Native American Sovereignty is as Sovereignty does.
 

Link to Tribal Sovereignty question
(It's an audio link, and includes the full question and answer, as such the hosting source doesn't matter)

Just come out and say it. "I have no clue what you are talking about even though I am president of this country and should."

He should have at least said I am sorry, I haven't even thought about that question. But I promise to keep it in mind and come up with an answer for it.
Something like that rather than fumbling around in the dark.

It is an important question that the US President should know something about.

http://www.academicinfo.net/nativeamdllegal.html

The Comanche's have a constitution The Cherokee have for a long time had almost nation status within Georgia. They have a whole set of separate government and even declared war on Germany, Japan and Italy during World War II, before the United States.

http://www.airpi.org/pubs/indinsov.html

http://www.airpi.org/projects/fall97genia-wedll.html

Some more links on American Indian Sovereignty.

The President, as president should really know something about this. He has micronations within his management border.

He was blindsided and revealed to us he knows absolutely nothing. It's a shame.

The episode is funny, but it's also sad in a way.

He should have just fessed up and said i'm sorry I haven't looked into this but I will look into it, would you like to discuss this over dinner?

Don't try to BS an answer like that.

Did you hear the crowd laughing at him in the background? It was that obvious he had no idea what he was talking about.

I do believe he's side-tracked by the economy, war on terror, international relations, oh, and a campaign. Give the guy a break.

Every other President has to deal with the same things.

In point of fact, no other President has had to deal with the same things. The present is not simply a repeat of the past. Perhaps the particular unique situation the world is in at the moment superceeds the issues raised here. I know if I were charged with the responsibilities he is charged with right now, I would not be "up" on such matters. Neither would I be able to meet (or be interested in meeting) the strict armchair standards raised by citizens who have other job descriptions than my own and who post on Internet message boards but are not responsible for executing the duties of Chief Executive.

The exact same thing? No. But the same workload nevertheless in each category.
You think Clinton didn't have his hands full with Saddam, Milosevech, Israel/Palestine, Kim Jong etc?
Gimme a break. People need to stop making Bush out to be a Martyr. The world didn't change when he became Prez or after 9/11. Not fundamentally.

He should be interested in meeting the needs of his people. The Native Americans have specific and Unique issues. Please go to my links and read up some. There are important issues that his Executive office deals with every day.
At the very least don't try to bullshit us guy.

Please don't assume I haven't clicked the links and assimilated the info. I do not see the significance of specific and unique Native American issues. Sorry, but I just don't see it.

at the very least you would think that he might have taken the time to get prepped for a question like that before going to the forum. i would say that's a failure on both his and his staff's part, but besides making him look and sound foolish, i don't american-tribal relations being a major issue.

Regardless, I just think it's funny hearing him stumble around like that trying to bullshit an answer, using the same word 4 times in a sentence

At least we know that he knows how to use sovereignty in a sentence.

Do I expect the president to have an answer to this question? No. Do I expect the president to BS an answer when he doesn't know it? No. Should Bush have bitten the bullet and admitted he hadn't put a lot of thought into it? Yes.

Ehhh to side with Bush...

I admitedly know a total of two things about Native American sovereignty: Jack, and shit. But I'd really like to venture three assumptions of interest. First, that if they're their own sovereign nations, the voter turnout (I'm assuming they have US suffrage rights) is low in national elections. Second, being their own sovereign nations, well... just that, they deal with their own and we don't have to concern ourselves with their affairs. And third, not since the takeover of Alcatraz have they been more than self-sustained in their own dealings, leaving little impact on national affairs.

Essentially, were I president today, it'd be a non-issue to me. I don't expect a President Bush to know any more about today's Native American issues than I would a President Kerry.

the thing with that is, though, that those of us who don't live near a reservation think this has no impact on us. but to those who live near or on reservations, it could be an issue to them, and they probably do lobby a bit in washington, they have a decent amount of money in their casinos. the president should have at least cursory knowledge, in my opinion.

Thanks, harry, my thoughts were similar when I looked at this thread earlier.

The irony, however, is that Journeyman lives in California. Our state's policies are not only extremely entwined with Tribal issues of sovereignty, but are currently engaging that issue in regards to casino development and Schwarzenegger's B.S. comments about various Tribes' refusal to pay a fair share of California taxes!

Come to think of it, Arnold's apparent ignorance of this subject coupled with the possibility of ignorant voters (Journeyman, I'm using ignorant in a non-perjorative manner to describe one's lack of knowledge on a given subject) is most likely the impetus for infringement upon Tribal sovereignty in our state.

Worse, Arnold, if he's being a savvy politician, is likely to be banking on voter ignorance when he makes his baseless accusations.

Ohhh come on... He isnt up to date about things like this? Get a clue he couldnt even tell you the definition of sovereignty.

Last I checked good ole webster the definition was nothing like, being in a state of sovereignty, or however he put it. Something like that.


( I can't check I'm at work )

I read this thread, then clicked the link.

I'm not sure Bush actually came off that badly. Yes, he tremendously oversimplified the relationship between tribes and the federal government (they're not really sovereign entities dealing with each other at arm's length, given the huge involvement of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and in some cases State governments in tribal affairs), but what he said is basically right - they're sovereign entities.

FYI, I'm voting for Kerry, so don't slam me as a Bush apologist if you please.

:crazy: :eek:

This wasnt just one of those "ahhh lets answer the question with another question" and it wasnt a " I don't have enough information to answer that question"

This was a "I am so pathetic, I don't know what sovereignty means..."

I think you took the wronge fork on that road. He clearly wasnt clear on the status of Native sovereignty. He should have fessed up to it, but infront of dozens of reporters, lights, and hundreds of people, thinking lucidly is kinda difficult even to the mose seasoned of public speakers. Give him a break.

I do not understand why everything thinks we should give him a break.

You think he knows what the word even means? Then why didnt he just say the correct definition instead of... oh sovereignty means being in a sovereign state....

wtf... that is something you see comedians say making fun of rejects. It's not something a president says. I could care less that the guy doesnt know about native american sovereignty b/c truly I'm apathetic to that whole situation.

But the guy doesnt even know what a word means, that chances are any 9th grader could tell you.

LOL, I posted the video of this in your other thread. Very funny indeed.

Actually he was in front of 500 minority journalists specifically.
If you are going to choose to be questioned by minority journalists, maybe you want to actually know their issues.

This is the crux of the issue. I expect my President to be spectacular. He should have some grasp of all issues. I don't want to feel bad for my President, I don't want to cut him slack. I am his boss, and he is demonstating incompetence in his work.

Well, ok, I see the point that he sort of fumbled the answer, but I'm still not convinced his answer was stupid or revealed that he doesn't know what "sovereignty" means.


It was a really open-ended question (tough to get it exactly b/c there is a gap): What does tribal sovereignty mean in the 21st century and how do you resolve conflicts between the tribes and federal and state governments?

Unless you dive into an in-depth discussion of the relationship between tribes and governments (which I don't think is appropriate for that kind of environment), you don't have much you can say.

Would I have been impressed and surprised by a detailed response? Sure. Do I think Bush comes off badly by not giving one. Not really.

Again, voting for Kerry, so this is not an ideologically-based position.

I can at the very least tell you the definition of Sovereignty in less than 3 seconds.


"The concept of ruling ones self"




Now ... hows thats sounds instead of... Ohh its uhh being in a sovereign state of sovereigntity soverieneighsaisisdf bA BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Right, but that certainly wasn't the point of the question (i.e., "Mr, President, what is the definition of sovereignty?").

The questioner knows what the word means, he wants to know how it applies today. Now, Bush could have done better than simply saying "well, you're sovereign, so it means you're sovereign" but, again, I don't think he comes off that badly here.

Vote Kerry '04

I finally watched it, and it's pretty cringe-worthy. He CLEARLY does not know what the word means or how to answer the question -- who here has not pulled a trick like that before on a test?

Maybe we need to see it all in print.

Q: "What do you think Tribal Sovereignty means in the 21st century. And how do we resolve conflicts between the tribes and the federal and state governments"

Analysis: He goes on trying to just define sovereignty, poorly . And he says the relationship between tribes and the federal government is one between soverign entities.

Read the question again first. That's not an answer to the question whatsoever. That's him fumbling around with no clue. Hell that crap deserves a slap upside the head.

I Don't Know. It's a simple sentence.

Personally, I am no longer suprised in the least by Mr. Bushs' shortcomings in the arena of speech....and coherent thought.
It is sad, but these sorts of "fumbles" have literally become a trademark of our leader.

All too true.




Who here is president of the free world?

I can't tell if your for or against bush, but either way I mean nothing derogatory toward you.


Or anyone else for that matter.. Thats whats grand about the USA. We can all have our opinions and they will all be respected by me.

Ok, I'm getting sick of being a Bush supporter here, but let me try one more time to get my point across. If you disagree, then so be it..

Here is the question:

Q: "What do you think Tribal Sovereignty means in the 21st century. And how do we resolve conflicts between the tribes and the federal and state governments"

Here is the answer

"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."


Ok, so here's my analysis.

It's a 2 part question, so let's break it out, along with what I think are the answers to the 2 questions.

Q1: What do you think Tribal Sovereignty means in the 21st century?

A1: Tribal sovereignty means that -- it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity.

Clearly the questioner was going for a little more here, but taken from the President's point of view, what kind of answer can you give? (FYI, if I were Native American, I would be pissed off at the idea that they'd been "given" sovereignty. Rather, they retained their natural sovereignty.)

I think what he's doing is assuming everyone knows what "sovereignty" means, and suggesting there isn't much more to it than that. Tribal sovereignty means you're sovereign. Duh.

(again, I completely understand that there are tons of thorny issues about what exactly sovereignty means in the context of Native American issues -- what the hell is a "domestic dependent nation" anyway?? -- and no, I doubt Bush knows much about them)

Q2: How do we resolve conflicts between the tribes and the federal and state governments?

A2: The relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.

Ok not exactly a direct response to the question, but breaking up the two questions and answers -- I think -- makes it look a little worse than it is.

His point is that you resolve conflicts between tribes and government(s) as you would any other type of issue between sovereign entities. In the United States, for disputes between sovereign entities that are subject to US law (e.g., states vs states or states vs Feds) it means you go to court or have Congress pass a law.

Was it an articulate answer? No.

Was it the kind of nuanced discussion the questioner was looking for? No.

But did Bush come off as big an idiot as you all seem to think? I don't think so.

Vote Kerry!

(PS: I think we all know that Republicans know very well what sovereignty means. They are always warning about losing it to the UN, or about the Feds taking it away from the states)

Sorry, one more thing. Not editing my earlier message b/c not directly germane to that discussion.

You may be wondering why I am making such an effort to defuse this point. After all, as I have been careful to note in all my e-mails [*edit* whoops - I mean "posts], I won't be voting Bush/Cheney in November.

I've been doing it because I am concerned about what's been going on with Kerry (and other Democratic) supporters in this election.

We're doing just what the Limbaugh's, O'Reilly's and Hannity's have been doing for years: taking a statement that really wasn't all that big a deal to begin with and ballooning and lampooning (wow, if only I could throw in "harpooning") it until it becomes some sort of massive indictment of the speaker.

This kind of distortion and hypocricy pissed us all off in the 90s, so it bothers me that we are falling into the same trap today.

Yes, I know that part of the point of Air America in general and the Majority Report in particular (where the clip came from originally, and - I'm sure - the reason anyone on this board ever heard about it in the first place) is to do exactly what I am complaining about: use the Republicans' dirty tricks against them.

I would rather not sink to those tactics, and would rather the country elevated the debate to the real issues. Maybe it's naive to think we could ever climb our way out of this downward spiral, but I don't have to let it go without trying to level it out a bit.

Vote Kerry.

No, he came off as a bigger idiot than I thought he would.

ok, balderdash, good explanation and I see your point.

Bush sounds like a world class dumbfuck when I listen to the clip, but you've made a valid, logical argument.

btw, the point of "giving" sovereignty to Tribes was one of the notions that stuck in my craw. Kinda reminded me of the admin's attitude about Iraq. Certainly is nice of the U.S. to dole out sovereignty!

Oh well, I'll not harp on this with anyone but I will still laugh my ass off whenever I hear it.

I'm sorry but I'm just not buying that because there are all these other things to be concerned with that the guy shouldn't be expected to at least give a rudimentary explanation of what he thought of the idea of sovereignty.

You don't have to be specially breifed to be able to explain your position on that issue, at least in a basic overview.

He gave us no insight, no information, and no understanding in reference to the man's question, except that now we are all going to be pretty well convinced he doesn't either know or care about the situation.

I am totally willing to give deference to the Prez or any official when it comes to getting blindsided by a specific question. If the guy had asked for the President's input on some specific tribe or event or legislation, then it would be perfectly okay to say that he didn't have the chance to research the matter. But to be asked a very general question and not be able to answer it, then compound matters by trying to bluff your way out of having to admit that fact, to me is unacceptable in a senior official.

Yes, we live in uniquely demanding times. That is why I believe it is imperative get the best person we can to lead the country, and that is not a guy who can't even have the presence of mind to simply present a very baseline, but clear answer to a broad question about a very important matter of Federal policy, without requiring a special briefing ahead to prepare for it.

I garuntee that neither Gore nor Kerry would have had a problem providing a simple answer that may not have been long on specifics, but still would have made sense and given us an idea of what their position was on the matter.

To those who say give the man a break, I'm sorry but I ran out of those in the first 100 days. I'm tired of having to give a daily break to the man that is supposed to represent the best we have to offer, and that I have vested my nation's security and welfare in. No, I think it is time we start being a little more demanding of our Commander-in-Chief.

The president is the Chief Executive, and as such has a variety of underlings at his disposal to keep him abreast of issues at hand. It seems to me that given his past record of being an inarticulate boob when not properly coached, there should have been more consultation with the various minority issues experts in the administration before an appearance before the minority reporters of the country. These questions should have been anticipated, and appropriate strategies for answer or obfuscation developed.

The Republican Party can not be perceived as uncaring of minority issues if it is going to seriously court the minority vote. Not meeting with the NAACP, referring to Native American sovriegnty as something that is "given" and therefore could be "taken away", touting the "No child left behind" doctrine, which has had questionable success, as a cornerstone for outreach, all smack of lipservice to minority groups in America.

I don't give a shit how much the President has on his mind, if he isn't prepared to speak before a sector of the American people in an intelligent manner, he has marginalized them. If a factory worker in Ohio wants to know the wage difference between jobs "outsourced" and jobs "created", the President should have an answer. I would hold any President to this standard.

Give him a break? How about give ME a break. If the Chief Executive of IBM or Coca Cola tried this approach, or asked for a break because they had a lot on their plate, they would be on the street.

When has Kerry given a simple answer to anything? It takes him 30min to describe what he ate for breakfast.

Everyone is missing the reason why this question was asked in the first place. The tribe's relationship with the United States is complicated for two reasons. The Tribes were granted a 'mini' soveriegnty upon their relocations but the courts declared them dependant domestic nations. They are indeed a nation within the US borders, however, they are under executive branch jurisdiction, hence the Secretary of the Interior position. Congress decided to butt in on the commerce action by amending the constitution in order to give them control of any farming and marketing that came out of the tribes so the president can't deal with the tribes without getting congressional approval. This is a huge responsibility still for the US government and it doesn't show ignorance on Bush's part, but an extreme amount of uncaring that he doesn't have a clue how he is supposed to relate with the tribes in a government capacity.

I actually studied Native American law for a semester in law school and have no idea what you are talking about. What amendment is it that has anything to do with Congressional jurisidiction over Native American affairs?

(Bump)

No, really. I'm curious to know what you are referring to. I'm pretty sure there is no amendment on this, but maybe you are thinking about a specific piece of legislation?