves when you have a president and a vice-president who don't want to talk about 9/11 in public, under oath, do they have something to hide? Are they ducking the responsibility to be accountable to the public? The Clinton administration people seemed to have testified and cooperated, including Clinton. Now, Clinton did not testify in public, either, and so you could draw that same comparison as well, but I think that's what the public needs to think about.

Tavis: Let me ask you why it is that John Kerry has not been able to take advantage of this moment. What I mean to suggest by that is, while he's certainly embroiled in his own little mini-controversy right now about whether or not he threw those ribbons, those military ribbons over the fence, did he throw the ribbons, and if he did throw the ribbons, what does it mean that he threw the ribbons 30 years ago? I don't know that anybody cares, 30 years later, whether he threw ribbons and why he threw them, et cetera, but he's got his own little controversy he's dealing with right now. Set that aside for the moment. Why can he not take advantage of this moment? By that I mean, the president's numbers are awfully high in the negative category. Mr. Cheney's number is even worse. There's controversy swirling all around the White House and 9/11, all these books coming out. I ain't seen Kerry go nowhere in the polls, Clarence. That ain't good for November for him, is it?

Clarence: A couple of things are happening here, Tavis. Number one, the Vietnam War is important. I know you're a young man, but for those of us like me who were drafted into that war, it is a defining moment of our generation. I don't care whether you're a Liberal or a Conservative, it was the biggest defining event of our generation, and that's why, geezers that we are, we're constantly gonna shake our canes at each other and talk about so-and-so didn't serve or so-and-so was a friend of Jane Fonda's. Those are salient issues for baby boomers.

Tavis: Are you telling me that you're going to vote 30 years later on what Kerry and Bush did or did not do 30 years ago?

Clarence: People tend to vote on values, Tavis. People don't necessarily follow these issues line by line, but folks will be 1- or 2-issue voters. In other words, does that person, that man or that woman running for that office, share my values? People don't feel--believe me, a lot of Vietnam vets who don't like Jane Fonda don't like John Kerry. On the other hand, a lot of us who may have been draftees, but also didn't like the war and appreciate John Kerry's courage both in the war and in the protests will vote for him, so that's what happens.

Tavis: But, Clarence, older voters--actually, I shouldn't say old--my grandmother, big mama, she hated the word "old," so let me say chronologically gifted. So whether you're a chronologically gifted voter or a younger voter like me, to use your phrase, aren't elections about the future and not about the past?

Clarence: Oh, that's a lovely statement, Tavis. I'm gonna write that down. I may give you credit for it, I may not, but it's supposed to be about the future, but you know, some people have longer memories than others. I mean, I've seen--you know, in 2000, look at all the time we spent arguing about the Confederate flag, right? Is that about the future or the past, you know? Let's get serious. These elections are about values, but now why isn't Kerry taking better advantage? A couple things are happening, Tavis. For one thing, President Bush has actually inched up in the polls in recent days, even with the 9/11 Commission hearings, et cetera, and with all the bad news coming out of Fallujah and Iraq, partly because whenever Iraq is mentioned, whenever national security is mentioned, Bush tends to get a bump, and I think that's partly because of an American reflex. In times of crisis or war, people tend to reflexively rally around the president. Kerry, on the other hand, in this past experience, he's been what I call a ninth-inning batter or like Reggie Jackson, Mr. October, you know? When the season's almost over, suddenly he rallies, and he did that against Bill Weld, who almost unseated Kerry in Massachusetts. At the last minute, he surged ahead, and he did it against Howard Dean in Iowa, you remember. When people thought Kerry was dead and he came in number one and Dean and Gephardt came in third and fourth and Edward second, and Kerry hasn't looked back since. So I suspect, Tavis, we may just see a late contest. I don't know if we're gonna see that much action out of Kerry until maybe late summer or early fall.

Tavis: I could do more, but I'm out of time. Of course, the difference is that now that those 2 guys, Dean and Weld were not incumbents. And not to have the kind of money that George W. Bush has, either.

Clarence: That's right. Although money didn't do Dean much good, did it? Money ain't everything.

Tavis: That's why you're a columnist and I'm just a lowly talk show host. Thank you--

Clarence: Oh, yeah, right, Tavis. Out there in Tavis tower. Right. Thank you.

Tavis: Nice to have you on, Clarence. We'll do it again. All the best to you. Up next on this program, motivational speaker Iyanla Vanzant, best-selling author is she. She's with us. You stay with us.