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 editor John F. Harris was online Thursday, Feb. 2, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest in political news.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Denver, Colo.: Do you think that eventually the Congressional inquiry on NSA warrantless wiretaps will be able to review the Justice Department's legal justifications for those warrantless wiretaps? If not, what would be the administration's argument for withholding the Justice Department documents from Congress? It seems to me that ultimately the legality of warrantless wiretaps will be determined by legal review rather than political posturing.

John F. Harris: Good morning.

You raise a critical question: how much information will the administration try to restrict from Congress as the legislative branch begins its review of the administration's warrantless surveillance program?

To me, this will be a test of how much lawmakers of both parties are willing to fight for legislative prerogatives in a showdown with the executive branch. Often during the Bush administration, GOP legislators have let partisan loyalty trump efforts to investigate or demand accountability from from a Republican administration.

This has been a frustration to many Democrats, who rightly cite the long number of congressional investigations carried out by Republicans into the Clinton administration. But, as the minority party, Democrats have not been able to do much about it.

This case may raise issues important enough that lawmakers of both parties really press the case. Your guess seems sensible--in a constitutional conflict of this sort, the Supreme Court may get the last word.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Good morning. Can you tell me and other readers how Cindy Sheehan can be ejected from the State of the Union address and arrested, but Congressman Bill Young's wife, also ejected, apparently argued a lot with the police, calling them an "idiot" but was NOT arrested. Doesn't this unequal treatment by the police demonstrate a very obvious violation of the 14th Amendment, which requires equal treatment under the law, independent of the messages and political contacts of the alleged violators? And that is without even commenting on the further travesty of violating the Constitutional First Amendment which insures and protects free speech/expression by all citizens. Thank you.

John F. Harris: A fair number of questions and comments are already up on this matter today, not surprisingly. It seems like the Capitol Hill police chief has, in a de facto, way basically embraced your view. The case against Sheehan has been dropped.

Let's get out host to post the link to a story this morning by Post reporter Petula Dvorak.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: The Capitol's Tempest in a T-Shirt , ( Post,Feb. 2, 2006 )

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this morning's Post story about the T-shirt incident, and saw Congressman Gainer's quote about how it would have been okay if just Sheehan had been ejected, on account of the fact that he disagrees with her politics. Kind of a chilling stance for an elected official to take, isn't it?

John F. Harris: There are a dozen or so comments on this theme in the que Your view is a common one this morning.

_______________________

Columbia, Md.: I realize you work on the news side and my question deals with the editorial/opinion side of the newspaper, but since this political cartoon issue has reared his head today, I thought it might be an appropriate question.

Tom Toles created a deeply offensive editorial cartoon which was published by The Washington Post making light of injuries suffered by our military. This prompted a rare letter from all the members of the Joint Chief of Staffs condemning the cartoon. Did you feel that cartoon went over the line? I realize it is not part of the news section of the paper, but doesn't; this type of cartoon diminish the stature of a newspaper that considers itself respectable?

John F. Harris: You are correct in pointing out that I do not have anything to do with editorial page decisions. The controversy itself was considered newsworthy, so my colleague Howard Kurtz, who covers the news media, wrote about it this morning.

I'll ask for the link.

For my part, I can certainly understand why people were offended, but I did not think Toles was out of bounds. I did not see him as denigrating injured combat veterans. I thought he was leveling a criticism of the Pentagon leadership. It was barbed, but that's the nature of political cartoons.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Joint Chiefs Fire At Toles Cartoon On Strained Army , ( Post, Feb. 2, 2006 )

_______________________

Burlington, Vt.: Why do reporters and editors so often confuse advocacy of greater political aggressiveness with ideology? One can be a moderate ideologically and advocate tough political tactics and vice versa, but the two are so often equated in the political coverage. See Jim VandeHei recent article on Democrats and Alito, or the political coverage of Howard Dean over the last three years.

John F. Harris: I take your point, and Howard Dean has often said the same thing.

As a practical matter, it seems to me, that activists who advocate the more combative approach are often also promoting the more ideologically robust approach.

Democratic moderates emphasize the need to win independents and even pick off some wavering Republicans, and many of them believe a less combative, less ideologically driven approach is the way to do that.

But, as I said, I agree with you that we should be alert to not automatically equate the two.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: Two questions:

(1) I don't understand why banning lobbyists from the Congressional gym is such a big issue. Could you explain that?

(2) Now that a study has shown that, on average, Abramoff's clients gave 9% less to Democrats and 135% more to Republicans after they hired Abramoff, will the Post consider writing a retraction of the claim that "Abramoff directed money to Republican law makers." If that's too much to ask, how about a prominent article, possibly from the Ombudsman, discussing this in greater detail? Frankly, the way this has been handled so far smacks strongly of "truthiness".

John F. Harris: Hello Rochester, which is my hometown.

1. I saw this as more of a gesture, rather than a big substantive step. I think Jon Weisman's story this morning reflected that.

2. Uggh. I am weary of this topic. To me it has always seemed obvious that the Abramoff uproar was principally a Republican scandal, and it's entirely possible it will in the end be exclusively a Republican scandal in terms of people implicated in wrongdoing. But everything I know from the reporters involved makes plain that both documents and tribe members indicate that Abramoff did direct his clients to give money to some Democrats. That's the reason the Democrats have given back what they regard as tainted money.

Here's a link to a statement by Post editors on this (I played no role in its drafting.)

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/2006/01/Abramoff_covera.html

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Abramoff Coverage by The Post

_______________________

College Park, Md.: How are non-combat deaths in Iraq reported? For example, this morning five combat deaths were reported by The Post. But there was no mention of suicide or heat related deaths (which I assume happen fairly often). How does The Post handle the additional numbers? Where can I find an accurate count with cause of death? Thanks.

John F. Harris: I don't know much about this, but I know people who do.

This is from Josh White, one of our Pentagon reporters:

" believe the Post includes non-combat deaths in the total count of U.S. fatalities in the war, which would include vehicle accidents, suicides, illness related, etc. The individual deaths can also be found on www.defenselink.mil -- the Pentagon's official Web site -- and icasualties.org is another good resource."

_______________________

Maplewood, Minn.: Would you describe President Bush's State of the Union address as a great speech or the greatest speech ever given?

John F. Harris: I'm guessing this poster is a fan, like me, of Comedy Central newsman Stephen Colbert, who asks congressmen in interviews whether Bush is a great president or the greatest of all time.

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/videos/district/index.jhtml

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I'm no Bush fan, but what were the Democrats thinking when they cheered the failure to do anything with Social Security? We can't even come up with a plan, except for repeating that private accounts are bad, and we cheer failure? How long before we see this in a Rove directed political ad?

John F. Harris: I follow your point, but I'd be surprised if there were many Bush or Republican ads soon emphasizing Social Security.

Remember, the reason President Bush's Social Security plan went nowhere last year was because it also made many Republicans nervous.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: The Colbert Report

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Facts for friction?

Not all that long ago the critics of papers said they were too long on opinion and the reporters just pushed their own liberal views. (Few wondered what they ran into that made them that way.) But now it is all a matter of facts and (heaven forbid) if someone makes one slip they are demanded to repent and suffer shame. "Fire the ..." Or show up on Oprah to suffer in public.

What goes? How do you cope with it?

John F. Harris: I'm not certain I know from what perspective you are writing, but that's okay.

I've said before on these chats that, until recent years, reporters were much more likely to get criticism from the right for being "liberally biased." I think the news media can make a lot of errors, but I never thought liberal bias was at the top of the list.

Lately, we are more frequently criticized from the left, or at least from an anti-Bush perspective. There's a widespread belief that the press has not done enough to hold the administration accountable.

I tend to stay away from the argument in abstract and prefer to discuss specific instances of coverage.

I don't mind criticism, though don't enjoy when it comes with personal insults or lots of assertions about the alleged motives of reporters.

I believe our job on the news side is to report facts and analyze them intelligently and fairly. Most reporters I know are happy to hear arguments that we are falling short.

_______________________

Orono, Maine: Why hasn't the media hit President Bush harder on the fact that the country remains so politically divided deep into his watch? Remember, as a presidential candidate in 2000, candidate Bush made one basic promise: he would end the partisan war in Washington and get things done.

Obviously, that hasn't happened. The fact that the country is so deeply divided six years into the Bush regime seem like a major flaw in his presidency. And yet, he's basically gotten a free pass on this issue.

John F. Harris: He has acknowledged that he has failed to "change the tone," as he pledged in 2000, but places blame on congressional Democrats.

From my vantage point, his own leadership style--which has aimed to exploit Democratic vulnerabilities on the national security issue and is not particularly prone to splitting the difference with the opposition party--has played an important role.

Either way, looking at why the capital culture has become more combative and sour over six years is an important theme that we have covered some and merits even more coverage.

_______________________

Dover, Del.: It seems to me that the media missed a key question in its coverage of the recent confirmation hearing of Justice Alito. In the 21st Century - and given the deeply partisan nature of this country - is it still wise to appoint Supreme Court Justices for life? I'm beginning to think that it's not.

I understand that the point of a lifetime appointment is that the court is supposed to be above political influences. But so is the Fed, and its chairman isn't appointed for life. Instead, he or she is given a 10-year term - a period considered sufficient to ensure that he or she won't be influenced by short-term political considerations. It seems to me that we could accomplish the same thing on the court with 20-year appointments.

This may all be a pipe-dream, but it makes sense to me. Given the current debate about judicial activism and the role of the court in shaping society, do you think that Congress will eventually have the stomach to revisit this issue?

John F. Harris: In my view, you have accurately assessed your proposal for a Constitutional change as a pipe dream.

It is true that, in an age when so many things have become polarized and partisan, people do not see the Supreme Court as above politics. I just don't see how this idea, whatever its merits, would get translated in a successful amendment.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I think Paul Krugman's strongest criticisms are those he levels against the press and its reporting. His points are picked up as satire by Colbert and others.

You say, "I believe our job on the news side is to report facts and analyze them intelligently and fairly." Please explain what you mean by "fairly." It is merely "he said, she said?"

John F. Harris: No. That is not our role.

It is a very common criticism that journalistic conventions about objectivity and fairness require us to put truth and falsehood on an equal plane. "Republicans praised the sunny day, but Democrats asserted it is really raining."

I think the criticism sometimes has validity. We should state the facts and truth as plainly as we can report it, not take refuge behind "he said/she said." Is it raining, or not?

But it is also true that we in the press are not a High Court of Truth. Many things that seem self-evidently true to partisans on one side do not look that way to others. So this gives us an obligation to present divergent points of view, and acknowledge that information information is fragmentary and the "truth" is subject to many interpretations. That is what I mean by fairness.

That sounds kind of earnest, I know, but it is my view.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Re the T-shirt "scandal," everyone ought to calm down a bit. Both Cindy Sheehan and the wife of a conservative Republican Congressman were ejected for wearing t-shirts with messages with diametrically opposite content. Doesn't that show pretty dramatically that this was not content-based discrimination. I didn't see how each of the ladies conducted themselves with the police, so I can't say why one was arrested and the other wasn't, but two clues are: (1) Sheehan has tried to get herself arrested on numerous occasions as a form of protest and (2) Capitol police are (I'm just guessing here) disinclined to arrest spouses of Congressmen unless they have no choice.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for Congress require a bit of decorum, including appropriate attire, in its audience. But it looks like they're caving under pressure, so those who think that a T-shirt with a catchy slogan is always in good taste should be pleased.

John F. Harris: Here's another perspective on the T-shirt issue.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: "change the tone,"

The President did not do the work he should have done. He should have spent much more time with Democrats, especially leaders.

John F. Harris: Here's a comment on the civility issue. And another to follow.

_______________________

Re: why Congress so partisan: Could the answer be that the Democrats don't know how to handle not having control over any branches of government? For when was the last time that happened to the Dems. So much effort is on placing blame on Bush for the partisan behavior, but the Dems really don't seem to know how to be the minority party, and it carries over into the way they help govern, or lack of.

John F. Harris: Republicans often make this point--that they got treated roughly when Democrats were in power on Capitol Hill.

In the end, it was this sense of insurgency that Gingrich tapped in 1994 to come to power.

The fact that the partisan balance is so close tends to raise the stakes on every dispute, so that is one reason things are so combative, in comparison to earlier eras (the 50s and early 1960s) when there was more bipartisanship in Congress.

_______________________

Takoma Park, Md.: Mr. Harris, what has become of the these Political Chats of The Washington Post. They seem to be right out of a Michael Moore movie. Unfortunately, I might have to stop tuning in. Keep up the good work.

John F. Harris: As I have noted, a lot of the energy in recent weeks has come from partisans on the left, who have various general grievances against the media and specific ones at the Post.

But the cycle always turns.

We on the political staff enjoy doing these chats--and prefer to get a wide variety of perspectives.

Thanks for checking in, and please come back tomorrow.

_______________________

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. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.