As I mentioned earlier, at some point this morning I had Bush's appearance before the Unity Conference as white noise in the background as I sat here econoblogging. But I had to wait for the transcript to make sure I hadn't dreamed this passage:
[Q] Good morning. My name is Mark Trahant. I'm the editorial page editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and a member of the Native American Journalist Association. (Applause.) Most school kids learn about the government in the context of city, county, state and federal. And, of course, tribal governments are not part of that at all. Mr. President, you've been a governor and a President, so you have a unique experience, looking at it from two directions. What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century, and how do we resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and the state governments?[BUSH]: Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.
Now, the federal government has got a responsibility on matters like education and security to help, and health care. And it's a solemn duty. And from this perspective, we must continue to uphold that duty. I think that one of the most promising areas of all is to help with economic development. And that means helping people understand what it means to start a business. That's why the Small Business Administration has increased loans. It means, obviously, encouraging capital flows. But none of that will happen unless the education systems flourish and are strong, and that's why I told you we've spent $1.1 billion in the reconstruction of Native American schools.
Ugh. I'm speechless.
Mary Beth, I'm woefully uneducated on issues of tribal sovereignty and relations with the federal (and state, for that matter) government. What would have been a reasonable response from a President of the United States? Reasonable, that is, from the government's viewpoint.
Posted by: N in Seattle at August 6, 2004 09:27 PMPlease see "More Time Warps in Washington City", posted at
http://wampum.wabanaki.net/archives/001064.html.
The SBA is the answer to every minority problem, isn't it? Sure seems that way, regardless of the question.
Since he is now the "peace president" and no longer _fixated_ on war...he is now wants to be the hero of the "little man" (double entendre...you have to consider his view of himself ...).
Sounds like he had to remind himself what sovereignty meant. Wonder when he learned that new word.
Over at indianz.com Acce has this:
Laughter greeted President George W. Bush today when he explained the meaning of tribal sovereignty at the UNITY 2004 minority journalists convention.
Mark Trahant, the editorial page editor of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Nation of Idaho, asked Bush: "What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century and how do we resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and state governments?"
Bush's immediate response was: "Tribal sovereignty means that. It's sovereign," he said. "You're a .. you're a ... you've been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity," he added.
The remark drew guffaws from the crowd at the Washington, D.C., convention center, prompting Bush to throw his hand in the air momentarily.
Bush went on to explain the nature of the trust relationship but didn't use the word trust or the phrase government-to-government.
Eric, that URL doesn't work for me.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager at August 7, 2004 01:19 PMUse http://www.indianz.com
I heard Bush's fumblin,inarticulate attempt to answer the tribal sovereignty question. It was astounding and pathetic. I could hear the audience snickering. What kind of idiot is the this man and why are so many people still looking to him as if he were God? By the way, I later heard Jesse Jackson's hilarious sendup of Bush's rambling and then his answer to that same question. I can't answer the question myself, so I don't know if Mr. Jackson's response was on the money, but it sure sounded better than W's.
Posted by: Jack Johnson at August 10, 2004 11:17 PMI happened to hear a recording of Bush's response on Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now!" radio program. She played both Bush's response and Jackson's. The difference was like night and day. Trahant started the same question off by stating that Bush did not understand the word "sovereignty" - Jackson then responded by jokingly stating that it was Trahant, and not Bush, who did not understand the meaning of the word - who did a hilarious imitation of Bush in his response. Jackson adjusted his tone and was quite eloquent and detailed in his description of how the U.S. should handle sovereignty of Indian tribes.
Posted by: Joanne at August 11, 2004 05:09 PMThere is video coverage on http://www.jroller.com/page/fx
Posted by: jj at August 11, 2004 08:41 PM