TONIGHT

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Mr. Robinson's article in The Seattle Times
• Mr. Robinson's article in The Anniston Star
• Mr. Robinson's bio

E-mail a friend

Tavis: Eugene Robinson is the associate editor for "The Washington Post,' who also writes a twice-weekly column for the paper. Prior to his current position, he served as the paper's London bureau chief and their South American correspondent. He joins us tonight from "The Washington Post' newsroom. Eugene Robinson, nice to have you on the program, sir.

Eugene Robinson: Good to be here this evening, Tavis.

Tavis: So much stuff happening in the nation, and so much stuff being written about in "The Washington Post,' I really don't know where to begin. Let me start, I guess, though, with this immigration reform bill. We know, of course, last December the House passed its version of immigration reform. We know the Senate has now passed its version of immigration reform. What happens now?

Robinson: That's the big question. The question is whether anything, realistically, can happen now. The House bill and the Senate bill are so divergent, so far apart, it's really difficult to understand how they're gonna reach common ground. Because one essentially wants to criminalize illegal immigrants, and the other bill wants to create what will not be called an amnesty, but in effect, will be an amnesty.

Tavis: On a certain level, it would seem to me that this is a Republican, a quintessential Republican quagmire. The House, run by Republicans, they pass one version, to your point. The Senate, run by Republicans, they pass another version. The guy in the White House, a Republican caught in the middle. What do Republicans do at this point? 'Cause this is really about something they control.

Robinson: It, it really is. They're responding to pressure from their base, from the conservative Republican base, which is exercised over illegal immigration. They're also responding, on the other hand, to the conservative business community, which they don't say they're in favor of illegal immigration, but depends on immigrant workers for a variety of jobs. A cheap labor pool, essentially. So, they can't satisfy all these constituencies at once. It's a very difficult issue for the Republicans.

Tavis: I like your diplomacy where you used the word exercise to reference the Republican conservative base. They are exercised, says Gene in Washington, over this issue. There's some, Gene, respectfully, who see it as a bit more than being exercised. They see this as "Karl Rovian," and that this is a quintessential, there's that word again, wedge issue in the vein of how they play the political game in Washington.

Robinson: Yeah, and it is a wedge issue, because it tends to drive people to the corners. And in that sense, in the Rovian sense, it tends to drive conservatives into a corner where the only party they can support is the Republican Party. But in the long run, does this really help the Republicans? And I'm not sure that it does. When you have two essential components of the Republican base, red meat conservatives and business leaders, on opposite sides of the issue, and you can't satisfy both of them, have you really done yourself any good?

I guess the only way in which it makes sense is as a temporary expedient to try to get them past the November midterm elections, and then worry about cleaning up the debris afterwards.

Tavis: We don't have a crystal ball, and I know you don't have a crystal ball, but if anybody can handicap a political issue in Washington, it's "The Washington Post.' What has the 'Post' been saying about what they think ought to happen here, or will, in fact, happen here?

Robinson: What the 'Post' has been saying editorially is that what ought to happen is some version, some combination of what the Senate has done and the President has done. Some immigration reform bill that acknowledges the fact that 11, 12 million, nobody really knows how many million people who are here without documents, are not just gonna disappear overnight.

They're not gonna all be rounded up and sent home. That that's unrealistic. That some mechanism has to be found for some or most or maybe all those people to stay in a legal sense. And at the same time, there should be better security and control of the border. And that's basically what the 'Post' has been saying. But the House has not wanted to even talk about what to do with the illegal immigrants who are here before they deal with the border, and stricter border security.

And the House really hasn't yielded on that, and they've really been (laughs) kind of getting in the President's face in a way they hadn't been doing in previous years. So, to me, it's really unclear as to whether we get to a resolution on this issue at all.

Tavis: The border issue, these two immigration reform bills, the President's even more distinct position. What has the "Post" said, or moreover, what does Gene Robinson say, about how, politically, this is going to play for Republicans vis a vis the Latino vote in the midterm elections of '06 and the Presidential election of '08? What will the Latino vote do, where Republicans are concerned?

Robinson: This is essentially, in my view, this is what Gene Robinson says. The Republicans are forfeiting any chance of really capturing a large share of the Latino vote in either the midterm elections or in '08. I really think this is a losing issue for the Republican party with Latinos, as we saw from those massive demonstrations a few weeks ago, which were not just illegal immigrants, but a lot of people who were here illegally, a lot of people who were born here.

This is kind of a galvanizing issue for that community. And I think they're gonna run away from the Republican Party. Now, whether they run toward the Democrats is a kind of separate question, but certainly away from the Republicans.

Tavis: A final question on this issue, before I move on to cover a couple of other topics while I have you here, I assume that the folks who run the White House are not stuck on stupid. They do their research; they know what they're dealing with here. If they see this as you see it, as a losing issue, as surrendering the Latino vote, which they picked up, they raised their numbers of Latino votes in the '04 election versus the 2000 election.

So if they know what we know, and if they watching this show now (laughs), they really know it, I gotta believe that they know what they're doing here. That they must assume, then, that this is the red meat that their base wants. That it's gonna increase the turnout. And that ultimately, even though we see it as costing them votes, they must see it in the aggregate as a gain.

Robinson: I agree. They must see a gain here. I can't see it that clearly. It may increase turnout. It does mobilize the kind of red meat base. Maybe it picks up some wavering Democrats who consider themselves centrist but have a thing about illegal immigration. Net-net, I don't see it as a gain. But again, they're being driven by some, some real peril for some Republicans in districts where immigration does matter.

Tavis: Let me move now, if I can, to New Orleans, specifically race and New Orleans. Because I read your piece, your column, and you think that this election of Ray Nagin had race written all over it. The reelection of Ray Nagin.

Robinson: Well, what I wrote, and yes, the reelection did, the whole experience of Hurricane Katrina had race written all over it. And it's become kind of popular to say that it didn't, but in fact, that it did. And I think not just the images that we saw at the time of the disaster. The poverty, desperation, the victims that we saw on television exclusively Black.

But the aftermath. The way they're talking about putting the city back together, I think you see a real racial split there. And I think that's reflected in the results. Four out of five Black voters went for Ray Nagin, and four out of five White voters voted for Mitch Landrieu, his opponent, who happens to be White. And I think when you got those numbers - you really gotta look closely at what was going on.

Tavis: What do you make of the dynamic that when Ray Nagin first was elected four years ago, as you recall, there was a big movement to try to give Mark Morial, the former mayor, an opportunity to run for a third term? They tried to change the rules. That failed, but Mark had a great deal of support. Now head of the Urban League, of course. Had a great deal of support in New Orleans. But that measure didn't pass.

So Nagin steps into the race as one of a number of people. The overwhelming number of Black voters went for the chief of police at the time, Pennington, as opposed to Ray Nagin. He was seen as the candidate who was Black, supported by the White folk. By the business community. So a lot of Black folk weren't feeling Ray Nagin four years ago.

Tell me what you see happening here this time around, where he's running against a White candidate, and all those Black folk who didn't like him four years ago, certain a lot of them switched and supported him, even in the aftermath of the drama of his behavior around the hurricane.

Robinson: I think it's all about Katrina. And I think two things basically happened. Number one, I think there is an understanding in New Orleans that the situation that the Mayor faced during Hurricane Katrina was not a situation that anyone could have really dominated and really just kind of waved a magic wand and taken care of. There was no easy solution to the ruination of an entire major city.

And people at the time, I was down there right after the hurricane; I've made other trips back. People at the time, despite missteps he made, really appreciated the fact that his obvious love for the city, and the way he really seemed to have the city's residents in mind. Now, that's one factor. The bigger factor, I think, is that here we are, six months later, a much larger percentage of White New Orleanians have been able to go back and restart their lives and start rebuilding the city, than Black folk.

Black New Orleanians, in much greater numbers, have not been able to come back to their devastated neighborhoods. And don't have the resources, don't even have permission. And can't even, at this point, know with certainty that their neighborhoods are going to be rebuilt. And so I think that led people to ask the question, "Well, who is gonna have my interests in mind? Who is going to, to try, at least, to ensure that Black New Orleans gets rebuilt?" And that I can move back? And I think the answer was that Ray Nagin was more likely to do that.

Tavis: Let me bring this conversation full circle, then, Gene, if I might, and come all the way back from New Orleans into the Beltway, back to the "Post" in that newsroom. Tell me what your assessment is of how the city of New Orleans is going to be treated, or maltreated, as it were, going forward, given that they did, in fact, elect a guy who much of official Washington pointed fingers at.

Certainly the White House and the Republican leadership, who got tired of the President being demonized for his behavior or misbehavior where this issue was concerned, started pointing the finger at Nagin and the Governor of Louisiana. So, is New Orleans gonna be maltreated, given that they, we elected this guy kind of like D.C. was after reelection Marion Barry two or three times?

Robinson: Well, I think New Orleans is gonna be maltreated, but not because they reelected Ray Nagin. Nagin has been much chummier, in fact, with George Bush, and said much nicer things about him than Mitch Landrieu ever did. So, and made a point of keeping lines of communication open to the White House. But yes, I think New Orleans has been maltreated, and will be maltreated as we go forward.

They haven't even rebuilt the levees, and hurricane season's about to start in less than a month. The levees, according to the recent National Science Foundation report that came out earlier this week, one big storm is all it's gonna take.

Tavis: Yup. Gene Robinson, I ran out of time. I didn't get a chance to ask you, you'll come back again. I didn't get a chance to ask you how Bill Jefferson's gonna explain that $90,000 in his freezer. But we'll do that next time.

Robinson: That's a cold question, Tavis. (Laughs) A cold question.

Tavis: Gene Washington with "The Washington Post.' Nice to have you on the program, sir.

Robinson: Okay, thanks.

Tavis: I said Gene Washington. Gene Robinson, my mistake. Gene, nice to have you on.

Robinson: Good to be here, Tavis.

Tavis: Take care, my friend. Up next, author Anne Taylor Fleming. Stay with us.