Post Politics Hour

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 Wednesday, July 12, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest news in politics.

The transcript follows.

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

____________________

Washington, D.C.: I see Bush's Social Security privatization plan is still in the works, according to the latest OMB budget reports and comments by the likely next chairman of the Ways and Committee. I've only really seen mention of this in the tax press. Why isn't this a bigger media story?

Michael Abramowitz: I think this could be a bigger story in the weeks ahead. I am not sure that Bush's social security plan, the one that got shot down last year, will be resuscitated. But I definitely think Republicans are thinking about taking another run at curbing entitlement spending after the election. In fact, the president talked about it yesterday.

_______________________

Colorado: Rep. Hoekstra's letter to the president seems to imply that there are programs out there which are even more controversial than the domestic spying / phone-call monitoring ones that we already know about. What are the chances that these programs will eventually be brought to light or are these instances where the press may already know of them but withold disclosure due to national security concerns?

Michael Abramowitz: I assume there's a lot of secret stuff going on that the press and public doesn't know about. Whether its more controversial than domestic surveillance is impossible to say. I thought the Hoekstra letter was interesting because it suggested that concern about Bush's secrecy extends across party lines.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Hi Michael, Thanks for doing thse chats.

What will the recent attacks in Israel mean for U.S. Foreign Policy in the region? The U.S. seems torn now between antagonizing a long term ally (Israel) or offending the people who are helping us in the War on Terror (Jordan, Lebanon).

Is this going to be factored into a nuanced response or will it be more of the "Israel has a right to defend itself" mantra?

Michael Abramowitz: That's a good question. I have been struck by how quiet the administration has been about the bubbling violence in Gaza and on the Israel-Lebanon border. I get the sense that the administration wants to keep focus on some of the other problems, like Iraq and North Korea and Iran, and is hoping this will not spin out of control.

_______________________

Grand Rapids, Mich.: Out of curiosity, how would The Washington Post ever arrive at the conclusion that Iraq is in a civil war? Obviously, this is not how the Administration would want it described. However, with scholars and analysts calling it a civil war, noting that increasingly Iraqis are killing each other via sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing, it's getting difficult to figure out what else to call it.

Michael Abramowitz: I am not sure we we would ever arrive at unified conclusion on that. Our correspondents, who are terrific, try their best to describe the conditions as they are in Iraq...and leave it to others to say what that adds up to.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I am a casual observer, but it seems to me like there have been an awful lot of resignations within the Bush administration during his two terms in office. Many of these have been top posts leaving either because they were "forced" to resign due to policy differences or purportedly voluntarily resigning to "spend time with the family." I see this as a great weakness of Bush -- he appoints so-called experts and when they give him their assessment and recommendations he ends up booting them because it does not fit his agenda or ideology. My question is, has anyone kept tabs on how many resignations there have been under Bush (forced or voluntary) and how it compares to other administrations?

Michael Abramowitz: That would be a good question to explore in a story. I have no empirical evidence for addressing your question, but my sense is that this administration is not a lot different than previous ones in terms of resignations and departures. And it's not just policy differences--even good people get burned out from working in the White House.

_______________________

Rome, N.Y.: Now that Novak admits Rove's role in revealing the identity of Valerie Plame, will the president dismiss him?

Michael Abramowitz: I doubt it. This had already come out, and it hasn't seemed to have an impact on his job security.

_______________________

Wilmington, N.C.: You wrote, "I am not sure that Bush's social security plan, the one that got shot down last year, will be resuscitated." Whenever I read something like that, I wonder, what plan was that? As I recall, he very pointedly refused to specify the terms of his "plan", other than the safely poll tested, but solvency-irrelevant, private account facet. Do you recall it differently?

Michael Abramowitz: Fair point. I was talking in general terms, about the idea of having private accounts and a reduction in future benefits for Social Security beneficiaries. He did discuss that in general terms, but the idea never went anywhere in Congress.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Although he could have faced jail time for not cooperating with the government, didn't Robert Novak break one of the core principles of a reporter, by revealing his sources in the Scooter Libby affair?

Michael Abramowitz: I do not know exactly the arrangement Novak had with his sources and whether the two named in the paper today--Karl Rove and former CIA spokesman Larry Harlow--released him from his promise of confidentiality. That would be the normal process for a reporter identifying a confidential source. I do understand that his three sources did agree to allow him to testify about their conversations before a grand jury.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Abramowitz:

The latest records release show that Jack Abramoff visited the White House to meet with Cesear Conda on 4/11/2001. Conda is quoted in the Post this weekend (Grimaldi/Schmidt) as claiming the meeting was a "casual lunch" with Abramoff at the White House Staff Mess. Now, as someone who knows the White House - how could lunch at the Mess - in the basement of the West Wing, with all other WH senior staffers, amid linen, wood and china be considered a "casual lunch?"

Unless Abramoff dined there frequently.

Here's a link with more details.

I consider "casual" something like Chicken-Out!

washingtonpost.com: New Links Between Abramoff, White House (Post, July 8)

Michael Abramowitz: I have never been to the White House mess, but one of my colleagues tells me its actually a fairly informal place.

_______________________

Dallas, Texas: Howdy, and thanks for taking my question.

There has been a recent buzz across the nation about the group promoting Condi for President. Do you think it is likely that their efforts over the past year, (coming here to our state convention and running radio ads)will be as successful as it was for the draft effort for Eisenhower in 1952?

If Condi's name is included in the August straw poll in Iowa next year, and if she wins either top, second or third out of the 10 names listed so far, what is the next step for her? Does she have to resign from the State Department before she can offically announce a run for the White House?

Michael Abramowitz: My guess is that Rice will not run for president in 2008, though I would not be surprised to see her as a vice presidential candidate. But who knows? She could be very formidable.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: Isn't timing an important aspect of how politics works? Had the news that Karl Rove had been the source of the leak to Robert Novack much earlier, wouldn't there have been a greater uproar?

Michael Abramowitz: Lots of questions on Rove. I think there has been a fair degree of uproar about this, and remember he was named by Joe Wilson as one of his main suspects early on. I do think the administration was probably fortunate that all this was comfirmed after the 2004 election.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: As a follow up to the question from Rome, NY, will you or anyone in The Washington Post ask Bush directly if he will follow his original words on the matter (Rove would have to be removed according to what Bush originally said)? I suspect the press will just let this drop, like everything else.

Michael Abramowitz: One more Rove question: I don't think this is quite fair, My colleague Peter Baker asked Bush this question at a press conference after Fitzgerald announced he would not indict Rove. This is what he asked, and how Bush responded:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, when you ran for office for the first time, you said you would hold the White House to a higher ethical standard. Even if Karl Rove did nothing illegal, I wonder whether you can say now whether you approve of his conduct in the CIA leak episode, and do you believe he owes Scott McClellan or anyone else an apology for misleading them?

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate the job that the prosecutor did. I thought he conducted himself well in this investigation. He took a very thorough, long look at allegations and rumors. And I, obviously, along with others in the White House, took a sigh of relief when he made the decision he made. And now we're going to move forward. And I trust Karl Rove, and he's an integral part of my team.

There's an ongoing trial, Peter, and I know the temptation is -- not the temptation, you'll keep asking questions during the course of the trial -- we're not going to comment beyond that.

_______________________

Sagamore Beach, Mass.: You write of Condit "She could be very formidable." Are you kidding? Do you really think the U.S. would elect an umarried woman to be president anytime soon?

Michael Abramowitz: I don't know why you are so sure of that. Can anyone have imagined in the 1960s someone of her background becoming Secretary of State? She has had an amazing ability to achieve very high goals. Obviously if she were to run for president, there would be obstacles, but she seems to have already overcome a lot in her lifetime.

_______________________

Anonymous: I see that Bush's poll numbers are up a bit (as high as 40 percent approval in some polls). Given that nothing seems to have really changed...the war in Iraq is still violent and nasty plus other international crisis, etc, what has changed to win Bush back some support? Can it be that this is all the result of his heading out on the stump? What is he saying/doing that is any different than what he said/did when he was at 33 percent approval?

Michael Abramowitz: I am not really sure. My guess is that Bush has regained the solid support of Republicans, who may be feeling a bit better about things in the wake of the Zarqawai death and the formation of a new Iraqi government. But he still is pretty low.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: You wrote: "I am not sure that Bush's social security plan, the one that got shot down last year, will be resuscitated. But I definitely think Republicans are thinking about taking another run at curbing entitlement spending after the election."

The mid-season OMB budget proposal just released explicitly plans to phase in "Social Security Personal Accounts" at a cost of $721 billion over the next ten years.

So Bush is continuing to push for private accounts.

Here's the link

Michael Abramowitz: I don't think there is any question Bush wants to have private accounts, but the question is whether he will really push for them in Congress.

_______________________

New Hope,Pa.: Whait a minute!

What is wrong with unmarried women?

Michael Abramowitz: Nothing--and I hope nothing in my answer suggested that!

_______________________

Omaha, Neb.: There is always a big summer scandal breaking in Washington to keep us entertaained on vaction. What will it be this summer?

Michael Abramowitz: How about another indictment in the Abramoff scandal? That would be my guess.

_______________________

New York via Rockville, Md.: Michael,

It might seem kind of trivial, but it occured to me that there is a psychological precedent between Bush's unapologetic use of executive privileges- "the laws don't apply to me for the sake of getting my job accomplished" - and his notorious use of nicknames for reporters and associates. The nickname thing seems affable but in reality, he is saying "I don't care what your name is or what you like to be called, I dont have the capacity or desire to learn your name so I'm going to call you whatever I want." To paraphrase Dale Carnegie "no word is so beautiful to a man as his own name," and Bush completely ignores this. I know he has a lot of names to remember, and I know on the surface it seems friendly, but I think it's an example of being confined to a world where he doesn't believe he has the same obligations to his fellow man as the rest of us - primarily respecting associates enough to learn their names. I know it seems a trivial connection, but I think even Sigmund Freud would have to chew on that for a bit.

Any thoughts?

Michael Abramowitz: I am not a psychologost and I can't address the validity of your observation, but I think some of the other readers may be interested.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: What Qualifications does Condi have? She participated in what some consider the greatest foreign fiasco(Iraq, Iran, North Korea, now Lebanon) in our history.

Michael Abramowitz: I can't believe all these questions about Condi. There are several along these lines: If she runs for president, there will certainly be a lot of criticism she will have to deal with on Iraq. On Iran and North Korea, we will have to see: If we go to war in those places, that will certainly be a huge issue too, but short of that I am not sure how big an issue those problems would play in an American campaign.

_______________________

Anonymous: Re the lowered budget deficit. Last I heard, the U.S. spends close to $6 billion a month on the war in Iraq. What was cut to not only make up for this but actually reduce the deficit? I've read that the war costs are often not included in budget requests, but I assume that these costs still figure in the deficit. How does the current deficit compare with, say, five years ago? How much are we paying a year to service this debt? Doesn't seem to be all that much of a campaign issue.

Michael Abramowitz: Been getting a couple questions on the budget deficit news. The cost of the Iraq war certainly gets factored into the deficit numbers. The reason the administration now thinks the deficit could be lower than it thought six months ago is that tax revenues are rising higher than expected. I agree with you this does not seem like a big campaign issue, although some Republicans have been angry about the level of spending in this administration in general.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: "...leave it to others to say what it adds up to" regarding why The Post is not using the term Civil War in its headlines. Who are the "others" you are talking about, your editors, headline writers? Isn't this more evidence that most of The Post political journalists are in fact the Administration lapdogs they are increasingly accused of being? God forbid you should tell things like they are and in the process help undermine the Administration's story that the Iraq occupation is a war on terror.

Michael Abramowitz: I am getting a lot of questions on this, and I frankly am a bit mystified. The American press has done a great job describing conditions in Iraq. No one is under any illusions about the level of violence in Baghdad and the sectarian strife that is going on.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Your response to Boston citing Mr. Baker's question makes Boston's point about the MSM. Mr. Baker's failure to follow up and challenge the president's refusal to address the president's own failure to live up to his earlier promise, is an excellent example of why The Post reporters are viewed as White House lapdogs. What would have happened if Mr. Baker had told the president "You haven't addressed my question, sir. I was asking about your not following through on your earlier promise. Are you a fliip-flopper on this issue, sir?"

Would Mr. Baker have been dragged out of the press conference? What are you guys afraid of? This is still a free country. They can't put you in jail for asking a question, can they?

Michael Abramowitz: Another reporter with the LA Times came back and asked him again about the issue, so I don't think the premise of your question is correct.

Anyway, thanks for all the questions--I had many more than I could answer in an hour, so I will try again in two 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.