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 chief political reporter John F. Harris was online Tuesday, July 11, 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.

____________________

Washington, D.C.: Which factors responsible for the President's steep decline in the polls do you think will carry over and negatively impact Republican in the 2006 mid-term elections?

John F. Harris: Good morning. Republicans are deeply concerned about what impact president's low approval ratings will have on the mid-terms. As my Post colleague Dan Balz noted to me the other day, most of the precedents dating back to the 1950s spell trouble for a congressional party when a president is as unpopular as Bush has been lately.

That said, Bush's ratings in most polls have nudged up in recent weeks---still pretty low at 40 percent or the high 30s, but not at the low 30s as they were a month or two ago.

The White House has a clear strategy for trying to lift Bush's ratings--we saw this the other day with his two-day road show to Chicago--but it remains uncertain how welcome he will be in GOP districts this fall. Lately, Republicans have been happy to have President Bush or Vice President Cheney raise money for them, but most not eager to embrace them publicly.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: What has happened to our preemptive strike policy?

John F. Harris: You observe correctly, it seems to me, that the preemption doctrine that the Bush administration touted so proudly four years ago has given way to a more conventional strategy of containment and diplomatic improvisation in Iran and North Korea--both places identified by Bush in 2002 as part of the "axis of evil."

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Thanks for taking my question.

There was a horrifying story on The Post's front page yesterday from Post reporters Partlow and Izzi. They report on the emergence of sectarian death squads in Baghdad and the escalating religious violence.

A telling statistic I heard on the radio yesterday put the annualized rate of killing in Baghdad at reached 16,000. If this isn't a 'Civil War' what is?

Given the situation in Iraq is it now possible for political reporters to determine that there is a 'Civil War' going on in Iraq and re-label it appropriately?

To this reader, it sure looks like a civil war, but I am not sure what is needed for the fourth estate to pin that label onto the Iraq situation.

What are your criteria? Does this need 'official spokesman certification?

Thanks in advance.

John F. Harris: This is an interesting point about the deteriorating situation. The media has been writing for a long time about the threat of civil war--as though it was a clear line in which the factional violence would cross over officially to civil war. Plainly, the trend of recent days is very worrisome.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Do you think the acceptance of Geneva Convention for Guantanamo detainees will be viewed as a defeat for Bush, and will hinder his credibility among his supporters?

John F. Harris: There are several questions on this development this morning--not surprisingly--that I have not taken yet for the simple reason that I am still trying to learn more about the substantive implications of this shift, never mind the political ones.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Do any of the reporters call President Bush "Dubya" or any other nickname? I'm interested in whether or not the nicknames Bush uses are just jokes or whether they set a power relationship.

John F. Harris: By no means would I expect any Post reporters to call him anything other than President Bush in person. I guess we sometimes use the "W." shorthand in the newsroom, but not that much, it seems to me. To the best of my knowledge, no Post reporters in either our first-term team or the second-term team now over at the White House has been bestowed with nicknames of the sort Bush uses for some reporters. That suits me fine, since this is a professional relationship not a social one.

_______________________

Duxbury, Mass.: Is a nearly $300 billion deficit really a reason to celebrate?

John F. Harris: It would not be reason to celebrate in anything but relative terms---the latest deficit forecasts are lower than earlier ones.

_______________________

Wilmington, N.C.: In your opinion, does a Democratic Party "win" in November require a house change hands? If not, how many net gain Senate seats constitute a "win"? What about House seats?

John F. Harris: Given the polling trends of the past six months or so, there is now an expectation in both parties that a change of control in the House is definitely within reach for Democrats. So I think a "win" would require change of control. Anything short of that might or might not be a "loss" for Democrats, depending on how they attempt to spin it but in my book it would plainly be "not a win."

The Senate, by most estimates, remains further out of reach for Democrats but nonetheless is quite competitive.

_______________________

Sewickley, Pa.: Hello, Mr. Harris, and thank you for these discussions. I miss Tom Edsall but enjoy the many fine writers at the Post. Prior to the Bush administration's advancement of preemption, the settled doctrine of war- fighting seemed to be the Powell-Weinberg doctrine of overwhelming force, achievable military objectives, and a clear exit strategy. In your opinion, has that doctrine been permanently set aside? By politicos? By military thinkers? It appears that the vast majority of Iraq war veterans running for office are running as Democrats and are disillusioned with the political pressure brought to bear on military and intelligence officials that led to the Pandora's Box we're in. As we cycle through the elections in '06 and '08 are we likely to hear a debate on this subject?

John F. Harris: I also miss Edsall, who took advantage of a recent buyout offer that the Post offered long-time employees, and will soon be writing for National Journal and The New Republic.

I would love to see Colin Powell write a memoir, "My American Story, Part II" and answer your question about how this Iraq conflict is or is not consistent with the Powell Doctrine, which loomed so large in deliberations about use-of-force all through the 1990s.

It seems that 2008 certainly should have a debate about this. Perhaps 2006 also, but it seems to me that these kind of strategic questions get more fully debated in the context of presidential campaigns, more than congressional ones.

_______________________

Alpharetta, Ga.: If Hillary Clinton runs for President, when will she announce and start visiting IA, NH, and the possible third state, particularly relative to the other candidates?

John F. Harris: Plainly she'll be going all those places--often--if she runs. We should get the answer to that within I'd say minutes after the polls close in this fall's election. Once she is re-elected to the Senate--a virtual certainty according to every poll I've seen--she'll have to make her intentions clear, and like most of my colleagues I'd be pretty surprised if she decided not to run.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Not to be snippy, but do want to answer Washington D.C.'s question? What factors behind Bush's low numbers will affect Republicans?

John F. Harris: Not snippy at all. And I did not mean to dodge (or at least not that obviously). At the most obvious level, an unpopular president can not easily come in to a district and rally voters in a way that is helpful. More broadly, the question is whether a president with low approval ratings and identified with an unpopular war will frame the election in a broad way that hurts Republicans. The reason I dodge to some degree is because the question is obviously an imponderable. We just do not know. And I'd caution that things change in politics--we do not know what Bush's standing will be in October and early November. Also, in a polarized environment, even a president who is intensely unpopular among some voters can still be effective in rallying partisans. We saw that clearly in the 2004 re-election. The question, it seems to me, is what is Bush's level of popularity with Republicans and conservatives. Those have slipped somewhat lately, but they could easily bounce back.

_______________________

Kensington, Md.: Mr. Harris would it be too much for you guys to accurately report what Bush said about the Axis of Evil. Bush didn't say we'd preemptively strike Iran and N. Korea. So why do you portray the diplomacy taking place with those countries as a change in policy when there never was a policy of preemptively striking. This analysis plays to the bias you have against Bush because its an opportunity to portray him as having failed by showing erroneously that he's reversed course. Please show me one spec of evidence where Bush said he'd preemptively strike either country?

John F. Harris: I have no argument with you or with Bush--that's not my role. It does seem to me that early in the administration in Bush's West Point speech on preemption and other addresses, including the "axis of evil" speech, he was clearly signaling a change of emphasis away from containment and in favor of aggressively confronting and reversing threats. The contrast with the previous administration was clear and self-conscious. Certainly Iraq showed this different emphasis in action. To my mind, the diplomatic strategies being pursued in Iran and North Korea do not look starkly different than what the previous administration did and seem to reflect an emphasis on diplomacy and containment rather than preemption.

You are right about the point that Bush never promised to take military action preemptively as a first resort to the "axis of evil" threats. But I'd be surprised if you really think there has been no change of emphasis over time.

_______________________

Roseland, N.J.: What '06 race do you consider the most "under the radar"- the significant race we're not paying enough attention to?

John F. Harris: This is a great for question for Chris Cillizza, who writes "The Fix" column for washingtonpost.com

I asked him what he thought and this is what he said:

"Deborah Pryce in Ohio's 15th district. She is running against Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy."

That's all for today. Thanks very much.

_______________________

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.