Post Politics Hour

washingtonpost.com's Daily Politics Discussion

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, June 22, 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.

____________________

washingtonpost.com: John Harris will be online momentarily. We apologize for the delay.

_______________________

College Park, Ga: It is incredible to me the way the GOP has everyone singing their redux of a hit single "They Don't Have a Plan". One of the best things, in my humble opinion, about the Democratic Party is the diversity of people and ideas that make it up. GOPers seem to sound off in unison daily, even when the issue they defend (Iraq) is nearly indefensible. They claim Dems want to "cut and run". How is it that redeployment, bringing OUR troops home, gets such negative criticism and press?

John F. Harris: Hello, and my apologies for an unavoidable delay this morning.

It is indeed a battle of slogans on Capitol Hill: "Cut and Run" versus "No Plan and No End."

My own view is that Republicans remain in the more vulnerable political position, based on polls that consistently show opposition to President Bush and the war. The cut-and-run argument may still have potency, but it is essentially defensive politics--an attempt to minimize a significant political problem.

_______________________

Louisville, Ky: Who are the "some" that, as Shailagh Murray and Charles Babington claim, feel John McCain and Hillary Clinton are frontrunners for their respective party's presidential nominations?

Please refrain from this ambiguous, unnamed sourcing in the future.

John F. Harris: We in the press are recidivists on this.

My own preference is to avoid the "frontrunner" term, at a time when no votes have been cast and won't be for, let's see, 19 months or so til the first nominating contests.

So I agree with you (I did not edit this piece). That said, the reason we use "frontrunner" is that it is easy shorthand to describe a political reality: Clinton and McCain, both likely candidates, would start in vastly more commanding position than their intraparty rivals in terms of name identification, money (at least in HRC's case, and probably McCain's) and organizational support.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: Why is it assumed by the media that the so-called "disarray" in the Democratic Party regarding Iraq is politically damaging? Poll after poll shows the American people don't agree with the Republican "stay the course" mentality, and would prefer a significant change in policy. Since when is going against the will of the people a political winner?

John F. Harris: I don't make that assumption, though I think you are probably right that this is at least an implicit theme of some coverage.

My own view--and I was just laughed at by colleagues earlier today for saying so--is that most Senate Democrats are voting on the Iraq resolutions based more on their substantive views than on political calculations.

I am not naive. Clearly there is political positioning involved, but I think most are also voting positions they believe. Some Democrats believe in firm timetables for withdrawal and others believe--even if they are very uneasy about the war and an open-ended commitment--that anything like a date-certain is bad policy.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md: Duncan? Duncan? Duncan?

What's the deal, what's the rumors? I hadn't heard a whisper of any health problems before now - he looked fine a bit over a week ago, but that was a crowd.

John F. Harris: I have just heard that Montgomery County, Md. executive Doug Duncan is dropping his bid to be Democratic nominee for governor of Maryland.

I also heard--but have not talked to Metro reporters who are covering so can't offer details--that he is citing health issues.

He also had political problems. Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley seemed to be in the better position to win this intraparty contest.

_______________________

Portland, Ore: Does President Bush's extremely low popularity in Europe affect him in the U.S. at all?

Or is that completely irrelevant to us?

John F. Harris: His unpopularity in Europe has been true for several years.

It did not seem to be much of a factor domestically in 2004, though John Kerry did occasionally cite this as an indication that the United States was losing respect in the world under Bush, and I'm sure many Democrats and independents were sympathetic to this argument. Republicans, countered, that this indicated Bush was looking after U.S. interests rather than being influenced by dissent overseas.

The protests this week did make for a less-than-picture perfect backdrop for his trip there.

_______________________

Brooklyn, NY: Hi John-

I'm shocked that more hasn't been made about Sen. Santorum's claims about finding WMD in Iraq. Is he really right?

Thanks for the chats.

John F. Harris: I do not think his assertion is all he would play it up to be. My understanding is that the "WMD" he is referring to represents old shells with traces of chemical weapons but that are left over from Iraq's war with Iran in 1988.

No one at the White House, CIA, or Pentagon is saying this qualifies as the WMD discovery that they were looking for at the start of the Iraq war.

I think the restrained coverage in the Post and elsewhere is about right based on what we know so far.

_______________________

Portland, Ore: John, I always thought that politics were supposed to end at the borders but after hearing this "cut and run" talk it's pretty clear some in the GOP no longer believe that. Is there any chance that we might finally get a real debate about Iraq or will we be subjected to more partisan talking points and disinformation?

Foreign terrorists seem to be the main thing discussed by the president but the overall lawlessness gripping Iraq and breakdown of central authority seems to be far more troubling. Once again it would seem our politicians are failing us and we are going to be paying a huge price in the future as a result.

John F. Harris: The old line about politics ending at the water's edge has never really been true. Nothing is more divisive than fundamental issues of war and peace. So there were bitter debates in the late 1930s and early 1940s about whether the United States should intervene in Europe, bitter debates during Vietnam, bitter debates now.

The debate going on now involves both partisan talking points and genuine clashes of principle about the right way forward in Iraq, it seems to me.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Harris:

Thank you for doing these chats!!! I was watching Hardball last night and heard both McCain and Biden...

Both sounded "normal" (whatever that is).

Here's my solution to all of the goofy stuff going on with the repubs and dems...

McCain and Biden on the SAME TICKET

John F. Harris: I missed Hardball last night, but I do know what you mean by being struck when politicians appear "normal."

There is often so much artifice in political discourse that politicians often do come across as less than normal, and so it is refreshing to hear someone talk in a way that seems authentic.

Of course, I've been watching politics long enough to realize that most people say they crave authenticity but voters often punish politicians who say controversial things or break from party orthodoxy.

A McCain-Biden ticket would be interesting, but I'm not putting much money down on that prospect.

_______________________

El Segundo, Calif: John, I recently finished your book, "The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House," and found it to be a very fair portrayal. The successes were included with the failures, making if a very satisfying read.

Are you compiling notes to write a similar book on George W. Bush's time in the WH?

John F. Harris: Thanks for the good words about my book. I felt qualified to write such a book about the Clinton presidency because I had covered it for six years for the Post.

I would love to read a great history of the Bush White House, but I do not know enough about this president or the people around him to undertake such a project. You should e-mail my colleagues Peter Baker or Mike Fletcher--who cover the White House for the Post--and urge them to take it on. Also, our new member of the White House team is Mike Abramowitz, formerly an editor who was eager to get back to the reporting trenches. Maybe after some time on the beat he will be ready to write a good Bush book.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Regarding Santorum (and Hoekstra, who chairs the House Intelligence (sic) Committee); that these major politicians are trying to mislead by claiming WMDs were found in Iraq is major news, and deserves a high profile fact-check treatment by the Post. Their "factually accurate but ridiculously misleading" statements were positively Clintonesque.

John F. Harris: We will be writing more about this story and trying to put the assertions in context in tomorrow's Post.

_______________________

Wait a sec...: You suggest that a Congressperson is voting for their principles, and your colleagues laugh at you? And these are the people we're supposed to trust to bring us the news?

This is very distressing.

John F. Harris: Oh, I don't think that distressing. We tend to view government through a very political prism--and often this is exactly the right way to understand motives.

I just think we also have to remember that narrow political calculations are not always dominant. Most people get into politics because they really are motivated by policy and ideological goals, in my experience.

_______________________

Arlington, Va: Thanks for taking my question, Mr Harris.

As Secretary of State Rice prepares to visit S Korea, do you think her strength and courage in handling the threats from North Korea and Iran will help our nation see for themselves how she does not buckle under pressure? If so, is it fair to believe the "draft Condi for president" movement will be more energized for the 2008 race?

John F. Harris: I do not expect there to be a significant "draft Condi" movement in 2008 and I do not expect her to be a presidential candidate.

The draft movements always generate speculation but never actually produce a candidate. And we have to take her at her word, in the absence of any other evidence, that she has any plans to run.

It's possible she might be an intriguing vice presidential candidate, but that's still pretty far off.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: People are not stupid sort of a comment.

I had rather they concentrate on what we did find in Iraq and let people make up their own minds if there was a threat or not. We did capture weapons experts. We did find facilities that had weapons applications - like the beer factory. So why worry about the actual weapons? We did not find them. But the real evidence should make a case one way or the other.

John F. Harris: I agree with you that most voters are pretty smart based on my experience.

I'll pass your comment along for others to see.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: Any thoughts on the Voting Rights Act "rebellion" by Republicans yesterday? Personally, their arguments about language are so tired and zonphobic. I wonder if they thought at all about the implications for their standing in the African American and Hispanic communities taking a hit from this posturing. Or don't they care?

John F. Harris: I found that rebellion on the Voting Rights Act extension quite interesting, because it showed (anew) that the House GOP leadership can not always control its members.

I don't think all opposition to bilingual ballots--one of the issues at stake--is necessarily xenophobic. But I believe the White House and Republican leadership is concerned about the point you raise--a potential backlash against African-American and Hispanic voters.

President Bush and his political strategists have been trying to make inroads into these traditionally Democratic constituencies, and this makes it harder.

_______________________

Chantilly, Va.: I watched Hannity and Colmes yesterday for the first time. Coulter was on and was evasive in her answers as usual (that's if she ever answered.) My question is how come "experts" on some topic become political commentators on shows like these? How can be I invited, so that I can throw out words like "liberal left" and "lunatic right?"

John F. Harris: Ann Coulter gets called many things but usually not evasive in her answers. Her usual tack is to be deliberately inflammatory, to help sell books and generate interest among television bookers.

I don't doubt that there are many trying to match her success. Good luck.

_______________________

New Madrid, Mo: John, Thanks for taking my question; which is, why in the world do the democrats not use Bill Clinton to counter attack Karl Rove? Does Pres. Clinton not want to get involved in this upcoming election or what? He is the only one I can think of that is smarter than Rove in the ways of politics. Go Bill!! Also, when is Jim VandeHei going to answers questions again. We like him a lot in Missouri!!

John F. Harris: Former President Clinton does try to help Democrats with advice, fund-raising, and some public campaigning. But I do not believe he considers it in his interests or Sen. Clinton's interests for him to be overtly partisan, at least not until the closing weeks of a contest.

I don't think he would want to bring the argument down to the level of Clinton v. Rove (though it would be interesting to see.)

Good question on VandeHei. We will page him and ask what he is up to.

I'm going to sign off for now, thanks, and look forward to being back with you in a couple 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. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.