Analysis: The White House Shake-up: Real Change, or Mostly Spin?

Washington Post associate editor Robert G. Kaiser was online Friday, April 21, at noon ET to answer questions about recent personnel changes at the White House and whether these moves signify a real shake-up in the administration or merely an outward shift. Chief of Staff Andy Card 's departure was followed by the announcement Wednesday that White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan is resigning and senior adviser Karl Rove will relinquish his role in policy oversight to focus on the 2006 midterm elections.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Kaiser - thank you for doing these chats.

How should Republicans feel about Karl Rove's return to politics full-time? Is there any sense that the second term blunders are the result of having too much on his plate? A lack of focus since Bush isn't running for re-election? Do they feel like he's still an asset? Should they continue to trust his instincts?

Robert G. Kaiser: Hello to all, and thanks for tuning in. We need a better verb--what ARE you doing when you join a chat like this? Chatting, perhaps.

Anyhow, this is a good place to start our discussion. Let's think together about where things stand, broadly speaking. What problem is Bush addressing by making these changes in the White House?

Curiously, I am not sure what he thinks the problem really is. He has been convinced that he has to "do something" to show that he is not oblivious to the fact that he has some of the worst poll numbers ever recorded for a sitting president. He is acknowledging, it seems, that his Republican colleagues are scared stiff, which we know they are.

But is the trying to change his presidency fundamentally? Is he thinking about new ways of doing business himself? We just don't know. And that's my take on the Big Picture. It's fuzzy.

The problem, referred to my many of your questions today, is that Bush is on the verge of lameduckery. He is at serious risk of becoming both a lead weight around Republican necks, and a failed president. He's not there yet; all is not lost on this Friday in April, for sure. But boy is he in trouble.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: So Karl Rove is going to concentrate upon the Congressional campaigns this year. Assuming that any Congressperson wants his advice (example, Vote The Bush-Santorum Team), what issues could the Republicans use that would help Republicans? Today's Fox News poll shows Bush at 33 percent mainly due to drops on Republican support. This is not conducive to running as a Republican, but more to the point of vote for Santorum, your voice in Washington.

Robert G. Kaiser: Good summation of the problem. Many liberals are predicting that Rove will resort to some sorts of dirty tricks, but that's not an analysis, it's an emotional reaction. Or so it seems to me. Is there a trick he, or Bush, can pull out of a hat?

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Is it safe to say the henceforth Karl Rove will be "swift boating" opposition candidates while on the government's payroll?

Robert G. Kaiser: Yes, here's that view. And I didn't mean to suggest that Rove is innocent of such stuff; we know from his record over many years that he is a master of negative politics. He was close to those who promoted the swift boat attack on John Kerry. You'll have to decide if you think that was a dirty trick, but it certainly was effective negative politics.

The problem, as the polls show, is the negative feelings people now have about Bush. The SurveyUSA poll described in E.J. Dionne's column today is startling: only four states in the union record a positive view of our president, and they are not big ones.

We'll link to E.J. here.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Rove's New Mission: Survival , ( Post, April 21, 2006 )

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: Scott McClellan seemed to be trying to keep himself composed during his resignation announcement, and the laughter of President Bush seemed very forced. Yet they seemed genuine in stating intentions to stay friends. What did that moment say?

Robert G. Kaiser: I think the sort of relationship that developed between Bush and McClellan could be described as Bunker Intimacy. You share the bunker together, you inevitably become emotionally connected. That emotion looked genuine to me.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Doesn't a change in Press Secretary provide the highest appearance-to-substance ratio of any possible White House personnel announcement? One can literally change the "face" of the administration this way, while in reality the policy behind the face remains constant. Do you think the press will fall for it, and proceed as if "a new page" has been turned?

Robert G. Kaiser: I'd bet a week's pay that there will be few media stories about a new day in the White House when a new press secretary is named. You are right in my view. As many commentators have written this week, only the president can really change the way this White House works.

_______________________

Portland, Ore.: Why is Karl Rove allowed to work on partisan politics on taxpayer dollars? He should resign and work for the RNC.

Robert G. Kaiser: Well, what about President Bush? Should he be allowed to make all the political trips he makes, week after week, on our nickel?

You know the answer; in America, politics and governance are inseparable. I don't myself consider that a crime against civilization, though I can see the case you are implicitly making. I just don't think there would be any way to enforce the standard you are suggesting, that people on the White House staff can't do politics.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Isn't the President's unpopularity really just a problem for the Congress?

I mean, Bush cannot be un-elected and he can't be impeached. So for him to worry about his approval rating is like him worrying about some else's report card.

Republicans in Congress have to answer for their conduct, not George W. Bush. The country decided that he deserved another term in 2004, and he is required now to do what he sees is right for the country, not what is beneficial to Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for the posting. The real problem, of course, is the danger that for nearly three years, the United States is going to have an ineffective executive branch that lacks the political support to achieve much of anything.

_______________________

California: Greetings from California!

Does Rove's exit from the White House make more sense if one assumes that Rove's testimony to Fitzgerald will result in perjury charges? Doesn't that distance Rove from the White House, and solve the problem of him having a security clearance?

Robert G. Kaiser: Greetings to California!

I disagree with you. Rove's legal problem remains, though we have no idea whether it is still serious. To me it is odd to think he could still be indicted--Fitzgerald has has more than enough time to do that, if he planned to. I don't think the reorganization of White House staff duties has any influence on what will happen next.

_______________________

Lewisberry, Pa.: It's just rearranging the deck chairs on the current USS Ship of State disaster orchestrated by this totally corrupt regime.

Robert G. Kaiser: But what do you REALLY think?

_______________________

Twincities, Minn.: When an administration is driving down a blind alley as this one is and all the president can come up with is play musical chairs with the staff, I am really afraid for this country. So many complex issues, both domestic and international, to deal with but no leadership to solve them, what can citizens like me do? I will vote for change this fall, but I keep fretting that it may be too late (on Iran, on Iraq, on budget deficit etc). Any advice for young people like me?

Robert G. Kaiser: Well, political advice is not something a journalist is comfortable giving. I'd only say this: don't give up. Read, think, talk to your friends, try to come up with ways to participate meaningfully. Popular participation in politics is still quite common, on all sides of the issues. But there's never enough in my view.

_______________________

Veneta, Ore.: If Karl Rove is indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald what role, if any, would he continue to play in Republican politics? He would certainly resign his position in the Bush administration, but would he just move over to the NRC to play a policy/strategy role there?

Robert G. Kaiser: Like Scooter Libby, he would have to disappear at least until put on trial. But I don't want to imply that I think this is likely; I once did, but don't now. Fitzgerald waited too long.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: I think the Dems should be careful what they wish for. I hope they make significant gains in November, but still stay in the minority. Then in 2008, they can ride the Pres and GOPs corruption/unpopularity to a clean sweep of the White House and Congress. Agree?

Robert G. Kaiser: As someone who neither wishes those Dems well or ill, I won't respond to your direct question, but I will use it to raise a slightly different point.

Democrats I've talked to in Washington are thinking about what they would do if they do win either the House or Senate in November. I've heard some of them talking about the need to use majority power in either House as a vehicle for extensive oversight hearings into the Bush administration, something that has been absent for five years. And we see some evidence of Republican anxiety about a proliferation of investigations led by Democrats into the administration's conduct--in Iraq, in the "war on terror," in civil liberties policy at home and so on.

If you look at the Pulitzer Prizes awarded this week, you'll see how rich the target list is for investigations of this kind. I can see how the prospect of them might alarm Republicans.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: This is a semi-related question regarding the criticism of Sec. Rumsfeld by recently retired generals. Why do some people insist that if the generals were serious in their complaints they should have resigned while they were on active duty? I understand how a resignation would have made a stronger statement, but I don't get the suggestion that their complaints are inappropriate without some significant self-sacrifice. If Rumsfeld isn't doing a good job or making good decisions in the opinion of people who've spent a career in the military, one would think their opinions would be worth considering the day before or the day after they retire.

Robert G. Kaiser: Of course well informed opinions can always be useful, but it seems to me that at least some of these generals have decided to try to drive Rumsfeld out of office by mustering their criticisms of him, and implicitly exploiting their status as recent uniformed officers. What if they succeeded? Would it be good for such people to have the power to drive a Defense Secretary out of office? I am dubious, I readily confess.

_______________________

Parkville, Md.: Re: Rove's role

Rove and Co. have been floating the idea that a Democratically controlled congress would very quickly begin investigating the President, and thus should not be allowed to happen.

But isn't there a danger that this argument might energize a significant number of Americans who feel that a serious, adversarial investigation of the Iraq, Katrina and Valerie Plame fiascos is badly needed.

Robert G. Kaiser: Where did Rove float that idea? I confess I just floated it, but I missed him doing so.

Of course you have a point.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: "The real problem, of course, is the danger that for nearly three years, the United States is going to have an ineffective executive branch that lacks the political support to achieve much of anything."

I would submit to you that that is not a problem at all, but a perfect solution.

Robert G. Kaiser: You really think so? America out of action in these troubled times?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Do you think that Bush will start another war or begin a run up to another war to shift the electorate from domestic issues as he did in 2002?

Robert G. Kaiser: Do you think Bush started the war in Afghanistan to "shift the electorate from domestic issues"? I can't buy that.

_______________________

Royersford, Pa.: I guess it comes down to how desperate do you think these guys are? Is there enough that we don't know about that would come out under real investigations that it would prompt Bush/Cheney/Rove to try a really desperate and stupid move, like say attacking Iran? It seems that the "reform" in the WH is just window dressing, mostly changing job titles around, but putting Rove back solely on political dirty tricks (he has only one way of politicking) is a real signal of danger ahead.

Robert G. Kaiser: It's interesting to me how many questioners today raise this possibility. Of course we can't know the answer today, but it seems revealing to me that so much suspicion exists about the motives of our ruling circles. Of course we know that those who share the suspicions are critics or opponents of Bush. But we also know that these now constitute an overwhelming majority of the electorate, since so few Americans now approve of the way the president is doing his job.

I have no more insight than anyone else into whether or not this administration would undertake a new military adventure now as a way to try to salvage its political standing. I do know that to do so would run an enormous risk in numerous different ways.

_______________________

Crawford, Tex.: Mr. Kaiser, interesting your comment,"Republican anxiety about a proliferation of investigations" Bush/Cheney and GOP anxious because there have been abuses of power that need to be checked?

Robert G. Kaiser: Maybe, but more obvious is sheer incompetence, a juicy subject for investigations.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: Thank you for taking questions. I think one of the most cogent criticisms of this White House-- beyond all the obvious stuff--is that they simply don't do policy. Whether it's the prescription drug benefit, the energy policy, faith-based initiatives, or the proposed Social Security "fix", all of these have been designed to reward some favored special interest. It appears that folks give millions in campaign donations and that money gets converted into billions in taxpayer funded subsidies and preferences. Lets think Halliburton here. Do you see any evidence that the administration is actually going to do policy rather than politics?

Robert G. Kaiser: A very good point. After No Child Left Behind and the Medicare drug benefit, it's hard to think of a significant domestic policy initiative by this administration of any real consequence. Social Security reform was never "policy"--the White House never proposed a plan. I think you're on to something significant.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Now that Fox News has measured Bush's approval rating at 33%, will we be seeing man-on-the-street stories on the 23 million Americans who now regret voting for him in '04? Shouldn't the voters be held accountable too?

Robert G. Kaiser: I think disillusioned Bush voters would be a good subject for some serious reporting. I've never much liked "man in the street" stories, I confess.

_______________________

Medina, Ohio: What a short memory you have! Mr. Clinton, with relatives and staff, took many more "political trips" than President Bush. How many did Mrs. Clinton take? Did you complain then?

Robert G. Kaiser: Well, we didn't have these chats then, but I have never been happy as a taxpayer paying for any president using my money for obviously and purely political purposes.

But I'd like to know the basis for your math. Bush has gone on political trips around the U.S. nearly weekly since he became president. Clinton was no slouch; he may have made as many such voyages, but I'd bet the numbers are pretty even.

_______________________

San Diego, Calif.: Hi there. If you were betting on the midterm elections and had to come as close as you could to win, what would you bet?

Thanks!

Robert G. Kaiser: I would probably be wise to avoid this question, since all my close friends and relations have learned that when I make predictions of this kind, they are wrong. Latest example: my confidence, after spending the waning days of the 2004 campaign in Wisconsin, that Kerry would win. He did win Wisconsin, of course; I should have been in Ohio.

So I won't make a prediction, instead I'll offer what we call an analytical framework. The real question is, can Rove and the Republicans make this a seat-by-seat election in which the local issues dominate both House and Senate races? If they can, their chances of holding House and Senate majorities go way up. The electoral map and many other factors, first of all incumbency, favor them

But what if this becomes, like 1974 and 1994, a tidal wave election? I believe this is entirely POSSIBLE, not yet probable. If Bush and the Congressional Republicans are as unpopular (or even more so) than they are today, then the tidal wave will be much more probable.

1974 was predictable because Nixon resigned in humiliation just three months before the election. We aren't likely to have such a clear signal this time; 1994 is more likely to be a relevant model. And in '94 the best political reporters (i.e., David Broder) saw the Republican sweep coming, but only in the final days of October, if memory serves.

So I will predict today that Republican anxieties about a tidal wave sweeping over them will not be allayed until the leaves are turning in Washington next fall, at the very earliest. In all likelihood, they won't be allayed (or confirmed) until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

_______________________

Seaford, N.Y.: For me the real issue in the coming mid-term elections is the War in Iraq and foreign policy. Have the Republicans begun to obfuscate the issue by bringing immigration front and center? Will this be their political strategy for the next six months? It seems to cloud what the nation should really focus on.

Robert G. Kaiser: my own hunch is that there is nowhere to hide from "the war in Iraq and foreign policy." These ARE the biggest issues, and will remain so.

_______________________

Dubuque, Iowa: Re: Boston's observation that "an ineffective executive branch that lacks the political support to achieve much of anything" is "not a problem, but a perfect solution":

I think what I'm hearing is Boston's thought that an ineffective executive branch is preferable by far to one that retains the ability to continue harming the country.

I think I would agree, if three years of accomplishing nothing at all was in itself not harmful.

Robert G. Kaiser: Yes, I understood Boston the same way. But I'm still uncomfortable with the thought that we should welcome an inconsequential America.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: This question has been asked in other chats and so far no adequate answer.

If Rove is going to be working the political side of things (vs. policy) and helping Republicans in the '06 election, why is he on the taxpayers payroll? Seems to me the RNC should be paying his salary, not taxpayers.

Robert G. Kaiser: Hey, I answered that earlier! But not, probably, to your satisfaction.

_______________________

Re: Bethesda/Voter regret: I saw a bumper sticker last week that said "If you voted for Bush, a yellow ribbon won't make up for it." As a military family with strong negative views of the current admin, we concurred heartily with the sentiment.

Robert G. Kaiser: This is a time for creative bumper stickers. Please keep an eye out for them, and post them when you see them.

_______________________

Sewickley, Pa.: I am the wife of an Army officer and I can tell you both my husband and I want change this year not in 2008. We are beyond disgusted with the current policies and believe there is real need for oversight. How will rearranging Mr. Rove's portfolio and sending another press secy out to give the same old talking points save the country from three years of drift?

Robert G. Kaiser: thanks for posting

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: The media seems to be so concerned that Bush "won't be able to get anything done" unless he can get his political capital back. Given what Bush has foisted on our country and what he has said he'd like to do why is the media worried? It seems a weakened Bush for the next two and one half years would be better for America.

Robert G. Kaiser: So a lot of people agree with this point of view. And I do understand it. Personally I'd love to have a competent, efficient, effective American government--but I'm old fashioned.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: Yesterday on Hardball, David Shuster laid out a convincing case the Rove will be indicted for his role in the Valerie Plame case. Moreover, Fitzgerald just finished his work in another case earlier this week, freeing him up, perhaps to work on the Plame case. Do you think that maybe, just maybe that has something to do with Rove's "demotion"? Why can't The Post comment on this in its articles? It's what everyone is thinking.

Robert G. Kaiser: We can't comment on it because we don't KNOW anything about it. This is an important distinction between The Post and most residents of the blogosphere. The absence of facts is determinative in our newsroom; without facts we rarely write stories. Above I've described my inference, and it is only that, that Fitzgerald won't be indicting Rove because he has waited so long to do so, and because we have no reason to believe he can uncover any new basis for an indictment now, since what interested him was already quite ancient history.

Could I be wrong about this? Does a cold beer taste good on a hot day?

_______________________

Indianapolis, Ind.: I just finished reading the Assassin's Gate and I can't imagine a change in faces will make any difference. It's the policies. The inability to admit something isn't working and change plans or (as the book showed) stopping politics trumping policy. Our leaders in Iraq--the military and the civilian--were negligent.

Robert G. Kaiser: It is a very good, and very discouraging, book.

_______________________

Oregon, Ohio: Hi Mr. Kaiser, Do you thing there is any connection, high gas/energy prices and windfall profits and Cheney's secret energy meetings?

Robert G. Kaiser: No

_______________________

Parkville, Md.: "Where did Rove float that idea? "

It was a talking point that numerous Republican pundits were voicing on talk shows a few weeks ago. I can't guarantee that Rove himself was pushing it, but when those coordinated talking points are likely Rove's handiwork, IHMO.

Robert G. Kaiser: Yes, you're right about that. Thanks.

_______________________

Fort Myers, Fla.: John Podesta says that there is more to Rove's demotion than the wish to retain control of Congress. He suggests that the real reason Rove is no longer involved in policy (does anyone actually believe that?) is because Executive Order 12958 required that his security clearance be yanked for outing Valerie Plame.

Your thoughts?

Robert G. Kaiser: I know no reason to think Rove has lost his security clearance. Am I missing something?

_______________________

Minot, N.D.: My state has voted for a Republican for president since 1968, standing for strong leadership. I see the so-called "shake up" as a good way to bring in new blood and new ideas of achieving the policy which got Bush elected again. John Bolten has the experience to become Chief of Staff since he served as deputy for the first term. He knows how to do the job, probably it will be done better than Andy Card, and filibustering of Bush's federal judges will anger the voters. Look at the mess of the judges from Michigan, blocked for years by Debbie Stabenow and Levin? The GANG of 14 has angered more Republican voters against McCain, so do you think that factor might hurt him in the primaries in 2008? If Karl Rove helps the GOP keep the House and Senate, will you give him credit?

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for the post. As I said earlier, the natural terrain of the 2006 election favors Republicans, provided a tidal wave of anti-GOP sentiment does not arise before November. So allocating credit or blame now isn't possible. I'll certainly entertain the idea of congratulating Rove for holding off disaster if that's what happens.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: Mr. Kaiser, with all due respect when I read this over I think that maybe you're campaigning to be the new White House press secretary. First, you tell us Karl Rove won't be indicted. Then you (snarkily) ask a reader: "Do you think Bush started the war in Afghanistan to "shift the electorate from domestic issues"

Why don't you keep the pro-Bush talking points to yourself and try answering the questions?

Robert G. Kaiser: How much does that job pay, I wonder?

Just kidding! If offered the position, I will consider it, and then reject it. Same goes if the Yankees call and ask me to spell Alex Rodriguez for a few games: I'll consider it, but I won't try it.

_______________________

Boynton Beach, Fla.: You've said Fitzgerald let the moment pass, but doesn't this cosmetic step of pushing Rove out of the spotlight portend that there is greater concern about his indictment than the White House is letting on?

Robert G. Kaiser: Of course it could. And the White House might know a lot more about Rove's legal situation than I do, since in fact, I know nothing at all.

_______________________

Effective Government: Could you highlight some of the less political things that the government does? There seem to be a lot of posters that think that a lot of the Bush agenda, if successful, will lead to disaster (think: tax cuts and the old MoveOn commercial).

The only thing I can think of immediately that's not political is disaster response, and it seems that political clout (or lack thereof) was not what held the Executive office back in the Katrina response.

Robert G. Kaiser: There's no time for a long and considered reply to this question, so let's just think about money. Bush inherited a federal government running a surplus, strongly in the black. He quickly put it in the red, and is now guaranteed to leave office with huge debts for his children and all of our grandchildren to pay. Some day this will be seen, I predict, as a pretty dreadful legacy.

_______________________

Toronto, Ontario: Tony Snow's name has been bandied about as a possible replacement for Scott McClellan. There's no doubt he's qualified, but he was also Rush Limbaugh's frequent replacement host, is now a talk radio host of his own, and of course, has been a Fox News host since day one.

Which is to say, I am sure he would be a strong advocate for the White House, but doesn't his track record suggest a hint of antagonism towards the "mainstream media" that might do the White House more harm than good?

Robert G. Kaiser: Tony is a very nice guy, a friendly acquaintance of mine, and an unlikely candidate for enemy of the MSM. I'd be amazed if he wanted this thankless job, but one of the joys of life is constant amazement.

_______________________

Sun Prairie, Wis.: Speaking as someone who deals with the federal government on several levels, it looks to me as if the Bolten-driven changes in the White House promise a notable improvement in the administration as a partner in policy development.

Everyone in the media has been talking about this in relation to Bush's poll numbers and so forth, but every administration is active in a lot of areas that have negligible political implications. Bolten's potential dominance of this activity would make a world of difference compared to the campaign-obsessed Karl Rove.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for the post. Hope you're right.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: In response to Medina, Ohio, isn't it funny how people always try to justify the actions of one President by comparing them to a previous president from a different party. If that were valid, Democrats would secretly be elated with Bush's expansion of executive powers, given the future excesses they could justify by saying "Well Bush did such-and-such."

Robert G. Kaiser: thanks

_______________________

Baltimore Md.: Re the retired generals issue: I don't know about the other five officers, but I know that General Batiste turned down a third star and retired rather than serve under Rumsfeld a minute longer. When a man with 30 years of experience says no the prestige (and considerably larger pension) that comes with a third star, that's a major statement--especially when he's been a combat commander in Iraq, as was Batiste.

Robert G. Kaiser: and thank you.

_______________________

Louisville, Ky.: I think the "changes" are pure spin. In order to see real change we would need to see Rumsfeld and Rove out of the administration and "new blood" brought in. I'd also like to see a thorough, independent investigation into the mistreatment of prisoners and the NSA abuse under this president. Are there any Republicans on the Hill even remotely interested in conducting these investigations?

Robert G. Kaiser: Replying to your last question, yes there are Republicans on the Hill upset by the eavesdropping and other civil rights issues. But I'm not waiting for them to make a big public stink.

_______________________

Yardley, Pa.: From what I have seen so far, if the Democrats do make any advances come November, it will just be by default. Any thoughts on why it is they can't seem to develop a coherent (and united) strategy?

Robert G. Kaiser: You know, I don't think opposition parties in America have ever developed coherent platforms for Congressional elections, and 1994 is not exception. There is much mythology about the "Contract with America" of that year, but very little evidence that it had much effect. The country turned against the Democrats in 1994. Republicans have to fear that it will turn against them this time.

_______________________

La Crosse, Wis.: Seems to me the most apt adjective for Bush these days is "disengaged", or perhaps "unengaged". You look at his response, or lack thereof, to various critical issues, for instance, the immigration debate. Where is Bush? What policy is he really pushing?

Other than getting his SC nominees through recently, Bush has not done one damn thing over the last two years that has required a high profile or some heavy lifting. In other words, spending some of his dwindling political capital.

Any thoughts? Are he and his team just worn down, out of ideas, spent political forces?

Robert G. Kaiser: I agree. Think about Bush's response to Katrina rebuilding and related matters. One of the country's leading cities has been devastated, and the president shrugs it off, makes a few visits and that's it. Whassup? Beats me.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Is there an issue out there that Rove can use to get conservatives to the polls like they used the gay marriage issue in the last election? I really think that will be the tack that is used to help keep Republican control.

Robert G. Kaiser: Of course I don't know, but history shows that you are on to a key point. In '74 Republicans stayed home; in '94 Democrats stayed home. Waning Republican enthusiasm could indeed be the key factor next November.

_______________________

Robert G. Kaiser: Time's up. Thanks to all. I liked the interaction we achieved today, and as always, I liked the intelligence of washingtonpost.com readers.

_______________________

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.