Email Our Editor

Join Our Mailing List

View Our Archives

Search our archive:

The Last 20 Days' Editorials

Email This Article  Printer Friendly Version

Q & A With Armstrong Williams

What better way to begin the week of the Republican Convention than by speaking to one of America's most vocal conservatives and one of the most influential Black members of the Republican Party? Well, today we speak to Armstrong Williams, talk-show host, informal adviser to several Republican Party politicians and a life-long member of the GOP. While many Blacks are familiar with Armstrong William's face and radio and television personality, few are aware of Armstrong's beliefs and thoughts, in depth. In this exclusive Q & A we talked to Armstrong about his personal beliefs, the Republican Party, the Black Community and the 2000 elections. The result is a unique look at one of America's most insightful and controversial political figures.

CM: On a daily basis, what motivates you to get up and do the things that you do?

Armstrong Williams: My family. My parents. There is not a day that goes by that I don't think about my deceased father and my living mother. Growing up on the family estate in South Carolina, we had about 2,000 head of swine and cattle and horses, small grain and tobacco. My father always said you had to get up before the rooster crowed, and that the rising sun should never catch you in the bed. It was the faith in God, the work ethic and the routine that was instilled in us by our parents, that if you work and if you stay in movement -- we would say "if you stay in traffic" -- something is bound to happen. So you just have to keep moving. But also keep moving with moral striving. So I would say my parents, their spirit, that indomitable spirit, that draws me. Even on weekends, I can't sleep in bed past 6 a.m. During the weekdays, I'm in the gym at 5:30 a.m. so I have to leave the house at 5:00. I just get up.

CM: The farm analogy and that part of your background is something that you mentioned in a recent article about what you like about the Republican Party. You make a strong statement about how those principles attracted you to the party.

Armstrong Williams: No, no, no, not attracted me to the party. My family are fourth generation Republicans. It is a way of life for me. It did not attract me to the party. I don't know anything else. In the entire history of the Williams' family, our ancestors have always used the Republican Party as the platform and the mechanism to participate in government. So it is not something that attracts me.

CM: It is something that you identify with.

Armstrong Williams: No, not even that.

CM: You grew up in it, but what are those principles today?

Armstrong Williams: The party has changed. That doesn't mean I changed and what I believe in. Politicians, much of what they do is not based on principle; it is based on political expediency. There are certain tenants of my life that I can never change. There are certain things I cannot compromise. I am not in the compromising business. But that does not deter me from my participation with the party, because the party does not belong to them; it belongs to us. Because it is gentlemen like myself who have a long historical history with the party that gives it legitimacy, and are some of its strongest voices. I rarely see myself as identifying with some political institution. It's my party. It was my daddy's party; it was my grandfather's party. It is a legacy. My father, even today, even in his death, is my hero and my role model. I want to be like my father. I cannot even imagine, no matter how the Republican Party would change or whatever, they can never change the principles and the values that we identify with.

CM: There are similar Blacks who grew up in the South, whose families have historically been members of the Republican Party. But unlike you, they are not Republicans today. Why is it that you think many Blacks in the South moved away from the Republican Party?

Armstrong Williams: Barry Goldwater, back in the '60s when he announced in his platform that part of his platform would be to renounce the civil rights legislation -- this is what I say about politicians -- it is not even the fact that he believed it; it is what he felt he had to do in order to solidify his base. If you're going to tell somebody, 'I'm your nominee, but you can have no rights; because if you have rights, I may not win.' I mean, how can you embrace that? It's frightening. Of course, it wouldn't frighten my family because our roots really has nothing to do with the standard bearer or whatever, there were candidates that we supported, some that we've identified with more so than others. It started with Barry Goldwater, but that does not change its illustrious history. The last 40 years of Republican politics does nothing to compare to its history from 1865 to the 1960s. If it were not for the Supreme Court in the 1940s who started putting in place the policies that would lead to the passage of the Civil Rights Movement and the legislation, it never would have happened. If you think about what the party has done leading up to the '60s, without the Republican Party, you never would have [been] led there. So you cannot just totally erase that history and say, "It started in the last 48 years." You know, life is sometimes like a stonecutter chipping away at his rock perhaps 100 times a day. But on the 101st blow, that rock will crack in two. But it wasn't that 101st blow that caused that rock to crack; it is all that has gone into that rock before. You've got to look at the total picture.

CM: Armstrong, what is a "conservative" in your view?

Armstrong Williams: There is a definition for a conservative. I can define it, since I'm always labeled a conservative, in my terms: a conservative strongly believes in terms of the death penalty. There are people who knowingly get up in the morning, who wants to rob, rape, steal and kill people, knowing the consequences. Knowing the consequences from history and things they see everyday that if they commit these crimes, that they may pay with their life. We believe, for those people (especially if you're 100 percent certain that they committed the crime) that they owe a debt to society -- not out of revenge, no, not out of anger -- but for the sanctity of life itself they owe a debt to society. And you should pay with your life, because that is the law, and the law should be upheld. Because what reason do I have to obey the law if someone can just run around and murder and rape and hurt innocent children, and there are no consequences?

If you don't, if the law is not carried forth, then you bring about vigilante justice, and you certainly don't want that to be the rule of today. Also, conservatives believe -- at least this conservative -- regarding the issue of abortion: that the moment the fetus starts growing in the womb, it is a child. It doesn't matter to me in the case of rape, incest, or the mother's life is in danger. Under no conditions should that child be aborted. That goes back to my faith; that God is too wise to make a mistake, and too just to do wrong. Even if you don't want the child, you put the child up for adoption. I know that may sound harsh. But I can also understand those who choose not to in those instances, but never for me because my faith is much stronger than my fears.

In terms of affirmative action: in actuality, affirmative action has not worked in ten years. Affirmative action has become a bourgeoisie boondoggle. If you talk to most inner city kids, they've never heard of affirmative action. And if you really wanted affirmative action to work, if you really wanted to compromise and have an intelligent debate on it, you would give affirmative action to kids in post-secondary education because you can really have an impact there. But by the time someone is about to graduate from high school and college, it is just too late. And the things that we argue over in terms of affirmative action, especially when it comes to higher education like the Yales and Harvards and Cal Berkeleys, these are elitist schools. That is the important point. Less than .5 percent of Blacks go to these schools.

Also, the other problem with it is during the '60s when the government earmarked this thing called 'affirmative action' it was never meant to benefit Black people. It was, again, meant for something like what affirmative action became when it broke up the family (and it literally broke up the family because that woman had to choose between her husband and her pay check). The members of Congress knew exactly what they were doing. They were still angry at the thought of Blacks being free and they could not deal with that, so they had to influence it through a law that crippled them. What they did in terms of affirmative action that crippled Blacks were to include White women, so the ones who have truly benefited from affirmative action have been White women. Everyone has benefited except Blacks.

If it had been put in place where only Blacks would have benefited and it was principally based and it was pure, I would be for it because then it would work. But it was never founded with good intentions, so it couldn't have worked. Any government that is big enough to give you something is big enough to take it away. So you know what? It is a distraction. It makes people believe that they have something. It is just like what affirmative action has become -- that people feel without it they cannot progress, which is crazy. In terms of racism and discrimination, you have the laws, the civil rights legislation, the laws on the books to punish people for those kinds of behaviors. So affirmative action, I would rather see it disappear off the landscape so people can really discover what they're made of and stop dealing with these illusions that something is going to help you more than you helping yourself -- that the government is going to give you something. Affirmative action may not be dead just yet, but its life support and vital signs are very weak. In terms of same sex marriages, to me that is just a nothing debate. It doesn't matter what anyone's preferences are. It has nothing to do with that. But, you know, just the thought that we could live in a society today that sort of reminds of us of the empires of the past, where we've not learned -- just to think that we could live where we could advocate marriage between two people of the same sex is just -- it's just -- I can't even find a term for it. I can't even conceptualize it. I mean, what do you say to kids? What do you say to them? Another thing too, in a city like D.C. -- I want to get to homosexual adoptions -- it's not the White kids that gays are adopting. Oh, no, no. It is the Black kids. Trust me, they're the ones that are being adopted. I do not believe that a homosexual couple should be allowed to adopt children because at some point that kid is going to walk in the bedroom or they're going to see them hugging and kissing. That is not an image that a child should deal with as a child, because a child cannot understand it. And their parents are trying to make it seem like it is right, you see?

On those issues, people would say they are very conservative positions. Let me see if there are any more. Yes, gun control, the right to bear arms. The reason why Blacks cannot bear arms in the District of Columbia -- had this [city] been predominately White, the laws would be different -- is because these White liberals out in the suburbs are afraid of these young black men carrying guns, so they've used the law to make sure that you cannot bear arms in the District. It's as racist as it comes. But yet -- get a load of this -- whenever a crime is committed where a Black just bludgeons someone and kills them no differently than any other crimes that have taken place, then they want to use a special occasion for the death penalty, as they've tried to do through their laws. The law is the same. It should be evenly meted out; it should be consistent; it should be fair. Just some of the issues.

CM: Look at our history in light of the Reconstruction period after the Civil War (depending on whether you thought that was an effective address for what had happened with slavery), then we move to the New Deal era, then we move to the Civil Rights era; do you think that at any point America, as a society, or its government, has effectively addressed slavery in a way that repairs the damage that was done economically and spiritually and morally to the Black family?

Armstrong Williams: They can't. They don't know how to. They wouldn't know where to begin. They just wouldn't. Do you think the Jews have been adequately compensated for the Holocaust? You just can't. Some things you just have to chalk up as life. It seems as if the Jewish and Black people have been assigned a mighty task, and it is a task of struggle. But, you know, we're rich in spiritual currency. There is no obstacle that we cannot overcome. But people don't take that strength and build with it; they would rather focus on the negative. They would rather feel as though they're a victim and still in slavery. A lot of people today talk as if they're the slaves -- as if we're still captives in America.

But then we don't look at the wonderful examples of American Blacks who have just changed the landscape, who have come from nothingness and what they have built when all of the odds are against them. You see, when you have a faith and believe in something and have moral striving, oh yes, you're going to have obstacles and setbacks. But you realize your power lies within you, not in somebody else. You see, we talk about White people. I listen to these shows where people talk about "White people do this and that." I say, "You know what? If White people created all the problems, then that means they have all the solutions."

Can you imagine somebody White sitting back listening to the way Blacks talk about the control and the power and the dominance that they have? It is an illusion. But if you tell somebody long enough that they have that kind of power, then they begin to believe it. Just like if you tell somebody long enough that they're a victim, and they can never make it but so far in this society because they're Black, then they begin to believe it. We were not taught that way growing up.

CM: From a spiritual and scriptural context, we know that God judges nations, whole nations, for their behavior toward their citizens. I understand that there is a personal responsibility on the part of the victim or the one who suffered the injustice. Is there not a responsibility on the nation?

Armstrong Williams: Yes. God punished them during the Civil War when they lost their families four generations deep and a million White folks died.

CM: Let's look at the Jewish situation where not only Germany and the State of Israel, but the United States Government has representatives in the Treasury Department, particularly Dept. Treasury Secretary Eizenstat, who are actively over there in Germany making the arrangement between German industry and the German government and Jews that served as slave labor in the Nazi camps. Do you support that kind of activity? Is that unnecessary? Does that contribute to Jewish victimization, or is that a sincere effort of a nation, Germany, to atone or repent for the evil that it did and that occurred?

Armstrong Williams: I don't know. I really can't answer that.

CM: How do you feel in general about the reparations debate here, in the U.S.?

Armstrong Williams: It is a useless debate. It's not going anywhere. I mean, we deserve our 40 acres and a mule, but because it is not going to happen -- because if they tried reparations, it would bankrupt this nation. It is not going to happen, so why get people worked up over something that you're not going anyplace with? Why use this as an industry for yourself to make money, knowing that you will never achieve your results? It is total and further exploitation and prostitution of the people you supposedly care about most. Especially when you know the truth.

CM: Let's turn toward the Republican Convention. Do you have any thoughts on it? I know you were a supporter of Steven Forbes.

Armstrong Williams: And still am.

CM: We know that he was unsuccessful in his bid. How do you feel about the George W. Bush nomination that is soon to occur, and a George Bush presidency? Does it excite you?

Armstrong Williams: You know, we have been in the desert for eight years! [Laughter] I can taste the water! I really can taste it. We're excited. You know, Bush would not have been my initial choice, but I respect what he has become as a result of being sharpened by John McCain in the primaries. We like what he has become. We really believe that Bush can win it all. We really believe it. You know, we did not believe that about Dole. We did not believe that George Sr. would win in the final months, and we knew Dole had lost it right after the primaries four years ago. But it is different this time. Bush will pull this off, and I will bring back all my glitter, my tux, and my shoes. Bring back all the glitter and the class to this city that it once had. D.C. will glitter again.

CM: When you say Bush has been sharpened, what does that mean?

Armstrong Williams: Intellectually. Debate-wise. He doesn't mind taking the gloves off to attack when necessary. He's gotten backbone. He doesn't mind being bold on issues like what he said about privatizing social security and Medicare. What he said about missile defense, his was the most bold. He is going to the NAACP convention knowing his position on the Confederate flag did not deter him. He still had the strength of his character to understand the importance of that vote, where four years ago Bob Dole just totally ignored it. We are pretty pumped. There will be much enthusiasm going into the convention. In fact, we're spending a lot of money supporting our candidates. I've given them the max. My friends too. It's kind of good. You know you believe in something when you feel good giving your money away, and don't even think twice about it.

CM: Do you have any designs on a Republican Congress? Would it be a disaster for you if Bush wins and then the Democrats take control of the House?

Armstrong Williams: We are looking for a tri-factor. The White House, the Senate (we'll keep the Senate), the House. Oh! Simply marvelous. It's about time, though. It's about time. Oh, man. They're wearing me out. I'm a surrogate speaker. I have so many roles at this convention. Oh, my goodness. But you've got to do what you've got to do. I'm going to be worn out. But, hey, it feels good when I drop in that bed at night knowing that I worked hard for my party, because it will all be worth it come the day after election when we celebrate Bush in the White House. I'm telling you, I'm pretty pumped about it. I am pretty pumped, yes, because I believe in this party. Yes, election day is November 7th? That's a Tuesday -- whenever it is. There's a confidence. We've got our swagger back.

CM: It is a confidence based upon...

Armstrong Williams: Experience.

CM: Are you sure this confidence is not based upon the charisma of Gov. Bush?

Armstrong Williams: No, experience. Al Gore has some phenomenal assets. He has the unions. He has some of the most widely known stars from the White House to Congress to the make up of government and attainment. He has a strong economy. He has the strength of the White House and a President whose wife is running for the Senate. But still he has not once surged ahead of Bush in the polls. That's troubling, with all that. Maybe they've not kicked in yet, but with all that he cannot get traction. Because you know what? You can have all the gifts in the world, but if the messenger is wrong, you're not going anywhere. You must trust the messenger, not just the message. So I will give him his assets, but what good are they if you can't use them to your advantage? He should be leading Bush by 12 or 13 percentage points. Really. But he is not.

CM: Do you see any vulnerabilities? Are there any issues where Bush is not satisfying to you?

Armstrong Williams: Bush and Al Gore's intellect is about the same, if you read the articles. People don't see Bush as an intellectual genius, so there is less pressure on him. Even in the debates, if Bush just shows up and hold his own, he wins. See, that is the beauty of when people don't have high expectations of you. When you do well, they say "wow." I'm sure knowing that there are low expectations of him in the debate, that he's preparing himself. And you know what happens when you prepare yourself. In the area of -- Bush is -- Bush has a lot of class. He is a very warm guy. He's energetic, he's charismatic, he's very comfortable around people. Much more comfortable around people than Gore. Who you are does not lie when you are in those settings. He has the right image. It is a powerful symbol. And all he has to do -- which he is doing -- is not nominate a pro-choice running mate, not mess up in the debates, and not put his foot in his mouth; he will win it. The good thing about it is his future is in his hands.

CM: What do you make of the possibility of Colin Powell as a Vice President? Would you support that knowing his stance on abortion?

Armstrong Williams: For all the wrong reasons I would support it.

CM: What do you mean?

Armstrong Williams: Because the White House is bigger than my ideological differences with Colin Powell. We want the White House. I mean, I'm not going to get out of shape because he's pro-choice or pro-affirmative action. He's only the Vice President. I would rather see him as Vice President than Secretary of State.

CM: Does he get a special privilege that Governor Ridge from Pennsylvania doesn't get, who is also pro-choice but popular?

Armstrong Williams: Yes, he gets a pass because he's Black. That's overlooked. He can get away with it with Colin Powell, but not with Tom Ridge. See, there are different standards in America. That's why when people say there are all these disadvantages with being Black, that's a joke. When you're Black and have the [right] kind of credentials -- especially a man like Colin Powell and others -- you are in demand. Just like Tiger Woods. Come on, people are dying for people like Colin Powell. They can write their own tickets. Bush said he will probably announce before the election that Colin Powell will be his Secretary of State. When has that ever happened before? That's that symbolism.

CM: Many Whites will argue that racism is not a problem because of individuals like Tiger Woods or Oprah Winfrey or Colin Powell. It is almost a device to avoid dealing with some of the real problems that exist. Now, we know if Shaquille O'Neal or Colin Powell or Tiger Woods walked down the street, most of White America would feel very comfortable with that. But the majority of Black men that live in D.C., or myself or maybe you at night, or even in the day time, they wouldn't have that same feeling.

Armstrong Williams: That hasn't been my experience. People say whether I'm overseas or whether I'm in this country, it's the same. I've dealt with police. I don't see that side.

CM: So no racial profiling incidents in your life?

Armstrong Williams: Never happened to me. And I'm stopped all the time because I love to speed. Never.

CM: What do you think of so many Blacks who feel that it is a problem?

Armstrong Williams: It happens. It happens. It does happen, and it is sad. But I think that has to do with the younger generation. I think when you talk to American Blacks over the age of 35, I think it is less of an issue. I think it is a huge issue when it comes to [youth] because that is the profile of the criminals in major cities.

CM: Is it a profile that has gone to an extreme?

Armstrong Williams: You ask the people who have died has it gone to an extreme, because their victims are Black. I mean, it is understandable. It is wrong, but it is understandable.

CM: How does that image or profile end?

Armstrong Williams: It won't. It won't. It just won't. Just some things you're going to have to -- . They're not going to reduce their killing. Some of these kids are killing machines. It is not going to reduce them. It is like Giulliani, who cleaned up Harlem and Queens, New York. You ask Black folks -- they're ecstatic because they're the ones who were their victims.

CM: That is debatable. I know people in Harlem who feel there are a lot more arrests up there that have been excessive...

Armstrong Williams: That could be true, but that's part of the price you pay for the general atmosphere.

CM: So can this country end crime?

Armstrong Williams: No.

CM: Can the Black community end crime?

Armstrong Williams: No, because the leadership will never address these kids who run around killing. They want them to see themselves as victims, so therefore they don't have to take responsibility. Others see this and they continue a killing spree. You're blaming the system; you're blaming the White man. No, they can address both. I think it is important to address police officers and the system, but you also need to tell these young men what they've become. And never advocate their right to not pay the price for the lives they've taken or the injury they've caused other. You never make these criminals take responsibility. They're just as much of the problem as the police force. Just as much. They all contribute to it. Because these thugs are not victims. They're not. Someone who has total disregard for life, property, no self-respect, and no value for life. That's what they are -- thugs.

CM: Do you think a thug can be reformed, ever?

Armstrong Williams: Yes, but if not by a certain age, you can forget it. The first 13 years of their life is very important. Really, [after that] it is too late, and particularly when you don't have men in their lives. Because they think that's what it means to be a man. Masculinity of a man is something that is very important. People feel killing is masculine, stealing is masculine, raping is masculine. They're doing everything they can to be a man because they have never learned how to be one. Using profanity to them is masculine. That's what they want, because they've never had a man to set that example. That's why their mothers can't do anything with them by the time they reach age 13. That's why men engage in sports, dangerous sports like scuba diving, jet-skiing on the back of these motorboats, mountain climbing. They do this because they feel they gain strength from it; they get in touch with their manhood. I think the most dangerous thing for a man, what brings about his greatest insecurities, is when he doesn't feel he's masculine enough. That's the worst thing.

CM: Are you saying that society reinforces an effeminate version of a Black male?

Armstrong Williams: Let's just say that society does not reinforce their masculinity.

CM: Does that contribute to homosexuality? What is the byproduct of this effeminate force?

Armstrong Williams: I think it leads to that, the confusion of what they are. They feel they are soft, and so that's what they become. I think it is really serious.

CM: Two million men in prison; some of them would be thugs, according to your definition.

Armstrong Williams: No, no. Most of them; 90 percent of them are criminals and they belong there. Oh, absolutely

CM: What do we do? Do we keep them locked up permanently? Is there any hope? Any rehabilitation program that they can embark on?

Armstrong Williams: Let's hope there are, but until we find one, keep them there.

CM: Where would Christianity or Islam fit in?

Armstrong Williams: They always find God in prison after they've committed the crimes. That's where they find Him. People, don't get serious about God and faith until they do something wrong and get scared. Come on.

CM: When they find God are they ready to come out? Are they redeemed at that point?

Armstrong Williams: Until they get out and they start committing the same crimes again, because most of the crimes are by repeat offenders.

CM: So the faith hasn't penetrated the heart?

Armstrong Williams: It has penetrated, but it is a temporary thing depending upon your circumstances.

CM: What makes it permanent?

Armstrong Williams: You've got to believe it. You can't see it as a tool to draw you sympathy to make somebody think you've overcome your problems or your shortcomings. It's an act. People are faking it. That's what it is.

CM: What's your overall impression of the last eight years of Clinton-Gore?

Armstrong Williams: Clinton has been good. I like his constantly reaching out for all Americans. I like his warmth. I think he's a brilliant politician. I think he's sincere. I think he truly loves people. I can understand why Black America is so in love with him. I think he's earned that. The sadness is he never learned moral striving. No one has ever said no to him. He's the kind of leader who thought that whatever he wanted he should have. It says everything that the President of the United States could be having a sexual liaison with an intern and then try to say that oral sex is not sex. It's sad. It's sad that you could have such a brilliant person in the White House, but what you will remember about him is Monica and impeachment and the embarrassment and shame he brought to his wife. If he had just worked on [himself] -- which is the lesson -- if you don't work on yourself spiritually and morally, then you've not done anything. You've not achieved the greatest in life, and the greatest is in the moral striving. Meaning to restrain your being. Just because you want something doesn't mean you should have it.

CM: Is there such a thing as a moral liberal?

Armstrong Williams: Yes. Morality has nothing to do with conservative or liberal. There are good Democrats and good Republicans. Clinton's morality has nothing to do with his liberalism; mine has nothing to do with my conservatism. It has to do with who I am as a human being, what I believe in, what defines my value system. The value system is not defined by politics. It's much deeper than that. Character is destiny. It is who you are as a person.

CM: Is it possible to have good character and then policies that promote bad character? Is that an inconsistency?

Armstrong Williams: You can't compartmentalize someone. How can I advocate something to you that I don't believe in myself? No. There's a contradiction. You must be consistent, else you can't be trusted.

CM: In your opinion, what is the state of Africa?

Armstrong Williams: It's the AIDS crisis that is devastating, and its greatest effects will be on the children who will not grow up with their parents, who will at some point deal with the trauma of this, and how it will play out in their lives to bring out further destruction. The fact that in certain places in Africa 30 percent of the people are infected with AIDS, to think that Mbeki could get up and try to defend this and try to say it is not sexually transmitted, and try to continue to cover instead of telling these people the truth. But you know what? You and I have talked about Mugabe. He's no different than the European imperialists. You know, 'the rule of one at the expense of the needs of many.' Not much has changed. It's just sad as to what Africa has become. I don't know if there's much we can do to change it. Money is certainly not the answer. It's behavior and how you change that.

CM: What's the proper relationship between the United States and Africa at this juncture?

Armstrong Williams: Well, they're giving them a billion dollars to fight this AIDS crisis. I think it is a drop in the bucket. When I look at the G8 and the G7 meetings, and it is just lily white, it is just sort of disgusting that no African nation is included in the world powers. That shows you what Europeans in this continent really think about Africa.

CM: What's your critique of IMF and World Bank roles?

Armstrong Williams: It's useless. They've wreaked more havoc and destroyed more countries. If I was running a business and I had the track record of the IMF and World Bank, I would be bankrupt. Useless. Just that simple.

CM: Have you been satisfied with the approach that the Republican Congress has taken toward the tax cuts in the last two years?

Armstrong Williams: Cutting capital gains tax, yes. The marriage penalty that was just passed. The repeal of the death tax, absolutely. That's not rich or poor; that's just common sense. Encouraging marriage instead of rewarding indolence. Yes, very happy. I'll be even happier when they have the tri-factor.

CM: So you think that's going to happen?

Armstrong Williams: I hope it happens. That is what I hope.

CM: What if it doesn't, what if you got Bush and you got Speaker Gephardt?

Armstrong Williams: Then we'll just deal with its just like we've had to deal with Clinton for eight years.

CM: Will it be any better than having a Republican Congress and a Democratic President? A

Armstrong Williams: I think they'll have more clout. I think the Republicans are much more effective when they're in the minority. I think when they're in the majority they take too much for granted and they are too cautious. They were much more effective as a minority. Sad to say, but true.

Monday, July 31, 2000

To discuss this article further enter The Deeper Look Dialogue Room

The views and opinions expressed herein by the author do not necessarily represent the opinions or position of or Black Electorate Communications.

Copyright © 2000-2002 BEC