Issue 1 is Elián González, including Al Gore’s decision to break with Bill Clinton on the issue.
Pundits overwhelmingly agree that Gore made the right decision by advocating that a Florida family court, and not the INS, settle the case. Paul Gigot (PBS’s NewsHour With Jim Lehrer) reminds that Clinton lost Florida in 1992 but won it in ‘96 by signing the Helms-Burton Act over the objections of liberals. Most talking heads agree that Gore was pandering for Florida votes (although Margaret Carlson on CNN’s Capital Gang argues that “you can’t out-pander George Bush in Florida”). But only a few–like George Stephanopoulos (ABC’s This Week), Mark Shields (NH), and Eleanor Clift ( McLaughlin Group)–think Gore’s decision a bad one. (Curiously, conservative Rep. Steve Largent, R-Okla., tells Fox News Sunday that Elián should be sent to Cuba, and he accuses his GOP colleagues of playing politics with the boy’s welfare.) Susan Page (CNN’s Late Edition) points out that Gore need not win Florida to make the gambit pay off; he just has to force George W. Bush to spend money there.
Appearing on LE, TW, and CBS’s Face the Nation, lawyers for Elián’s United States relatives argue that Elián’s Cuban father is unfit. (They say he tried to lure the boy back to Cuba by telling him that his mother was there.) On FTN, White House spokesman John Podesta defends the father.
Cokie Roberts (TW) proposes a novel solution to the problem: Elián and his 21-year-old cousin, Marisleysis, should come live with her. (Wouldn’t the Robertses be the toast of the Georgetown cocktail circuit with little Elián in tow?) Roberts explains her reasoning: Marisleysis is the closest thing Elián has to a mom, and Elián would experience their separation as another death.
Temptations of the Pundit
Pundits sometimes pretend to argue the merits of political issues. But when it comes down to it, most talking heads can’t help but spin for their underlying prejudice. Take Paul Gigot, commenting on Gore’s plan to fund elections through a voluntary, tax-deductible trust fund: “Al Gore is against tax cuts for the rich–unless you’re writing a check to the trust fund for politicians. Then he’s giving you 100 percent tax credit. This has no chance of happening.”
Now, you’d think Gigot would compliment Gore, even backhandedly, for proposing upper-income tax write-offs. If Gigot actually cared about policy, as opposed to politics, he’d say something like this:
… giving you a 100 percent tax credit. And you know, Jim, it’s about time. The newspaper I write for, the Wall Street Journal, has been arguing since God invented mammon that tax cuts for the rich jumpstart the economy. And while Gore may not be a supply-side convert yet, we’ll take what we can get–even if his plan has little chance of happening.
But Gigot can’t say this, because his friends in the GOP might think he’s soft on Gore. Of course, Gigot’s partner in crime on NH, Mark Shields, is no less guilty. Here’s Shields commenting on the mayor of Miami, whom Gigot praised for “civil disobedience.” (The mayor said he would not use local police to help the INS deport Elián.):
You know, a public official, a publicly elected official carries with it great rights and enormous authority but there’s also responsibility. I mean, he’s not into–I wouldn’t call it civil disobedience. I’d just call it disobeying the law and encouraging others to do the same. That’s exactly what he did do. When you take that oath, you’ve got a responsibility to maintain law, and bring order to your community. That’s certainly what he wasn’t doing.
Now, you’d think Shields would at least pay lip service to the mayor’s tactics. (Whatever label you give them, the mayor’s actions are certainly a form of passive resistance to a law he considers–rightly or wrongly–to be inhumane.) If Shields actually cared about policy, as opposed to politics, he’d say something like this:
… enormous authority but there’s also responsibility. And the mayor’s decision to passively resist the INS is wrong in this case. That said, I certainly don’t begrudge the mayor for advocating nonviolent opposition to a law that he and his constituents philosophically oppose. If, for example, Boston’s mayor refused to help enforce a law designed solely to cripple legitimate labor unions–something a Bush administration might try to do–then I’d probably encourage the mayor.
But he can’t say this, because other liberals might think he’s soft on Helms-Burton and the Cuban embargo.
Last Word
TIM RUSSERT (NBC’s Meet The Press): Will you campaign hard for George W. Bush?
JOHN McCAIN: I will campaign–I will support the nominee of the party. I had a good conversation with Gov. Bush. I’m sure we’ll have conversations very soon, and I look forward to discussing the reform agenda with him. And in the interest of straight talk, some of that enthusiasm–or lack of it–will be directly related to that, because I have an obligation to the millions of Americans, many of whom who had never voted before, who turned out to vote in support of that agenda.
