White House Insider

Washington Post staff writer Jim VandeHei took your questions on the Bush White House and the administration.

A transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

_____________

Chengdu, Sichuan, China: Dear Sir,
I'm a college student in China and am very interested in Sino-U.S relations, so here are some questions:
What degree of importance does the Bush administration attach to the relationship with China? And what does the Bush administration think of China? What principle does the Bush administration follow in dealing with China? Does it see China as an ally or a rival?
Thank you.

Jim VandeHei: That's a lot for a one hour chat. I think a lot of people think U.S-China relations are the most important long-term issue for so many reasons. Not only is China is evolving into a major competitors in a traditional sense with its cheap labor and huge potential markets, it's also sucking up a ton of oil, which could have huge long term ramifications for us. My colleague Glenn Kessler recently reported that the the two nations will engage in more frequent higher level talks, and I think that is the lastest symbol of China's import. For the most part, the U.S. sees China as an ally, especially in trying to deal with North Korea.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: It seems like the press conferences with the spokesperson for the White House are very scripted...why does anyone even go?

Jim VandeHei: Great question. They are scripted and basically useless. I usually don't go. They are, however, useful for TV and papers with less access than ours.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: First of all I want to say how disappointed I am with the news media about not pressing the president about these terrible gas prices we are dealing with. How come we have seen no comments from the White House about these prices and what they are going to do about them? Why are there no comparisons made with the percent difference in rising prices during Mr. Clinton's administration as compared to Mr. Bush's administration?

Jim VandeHei: Great question because the issue that seem to dominate the lives of most people goes largely unaddressed by this White House. First off, Bush would say his energy bill, which has been stuck in the mud of Congress for few years, would help, especially if the big boys can start drilling for oil in Alaska. The truth about ANRW is less clear. We don't how much oil is there, how quickly it would get to the market and whether all or most if it would end up in the tanks of cars here or in China. Energy policy is tough one, and the truth is there is little the government can do in the short term to slash prices dramatically. The most popular solutions are long term in nature, say transitioning to alternative fuels such as hyrdrogen, biodiesel, compressed natural gas, fuel cells, or a combination of all of the above. Some smart people think the Big Project of this administration should not be Social Security - it should be revolutionizing the U.S. energy market. I don't see that happening.

_______________________

Monterey, Calif: Given what I have read about the brutality of the White House political machine and the level of obedience demanded of those who work for this president, I am surprised that there have not been more "tell all" books about the unhealthy and even dark working conditions inside the White House.

Do you know of any on the way?

Jim VandeHei: None in the works that I know of. You have to remember this White House is essentially an oligarchy, so there are only a handful of people who really know what is going on and there is rarely - sometimes it seems like never - and disagreements among the principles. The only tell all-ish book I can point you to is the Price of Loyalty by Paul O'Neill. Most others, say Ari Fleischer's or Karen Hughes', amount to tell all the same things you've been hearing from them for years books.

_______________________

Fort Collins, Colo.: President Bush and Karl Rove must have known that the push to privatize Social Security had a high likelihood of failing. What is their fallback position, or do they think that the changes may be implemented some time in the future and that it will then reorganize the electorate in such a way as to favor Republicans?

Jim VandeHei: The Social Security debate is not going as well as the White House had hoped. It says all it wanted to accomplish by now is to convince america and lawmakers there is a problem that must be fixed. That is not the story they spinning five months ago. They wanted people to think there is a crisis that must be dealt with ASAP and include private accounts. It is true that polls show people paying attention to the debate, which i think is monumentally important one to have, but the president is having a harder time convincing seniors they would not be hurt by the plan and that private accounts are a wise option.
Rule of Thumb: never underestimate this president's ability to bend Congress - especially pliant Republicans - to his will and get something. He did on eduction, taxes, war. But there appears to be firmer opposition to this than I have seen in any of the debates in the past. The next month will tell us whether this DOA or alive, because Congress will start debating it in committee and start looking at the details more seriously. Fall back plan to have bush keep talking about it and take it to the voters in '06.

_______________________

Scottsdale,Ariz.: If Mr. VandeHei cannot portray the Bush meeting with the press pool reporters on Air Force One, why does he not just print the transcript of the questions and Bush answers, and let us decide who is INTROSPECTIVE, and at least get the whole story, not just what Mr. VandeHei characterizes?

Interesting your reporter chooses to ignore completely all the domestic policy answers Bush responded to like energy, Social Security, poll numbers, taking on the tough issues regardless of popularity, etc.

Not a word in Mr. VandeHei's article.

Jim VandeHei: I chose introspective because i have read essentially every interview Bush has given and he was unusually self reflective in this one. we typically don't publish pool reporters verbatim. But that is something to consider in an instance like this - at least put it online so you the reader can see what we the reporters are basing out stories on. As for the other domestic issues, he said nothing new and the key to news is new. thanks

_______________________

Manassas, Va.: I hope that President Bush along with Homeland security took note of the deadly Asian flu virus being accidentally sent to different bio labs around the world.

Do you think that something this critical should call for a full blown Congressional investigation?

Jim VandeHei: I don't know if this is something congress would investigate, but it sure seems like the House and Senate have not done a lot of probing to make sure the U.S. is prepared to A. deal with a deadly outbreak and B. avoid mistakes in doing so. It seems homeland security has faded as an issue, but maybe the recent arrests in N.Y. will change the focus.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: How hard is the Bush regime leaning on Senate Republicans (especially Chafee) to get Bolton into the United Nations?

And is Bush really so dense that he thinks that the Bolton nomination would not signal to the rest of the world that his new found interest in international cooperation is no more than window dressing?

Jim VandeHei: Not very hard. You have to remember that when they leaned too hard on another northeast GOP moderate - Jeffords of Vermont - he bolted the party. presidential pressures can backfire if applied on the wrong person.
The president has a much different view of Bolton. He sees him as a tough guy who can go in shake things up at an institution POTUS thinks needs some serious reform. They knew the combination of Bolton and Wolfowitz would cause a stir, but Bush though it was a risk worth taking. It looks like Bolton will probably survive.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: Is the report that the White House is considering naming Bill Clinton to the White House a Karl Rove trial idea to see if it catches on, or is this something the White House is really seriously considering? What is behind this rumor that has been attributed to Karl Rove?

Jim VandeHei: Have not heard the rumor. Where is it published?

_______________________

Toronto,Canada: Did you find anything surprising in the revelations about President Bush's i-Pod music collection?

Jim VandeHei: As usual, the Bush you hear about in private is a lot like the one you see in public. Bush is country music in some ways, black-and-white, heavy on patriotic themes, so Alan Jackson and Kenny Chesney are no shocker. But "My Sharona?"
Who knew?

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: It seems like in the past year, the White House has completely dropped WMD as the justification for going to war with Iraq, and is now centered on the war in Iraq being a way to help spread democracy in the Middle East. Why don't more reporters press the White House on this?

Jim VandeHei: I think we do. As a matter of fact that was a focus of my story in today's paper. It is amazing: this was once a war about getting rid of weapons and enforcing U.N resolutions. Now it's a battle in what Bush's calls the "global democratic revolution." My how things change, but they do. The president has changed the rationale and his own focus. I think he spends the bulk of his times now trying on this idea of spreading democracy in the Middle East, especially in Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, and Iran. Even Iraq, as an issue and focus, seems to have faded a bit since the election in Iraq.

_______________________

Indianapolis, Ind: While Bush was running for president in 2000 and people were complaining about high gas prices, he said all that was needed to lower prices was for Clinton to get on the phone and jawbone with OPEC. Simple as that. Do you know if Bush has placed that call yet?

Jim VandeHei: We have reminded him of that. Jawboning, if it is happening, ain't working. Oil prices are through the roof and OPEC is doing little to ease the crunch. Politics distorts all issues, but especially this one. All the political solutions, such as tapping the reserves or screaming at the Saudis, don't fix the longer term problem of soaring demand, especially here and in China.

_______________________

Washington D.C.: Why has no one asked Bush about how he only speaks in front of supportive audiences? Isn't that a story?

Jim VandeHei: Again, I ask it all the time, write about it all the time and did a lengthy piece on how phony these events are. The White House claims the events are open, but they admit to silencing vocal critics or trying to keep people from embarrassing the president. Fair enough. but members of Congress have open events all the time and take on the tough questions people have. Social Security is a complex issue that literally affects all of us and I get the sense a growing number of people want to have this debate, they just don't want to rush into solutions. This viewing is coming from Republicans, as well as Democrats.

_______________________

San Antonio, Tex.:
Why is the national media easy on Bush and his boys? It doesn't seem that the media goes after Bush and his boys like they used to go after Clinton and his boys! Why is that?

Jim VandeHei: If i had a dollar for every time I get asked that question, I could retire. I think we at the post are very tough, very factual and very aggressive. One of our chief goals is to hold public officials accountable for what they do and say. We do that, each and every day. I sometimes think we could never do enough to satisfy Bush's critics or his supporters. Clinton did get tough coverage, especially on the Lewinsky issue. But I don't think he was treated more fairly or unfairly than Bush.
One difference in the coverage is there was much more internal dissent in the Clinton White House so it was easier to get information out of them. This White House has earned its reputation as close knit and tight lipped and that makes our job that more challenging. We'll keep pluggin' away.

_______________________

New York, N.Y: Why does the press accept the convenient but inaccurate use by the Bush administration of the word "deficit", which is deceptive and misleading to average Americans? The budget deficit is the total knowable expenditures of the U.S government at the time it is prepared for submission to Congress. Since it was/is known that the estimated deficit is in the $420 billion range plus the "supplemental" of about $80/82 billion for Iraq/Afghan/etc. war expenditures plus about $200 billion in borrowings from the Social Security surplus, why don't journalists use the true definition rather than kowtow to the politically attractive/minimalist definition that Bush prefers to use? It would be considered worthy of an SEC investigation for fraud if a corporation mislead investors this way, which is what all we taxpayers really are in our government. It seems like someone should stand up for clarity and truth, whichever party has control of the White House.

Jim VandeHei: Great question and insight. As a midwestern who was taught that my personal deficit is the money I have minus the money I owe, Washington's math is laughable. You are basically right about the deficit and I think we point it out in most of our budget stories, at least by saying the White House deficit number does include X. For years, both parties have used the surplus in the Social Security trust fund - the amount of money taken in in taxes minus the money paid out in benefits - to mask the actual deficit. Both parties also use different time frames, phase ins and other gimmicks to fool you about true costs. It seems the problem is getting worse but until the public proves it will make politicians pay a price for deficits and funny number games, I am doubtful it will change.

_______________________

Gaithersburg, Md.: I saw expressed in print recently the assertion that Bush acts as president for (maybe) half of America. He ignores the other half; if you don't agree with him, he doesn't want you, doesn't need you. I feel this, myself, acutely.

I know that Bush/Rove seek a "permanent" Republican majority... but that seems to mean further marginalizing those who disagree, rather than broadening the tent of agreement. They seem to want somehow to just erase liberals, gays, civil rights, concerns of the poor -- to make them go away... it makes me deeply afraid for the future. Is this alarmist?

Jim VandeHei: It is true the president's reelection strategy was based on maximizing the turn out of people who agree with him and to lay the ground work for a long term GOP governing majority. Now Rove would say the latter is accomplished by bring new people into the GOP fold, but there is certainly a large chunk of america that tells pollsters they feel alienated by this president. Bush believes he is reaching out by expanding faith-based program, especially in urban areas, reforming schools and reducing taxes. At the same time, the president and even more so congressional republicans want to outlaw gay marriage and enact a series of laws that consumer groups and Democratic critics say help business and the wealthy over the poor. This partly explains why we have a divided nation and toxic atmosphere in D.C.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: If the price of gas is at an all time high, and the reserves are at an all time high, why does this administration not stop filling up the reserves ?

Jim VandeHei: They says it for security reasons. But like I said earlier diverting oil from the reserves to the pump would have only a nominal effect on prices.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: Many have pointed out the very real near-term problems with Medicare and Medicaid. Why hasn't the administration engaged on this rather than the farther-from-the precipice Social Security debate?

Jim VandeHei: The projected financial shortfalls of Medicare alone are far worse than Social Security's, $3.7 trillion over 75 year problem. The White House says it started to deal with Medicare cost with the now famous prescription drug plan because bush says cheaper drugs will lead to healthier patients which will lead to lower health care costs. But the prescription drug benefit alone cost more than the SS's shortfall, so the pill part would have to deliver some medical miracles to heal the program. A lot of lawmakers, including Bill Thomas, chairman of the house ways and means committee, agree with you and think all of these issues, which face the same pressures of an aging society, should be addressed in tandem. So maybe they will. I doubt it. Medicare is much more complicated than SS to fix, many experts say, so SS will be the focus for the next few years.

_______________________

Dale City, Va.: Why was Clinton impeached for his sexual behavior (not mentioned in the Constitution) but Bush has NOT been impeached for signing a law aimed at one person, which is directly in violation of the Constitution? When are the leaders in both parties going to remember that the oath they took was to protect the Constitution, not a particular politician?

Jim VandeHei: The only way to impeach a president is for lawmakers to launch the impeachment process. I have heard of no one in Congress who wants to impeach Bush over the Florida case.

_______________________

Ashland, Mo.: With respect to the president having narrow audiences, why would a person want to exclude supporters from an event solely for the purpose of having critics attend? There are only so many spaces available. Why shouldn't supporters get the tickets as a thank you for their support?

Jim VandeHei: All politicians want to surround themselves with supporters. It's comfortable. I think the gripe from Democrats about bush is he is not dealing with the tough and tricky detail of Social Security and leaving people with a false impression of support at these forums. A lot of the questioners ask extremely fawning questions, though some do get to the meat of the issue. The White House has run into its most serious problems when staffers are tossing out people BEFORE they protest like they did recently in Colorado.

_______________________

Newburgh, Ind.: Since you are one of the reporters vetted for White House access, you are aware of your end of the vetting process. What failed in the Jeff Gannon situation? Or, more to the point, what was twisted to allow it to happen in the first place? And why has the press, in particular, the media in general, dropped this whole issue? We (which is to say y'all) should be using this to lever apart some of the secrecy, misinformation, lies and deceit issuing forth from this administration. Woodward and Bernstein, where are you when we need you (again) - and for the same reasons: lies, cover up, deceit, stonewalling.

Jim VandeHei: What failed was the White House allowed someone to enter the compound under a false name. Some reporters like Gannon can be admitted without going through the full clearance process, which I am currently going through. The issue was dropped for the most part because we could not prove the White House issued him a "hard pass," which requires the extensive background check, and could find no evidence of the White House using him as a plant.

_______________________

Ocean City, Md.: In an early answer in this session, Mr. VandeHei wrote that Paul O'Neill wrote 'The Price of Loyalty'. I may be wrong, but I thought WSJ reporter Ron Suskind wrote it, based partly on lengthy interviews with O'Neill.

Jim VandeHei: You are right. Thanks for pointing that out.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Do people in the White House agree with the Republican Senators' encouragement this week of violence on judges when they do not issue sufficiently conservative rulings on issues important to them? Has anyone asked this at a press conference?

Jim VandeHei: Bush has said he does not agree. He said there should an independent judiciary.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Re: earlier question over press treatment of the Bush Administration -- I would agree that the newsprint media are somewhat better at getting the facts out about controversial issues and, occasionally, going after unscrupulous politicians. But I don't think that can be said of TV. Is it okay for journalists to simply give both sides a chance to speak and not follow up when one side may be telling an outright lie?

Jim VandeHei: You have hit an issue of much journalistic debate. I tend to side with you - we should call a lie, a lie. The facts are the facts and i have no responsibility to print something that is provably false. The he said, she said approach is of little use unless we provide some fact checking and context.

_______________________

Castleton, N.Y.: Is Maureen Dowd being blackballed by the Bush White House?

Jim VandeHei: In a sense, yes. I believe she says she can not get a White House press pass.

_______________________

Jim VandeHei: That's all folks. Thanks for writing in with your questions and reading the response.

_______________________