Broder on Politics

Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and Washington Post columnist David S. Broder was online Friday, March 10, at 12:30 p.m. ET to answer your questions about the world of politics, from the latest maneuverings on Capitol Hill to developments in the White House.

Broder has written extensively about primaries, elections, special interests and the business of politics. His books include "Democracy Derailed: The Initiative Movement & the Power of Money," "Behind the Front Page: A Candid Look at How the News Is Made" and "The System: The American Way of Politics at the Breaking Point."

Read today's column: Republican Breakdown , ( Post, March 10, 2006 )

The transcript follows.

____________________

Ellicott City, Md.: Isn't the splitting of the Republican coalition inevitable. I can see a party staying lock-step on a few topics, but to try to keep everyone on the same page for everything is bound to crack-up sooner or later.

On a similar note, why must the Democrats all have one theme for the 2006 cycle, I would think it better to have someone who cares about my interests and not those of some state I don't live in.

David S. Broder: Good day to all of you. The breakup of the Republican coalition may seem inevitable, in retrospect, but it was a long time coming. Throughout President Bush's first term he enjoyed remarkably high levels of support from Republicans in Congress--and in the country. The first year of the second term has been much harder on him--and on his supporters, and the strains are clearly showing now.

As for the Democrats, they certainly can afford their candidates a lot of leeway, but they need some kind of a coherent message to the country from their leadership--and they have not had that so far.

_______________________

Louisville, Ky.: Mr. Broder,

Thank you for participating in these chats. Did Eugene Robinson convince you to join the fray?

Who do you think gained the most from this issue? Democrats flexing some sort of national security muscle? Or Republican scrambling to disassociate themselves with a very unpopular president?

For what it's worth, as a liberal Democrat, I don't like the xenophobic undertones to the whole affair. If we're serious in our goal of modernizing the Middle East, perhaps we should open up our borders as much as we've opened theirs. This could have been a cross-culture feel good story. Instead it's just one more example of American distrust of Arabs.

David S. Broder: Gene Robinson is an esteemed colleague, but he did not lobby me on this chat.

I don't think either party covered itself in glory on the ports issue. It strikes me as an international equivalent of the Schiavo case--a panicky reaction by members of Congress of both parties to a momentary wave of public opinion. The administration can be faulted for its blindness to the situation, but that does not excuse the congressional overreaction--in my opinion.

_______________________

Germantown, Md.: Mr. Broder, do you believe there is any chance Congress will now actually MAKE the changes necessary to secure our ports and borders?

David S. Broder: Securing the ports would be a costly proposition, and Congress has accepted a set of budget decisions from the administration that leave no funds for even such vital tasks as port security. The blunt truth is that the White House and Congress are refusing to tell the American people the cost of the war on terror--or to impose the taxes needed to finance that effort in a serious way.

_______________________

Pasadena, Calif.: A gerrymandering question ... what would it take for districts to be drawn more sensibly, like following postal zip codes? (People are much more likely to know their zip code than know their congressman!) Is this something that will have to be court-ordered someday?

David S. Broder: That is an interesting suggestion, but as things stand, the Supreme Court has been unwilling to define standards for districting--beyond equality of population and the protection of minority rights. The Texas case offers an opportunity for the justices to set additional standards, but the impression from the oral argument last week is that they are unlikely to do so.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: Thank you for taking the time for these chats. As a Republican, I am outraged by the recent actions and rhetoric of members of congress regarding the Dubai ports situation. Opposing this deal is simply ignorant and offensive. Rather than signaling out a foreign owned company from the Middle East, members need to focus on their failure to address port security, which is highly vulnerable. Sometimes Congress acts like a bunch of simpletons. The ramifications of this decision, not only in the Arab world, are going to be severe!

David S. Broder: I can only say amen. You have expressed my view better than I could have done.

_______________________

Seattle, Wash.: Do you think the Administration and their lackeys actually believe the Dubai ports furor has really died, or do they understand that it was the spark that lit a lot of fires they'll be ignoring for the next six months?

David S. Broder: What fires are you referring to? Please expand on your comment.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: I find a major flaw in The Post's editorial today concerning the new line-item veto the President is asking for.

While the Democrats are the minority in Congress, they are still able to get some concessions out of their Republican majority colleagues.

Here's the flaw in The Post's logic: What's to the stop the President from vetoing spending items pushed by Democrats, sending the bill back to Congress for them to decide to agree to his changes, and having the Republican majority simply go along and cut those hard-earned Democratic concessions?

David S. Broder: You make a very good point, in my judgment. That would apply particularly to items in spending bills, I would think.

_______________________

Helena, Mont.: Senator Burns is the only senator mentioned in the Vanity Fair Abramoff interview. Since rumors of his involvement had long been hinted at, isn't this the death knell? Do you see him pulling out of the race or resigning?

David S. Broder: You are better able to judge the political climate in Montana than I can, looking from this distance. I have found no confirmation of the rumors that Senator Burns will pull out of the race or be replaced.

_______________________

Rolla, Mo.: A very basic question on the ports deal, why did the President interject his opinion into a business deal? Would it not have been more appropriate in his position to simply state that his primary concern was to ensure that procedures in place were followed and leave it at that?

David S. Broder: Obviously I cannot speak for the president, but my guess is that he was motivated to comment by his awareness of the major aid the United Arab Emirates have provided to the United States and to our armed forces in the war on terror. The foreign policy implications of breaking this contract are serious--and worthy of attention by the president, in my opinion.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Two different questions: First, why do you think the fact that so many ports are already foreign-owned was lost in this mini-debate? Was this simply a question of anti-Arab sentiment? Second, to what do you attribute the Dems' inability to capitalize on any of this. The GOP is making mistakes left, right and center, and the Dems seem like they are wandering in the wilderness without so much as a map, let alone an agenda? Is Howard Dean and Co. to fault for all of this?

David S. Broder: It is my belief, based on conversations with members of Congress, that the fact this was an Arab company entered into the opposition--and inflamed public opinion on the subject. As for the Democrats, they have failed to give themselves a vehicle for expressing a party position on this or other issues--that's partly the failure of Howard Dean and partly that of the congressional leadership, in my opinion.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: We read a fair amount about how election-year politics are causing Republicans in Congress to distance themselves from President Bush. In your opinion, how much of this is contextual and how much of this is pent-up frustration within the Republican party that reflects genuine displeasure with this administration?

David S. Broder: That is a hard question to judge from the outside. Part of it is contextual, if you mean by that the approach of the mid-term election and the president's lagging support in the polls. But the grievances with the White House--particularly the complaints about lack of consultation--are genuine. They are being heard now because Republicans are no longer afraid of speaking out, but the complaints have been there for a long time.

_______________________

Arizona Bay, Ariz.: Why is this ports deal so shocking to Bush and Co? They've spent every waking hour since 9/11 playing fearmonger and using fear to (unfortunately) control the American public. I say that its good that they get what's coming to them!!

David S. Broder: You may call it fear-mongering, but I think the concern about terrorism is real--and well-justified. But rhetoric unsupported by action is hypocritical, and the failure of the president to ask for any sacrifice from most of us Americans to meet this challenge leaves his words open to suspicion.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: There has been some discussion of an Arab backlash to the decision on the port deal, particularly with regard to supplying our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that is important for people to consider how prudent it was for the US to put itself in a position where it could be potentially extorted by another country, Arab or otherwise.

Also, the DPW company is state-owned by a monarchy. The US government is not allowed to own a for-profit corporation that operates the ports. Why should the Dubai government be permitted to?

David S. Broder: I do not see how, in the real world, the United States can set the rules for other countries when it comes to state ownership of business enterprises. We are a powerful country but no one has appointed us king of the world.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I wonder if the alienation caused by the ports deal is more risky than trusting the Dubai company to operate safely. Someone pointed out that al Qaeda could gain influence over port security the same way that the Mafia gained control of the ports in the early part of the 20th century. However, I doubt that law enforcement and elected officials would be receptive to bribes from al Qaeda in the same way they welcomed funds from the Mafia. What's your view of the risk/benefit on Muslims guarding against Muslim terrorism directed at Americans?

David S. Broder: The assumption in your question is that the company would be responsible for port security. That is not the case, as I understand it. The Coast Guard has to provide port security no matter what the ownership of the cargo-handling company. That does not change.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md: On the failure of Dean and Democratic congressional leadership, I think a lot of Democrats would agree. (Jacob Weisberg in Slate recently compared Pelosi, Reid and Dean to the Three Stooges).

How likely is it that Pelosi and Reid, and for that matter, Dean, are replaced before the November elections? Also, is there any reason that Bill Clinton couldn't take Dean's place?

David S. Broder: I know of no move to replace either of the congressional leaders, and Chairman Dean enjoys broad support from the state chairmen and national committee members.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: I find it amusing that you think the foreign policy implications of the port deal decision will be so disastrous. I think that our invasion of Iraq, continued sabre-rattling towards Iran, and quiet promotion of some eventual conflict with China are probably a little more important than our behavior in this business deal.

David S. Broder: I take your point, and I don't know how to make the comparison you suggest. But this seems to me to be a gratuitous self-inflicted wound.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: David -- I learned recently that my great aunt has a HUUUUGE crush on you...

On to more serious matters: What have you and/or your Post colleagues heard what the AP is reporting, that Interior Secretary Gail Norton is resigning effective today?

David S. Broder: I think I like your great-aunt. I've been busy on other stories and have not caught up with the Gail Norton news.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: Hi, Mr. Broder,

I was in a used book store and picked up a copy of "Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972" by Hunter S. Thompson. Did you ever pay Mr. Thompson off on the primary bets you lost?

Seriously, though, you and some of your chatters might want to read/re-read this book. Amazing the parallels to today: Republicans in power, weak Democratic leadership, campaign in-fighting, "Conventional Wisdom" on frontrunners (then, Muskie, now Hillary Clinton), the list goes on. Not to mention the book is extremely funny.

David S. Broder: The book is extremely funny, and I can join you in recommending it. But it should not be read as nonfiction, since the Good Doctor was hallucinating (with certain stimulus) during much of the campaign. Many of the incidents he recounts--including our bet--never happened.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: I am curious about the role of Sen. Warner in the ports imbroglio. Early on, he appeared on, I believe, Meet the Press and sounded like a grown-up. That is, he clearly understood the importance of the UAE as an ally, as well as the impracticality (and political undesirability) of ruling out commerce with particular nations in the global economy. Later, however, I got the impression that he was involved in brokering the DPW pullout. Do you have any sense of what really happened? As a Virginian, I was pleased with his initial stance; I'd be disappointed to know that he was involved in engineering the outcome we now have.

David S. Broder: My impression--and I have not discussed this directly with Senator Warner as yet--is that he was working steadily right up to the end to find some way to preserve the deal--or at least to hold off congressional action to undo it. I believe it was the White House that signaled to Dubai that the fight was lost and thereby precipitated the pullout by the company.

_______________________

Simpsonville, S.C.: I just want to comment on the Line Item Veto bill legislation that is being proposed. I do not think in practice it will turn out the way the president thinks.

Here in South Carolina, our Governor can line item veto budget items. Last year, he vetoed 106 items, and the legislature overrode 104 of those vetoes the next day. We are strictly Republican here, but the legislature is more united in bringing home the bacon than in standing firm on party issues.

I am just wondering if this bill does get passed and Congress gets used to overriding vetoes, if in the long run it weakens the office of the President like it does the Governor down here.

David S. Broder: You make an interesting point--one that I have not considered. I do not know what the pattern would be at the federal level, but the risk you raise is certainly one to be considered.

_______________________

Seattle, Wash.: On the fake "Coast Gaurd will provide security" argument - the reality is that a good terrorist group, from my experience in counter-terrorism ops, will infiltrate the company to get operational details of how the security is implemented, and use that to attack thru the weak spots. Which is why no one in their right mind thinks five percent screening of port cargo will stop a terrorist attack.

David S. Broder: I am no security expert, but it seems to me that if we are seriously worried about port security, increasing the level of inspections is a surer way to cope than trying to control indirectly through personnel practices.

_______________________

Nashville, Tenn.: The financial costs of the war in Iraq are steadily climbing. In real terms, they are greater than the costs of Vietnam. Do you think that the increasing costs will cause Republican and Democrat members of Congress to urge a pull-out closer to the 2006 elections?

David S. Broder: The pressures for a pullout probably stem more from the casualties in the war and the sense of stalemate than from the financial costs. But the dynamic is changing month by month, and I do not know where it will be by November.

_______________________

Anonymous: You said, "Securing the ports would be a costly proposition"....like say more or less than $246 billion?

David S. Broder: I don't know what the cost would be, but since we're talking about labor-intensive work, I would think the manpower required would be expensive.

_______________________

Boca Raton, Fla.: Mr. Broder,

First, I thoroughly enjoy reading your columns in The Washington Post.

As a Republican, I voted for the President in the first election because he convinced me that he would be able to unite Republicans and Democrats to get things accomplished.

He clearly has failed to do this and I am wondering what went awry? Perhaps you have some thoughts on the subject.

David S. Broder: I think many things went awry, but one of them was his reaction to the switch in party control of the Senate after Senator Jeffords of Vermont went from being a Republican to being an Independent who caucused with the Democrats. That made Tom Daschle the majority leader for a time, and Bush took that as a signal that bipartisanship--of the kind he had enjoyed on the No Child Left Behind Act and the first round of tax cuts would not be available. From that point on, he built his majorities almost exclusively among Republicans, and negotiations with the Democrats essentially came to an end.

_______________________

Denver, Colo.: This administration's approach towards Congress has been one more of dominance than open communication and I think as they lose power that approach is coming back to bite them. What if instead, they had worked with and consulted Congress in a meaningful way from the beginning?

David S. Broder: That is an intriguing question, which the historians will probably ask. It is rather late in the game for a president to reverse course, so I am not holding my breath that it will happen.

I have to go back to work now, but I have enjoyed this chat. I will see you in a couple weeks. Dave Broder

_______________________

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.