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.

washingtonpost.com Political Columnist/Blogger Chris Cillizza was online Wednesday, Jan. 4, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest news in politics.

The transcript follows.

____________________

washingtonpost.com: washingtonpost.com Political Columnist/Blogger Chris Cillizza will be filling in for Congressional reporter Charles Babington today. Read Chris Cillizza's column, The Fix, here .

_______________________

Chris Cillizza: Jack Abramoff's plea deal, which was announced yesterday, is sure to dominate the political world for the foreseeable future. Lots of questions sent in on this topic so let's jump in.

_______________________

Medford, Mass.: Re: Abramoff and the Republicans. Jack was a Bush Pioneer and all of his own contributions went solely to Republicans. It seems that some Democrats did receive money from Abramoff clients, but that was a serious minority. Question -- do you see this scandal as hitting the GOP alone or tarnishing everyone and leading to a "throw the bums out," anti-incumbency attitude in the 2006 elections?

Chris Cillizza: Very good question.

There are two competing story lines when it comes to donations lined to Abramoff. While he has strong personal ties to Republicans and only contributed to them from his own pocket, his tribal clients sprinkled donations to Members on both sides of the aisle.

With Republicans in control of all three levers of the federal government it seems more likely that they will bear the brunt of the blowback from the Abramoff scandal. Remember that in the early 1990s, Democrats were thrown from the majority thanks in large part to the House Bank Scandal, which had drawn in many Republicans as well as Democrats.

Perception is reality in politics and that maxim should cause Republicans cause for serious concern.

_______________________

Tallahassee, Fla.: Mr. Abramoff looks like a mix between Sal Gravano and Al Capone, what does his demeanor coming out of the courthouse yesterday say about what he will tell prosecutors? Rumors are flying that numerous Congressman are very worried about what he will say, but what evidence is there to implicate specifics members?

Chris Cillizza: For those interested in Mr. Abramoff's demeanor throughout his terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day, I would refer people to Dana Milbank's outstanding sketch on the matter that appeared in today's Post.

As for whether the Abramoff plea deal has members worried, I would say it absolutely does. Given that the government had Abramoff dead to rights, the fact that they were willing to plea bargain with him seems to indicate that he has some really good information that could lead to major problems for a number of elected officials.

In the documents released yesterday only Ohio Rep. Bob Ney (R) was implicated but most observers see yesterday's documents as simply the tip of the iceberg.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Throughout a City, Lessons of the Fall , ( Post, Jan. 4, 2006 )

_______________________

Des Moines, IA: I would like to request that this Friday's Line include an analysis of who is sweating the most over Abramoff's deal and why, with complete financial breakdowns. You could frame it as the Top 10 most likely to be indicted/face election troubles due to Abramoff naming names. These swine should have a bright light shown upon them.

Chris Cillizza: A very good idea.

The first few seem relatively obvious....Ney, Tom DeLay, California Rep. John Doolittle and Montana Sen. Conrad Burns all have been regularly mentioned as potential targets of the ongoing federal investigation.

How much information Abramoff has on his attempts to influence these members and whether or not there are more members he has strong ties to whose names have yet to be made public are the likely barometers of just how large this scandal will grow.

This story is only just beginning.

_______________________

Des Moines, Iowa: How will the Abramoff case affect the Plame investigation or the other DeLay case, if it affects them at all?

Chris Cillizza: I don't think -- from a legal perspective -- the Abramoff plea has any impact on either Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation or the Tom DeLay case in Texas.

Politically, the confluence of these cases seem certain to complicate Republicans' efforts at holding their majorities in the House and Senate in 2006. At this moment, smart money is still on GOPers to control both chambers in 2006, but depending on how wide-ranging and high-profile the Abramoff scandal grows it could give the Democrats "culture of corruption" argument real saliency in 2006.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Hey Chris, love the Fix. That and the political discussions are must reads for me everyday. Abramoff appears, at least in my mind, an excellent opportunity for the Dems to form a coherent message of ethical misbehavings on the part of the Republicans. Can they pull it off? Who will be the Democratic Newt Gingrich? Or will the Republican spin machine and the general lack of confidence in any party (from the public) be too much of a thorn in the side of Democrats?

Chris Cillizza: Democrats are in an interesting position at the moment. Abramoff's plea deal (and the resultant details on his interactions with Members he is sure to cough up) represent a major window of opportunity for the minority party.

But, if polls are to be believed, while the American public generally think little of Congress, they still hold their own Member in relatively high regard -- a point Republicans make to members of the media on a daily basis.

My sense if that Democrats are not likely to make Abramoff the centerpiece of their 2006 national agenda but rather use him to make the argument that the Republican "culture of corruption" is hurting every day Americans on kitchen table issue like the GOP-passed energy bill or prescription drug benefit.

_______________________

Woodstock, Ga.: With the Congress controlled by Republicans, even though some members in the scandal are Democratic, do you think this will decrease the influence of the conservative agenda in favor of a more mainstream agenda that voters will believe is not tainted by scandal?

Chris Cillizza: I don't think we will be able to make a full-scale assessment of the influence of the Abramoff scandal until after the 2006 election.

The eleven months between now and then will be dedicated to both sides trying to make their case to voters on ethics and corruption issues.

Democrats are sure to paint the corruption problems as widespread within Republican Washington and a sign that a new regime needs to be elected.

Republicans are likely to make the "a few bad apples" argument, noting that the vast majority of their members have no scandals in their past.

That's the great thing about politics though. In November, we will know who is right and who is wrong.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: Congress waiting until the end of the month to reconvene just to try to save Tom DeLay is truly ridiculous. Can you tell us what the latest Congress reconvened in the 20th century was?

Chris Cillizza: Unfortunately, I can't.

But what I can tell you is that regardless of the reasoning behind Congress' decision not to return until the end of the month, the Republican leadership has put themselves into a tight spot when it comes to the Abramoff situation.

As we reported yesterday in The Fix, a number of high-level Republican strategists have been urging the GOP leadership to pass an ethics reform package with teeth for the last few months, in hopes of getting out in front of the Abramoff problems. The leadership has, to date, resisted.

With the House out for the entire month, the GOP leadership must decide whether they can withstand several weeks of negative press coverage about the institution without passing some sort of legislation aimed at showing the American public they are dedicated to cleaning up corruption in Washington. If they decide to come back early to pass a reform package, it could be perceived as reactionary and defensive.

Not a good spot for them at the moment.

_______________________

Amherst, Ohio: Charles, I know what my answer would be but I'm interested in yours. Do you think these Congressmen (especially Hastert) would be giving tainted money back or to "charity" if this hadn't happened? Isn't this the same as a bank robber returning the money and saying "my bad" and not expecting jail time?

Chris Cillizza: Well, I'm not Charles, but I'll do my best.

Politicians are nothing if not survivors, and the avalanche of Members (both Democrats and Republicans) who have vowed to return their donations from Abramoff, his associates and his clients is a sign that the scandal has reached the tipping point where it is no longer viewed as acceptable to keep these contributions.

I would expect even more politicians to return Abramoff money in the coming days, making the calculation that regardless of how much he and his clients donated, it is not worth the political hassle to keep the funds.

_______________________

Charlotte, N.C.: The Republicans had a glimpse of the right idea in 1994. The problem is power corrupts people. The Democratic party would be surely handicapped if they can't pin the Republicans on this. Then again the two parties are the same as far as I am concern catering to special interest over the general population. The American people need a third party that represents them.

Chris Cillizza: The idea of a legitimate third party keeps popping up in these chats and in my conversations with political operatives around the country.

While I think it is unlikely an entirely new party will emerge before the 2006 elections, it is possible that a real third party candidacy (ala Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996) could come into play in the 2008 presidential race.

Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) has to be considered one of the frontrunners for the GOP nomination but should he lose it, he would certainly be a major factor if he decided to pursue a third party bid.

That prospect may simply be the pipe dream of a political junkie (me) fascinated by the prospect of a McCain-George Allen-Hillary Clinton three-way race in 2008, however. McCain has repeatedly said he is a Republican and will not leave the party.

_______________________

Kansas City, Mo.: Wasn't the purpose of the DeLay redistricting in Texas (and Pennsylvania....) to prevent situations like the Abramoff scandal from resulting in a loss of GOP representatives? Even if the public is really upset, are there that many districts that could flip?

Chris Cillizza: There's no question that the last round of redistricting in 2001 largely shored up incumbents of both parties. If you need an example, check out California where less than 10 percent of its 53 members have even a remote chance of losing a re-election bid.

BUT, as the GOP tidal wave in 1994 showed, just because districts have been drawn to favor one party over the other does not mean that in a nationalized election major gains can't be made.

In 1994, a number of placeholder Republican candidates were elected to Congress in Democratic-leaning seats simply because they were in the right place at the right time. What Republicans did well in that election is make sure they had a challenger who could walk and chew gum against almost every Democrat who sat in an even somewhat marginal seat.

Democrats seem to be trying to pursue a similar philosophy this time around though until all of the filing deadlines across the country close we won't know the extent of the playing field.

_______________________

Chris Cillizza: That's all I have time for today folks. Thanks for letting me fill in and thanks for all the questions.

Until the next chat,

Chris

_______________________

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.