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 Congressional reporter Shailagh Murray was online Monday, Dec. 19, at 11 a.m. ET .

The transcript follows.

____________________

washingtonpost.com: This chat has been delayed and will begin at 11:25. Thank you for your patience.

_______________________

Shailagh Murray: Hi, sorry for the delayed start, we were watching the President's news conference.

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: Can someone please explain to me where, exactly, Article 2 of the Constitution the President derives the authority to wiretap U.S. citizens? I know you are a congressional reporter, but just curious. What are you hearing about the legislators' reactions from their constituents?

Shailagh Murray: Needless to say, the Constitution does not specifically spell out a right to wiretap. (I'm sure the Founding Fathers would have found "wiretap" a curious word). There are going to be congressional hearings, at least on the Senate side, on the constitutionality of the president's actions. Stay tuned.

_______________________

Beaumont, Tex.: I've been listening to the President's news conference, and he comes across as angry to the point of foaming at the mouth, particularly over questions about his expansion of executive powers--which gives credence to claims that George W. Bush envisions the president, not the people, as the supreme authority of the land.

My questions is this: In listening to the reporters, why does no one press him on the reasons for going to war? He has admitted that the intelligence underlying the reasons was flawed, but continues to say that going to war was right anyway. Isn't that admitting that he had planned to make war on Iraq no matter what? For those who think that this is all "spilt milk" his past behavior must be weighed as evidence when considering support for his present actions.

Shailagh Murray: I did not view the president's reactions as you did. Yes, he took issue when asked if he is using "unchecked" powers. But he was hardly "foaming at the mouth." As for questions on why we went to war: That ground has been plowed and re-plowed quite a bit, and I'm guessing the reporters are seeking to break new ground where possible, not rework old questions.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Shailagh, I'm a little tired of these pompous White House reporters demanding that the president admit his mistakes, especially TV reporters like Roberts of CBS. Where is the corrections box at CBS? Where do they go on air at night and admit their mistakes? Reporters constantly have a double standard. You have to admit a mistake. We don't.

Shailagh Murray: Thanks for writing.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: From how I understand things, Bush intentionally broke a law. He told us he broke it. And he told us he'll continue to break it. Is it any more complicated than that?

Shailagh Murray: The president has said that what he did was legal and constitutional. He strongly defended his actions again this morning.

_______________________

Severna Park, Md.: In your article today about the budget negotiations over the weekend, you reference the defense bill, which will now include John McCain's language repudiating torture of prisoners. I was told on the weekend that the actual language in the bill cites the Army field manual as the guideline for the treatment of prisoners. And I was also told that the Pentagon has already reclassified that document so that its contents will not be known--or knowable. Is this accurate? This administration has classified SO MUCH--Is there any way for the average interested American to read the language of bills before the Congress, or to know what (currently, historically) is being re-classified to a level which eliminates public access? Thanks.

Shailagh Murray: Sen. McCain told reporters last week that the language of his amendment will be the guiding authority on interrogation limits. That is, no matter what the Field Manual says, interrogators will be violating the law if they employ "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" techniques.

_______________________

Skaneateles, N.Y.: Maybe this is too obvious but, if the President has decided that he can eavesdrop on anyone at anytime for any reason, why do we need a Patriot Act?

Shailagh Murray: A number of lawmakers have raised similar questions. In the next few days, Congress must deal with the Patriot Act one way or another -- either renewing it somehow or letting it expire Dec. 31 -- and the president's use of the NSA will undoubtedly play a role in that debate.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: At some point, Americans need to decide what values will define us as a country. The assault on those values has been our reflexive search security post 9/11 where it seems Americans will tolerate any curtailment of civil liberties as long as it does not affect them personally. Jose Padilla, torture, rendition and now the use of NSA to spy on Americans without a warrant. How far is Congress willing to let this President "push forward" before checking him? Caveat emptor! Next president could be HRC!

Shailagh Murray: I'm seeing a number of questions/comments along these lines. Clearly the president's expanded use of the NSA has struck a nerve in many circles. The length and depth of eventual congressional oversight will be interesting.

_______________________

Arlington, Tex.: I'm surprised we haven't seen more politicians like Dan Burton (R-Ind) defend the president's policy of using the NSA to spy on Americans. I think most people would happily suspend the Bill of Rights and much of the Constitution as long as there is a threat of thousands of people dying from a terrorist attack. We've been told that there are terrorist cells in the U.S. and they could be anywhere and anyone. My civil rights won't do me a bit of good if I'm dead. I'm guessing most Washington insiders correctly perceive the Democratic outrage as dirty politics. Will the rest of the nation agree with them?

Shailagh Murray: I wonder how many of you folks out there agree with Arlington's assertion that "most people would happily suspend the Bill of Rights and much of the Constitution as long as there is a threat of thousands of people dying from a terrorist attack."

comments?

_______________________

Sims, N.C.: Gosh those good right wing Christian Republicans sure upheld the ethics of Christmas this year. Cutting all those programs for the poor to make way for the tax breaks to be bestowed on the rich sure showed their Christian spirit of charity and goodwill. Will you folks in the MSM ever highlight what hypocrites these folks are.

Shailagh Murray: Hasn't the news coverage been fairly thorough? Where did you get the information that formed the basis of your comments? From the "MSM," I'm betting.

_______________________

Albany, N.Y.: Occasionally my son (now a college junior) has had to do papers on modern American history. On occasion he would ask me what things were like during the Nixon administration. I would tell him to look at the Bush administration, and then give some examples.

The recent revelation of surveillance activities brings to mind Nixon's claim that "if the president does it, then it can't be a crime." That theory didn't work very well when he put it into practice.

Shailagh Murray: Has your son read "All the President's Men," by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein? Even after 30 years, it's still a terrific read, and a great history lesson about the Nixon administration. The movie's not bad, either.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Why are so many now saying The Post is taking sides when it sees so "down the middle?" Have the groups grown further apart?

Shailagh Murray: For decades, groups on the left and right have wanted mainstream news organizations to slant coverage their way. I don't think much has changed, except the Internet, blogs, etc., provide more outlets for such efforts.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: It's clear that the White House will try to frame the recent surveillance flap as a debate over whether wire tapping is useful or not. Of course it it, in fact, useful. The issue here is getting taps without ever going to a judge (before or after the fact). Will the media let the White House dodge this issue and re-frame it in different terms?

Shailagh Murray: I thought the president got some pretty good questions on this topic at today's press conference. The press gets to ask the questions. The president gets to answer them. The public gets to take what it can (or what it wants) from the exchanges.

_______________________

Sommersville, Kan.: Is Bush a lame duck? He seems to still be in control, cruising along. And with ANWR stuck into that appropriations bill, it seems he is still able to make mavericks, i.e., John McCain, pay for taking him on.

Shailagh Murray: Is the president a lame duck? Well, the Constitution bars him from running again, so the literal answer is, Yes. As for ANWR drilling, the jury is still out (and I don't believe this is John McCain's big issue at any rate).

_______________________

How many people agree?: Well, sometimes the whole proposition to me seems overly drastic. Do we really have to go so far as to suspend civil rights? Come on. We're not that stupid. Clearly you do not. There are enough tools at hand to do the job. I don't know why we have to cut off our nose to spite our face.

Shailagh Murray: Thanks for writing.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: To respond to Arlington, Texas: suspend my civil rights? NEVER. Do you think the government would smile favorably on forums such as this? I think not. And what about your gun? be prepared to surrender it. To quote Ben Franklin (or Alexander Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson) if a person is willing to give up a little freedom for a little security winds up with neither freedom or security.

Shailagh Murray: I think the quote is generally attributed to Franklin, and he applied it to societies, not individuals, unless I'm mistaken. (and I like the Battle of the Arlingtons).

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: In response to Arlington, I think Ben Franklin said it best, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Shailagh Murray: There we are.

_______________________

La Jolla, Calif.: Can you explain what will happen next with the ANWR drilling addition to the funding bill? is the senate likely to strip it out?

Shailagh Murray: The Senate will consider the defense spending bill this week that includes the oil drilling provision. Democrats will either block the bill or try to use a Senate procedural rule to strip out ANWR. It's way too close to predict the outcome, but Wednesday should be the day of the showdown.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What do you think of Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-AK) use of the Defense Approps Bill to open ANWR for drilling? I'm not sure if I think it's ruthless or brilliant. Certainly it's harball. Do you think the Democrats' charge that Stevens' actions violate Senate tradition/rules is accurate? If so, what will be the fallout of his ANWR tactic?

Shailagh Murray: Ruthless, yes, but only brilliant if it works. As many Democrats would privately agree -- it's not like Ted Stevens invented the tactic of putting items in bills that don't belong there.

_______________________

To Arlington, Tex.: Let me just say that the Constitution provides for the privacy of its citizens and does not allow for that right to be suspended at will. I, for one, will not live my life in fear and turn over my freedom just in case there is another attack like 9/11. Yes, it could happen. I could also die in an automobile crash this afternoon on my way home from work. This country was founded on the principles of freedom and that is VERY important to me.

Shailagh Murray: It's possible that the NSA revelation will be a watershed of the post-Sept. 11 era. I think a lot of lawmakers in both parties were willing to put their concerns aside and give the authorities room to catch the bad guys, but it's pretty clear they don't want that environment to become permanent. At least that's what I've picked up in the past few weeks.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Shailagh,

When I was in high school Civics class, we learned about the "history" of Yellow Journalism. At the time, we had the sense that the media was much more balanced--yes there was right-leaning and left-leaning--but we no longer had national media conglomerates driving an agenda. I would argue that this all came back with Fox News. We now have blatantly partisan "news" shows that have a nationwide reach, just as in the days of Hearst.

Don't you see this as a significant change?

Shailagh Murray: I would argue that our era of "objectivity," now in its last gasps, was an aberration. Europeans like their journalism highly opinionated, and as you point out, that was the norm here too for years. But when people treat facts and opinions -- whether on blogs or cable shows -- as interchangeable, that's alarming.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: You ask, 'I wonder how many of you folks out there agree with Arlington's assertion that "most people would happily suspend the Bill of Rights and much of the Constitution as long as there is a threat of thousands of people dying from a terrorist attack." Comments?'Comment: no, no, no, no, no!!! I could not disagree more strongly with that comment. Our nation's commitment to human rights as an absolute value, imperfect though it has often been, is what makes me proud to be an American; it is what makes this nation great, what makes it worth fighting for, and--yes--dying for. Is there nothing that people such as "Arlington" hold sacred in public life anymore???

Shailagh Murray: Some Arlington responses...

_______________________

Colorado Springs, Colo.: Since 9/11, I've heard the argument many times that the Constitution only works part of the time or it doesn't work when foreign agencies are involved and that is the reason for withdrawing civil rights. It seems to me that the Constitution either works all of the time or it doesn't work at all. We believe in our system or we don't. I find the administration's lack of faith in the Constitution a cause for concern.

Shailagh Murray: another...

_______________________

In Response to Arlington: I think we start being honest about the terrorist threat. If someone truly wants to blow something up they will find a way and no amount of wiretaps or elimination of civil liberties will change that. I value my freedom as much as my life, and I won't trade in freedom for the perception of security. We will never be 100% secure, so I question why we should be 75% free. Freedom and liberty can't be just buzz words or the mainstays of talking points, they have to be embodied in our society for them to truly mean anything and trading in the Bill of Rights in the face of terror means giving up the fight. Giving up our civil liberties is a defeatist attitude.

Shailagh Murray: another...

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: "Most people would happily suspend the Bill of Rights and much of the Constitution as long as there is a threat of thousands of people dying from a terrorist attack."

That's simply outrageous. It's long before we get to that point that we would have failed to be who we are. Ditching the very principles that make us American - that for decades on the international stage have given us the moral high ground, makes me wonder what fight we would be fighting. At that point, it certainly wouldn't be the fight for what the United States stands for.

Shailagh Murray: another...

_______________________

Lawrenceburg, Ky.: In listening to Bush's press conference this morning, I wondered if reporters feel as I do that Bush considers all of so gullible and ignorant that we will somehow come to believe whatever he says - if he repeats it often enough. Why on earth don't reporters ask him substantial questions when they have the opportunity - and why do they most often let him skirt the answers - or refuse to answer at all?

Shailagh Murray: Actually a lot of politicians are robots who repeat the same lines over and over again. It's pretty insufferable. And it makes reporters cynical and perhaps less inclined to ask tough questions.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Just wondering, are the Pombo provisions that messed with the D.C. land swap still in the budget reconciliation conference report? Thanks.

Shailagh Murray: Nope, they were taken out.

_______________________

Charlottesville, Va.: Shailagh,

Thanks for the chat.

I remember being amazed when Roy Blunt inserted his own language into a huge bill just before it was voted on -- way too late (I assume he thought) for folks to debate it. Then more amazed when he was promoted to whip.

Now the President is doing the same sort of thing.

Any chance of the Republicans finding a spine? Is the "I" word in play?

Shailagh Murray: Spine?

Pulllease.

Merry, urr, happy holidays everyone.

_______________________

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.