Post Politics Hour

washingtonpost.com's Daily Politics Discussion

Don't want to miss out on the latest buzz in politics? Start each day at wonk central: The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and Congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.

Washington Post White House reporter Peter Baker was online Tuesday, Oct. 4, at noon ET .

Please note: Today's discussion has been moved from 11 a.m. to noon ET.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Peter Baker: Good afternoon everyone. Sorry for the delay in today's chat. Just got back from the president's news conference, which as most of you probably saw was dominated by questions on Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Harriet. So this should be a fun session. Let's get started.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: While much of the discussion surrounding the nomination of Ms. Miers seems to be centered on the President wishing to avoid another political battle, I would ask whether it might be something else?

Possibly, it's just that the President is a man who goes by his gut instinct based on a personal feeling about people and he feels free in his second term to go with his gut.

Or has he learned that listening to the zealots among his staff have brought him nothing but grief (Iraq, Social Security, FEMA dismemberment, etc.) ?

Peter Baker: This is a good question. It's hard to say how much President Bush was motivated by the desire to avoid a fight and how much of it was his relationship with Harriet Miers. He would certainly say it was the latter. But when he was asked today whether he wanted to avoid a fight, he basically ducked the question and said the question of whether there will be a fight is up to the Democrats.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Hi Peter, Thank you for today's article on Ms. Miers, I found it very helpful. I am curious about one thing, though. After FEMA's disastrous response to Katrina, and the revelation that FEMA's chief was utterly inexperienced, isn't it somewhat politically dangerous for the President to nominate a candidate with little judicial experience? The subheading on every article I've seen so far is "Miers has no experience as judge." Isn't this something that the Democrats could take a stand on, linking it to Katrina and the recent FDA nomination blooper? Or is it more politically dangerous to nominate a candidate with a record of stated positions?

Peter Baker: It is a particularly volatile moment to be picking someone who's a longtime friend for such a critical position. Perhaps the most searing political moment for Bush following the hurricane was when he patted Michael Brown on the back and declared, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." On Miers, the White House gambled that they could tough their way through the predictable cronyism criticism. But it does seem to open an avenue of attack for Democrats on something other than ideology, unless they decide Miers is the best they could expect from Bush.

_______________________

Albany, N.Y.: Apparently President Bush declined to say today whether he wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Although this is not the first time he has declined to state a position on the issue, would you agree that his silence on the issue while so many conservatives are outraged over his nomination is particularly noteworthy?

Peter Baker: It was certainly noteworthy. He described himself, as he has in the past, as a "pro-life president" but declined to state a position on Roe v. Wade. This may be to avoid inflaming the abortion rights folks, particularly in the Senate, while trying to reassure conservatives at the same time that he's one of them. But I think you're right that some conservatives see that as unnecessary wiggling when they would prefer a forthright, principled statement on the virtues, or lack thereof, of the Roe decision.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Most of the criticism of Miers seems to be coming from the Republican party. It seems like the President keeps good control over his party, but there's a lot of pressure on party and they've lost Delay, a major uniter. Do you see Republican Congresspeople reacting to these issues and becoming fragmented, or sticking together against adversity?

Peter Baker: It's easier to keep a party unified when things are going well. For the Republicans, as my colleague Dan Balz smartly observed the other day, bad news seems to be coming in bunches now. The DeLay indictments, the Abramoff investigation, the Frist investigation, the president's problems with Iraq, Katrina and gas prices, all of which adds up to a moment of great frustrate, and enormous risk, for the party. That's when fingers begin to point and alliances begin to fracture.

_______________________

Lexington, Ky.: I have been struck by the vigor of the conservatives' disappointment at the nomination. They seem to want Bush to "beat his chest" and nominate a known conservative. If Ms. Miers is a true conservative, and otherwise competent for the job, why is she not acceptable? Why must it be an "in your face" nomination?

Peter Baker: A lot of this comes back to the conservative disappointment in past Republican nominees. Remember that seven of the nine current justices were appointed by Republican presidents, but several of them have turned out to be far more liberal than expected. The most obvious example is John Paul Stevens, who was appointed by Gerald Ford but today is probably the most liberal member of the court. Coming up close behind him is David Souter, appointed by President Bush's father and a source of great distress among rueful conservatives. So many conservatives want someone who is more open about their values, not someone they have to accept on faith.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Does the fact that Harriet Miers was on a list submitted by Harry Reid to the President pretty much mean that Democrats aren't going to filibuster or seriously block her nomination? If they do, wouldn't that give the President a free pass to ignore their suggestions in the future?

Peter Baker: A lot of liberals, including some Democratic senators, are asking that same question today. Some are quite upset at Reid for seeming to give a pass to Miers before the process begins. Even if Reid now says his comments do not commit him to voting yes, it will be only that much harder for Democrats to turn around and try to make a case against a nominee who was, in effect, suggested by their own leader.`

_______________________

Follow-up: If the Republican party might fragment during a difficult time, could it happen over Miers? They seem to united to splinter over something as big as a Supreme Court nomination, unless Miers turns out to be, say, pro-choice.

Peter Baker: Ultimately the White House is banking on the idea that conservatives have nowhere else to go and they're trying to sell their supporters on the notion that Bush deserves the benefit of the doubt. So the open question is this: Do conservatives grouse, but eventually march in line, or does this brush fire spread? Remember fiscal conservatives are pretty upset at the moment as well with Bush's open-wallet post-Katrina spending plans.

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: It seems like I heard somewhere during the Roberts nomination that back in the old days Presidents often nominated people who lacked judicial experience for the Supreme Court (Senators, etc.) Are you aware of a recent trend of Presidents only nominating judges for the job? Do you see one necessarily better than the other?

Peter Baker: You're exactly right. Going back in history, quite a few Supreme Court justices -- the White House says about one in three, but I haven't gone back to count -- were not judges. Some had been senators, cabinet secretaries, governors or even in one case president (William Howard Taft). Since 1930, at least 14 justices had no previous judicial experience; half of them had served in the administrations of the presidents who nominated them. But this has become rarer in the modern era. In fact, since 1971, no one has gone on the court without having served as a court first. In part that's because there are many more federal appeals court judges these days, and therefore a larger bench to choose from.

_______________________

Lebanon, Ohio: Too many soft questions from the Washington Press Corps suggesting that Bush remains in control and Alpha Male in Washington. The questions of Iraq, Federal involvement in the Katrina - Rita, etc. were not effectively asked - there is no guts in our press corps.

Question: why wasn't the President asked about the arrest of the administration's top procurement, David Safavian, and Safavian's obstructing justice. Why can't the Press Corps confront Bush with real issues?

Peter Baker: Ouch. Sorry you felt that way. There's a balance in asking questions at a presidential press conference between being tough and being respectful. I thought most of the questions were pretty tough, even if politely rendered, asking the president about cronyism on the Supreme Court, failures in hurricane relief, troubles in Iraq, his faltering domestic agenda and the CIA leak case. None of those are questions he would have chosen to answer. You're right, though, that the Safavian question would have been a good one to ask and it's too bad it wasn't.

_______________________

Albany, N.Y.: Given the republican division over the nomination might Democrats be able to defeat it if they united in opposition and thereby deliver a serious blow to the Bush presidency

Peter Baker: It seems unlikely. Many Democrats would tell you there's been little evidence so far that they can mount an effective, unified effort on virtually any issue -- see Iraq, where some say get out and others reject that, or for that matter John Roberts, where the Senate Democrats split precisely down the middle, 22 for and 22 against. They were relatively together in opposing Bush on Social Security, but even there, it was really the unease among Republicans that sank it in Congress, rather than Democratic opposition.

_______________________

Brooklyn, N.Y.: Is there any way that the President could have nominated a candidate who -did- have a paper trail? With this nomination and with the last, a lot of criticism was raised regarding the mystery of the candidate's positions. But if the conservatives demand a hard-liner and Democrats threaten to filibuster anyone farther right than moderate, was there any alternative?

Peter Baker: Fair question. Presidents these days seem practically allergic to the idea of nominating anyone with a long track record that can be scrutinized these days. That's a hangover from the failed nomination of Robert Bork, whose extensive writings were mined to great effect by liberal critics.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: I think it's interesting how many commentators, law school professors, and other "experts" have said that, by nominating Harriet Miers, President Bush has lost his chance to appoint a legal heavyweight and establish a legacy of conservative Supreme Court. President Bush certainly knows Miers' views and abilities well, and has said throughout his presidency that he wants to nominate justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Since one of President Bush's hallmarks has always been to say what he means and do what he says, I wonder why people are so willing, in the absence of any real knowledge about Miers, to assume that she is not exactly the type of nominee President Bush has said he was seeking.

Peter Baker: Again, go back to the answer regarding Souter. No one wants to trust. But Bush's defenders point out that his nominees to lower courts have been remarkably consistent with his judicial philosophy and that therefore the base should give him more credit that he knows what he's doing.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: A lot of people have been talking about past precedent in regards to nominees without judicial experience. But has there ever been a nominee with no real experience at all with the Court? Rehnquist may not have been a judge, but he was a clerk and had a significant background in Constitutional Law. Miers didn't even do Law Review.

Peter Baker: You're right that the question is not just whether she was a judge but whether she has any background at all in the sorts of constitutional issues that would confront her on the court. As a longtime lawyer, Miers did mostly commercial litigation and corporate work for clients such as Walt Disney and Microsoft. John Roberts hadn't been a judge for long but the difference is that his private legal work centered substantially on the broader constitutional arena. You're right, of course, that Rehnquist had more familiarity with that area as well, even though he had not been a judge. But the model the White House is pointing to is Lewis Powell, who was appointed by Richard Nixon to the high court at the same time as Rehnquist and had been a Richmond school board chairman, Virginia bar president and practicing lawyer without much constitutional background.

_______________________

Bloomington, Ill.: I think the choice of Miers might get Bush's evangelical based pretty mad. They believe (rightly or wrongly) that they got him re-elected and have openly demanded their agenda be pushed. Miers is not their first, second or third choice for the high court. I expect a lot of pressure to be placed on Republican Senators, who are facing re-election on '06, to reject her. If that happens it will be interesting to see if the Dems then support Miers to frustrate the conservative right.

In any event, I think people will be watching Miers' confirmation hearings a lot closer than they did for Roberts'.

Peter Baker: They probably will, you're right, for a couple reasons: 1) The Roberts-for-Rehnquist swap in theory at least does not move the court ideologically, while Miers if she really is as conservative as Bush and Vice President Cheney are promising would shift the balance in replacing the more centrist Sandra Day O'Connor. And 2) Miers does not have the experience that Roberts did as a Supreme Court practitioner accustomed to high profile hearings with tough questions to answer. In Washington at least, she has been a completely behind-the-scenes player. Her performance before the klieg lights of the Senate Judiciary Committee could really be pivotal.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Were you surprised there wasn't a broader question asked today at the Presidential news conference about the ethical and legal problems currently facing the President's political party? I know specific questions were asked about his aides' role in the Valerie Plame case, but nothing was asked about his confidence in the overall leadership of his party or the faith he has in his party's immediate or long-term future. Given the recent indictments of Tom DeLay and the investigation into Senator Frist's stock sales, the conventional wisdom seems to be that a cloud hangs over the GOP. Would a question along those lines have been appropriate, and were you surprised it never came?

Peter Baker: Yes, that would have been a good question and it's too bad no one asked it. We usually get just an hour's notice before these news conferences and reporters don't coordinate questions with each other, so there are almost always gaps in what gets asked.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: I have a question about the role of the Chief Justice. People said that when John Roberts was nominated for it, that the stakes were higher. Why is the Chief Justice more important than any other spot on the court? It is still one of nine votes. I know that he decides who writes opinions, but that's only if he's in the majority, and William Rehnquist voted in the dissent on several social issues. So what does the Chief Justice do that has a direct impact on the public other than his vote on a case?

Peter Baker: The chief has only one vote, same as the others, but he does have the opportunity to set a tone and direction for the court and he does have some important, if limited tools at his disposal. The main one is that when he is in the majority he assigns the writing of the opinion or even keep it for himself, meaning he can shape the extent and contours of the most important rulings. He also runs the conference, makes the first decisions on agendas and is the chief administrator not only for the Supreme Court but for the judiciary as a whole. He also appoints the judges who decide on secret intelligence wiretaps, and has a few other powers such as this. But in terms of ideology, many believe the O'Connor seat is actually more important at this point.

_______________________

Hong Kong: It seems like Miers' career was substantially helped by her connection to Bush, not just now but at several steps along the way. It also seems like everybody around Bush knows that he likes to have an army of sycophants around him. It doesn't seem that difficult to picture a person in her position realizing this and continuing to tell him everything that he wanted to hear.

Bush says that she shares his philosophy but how can he really be sure. It seems to me like there is a very decent likelihood that she spent her career saying whatever was necessary to keep her job. Without the threat of retribution, her true views might be very different

Peter Baker: That's what makes many people nervous -- it's a lifetime appointment and no one will be her boss. Once you're on the court, barring some impeachable offense, you're on forever with no accountability but your own conscience.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: The questions in these Bush press conferences are too mild, or, as you said, "respectful" - I saw once on TV a British reporter say that Bush would not last five minutes of questions like the Q and A sessions that Blair has to hold regularly. Imagine if Bush had to answer questions from the Democrats and Liberals in Congress! At press conferences Bush chooses which reporters ask what questions...

Peter Baker: I've watched a lot of those prime minister Q-and-A sessions in Britain and you're right, they're invigorating. The intellectual challenge of facing tough questions and having to defend your views is surely good for a leader and for a country. We try to fulfill that function in American society as best we can. It's our responsibility to ask tough questions and it's up to readers like you to tell us when we fail. But I don't think we want to go down the route of cable show shout-a-thons in the Rose Garden.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Has anyone ever rejected an offer by the President to be a Supreme Court Justice? I know it's probably every lawyer's dream but I have to say, I'm not envying Miers right now - she didn't go to an Ivy League School, she's never been a judge...she's going to be getting some tough questions soon and I'm thinking if I were her, I might think, "Is it worth it?"

Peter Baker: Once a president gets to the point of formally making an offer, his staff has usually made sure the answer will be yes. But there have been candidates who signaled earlier in the process that they did not want the job, including Mario Cuomo during Clinton's time. Abe Fortas flatly told Lyndon Johnson no, but LBJ then virtually dragooned him into doing it by announcing it as a fait accompli at a news conference. Given Fortas's later scandals and resignation in disgrace, maybe LBJ should have listened.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: On the balance between tough and respectful questions by the press corps isn't that balance supposed to be a function of the respect earned by the occupant of the White House? When the President can look the press in the eye and say with a straight face that he never talked with the nominee about abortion in all their years together the press corps' obligation to keeping that balance should shift dramatically to the tough, otherwise they are simply the enablers that they are rightly accused of being.

Peter Baker: Part of the issue is that we're a conglomeration of reporters with different interests and we don't always do a good job of following up each other's questions. If there were a single interviewer, that journalist could do a better job of pushing the president on his answers. But in the format of the press conference, it doesn't work that way. Everyone shows up with his or her hastily scribbled question instead of listening to the flow of discussion and asking new questions spontaneously to follow up on what has already been said.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Why is The Post giving the NY Time's reporter Judith Miller a "free ride' and not questioning her on (what her lawyer now freely admits) "the other source" to her story? Why is The Post content to let the blame lie with Scooter Libby rather than aggressively pursuing the other people who leaked information?

Peter Baker: I don't think we're giving anyone a free ride. In fact, we have an extensive story today on page A3 headlined "Lawyer Casts Blame on Reporter for Time in Jail" highlighting Libby's lawyer's statements that Judy Miller was released from her confidentiality pledge a year ago.

_______________________

Peter Baker: Boy, lots of great questions, many of them tough, most of them respectful. Thanks so much for playing today. Make sure to tune in tomorrow at 11 a.m. for our congressional correspondent Chuck Babington. Have a great day.

_______________________

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.