A Reality Check from My Readers

In yesterday's column, I asked you readers to weigh in on the assertion by an unnamed White House aide in this Jim Hoagland column that the war on terror requires an unfettered president, and that the American public "understands and supports that unpleasant reality, whatever the media and intellectuals say."

I asked: Is that an accurate analysis of the situation on the ground? Is there a silent majority out there that understands and supports the need for a strongman in the White House? Is this White House -- so often accused of making up its own reality -- in this case actually more in touch with the "unpleasant reality" of post-9/11 America than the media and intellectuals?

You can read all of the responses here. I excerpt some highlights below.

I encouraged responses particularly from those of you who support Bush, live in red states, or think you have some insights into the mindset of Bush supporters. Most of the posts came from people in the latter two categories, so take it all with a grain of salt.

But there were a lot of interesting points made -- many of which you don't hear very often inside the Beltway -- about why some Americans do indeed seem ready to support Bush pretty much no matter how much executive power he asserts.

In the broadest strokes, you described a segment of the population less concerned about Washington obsessions like policy and the separation of powers -- and more influenced by Bush's Christianity, fear of terrorism, and an aversion to questioning authority.

This experiment in having you guys write my column wasn't perfect. Our message boards are clunky. And my column didn't go up until very late yesterday because of problems at the Web site.

But I'd be willing to try this again. So, what question should I ask next? Ideally, it would not be a purely rhetorical one, but rather one that would elicit valuable observations or suggestions from your fellow readers.

E-mail me at froomkin@washingtonpost.com. (And please forgive me for not replying personally, my e-mail has gotten a little overwhelming.)

But First, a Few Links

---

In his Washington Post opinion column, David Ignatius writes from Dubai with the real story of why Dubai Ports World decided to sell off its U.S. operations to an American owner, sparing Bush more humiliation:

"Officials here heard late Thursday that Karl Rove had decided to pull the plug. President Bush's political adviser was said to have conveyed to a top manager of Dubai Ports World in Washington that the White House couldn't hold out any longer against congressional pressure to kill the Arab company's plan to acquire freight terminals at six U.S. ports. The initial response of one Dubai executive was: 'Who's Karl Rove?' But in the end, political leaders here recognized that it was time to fold a losing hand."

Peter Baker writes in The Washington Post: "Now, with his poll numbers in a political ditch, the port debacle has contributed to a perception of weakness that has liberated Republicans who once would never have dared cross Bush."