Post Politics Hour
washingtonpost.com's Daily Politics Discussion

John F. Harris
Washington Post National Political Editor
Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:00 AM

Don't want to miss out on the latest in politics? Start each day with 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, May 25, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest in political news.

Political analysis from Post reporters and interviews with top newsmakers. Listen live on Washington Post Radio or subscribe to a podcast of the show.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Bath, Maine: Do you think the time is ripe for the emergence of a third party on the national scene? If so, what would they have to do be successful?Michael T.

John F. Harris: Good morning. Sorry to be late signing on.

This is a parlor game question that I've often played. My view is that American politics historically is not receptive to influential third parties, particularly in recent decades.

It has episodically been receptive to independent candidacies, most famously Ross Perot in 1992. At the state level, you had Gov. Jesse Ventura in Minnesota. These independent candidacies have not usually grown into durable party movements.

Independent candidacies usually thrive at a time of general disalienation from conventional politics, when the traditional parties are not seen as responding effectively to problems.

That seems like a common attitude among many voters, so perhaps there will be an opening in 2008 for a strong independent candidacy.

My guess is that it would not emerge until later, perhaps in the spring of 2008, after voters have had a chance to see the leading Democratic and Republican candidates in action.

_______________________

Annapolis, Md: What do you think the chances are of Al Gore making a run for president in 2008?

John F. Harris: I happen to think they are high....But my hunch goes against the available evidence--including Gore's insistence that he does not want or plan to run.

But I think a man with very strong views who has twice before run for president before--especially given the agonizing circumstances of 2000--is going to find it hard to resist the entreaties from some in his party to wage a candidacy.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va: Why won't anyone hold Cheney's feet to the fire and ask him what he knows about the Plame matter? Do you see it as a threat to democracy that we have a vice president who refuses to answer questions from the American people regarding his activities?

John F. Harris: He can be asked--and has been and will be--but like President Bush, Karl Rove and others at the White House they tend to take refuge in the familiar "we won't answer because it's under investigation" dodge.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa: Speaker Denny Hastert: Is he, or isn't he under investigation in the Abramoff scandal? DOJ says no, but ABC News, which broke the story, hasn't issued a retraction, and is therefore standing by its reporting. What's the story?

John F. Harris: I am also confused on this point, and, not knowing the particulars of ABC's reporting, which relied on unidentified sources, am not yet in any position to sort it out. DOJ did issue a pretty emphatic statement that Hastert is not under investigation.

I want to learn more from my own newsroom colleagues who have been making inquiries, but for the moment it seems that Hastert is not ensnared--or at least not in consequential ways--in the Abramoff investigation.

_______________________

New Hampshire: Thanks for taking my question, Mr. Harris!

I read David Broder's piece on Hillary Clinton and was shocked to find that he did not cover the very detailed speech she made with regard to energy and her ideas for getting us weaned off oil. I found her speech very interesting, indeed. Instead he focused on what she wore and the titillating piece in the NYT focusing on the Clinton's marriage. Just what do you think that the NYT and Mr. Broder are thinking?

We are a nation deeply divided and engaged in 2 wars that are going badly, our government officials are involved in very real corruption and crimes, real people are in an economic crisis, etc. Why bring up the Clinton's private lives? Will the MSM cover the Bush's private lives next week? Enquiring minds want to know......

John F. Harris: There are lots of questions on this theme this morning.

It's not my job to comment on NYX stories, and David's columns run on the editorial page and Washington Post syndicate, so they are not edited by me. We'll post the column about Hillary Clinton to which you are referring.

David does come on line regularly, so next time he's here you can ask him directly.

I will say that the questions he was raising seemed motivated not by prurient interest in their private lives but the political implications of the widespread public curiosity about their partnership. As someone who covered the Clinton White House, I can testify that I am often asked about both the personal and political dimensions of this partnership.

As far as the details of her speech, the Post did write a full story in the news section by my colleague Dan Balz, on the substance of what she is recommending about energy.

We'll post that as well.

_______________________

San Jose, Calif: you wrote earlier about "disalienation." Does that show your pro-Bush bias? You know, making up new words in place of old school, liberal words like "alienation?"

John F. Harris: That's funny. I often cringe when I see these transcripts, since they get posted in real time without editing(in some cases, like today, while I am having conversations with colleagues trying to plan our news coverage for the day.) I believe I should have chosen between disaffection or alienation, rather than try to merge the two.

Let's see if my impromptu new word--like Warren Harding's "normalcy," which did not exist until he stumbled over a line in a speech--catches on.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: The Shadow of a Marriage , (Broder, May 25, 2006); Clinton Lays Out Energy Plan , (May 24, 2006)

John F. Harris: here are the links.

_______________________

New York, NY: Will there be a shake-up in the WH communications office?

John F. Harris: Well, there has already been a shake-up, obviously, on the most visible part of the White House's communications operation, with Tony Snow's arrival as press secretary.

I've heard that White House communications director Nicole Devonish Wallace, who seems to be very well-respected by colleagues and reporters alike, is probably not likely to stay in her post indefinitely, but I think any change there would be a normal transition rather than part of a "shake-up."

_______________________

Rockville, Md: Dodge city?

"the familiar "we won't answer because it's under investigation" dodge."

OK. But is it legal or even reasonable to do so?

John F. Harris: I think it is politically convenient for politicians to use this dodge, and probably in many cases it is legally sensible for them to avoid comment.

What grates on me is that often that comment is invoked in a way to suggest that someone is under legal obligation not to comment, when in fact what they are saying is that they would prefer not to answer reasonable and relevant questions.

Politicians, like everyone else, are free not to answer any question, but public officials should also be judged and held accountable for their non-answers.

_______________________

Washington, DC: I trust, in the interests of fairness and completeness, that the Post, the Times, and Broder are all working on detailed pieces regarding the marital relations of the Republicans running for President. At the same time, perhaps we'll learn what the unmarried Bush cabinet members do behind closed bedroom doors and with whom. American journalism is a complete joke.

John F. Harris: I gave my view of this in an earlier answer, but there are enough comments and questions along these lines that I'll post this as a representative example.

_______________________

Seattle, Wash: Most of us are waiting for a Gore/Barak or Gore/Clinton ticket actually. However, when do you think the Post will get a Purple State Blogger, to present the moderate viewpoint that is missing from the political debate, which is dominated by radical neocons and fiscally-conservative Dems?

John F. Harris: Who is most of us?

In any event, those would both be intriguing tickets.

It's a good time to remind people that the opinion bloggers on the site work for washingtonpost.com, and are not part of the Washington Post's newsroom operation.

All of us who do these 11 a.m. chats work for the news side of the Post.

_______________________

Detroit. Mich.: In the interest of politics and consitutional arguments aside, in the wake of Abramoff and congressional ethics, is it really wise for Hastert and Pelosi to be asserting congressional privilege regarding FBI searches? If you are an average everyday American that translates to "congress is above the law" and hiding something and only doing this to protect itself.

John F. Harris: They would both seem to be quite sincere in wanting to protect their institution's constitutional prerogatives.

My colleague Chuck Lane wrote an article this morning making clear the complexities of this separation of powers issue. We'll post that.

I have heard from a lot of liberals who note that Republicans in Congress seem more attentive to their own civil liberties issues than to the issues raised by the surveillance and detainee controversies.

_______________________

Portland, Ore: Is there any national significance to the re-election of Mayor Nagin in New Orleans?

Does Katrina still linger in national politics anywhere?

John F. Harris: I don't discern national significance to Nagin's victory, though perhaps there is such significance that has not occurred to me.

As far as the national echo from Katrina, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and others have signaled that they plan to keep invoking the episode to make a larger point about administration competence.

We'll see if it works. Polls suggest for now that Iraq remains the dominant issue nationally.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Breach Was More of the Spirit, Not the Letter, of the Constitution , (May 25, 2006)

John F. Harris: here's that link.

_______________________

Lyme, Conn.: I have found Chris Dodd to be an intelligent straight talker who I always thought would make a good President and probably a good candidate with his straight talking mannerisms. Yet, as he seems to be thinking about actually running, do you see a scenario where he rises from this large pact and can win?

John F. Harris: Dodd did surprise people this week by saying he is considering a presidential run.

He's a formidable politician, and I can see the scenarios where he would be the Democratic nominee, but to be honest they seem remote to me.

It seems likely that Hillary Clinton will start out as the dominant figure in the race, and someone will emerge as the chief alternative to her. There is going to be a LOT of competition to be that alternative.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Who do you think is likely to emerge as the conservative favorite for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination?

John F. Harris: John McCain is now trying his hardest to be the conservative favorite, but to the extent he is not capable of healing the ill will many conservatives felt toward him after his 2000 primary campaign against George W. Bush there will be a niche for someone to make a bid as the favorite of the conservative base. At the moment--and these judgments are necessarily quite tentative--the main contenders for this role would seem to be Sen. George Allen of Virginia and Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.

_______________________

New Paltz, NY: What the heck were the Post editors thinking when they ran that piece on Frist and the gorillas? Was that some kind of weird joke?

John F. Harris: There were also a lot of questions and comments about this piece by Laura Blumenfeld in yesteday's paper. We'll post it.

She's a great writer, and she ran that piece as part of a regular, monthly feature on our Fed Page called "Off Camera." Fed Page editor Maralee Schwartz says the purpose is to give readers "a different look" at familiar Washington figures, shedding light "on what they are like as people."

I thought Laura's piece did exactly that.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Bill Frist: A Doctor at Heart

John F. Harris: here we go.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: You entire news organization seems to be circling the drain, from out of touch op-eds to snotty self important columnists (Kurtz) to an Ombudsman that's anything but. Can your paper survive in the new millennium, if so how?

John F. Harris: Thanks for this day-brightener We expect to survive and prosper by seeking

John F. Harris: to live up to and vindicate old ideals of journalism in a new and fast-changing age. I think we do it conscientiously--if imperfectly--every day, and when we succeed or we fall short we get up the next day and do it again.

The aim of the Washington Post is to cover politics and government as we always have, while trying expand our reach into every forum, not just the print edition. Our efforts on the web, including these daily chats, are a big part of that.

Thanks for checking in today, and please join us again 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.