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 White House reporter Michael Abramowitz was online Tuesday, June 27, at 11 a.m. ET .

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.

____________________

Michael Abramowitz: Good morning everyone. This is is my first chat as White House reporter, so please be kind.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Two quick questions about the poll reported in the Washington Post this morning on the Iraq war. First, I am puzzled as to what would give Bush a 38 percent approval rating (an increase from the last poll), and wonder what could account for that since the only thing that has occurred of significance for Bush was Zarqawi's death, but was immediately countered by the continuing violence, and second, could the increase in approval be more a function of the incessant drum-beat that the Democrats want to "cut and run" and the Democrats' weak response to this attack? In other words, does the political strategy trump the reality in Iraq?

washingtonpost.com: Nation Is Divided on Drawdown Of Troops (Post, June 27)

Michael Abramowitz: One can never be sure about polls. It does seem to me that Bush has had a couple good pieces of news in the last few weeks, or at least news that might put the administration in a more positive light. You mentioned Zarqawi. Karl Rove escaped indictment. There was a lot of publicity about the president's trip to Baghdad.

On the other hand, one would be hard-pressed to say the administration is doing well politically. 38 percent, while higher than 33 percent, is still pretty low for approval ratings, and it's going to be a challenging summer and fall for the Bush administration. Plus, the situation on the ground in Iraq remains bleak, and that has a way of catching up with you.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: Thanks for taking my question this morning, Mike, and for chatting with us.

Didn't someone from the White House leak this General Casey "cut-and-run" plan, making the Congressional GOP look dumb? Who's running the plays at 1600 Pennsylvania? Is Karl Rove paying too much attention to bloggers?

Michael Abramowitz: I am getting a lot of questions about the Casey plan this morning, so let me try to sum up some thoughts:

1) One can never be sure about the origins of news stories. Michael Gordon, the very good military correspondent for the New York Times, was the first with the story, which suggests to me it probably did not originate with the White House.

2)The military has been looking for a way to reduce troops in Iraq for quite some time, and we have had reports of troop reductions for a while--and they have yet to materialize. So we need to be cautious about this report. There's still a lot of violence in Iraq, and many military experts think it will be very difficult for the U.S. to disengage any time soon without creating chaos.

3) The significance of this latest report is more political, since it came shortly after a Senate debate about troop withdrawals. It gave Democrats a chance to say, hey, why are you criticizing us for proposing a withdrawal when your own guy is projecting troop withdrawals. But the White House has a ready answer: Having a general set plans based on conditions in Iraq is different than politicians setting an arbitrary deadline. Who you believe probably depends on what you think about the war.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Thanks for taking the time to do these chats.

Does Bush have any policy initiatives left in his quiver? Or are the combined pressures of managing his war, corruption charges, and raising the occasional 'culture' issue (flag burning, immigrants, gay marriage) going to keep this administration occupied until 2008?

Michael Abramowitz: I think this is a really good question, and one I have been thinking a lot about in recent weeks. I think the reality is that much depends on the mid-term elections; if the Democrats can take one or both houses, then it will probably be a pretty barren final two years, unless Bush radically changes his approach to government. But I do think the administration is anxious to have some new domestic initiatives, and they have brought in some policy heavyweights--Henry Paulson at Treasury, Rob Portman at OMB--whom I am sure are not anxious to be just waiting until the end of 2008 without doing anything.

I think the first issue they want to resolve is immigration, no easy matter given the divisions within the Republican Party on this. If they are able to keep control of both chambers, I suspect they will also try an initiative on health care focused on the uninsured; they will focus a lot on spending cuts ( a big issue for conservatives) and they might even make another run at entitlement reform on the theory that Democrats might be more willing to deal with them if they lose the elections again.

But all this is just a guess. I think we'll have a better idea this fall, as things begin leaking out about a Year Seven agenda.

_______________________

Long Island, N.Y.: Why do you think the story on the tracking of funds has caused such an outcry from conservatives?

When I heard the story, I thought it was logical and not surprising that the gov't would be trying to track down funding through the international banking system. Judging from the comments I've seen, you think that the NYT had published the launch codes for nuclear weapons.

Michael Abramowitz: I am getting a lot of questions about the tracking of terrorist funds, so I will wade into this a bit gingerly.

I think conservatives (and others) are mad about this for two reasons, one substantive and one political: I think many people genuinely are uneasy with newspapers publishing information about secret government programs. I also think many conservatives see an opportunity to beat up on the press, which is usually a politically popular approach to take, especially with the GOP base.

I don't have any special insight into this program. From reading the news reports about this, it does feel to me that this program raises fewer civil liberty questions than the warrantless surveillance that was the subject of a previous New York Times report. This appears to have been done through legal channels.

On the other hand, I don't feel the New York Times or the government have offered the kind of explanation that would help me answer this basic question: Does the public's right to know outweigh the national security problems posed by disclosure of this secret program? It is never an easy call, and I have a lot of respect for the senior management of the Times and other papers that weighed this question. They don't approach this question lightly.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Do you think that Jim Webb has a chance of beating Senator George Allen in Virginia?

Michael Abramowitz: I am skeptical. George Allen is very popular in Virginia and a formidable politician. But Jim Webb will make this interesting and will probably force Allen to take this race more seriously than he might have wanted to given his presidential ambitions.

_______________________

Metuchen, N.J.: Thanks for taking the time to join us.

I'm a little nervous about the flag burning amendment this time around. It seems like it's going to be awfully close. Where do you have the count, and who do you think is most likely to flip sides at this point?

Michael Abramowitz: Our congressional team tells me the advocates of this amendment are one vote shy for now, but that this could still pass when it comes up for a vote, probably tomorrow.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Re polls: Wouldn't a simpler hypothesis about Bush's poll numbers be that the leveling off of his numbers parallels the leveling off of gas prices? There's always been a pretty strong inverse correlation between Bush's approval ratings and gas prices (probably because the underlying factors behind both are similar). Both gas prices and presidential approval ratings are strong economy+war indicators, the top two issues for most people in this country.

Michael Abramowitz: I think this is not a bad guess, and I should have thrown that in there.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Dan Balz, in previous chats, sees the level of Republican corruption primary through the electoral lens; i.e. "this likely will hurt Republicans more than Democrats because, to the extent it creates an anti-DC environment, the party in power will suffer more."

But isn't the -more- important question for journalists what corruption really is out there, and its effect on the actions of the government?

Michael Abramowitz: I think the press is interested in both questions, and we have devoted enormous resources to looking at both the politics and substance of the recent corruption scandals in Congress. It's not either or.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Why are American politicians on both sides of the aisle so averse to any raising of the gas tax, even, say, a slow and incremental rise? Basic economic principles mean that an increase in the gas tax moderates demand, spurs investment in alternatives, and keeps money in America instead of going to foreign countries or megacorporations. Furthermore, if energy experts are right and the era of new supplies of cheap oil is over, the price of oil will go up no matter what to keep demand in line with a limited supply -- and better the money stay here than elsewhere.

Michael Abramowitz: A good question. You make the case, I believe, Tom Friedman has made for a rise in the gas tax. So far, the idea remains on the fringes of politics, given the strong anti-tax position of the Republican Party. But perhaps it might come up again with a new president, perhaps as part of a larger look at the tax code in general--in which some taxes might go up and some go down.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: You write "On the other hand, I don't feel the New York Times or the government have offered the kind of explanation that would help me answer this basic question: Does the public's right to know outweigh the national security problems posed by disclosure of this secret program?"

So you're saying maybe the calls for prosecuting Bill Keller are justified? Wouldn't you agree that whether or not the Times met whatever standard you have in your mind for when a story should be published that they certainly have the right to have run the story?

Michael Abramowitz: Yes, for the record, I don't think the New York Times should be prosecuted and I think they have the right to run the story. I don't think these matters should be sorted out through the legal system.

_______________________

Houston, Texas: Out here in the provinces, the base of the Republican party is white-hot furious at the party leadership. Immigration is the test of whether or not elected Republicans are going to be responsive to the conservative base, and the base isn't going to be bought off with token votes on gay marriage and flag burning.

Michael Abramowitz: I think this is an interesting perspective. I think conservatives have been uneasy with the Bush administration in recent months, not only on immigration but also on spending and foreign policy issues, like our diplomatic initiative on Iran. We'll know whether the initiatives on gay marriage and flag burning counteract that this fall.

Thanks for all your questions. We're out of time, and I will look forward to answering more questions another time.

_______________________

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.