 |
 |
 |
| ||
 |
|
|
| ||
 |
|
|
|
||
 |
Recent Columns |
|
| ||
 |
|
|
| ||
 |
Pictures |
|
| ||
 |
Events |
|
|
||
 |
Links |
|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
||
|
||
 |
Main Page |
|
| ||
WATT-A-JOKE
by Raynard Jackson, BV Views columnist
Last month U.S. Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) became the new chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. What I find fascinating about this ritual is that, unlike other organizations, there are no reports about how the incoming chair's vision is going to be different than his predecessors. Why? Because it doesn't matter who chairs the CBC. Their agenda will be the same.
When former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich took over from Bob Michael (who was minority leader for many years before the Gingrich revolution catapulted him to the speaker's seat), there were all kinds of articles about stylistic and substantive differences between the two. More recently, look at all the coverage about how new Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid would lead differently than outgoing leader Tom Daschle.
So, while Mel Watt is a decent, likeable person, he is irrelevant. What is more important is his extremely liberal voting record. With a 93 percent rating by the ACLU, 92 percent by the NEA, 100 percent LCV and 100 percent AFL-CIO, the CBC is the definition of a liberal organization, thus every chairman has been (and will be) a liberal. Sensible Democrats like Sanford Bishop or Greg Meeks will never be a leader of this group.
Based on his comments about their meeting with President Bush, you would have thought the CBC held the swing votes in the U.S. House. Last month, Watt expressed his ideas about meeting with President Bush: "Unless the president can and is willing to assist us in achieving items on our agenda, there’s no particular reason that the Congressional Black Caucus needs to be meeting with him," Watt told the Associated Press. "This is not about being able to say that we met with the president. We actually think it's about advancing and supporting our agenda."
This was one of the most asinine statements I have ever heard a politician make. The CBC has been begging for a meeting with Bush for years, and now they decide that if he doesn't agree with their supposed "agenda," then there is no need for future meetings. Now, if it happens that Bush doesn't agree with the CBC agenda, and the CBC cuts all future meetings with him, then I guarantee you that members will go back to calling Bush a racist. There is no way Bush is going to win by dialoging with the CBC. I would have advised the president not to have met with them.
For the CBC to continue to do the same thing and expect a different result is the definition of insanity. I challenge BV members to find me one piece of legislation that has any past or present member of the CBC's name on it. You have campaign finance reform (McCain-Feingold), banking reform (Oxley-Sarbanes), Roth—IRA, etc. The CBC has become so irrelevant, they have marginalized themselves into public and private ridicule.
They claim to be the moral compass of the black community. But, how can that be when they support gay marriages, oppose school choice, and support raising the minimum wage? Poll after poll has shown that they are out of step with their community. Does electing Watt as the new leader of the CBC mean a new agenda is on the horizon? Watt-a-joke.
Reach Raynard Jackson at raynardjackson@aol.com
Published: Feb. 09, 2005