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 National Political Reporter Tom Edsall was online Tuesday, Jan. 10, at 11 a.m. ET .

The transcript follows.

____________________

Washington, D.C.: Tom,

What is the latest buzz in Washington?

Tom Edsall: I am actually in Georgia covering Ralph Reed's race for Lt. Governor, so my knowledge of the Washington Buzz is limited to news stories.

_______________________

Ontario, Calif.: Tom,

Supporters of the administration are attempting to give the President credit for all of the good economic news lately, but I never really hear them say what specific policies Bush has enacted that merit any credit. Do you think the Democrats will start pointing out that the good economy may be in spite of Bush policies, and not because of them?

Thanks!

Tom Edsall: That is a tough case to make. Most voters, when the economy is improving and jobs increasing, credit whoever is in office. Republicans, for example, tried to make the case that Bill Clinton was the beneficiary of Ronald Reagan's tax cuts, largely to no avail

_______________________

George Town, Grand Cayman: I do not seem to perceive any growing, roiling outrage about Bush's domestic spying, the one thing I would have imagined would arouse comprehensive and sustained howls of protest.

Why not?

Tom Edsall: There is some data that the public does not oppose domestic spying on potential terrorist threats. For outrage to emerge, I think there would have to be evidence of privacy invasion of people who have no connections to terrorism. Real anger would emerge if any of the material collected were used for domestic political purposes. That has not been shown, at least so far.

_______________________

Annapolis, Md.: What chance is there of lobbying reform when Congress depends on the big dollars contributed, so the ones who benefit from the current system are the only ones who can change it? Our democracy has become not "one man, one vote" but "one dollar, one vote"

Tom Edsall: If history is any guide, there may well be some forms of lobbyist reforms passed but there will continue to be as much or more money flowing in the system. There are some benefits if new laws increase transparency, but attempts to restrict the influencing of legislators has in the past simply created roadblocks that soon can be driven around.

_______________________

Knoxville, Tenn.: On Sunday's Late Edition on CNN....Wolf Blitzer apparently believed the Rebublican talking points when he tried to tie the Abramoff scandal to the Democrats and Howard Dean corrected the story by informing him that no Democrat had received any money from Jack Abramoff. Wolf looked surprised when Dean had apparently done his homework that the only money that people like Sen. Byron Dorgan had received had been from the Indian tribes mostly before they ever hired Abramoff. Why was Blitzer so ill prepared....he had the deer in the headlight look and quickly ended the segment.

It also seems interesting how almost no one in the media is bothering to explain the "K" street project which is being run by Tom DeLay and Rick Sanctorum as little more than than Mafia-style protection racket being used by the right-wing to make sure they are the only power in the lobbying industry.

Tom Edsall: We will presumably see, as prosecutors continue to pursue the Abramoff inquiry, whether any Democrats are drawn into the net.

Your second point is a good one. The media wrote about the K street project, but I don't think the press, including me, ever conveyed the scope and consequences of the project to the legislative process.

_______________________

Herndon, Va.: Since you are in Ga. right now, how are the Abramoff revelations, Hurting Reed's chances to become governor ?(or indeed secure his own party's nominations). Shouldn't the naked hypocrisy of taking millions from Abramoff Gaming clients to stir up religious based grass roots opposition to rival Casinos be a fatal blow to any politician's career? Or is he managing to "teflon" his way out of the scandal somehow?

Tom Edsall: I don't want to answer your questions and scoop myself

_______________________

Charlotte, N.C.: The AP ran a story that reported Paul Bremer had recommended more troops be sent to Iraq.

According to the piece, Bremer sent a memo to Don Rumsfeld early in the insurgency that recognized the danger posed by the insurgency and recommended more troops - as many as a half million troops - be sent to Iraq to deal with it.

The recommendation was rejected.

Is there anymore reporting on this? Was Bush made aware of this recommendation? Does this jive with Bush's assertion that if more troops were/are needed he would send them? Is Bremer just trying to show his service in Iraq in the best possible light?

Tom Edsall: I think, but am not sure, that the Post is pursuing this matter.

_______________________

Ellicott City, Md.: From the article on the lobbying firm that just closed because of the Abramoff scandal:

"Reports in the press have made it difficult to continue as a lobbying/political entity," Buckham said.

So it is not that they did anything wrong, just the press's fault?

Tom Edsall: Another way to read Buckham's comment is that the content of reports in the press made it difficult for Alexander Strategy to continue.

_______________________

Kensington, Md.: Have the recent scandals succeeded in sweeping the buried Phase II Iraq Intelligence investigation off of the media's radar for good? Does it not matter anymore whether a Commander in Chief manipulated information to dupe the public into supporting a war which is still killing American soldiers and thousands of Iraqis?

Tom Edsall: Good question, and I hope not.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: The demand for big bucks by politicians is largely due to the high cost of television. Yet the airwaves are owned by the people, so this should essentially cost us nothing. The problem is that our government stupidly does not include a holdback of rights when leasing (actually, giving away) the airwaves. If a holdback of rights were included, candidates would have free access to public airwaves and the number one motivation for corruption would be eliminated.

Tom Edsall: Again, a good question. One difficulty with your proposal is that members of Congress are very reluctant to impose a burden on the networks, local television stations and the cable systems, all of which have very well-financed and influential lobbies, not to mention a powerful role in covering campaigns.

_______________________

Portland, Maine: Tom,

I'm not even sure we have a Lt. governor position in Maine. How important is this office in Georgia?

Tom Edsall: The Lt. Governor used to be very powerful, but, with a Democratic incumbent, the Republican State Senate has pared back the office. It is widely viewed as a stepping stone, giving the winner a chance to develop a name statewide and then run for governor or US Senator.

_______________________

Good Economy?: Aggregate growth is meaningless, especially in today's context where almost all of the growth goes to the top 20% of income earners (or inheritors), and the bottom 50% is seeing decline. Out of curiosity, why doesn't the press bother to break out where these fabulous annual growth rates go?

It reminds me of my "gotcha" bit back in college econ, for all the right wingers who had taken Econ 101 and thought they were geniuses. You have two entities, with a population of 100. One has a GDP of $1M and an average per capita income of $10000, the other a GDP of $10 Billion and income of $100M. The first is stagnant, while the second has a 5% growth rate. Which entity is better off?

The first obviously. Huh?! The second is Bill Gates and 99 homeless guys. The point being that aggregate numbers without relative context are utterly meaningless, or even misleading.

Tom Edsall: The issues of social mobility and trends in inequality should be covered much more than they are currently.

_______________________

Sims, N.C.: According to the polling I've seen 56% of people are against domestic spying of any kind, even on suspected terrorists. This conflicts your earlier answer. What data have you seen?

Tom Edsall: I make no claim of expertise, but my impression is that the wording of questions makes a huge difference in the findings. If people are asked if they support or oppose electronic spying on suspected domestic terrorists, the pro numbers are high; if they are asked about blanket electronic eavesdropping that included routine private conversations, the negative numbers go up.

_______________________

Ontario, Calif.: Tom,

Regarding the subject previously raised of Howard Dean's assertion that no Democrat ever received donations from Jack Abramoff. I was under the impression that Hillary Clinton, as well as Tim Johnson, Barbara Mikulski, and Charles Rangel have all pledged to donate Abramoff donations made to their respective campaigns. Have I been misinformed?

Thanks again!

Tom Edsall: In fact, Abramoff himself was not that big a donor. Some of his clients were. I believe that in many cases, the returned money is from clients, primarily Indian tribes with casinos, or seeking casinos.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Hi, Tom,

Thanks for the chat. You wrote, "One difficulty with your proposal is that members of Congress are very reluctant to impose a burden on the networks, local television stations and the cable systems, all of which have very well-financed and influential lobbies, not to mention a powerful role in covering campaigns."

Exactly the point!

I have lived in countries where broadcasters are required to give free time to parties/candidates. It doesn't end corruption. It doesn't end the need to raise money. But it does bring campaign spending a little more down to earth.

But a question; how much campaign spending goes to over-the-air (i.e., licensed by the FCC to use airwaves owned by us) television and radio versus the amount spent on cable, satellite, print and other non-broadcast campaign costs?

Tom Edsall: Most of the money goes to the major networks, but increasing amounts are going to the cable networks, especially on the Republican side, where there has been a determined effort to target key constituencies (watchers of the Golf channel, the Speed (autoracing) channel, etc.

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: If Alito suffers a filibuster, what consequence, if any, do you expect that to have in mid-term elections?

Tom Edsall: If by suffering a filibuster you mean he is defeated by filibuster, one consequence would likely be the intensified mobilization of religious conservatives who have been backing Alito strongly, and view his appointment as an affirmation of their role in the 2004 election. For Democratic Senators running in red (pro-Bush) states, that could be trouble.

The difficulty currently facing opponents of Alito is that his nomination has yet to spark much public interest, pro or con. Interestingly, Alito's well-financed supporters, like Progress for America, have kept a relatively low profile, which, in turn, has helped dampen down the salience to the public. The less public controversy, the harder, in turn, it is for liberal, anti-Alito groups to raise money.

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: Somewhere I read recently that some people think the religious right's influence may be turning into a problem for the Republicans. (Pat Robertson, in particular, is said not to be helping matters.)

You see any evidence?

Tom Edsall: Religious conservatives have helped and hurt the Republican Party ever since the 1980 election, although so far, on balance, the plusses (i.e., wins) outweigh the losses. In 1992, when Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan gave highly publicized "red meat" speeches during prime time at the Republican convention, most political observers believe the costs were higher than the gains to the GOP (Clinton won). Since then, Republicans have given much less prominent roles at heavily covered events to Christian conservatives.

_______________________

Burke, Va.: Ok, I think it is fair that you do not want to scoop yourself. So my questions would be, when we we be able to read your report from Georgia, and will the person's question be answered by your report?

Thanks.

Tom Edsall: I wish I had the power to give you a date. As someone with two stories backed up in the pipeline, I would like to be able to order their publication.

The earlier question will be dealt with in the piece.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: "Supporters of the administration are attempting to give the President credit for all of the good economic news lately..."

Most reasoned observers think that the President has little direct control of the economy. However, the President certainly gets the blame when things are bad. I suppose to is only fair to want some credit for good times.

What is your take? I suspect a smarter person would say "Thanks, but I did not contribute all that much."

Tom Edsall: It will be an interesting event when a president, or any politician for that matter, does not take credit for an improving economy.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Why isn't the media more focused on the politicians who are returning contributions and their misconduct? Returning a contribution has no meaning. If congress can't be bought then casino gaming would be taxed today, is it?

Also, returning a political contribution to a charity is pretty serious hypocrisy. Political campaigns aren't equivalent to charities in any way.

Tom Edsall: You are dead on right. In all these campaign contribution and lobbying controversies, the real issue is what laws did or did not get enacted.

With than, my thanks to everyone for some good tough questions. See you in two weeks

_______________________

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.