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 staff writer Jonathan Weisman was online Friday, Aug. 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.

____________________

Jonathan Weisman: Hello everyone. I'm under water trying to mark the anniversary of Katrina's landfall, but let's make the shift to politics in general. WIthout further adieu, on to your questions.

_______________________

Anonymous: Any truth to the rumor that Joseph Cotton and Orson Wells were in Vienna when Atta met with the Iraq intelligence officer?

Can you confirm it with the vice president?

Jonathan Weisman: We shall seel no wine before its time. Anyway, that was Rosebud with the Budvar in Prague, not Vienna.

_______________________

Los Gatos, Calif.: Good Morning:

Are there any other congressional Republicans who will join Christopher Shays in calling for a withdrawal from Iraq? If so, who are they?

Is there any support for the Biden/Gelb proposal in Congress?

Jonathan Weisman: Even before the invasion, there were a few Republicans who opposd the war, like Reps. Jim Duncan (Tenn.) and Ron Paul (Texas). Rep. Walter Jones turned against it early, after coining the phrase "Freedom Fries." Rep. Gil Gutnecht (R-Minn.) returned from Baghdad a month ago, calling for some troops to be pulled out quickly to push Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security. And Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) told constituents last week that he wanted a new course in Iraq. Shays is only the latest.

_______________________

West Coast: Dick Cheney said he was stuck with the grave decision of whether to shoot down the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania or not. The recently released NORAD tapes confirm that the government first knew of the flight one minute before it went down. Is Cheney lying, again, or was he thinking very fast that day, with his drama unfolding within 60 seconds? I've yet to read anywhere that Cheney has been queried about his story. THANKS.

Jonathan Weisman: If I can get him on the phone, I will query him. Cheney's statements present a quandary for us reporters. Sometimes we write them up and are accused of being White House stenographers and stooges for repeating them. Then if we don't write them up, we are accused of being complicit for covering them up. So, all you folks on the left, what'll it be? Complicity or stenography?

_______________________

California: Now that Tony Snow has declared that Hezbollah was defeated, can we expect peace in the Middle East anytime within the next few months?

Jonathan Weisman: The French are on the case. Rest assured.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Jonathan,

What's the overall mood in Congress these days, behind the scenes? Are incumbents of both parties alarmed at what's happened in Connecticut, Georgia and Michigan? Do they think there will be a "wave" or just a rising tide favoring the Dems?

Thanks for the chat!

Jonathan Weisman: I just got off the phone with Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), who sounded more upbeat about GOP prospects than anyone I've heard in months. Some feel like voters are again focusing on the question of which party will better protect them, a winning formula in the last two elections. What Feeney said was, if this is a referendum on the president and Congressional performance, Republicans are in big trouble. If it is a contest between Republican and Democratic leadership on security, Republicans will be OK.

Others are very concerned about the anti-incumbent sentiment in Connecticut, Georgia and Michigan -- not to mention Alaska. But the last Gallup poll gave something for Republicans to hang their hopes on.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Some report better security in Baghdad. Will it matter?

Jonathan Weisman: Opinions on Iraq seem to be set. I would imagine voters will see reports of some improvment in Baghdad to be temporary. They have been disappointed so many times before, after Saddam's capture, elections, formations of governments, Zarqawi's death. I doubt anything is going to turn them around now.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Did the serious response to the third term remarks take you by surprise? My thought was "How paranoid can one get?"

Jonathan Weisman: Paranoiz never surprises me.

_______________________

Austin, Tx: Who, exactly, is going to fight in the war Krauthammer wants waged on Iran? Barbara and Jenna? Is Bush brushing up on his jet-fighting skills - oh that's right, he was in Alabama. Never mind.....

Jonathan Weisman: Read George Will for your response. Many old-line conservatives -- those leary of foreign entanglements -- are really rising up against the neo-conservative thirst for conflict with Iran. It's been very interesting to see that split come back to the surface.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: Republicans love to indulge in simplistic and incorrect reasoning. A recent example is as follows: Bush cut taxes and tax revenue increased so tax cuts increase revenue. In point of fact, the increase in revenue has two causes. First there is currently an amnesty allowing corporations to bring home profits and have them taxed a special low rate. This has caused the return of hundreds of Billions which even at the low rate adds to tax revenue. This will disappear after this year.

The second and more important is the growing inequality in income between the rich and the poor. As the rich take a larger and larger share of income, since they pay higher tax rates, tax revenue goes up. This is in spite of the decrease in revenue caused by the tax cuts. Gregory Mankiw, a conservative economist and formerly Bush's main economic advisor, has computed that the Bush tax cuts have resulted in a loss of $830 Billion in tax receipts and were responsible for about one third to one half of the deficit.

As backup,here are some interesting figures on the economy. The income figures for 2004 have just come out, and the total income (in real dollars) has gone up. The income of the richest 1 percent has gone up 12.7 percent. The income of the other 99 percent has gone up 0 percent (that's zero percent). The income of the lower 90 percent has gone down while the income of the highest .1 percent has gone up about 37 percent (I don't remember the exact figure).

Jonathan Weisman: The issue of tax cuts creating tax revenues is like religion to many Republicans. Whenever I point out that tax revenues are supposed to grow with the growth of the overall economy and tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have not recovered from their pre-tax level, I am snowed under with complaints from conservatives who point to the overall dollar amounts of revenues coming in. Keep trying but I don't think you'll get very far.

_______________________

Wilmington, N.C.: "So, all you folks on the left, what'll it be? Complicity or stenography?"

Are you serious? Talk about a ridiculous false choice.

Is it too much to ask one reports the VP's claim accompanied by actual reporting to determine its credibility?

Jonathan Weisman: Believe me, as the recipient of all your e-mails, it is not a false choice. It is the choice we face.

_______________________

Will YOU be the one to answer.....: ....the question that no other Post online host has wanted to. How come the MSM hasn't done much reporting on Bush and Co's. proposed retroactive war crime protection draft? The Post only has done one story on it and it was an AP article. The fact that the President and his administration are trying to avoid any possible future prosecution for their involved actions in any military conflict which they have ventured into is a very scary thought. Not because I want to see them prosecuted and thrown in jail (that's another topic for discussion) but because they think they can create laws and rules that allow them to do whatever it is they please. Do they have no concept of "checks and balances" or any respect for The Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc?

Jonathan Weisman: Errr, my esteemed colleague, Jeff Smith, broke that story on the front page of the Post, above the fold. His followup story ran in the same position. I think we have done the story great justice. (How do you know so much about it if the media has been covering it up?)

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Re: Cheney (complicity or stenographer)...um, how about "analysis." There has to be a happy medium, no? At least they taught me that at my journalism school (alas, I went to a mere Big Ten School... I'm sure you went to a fancy east coast J-school).

Jonathan Weisman: I went to a Big 10 journalism school as well, with a double major in history and a bunch of grumpy journalism profesors who HATED analysis.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: Weisman,

You're my dog. You're a fast chatter.

Jonathan Weisman: My dog can't type.

_______________________

Rawlings, Md.: Is there any kind of legislative movement afoot for serious incentives for the development of alternative fuel sources and cars and trucks that run on them? Our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and the awful effects of burning fossil fuels seem like the elephants in the room. We hear this and that about hydrogen power and ethanol, but, I mean, is it just me? This is a big problem, right?

Jonathan Weisman: I wish I had a dime for every proposal out there to speed the development of hybrid cars, flex-fuel cars that run on ethanol, more wind power, etc. Many of them have been enacted, but it still up to Detroit and Big Energy to develop them. I've been a little baffled at the market forces at work. For decades, the oil companies have had the right to build a major natural gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska to the lowr 48. For decades, they said the price of natural gas couldn't pay for the construction. Now, not only do they have high natural gas prices but they have huge tax incentives to build it, and it ain't happening. Call an economist!

_______________________

Denver, Colo.: Is Lieberman running like an Independant candidate in Connecticut or is he running like a Republican candidate?

Jonathan Weisman: He is running like an independent, a Republican and a Democrat. What a feat! On the one hand, he appears on very conservative radio talk shows and garners encouraging support from Republicans. On the other he says he's an independent Democrat. And on the other, he says he will remain loyal to Democratic Senate leadership, try to maintain his seniority as a Democrat on Senate committees and will caucus with the Democrats. If he wins, we'll have to see what happens.

_______________________

Madison, Wis.: I'll take stenography, but do it with some style, OK? Thank you for your cooperation.

Jonathan Weisman: Stenography with style, it is. But promise not to accuse me of being a Cheney stooge for repeating his words in print.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Here we go again. John McCain says a few critical statements about the Bush Administration (including Rumsfeld) and the media fawns over him and the "straight talk express." No consideration of his pandering to independents, no calls of "flip-flopping." No examination of his not-so-distant praise of the President.

As it's clear John McCain is running for President, shouldn't the nearly decade long honeymoon with him and the media end? Specifically, shouldn't the media -- including The Washington Post -- closely see if flip-flops in the coming weeks and months and resumes his 100 percent faithful defense of Bush and the Administration?

Jonathan Weisman: Yes, we should look closely at McCain's record. For instance, he voted against the president's $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001, saying we couldn't afford it. He then opposed his $350 billion tax cut in 2003, calling it crazy to cut taxes and wage war at the same time. But lately, with his eye on 2008, he's been voting to extend the tax cuts he opposed in the first place. I don't think he'll avoid that scrutiny this time around. He's no longer the insurgent against the establishment's favorite. He is the front-runner.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: If George Allen falters, who do you think is likely to emerge as the conservative champion? A lot of conservatives still dislike John McCain. Mitt Romney is a Mormon from Massachusetts who has switched his position on abortion. Giuliani may have done well in that Iowa poll, but it also showed that a great majority of caucusgoers are pro-life, and wouldn't back a candidate who didn't share their views. Bad news for Rudia.

Do you see someone else emerging?

Jonathan Weisman: Good question. I agree a lot of conservatives are not ready to back McCain, Romney or Giuliani. There may be folks we haven't thought much about: Gov. Huckabee in Arkansas, Colorado's governor, Bill Owens. This far out, I can assure you, someone emerge that has not crossed your mind.

_______________________

Anonymous: The Third Man setting was war-torn Vienna.

Orson Welles wine commercials were set in Prague. Cheers.

By the way, Orson Welles' classic line about peaceful Switzerland only having the cuckoo clock was false. The cuckoo clock was a German invention.

Jonathan Weisman: I'll remember that. My three-year-old adores her grandfather's cuckoo.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I feel I need to respond to West Coast's allegation that Cheney is lying about to decide whether to shoot down the flight 93. I was there, and that was indeed on the table. Within moments we were notified that it had disappeared off radar with vectors to D.C. The Commission confirmed this scenario. If you feel you have to nitpick about a few minutes in fast-moving, dynamic crisis, so be it. A little intellectual honesty would make national discourse go so much better.

Jonathan Weisman: I will publish as is. Thanks for writing.

_______________________

Kansas City, Mo.: I went to a Big 12 (8 then) journalism school and back then we were taught to write something along the line of "Sen. soandso said he supported xyz, however the Congressional Record shows he voted to oppose xyz."

I realize with Cheney you would need to fact check everything he says but otherwise doesn't he know he can say things and never get called on it?

Jonathan Weisman: Please, don't try to tell me Cheney was not called on his comments that the insurgency was in its last throes, that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators and that Saddam was reconstituting nuclear weapons. Sometimes, you folks really drive us nuts.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Bush's approval numbers are still in the tank. Where do the leftys complaining about your coverage think the people with negative views about Bush get their information? It ain't DailyKos? Seems to me people are reading the paper, watching the news and making up their mind. You report what Cheney said and what Norad said, and then people decide what they believe. Some folks will only be happy if Cheney or Bush falls down during a press conference and wails, "I'm awful! Hate me!"

Jonathan Weisman: Amen, brother (or sister). Folks seem to think that Daily Kos does all its own reporting.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.:

Thanks for bringing up the legitimate conservative/neo-con split. I don't really see a place where these two can reconcile their differences. The Bush/Neo-Con agenda of "I'll follow my faith into far-flung military adventures" can never be honestly embraced by realistic ideological conservatives. I don't really understand the direction that Kristol, Krauthammer, and the like are interested in going. Do they really expect the president to start another war before the mid-terms? That is simply not plausible to me. Do they want to hold the mid-terms under a cloud of "we're about to get into another war, so don't change anything in congress."? That's what makes the most sense to me, outrageous as it seems. Now, if the Republicans do hold onto both houses, they'll have to start a war with Iran just to fulfill their campaign promise!! It's Guns of August all over again!

Jonathan Weisman: The drumbeat for war in Iran is surprising, given the shape of U.S. military forces and the straits we are in in Iraq. But the threat from Iran seems to call for a more forceful response, and if you are naturally inclined to believe diplomacy cannot work, where else do you turn but military force?

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Just in case you missed it:

"Washington, D.C.: Dana - do you think the guy from Louisiana that thinks Bush should be given a third term is a trial balloon? Can the president who thinks he has the inherent wartime powers just declare that he has to stay the course and just assume a third term? Would the Supreme Court allow that?"

Jonathan Weisman: The Constitution is the Constitution. I know the president may have bent some constitutional provisions under the guise of war powers, but the amendment to hold presidents to two terms was passed in the wake of a wartime presidency, Roosevelt's. There is no ambiguity there.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Thank you for taking these questions.

Whether one agrees/disagrees with the decision to take Iraq, Israel and its supporters cannot not be anything but pleased that there is an American military presence in the Middle East and that it stands between Israel and Iran. I realize that there is more to the story but, more or less, do you agree with the conclusion?

Incidentally, you referred in a previous comment to a division in the GOP over foreign entanglements. However true that is, there is also (minor) political division in America about how far we should go to support Israel.

Jonathan Weisman: The invasion of Iraq had enormous support from Jewish members of Congress, many of them liberal Democrats who did view the removal of Saddam Hussein as an unambiguous plus for Israel. But in the last debate on the war in the House, many of those liberal Jewish members changed sides. The unrest that has been stirred up, the weakening of the U.S. military threat, and the emboldening of Hezbollah and Hamas has changed the hew of the invasion to a middle shade of gray. I'm not so sure it is as simple as you say.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: Love all these political chats! What do you think will be the order of business (what wrong to right first?) should the Democrats take back the House? Will it be different if they take back both the House and the Senate?

Jonathan Weisman: Nancy Pelosi enumerated them to us a few months back: Raise the minimum wage, reinstitute pay-as-you-go budget rules for spending and tax cutting (meaning any additional spending or tax cuts would have to be offset with concurrent spending cuts and/or tax hikes), approve all the recommendations of the 9/11 commission and pass an alternative energy bill.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: No question, but thank you for being so direct in shooting down the people claiming bias in "the MSM." It seems as though it is far too often that people like to pretend as though news stories appear out of nowhere, when in reality, The Washington Post, New York Times, et. al. have been extremely vigilant in holding the administration in check.

Jonathan Weisman: Thank you. In the wake of the heat we have taken for the CIA prisons story, the warrantless wiretapping story and the international banking story, I would think the tenor of press criticism from the left would have changed. But alas...

_______________________

Missoula, Mont.: A recent Harris poll showed that 60 percent of Americans believed that WMD's were found in Iraq. What responsbility does the press have for such a mis-informed nation? Do you believe it's stenography or complicity that leads the press failing to inform the public about the actual facts of a story?

Jonathan Weisman: It shows people are not reading the newspaper. The complicity is all theirs.

_______________________

Wilton, Conn.: "...A little intellectual honesty would make national discourse go so much better...", says Washington, D.C. about Cheney. Puhlease. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Jonathan Weisman: Two months and a bit before an election, intellectual honesty is difficult to come by.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: We have a pool going on in the office to predict how many more times the National Terror Alert Level will be adjusted upward before the November elections. I'm down for three. Any insights?

Jonathan Weisman: Time's awasting! Really, though, do you really believe Scotland Yard is now complicit in Karl Rove's plot for world domination and electoral success?

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: I thought I read on a prervious screen that this was going to be about political advertising. Whether or not that's the topic, it's the hot one with me. I feel that there should be NO TV/radio political advertising at all. In it's place we should have debates and 15-30 minute speeches paid for by the federal government. The funds for theses activities will be determined by law. Thus, no clever 10 second nastiness and money will not determine who can and cannot run. What do you think?

Anonymous

Jonathan Weisman: This is a general political chat, but I will comment. If people would avidly read wonderful, thorough newspapers like the Washington Post, I'd be all for your suggestion. Unfortunately, most don't. Go to small town America and you'd be shocked at the news offerings, and they go unread anyway. TV news cannot impart much information even if it wanted to. That leaves the ads, which can be broadcast at any time during the day. They may be nasty and misleading, but they are the way our political system tries to engage an electorate, much of which is determined to tune out.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Jonathan Weisman: "It shows people are not reading the newspaper. The complicity is all theirs."

FYI, newspapers aren't the only source of news.

Jonathan Weisman: Thanks for the heads up.

_______________________

Anonymous: I find Washington, D.C., who claims to have been with Cheney, totally uncredible. I know these chats are interesting, but to believe someone who is hanging around with the VP on Sept. 11 sits around to read and submit to The Post chats strains believability. Oh, by the way, I work for Kim Jong Il and love the chats!

Jonathan Weisman: Washington, DC, prove your cred to anonymous (whose cred is strained by his or her anonymity)

_______________________

Arlington, Tex.: What is MSM???

Jonathan Weisman: It is the all too clever abbreviation for Mainstream Media, used by those who hate the MSM.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: Aren't Kristol, Krauthammer, etc. essentially calling for a foreign policy that could never get public support in the current climate? For one thing, invading all the countries they want to invade would require a much larger army, which would mean a draft. I can't imagine the American people supporting a draft, especially since we haven't had one since 1973 -- long enough for two generations to have grown up without one.

Jonathan Weisman: You don't exactly see the elected representatives of the people stampeding to get behind calls for war. The voters are war-wary to say the least.

_______________________

Burke, Va.: Do the people who press for attacking Iran ever talk of the necessary draft, gas rationing, tax increases, and dead American soldiers that would require?

Jonathan Weisman: Haven't heard them do that. Only liberal Democrats like Charlie Rangel have called for a reinstitution of the draft to try to spread the burden for war and bring it home to all Americans.

_______________________

Columbia, Md.: Re: Stenographer versus other thing debate

For me, some of it has to do with the headline. The headline on post.com the other day went something like, "Katrina Survivor Lauds President." And while that was, of course, technically true, the event itself was pretty plainly a PR stunt designed to get exactly that headline. If you were to scan that headline, you'd get the impresssion the American public was generally pretty happy with Bush's resposne to Katrina, while the opposite is actually true. Thanks.

Jonathan Weisman: Headlines are always a problem, but it is inherent in the need for ultra-brevity. I often wince at the headlines above my stories, but then I try to think of an alternative in the space alotted and usually can't think of a better one.

_______________________

Complicity or stenography: Oh Please. Care to explain how catching the VP in a fairly obvious lie and calling him on it means either.

Okay, since this seems beyond you, I'll explain your job.

1. Typing up the tale of the VP's "harrowing choice" without having verified the timeline (what did happen already) = "Stenography".

2. Deciding not to call the VP on it, once outsiders have spoon fed you the timeline = "Complicity".

3. Contacting the VP, having carefully researched the timeline and questioning how his story applied when he had, according to his own later statementments and those of other Admin officials less than 60 seconds notice = "Good Reporting".

You see, it's that funny research and intelligent questions based on said research that makes up "Reporting". Retyping statements without research is "Stenography". Avoiding asking tough questions because it makes your original stenography look really, really bad is "Complicity".

Glad I could help.

Jonathan Weisman: Please apply for my job.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Hi Jonathan, I've seen several stories in the past week about how Rick Santorum is catching up to Bob Casey in the Pennsylvania Senate race -- do you think Santorum still have a chance, or do the PA voters want a change? Thanks!

Jonathan Weisman: You should never count Santorum out. He's a tenacious, experienced campaigner, going against a Democrat with a history of coasting to the finish line and faltering. But while recent polls show the race getting tighter, it's largely because Casey's support is slacking. Santorum still has the support of 39 percent of the voters. That is a remarkably low number for such an entrenched incumbent.

_______________________

Ann Arbor, Mich.: "Sometimes, you folks really drive us nuts."

Then quit. Stop whining and accusing your critics of being crazy, and go play with your three-year-old.

Jonathan Weisman: My three-year-old is really quite rational.

_______________________

Ft. Myers, Fla.: This is actually more of a helpful tip that you can share with your fellow journalists -- whenever anyone in the Bush administration begins a sentence with "I don't think anyone could have anticipated ..." it means that whatever they say next will be a lie. It also means, specifically, that someone DID anticipate it, wrote it down, and handed it to someone in the administration.

This re-imagining of the build up to, and immediate aftermath of, the Katrina debacle is already providing plenty of examples of the Bush team's propensity to provide examples of the "I don't think anyone could have anticipated ..." maxim.

Jonathan Weisman: Thanks for the tip.

_______________________

Birmingham, Ala.: What do you think of the Alabama Democratic Party disqualifying two candidates in a House race and deciding that they will appoint someone? Does it matter that one candidate is gay and one is black?

Jonathan Weisman: You know, you are taxing my political knowledge, even if I did grow up next door, in Georgia. But this year, there has been a remarkable degree of legal maneuvering, in DeLay's district, in Ney's, in Deborah Pryce's, now in Pennsylvania, to keep people on or off ballots. Sometimes the legal arguments are sound. In DeLay's case, they prevailed. But it is a little disturbing to see how much of our democatic choices are being determined by the judicial system.

_______________________

Valdosta, Ga.: Thanks for taking this quick question. What anti-incumbency in Georgia politics do you speak of?

Jonathan Weisman: Cynthia McKinney being trounced in the Democratic primary.

_______________________

Re: The Draft: We do have a draft. It's called stop-loss and covers 13,000 soldiers and marines. It's also a policy that covers 400 army reserve officers who are being held in the service indefinitely because of the need for their skills. Our all volunteer force is increasingly being made up from indentured servants. I should know--- I'm married to one. My favorite bumper sticker is "If you voted for Bush, a yellow ribbon doesn't make up for it."

Jonathan Weisman: Thanks for writing. Some calling for the old fashioned draft have made the same point, saying the stop-loss program is a backdoor draft hitting the people who have already served and sparing those who have not.

_______________________

Houston, Tex.: In a chat yesterday, Post reporter Michael Fletcher wrote, "If nothing else, the entire Katrina episode punctured the veneer of competence the administration always had."

Not blaming Fletcher, because that's an opinion many other reporters and pundits have expressed.

My question is -- who gave them that "veneer of competence"? I would say it was the media hungrily lapping up the latest spin from Rove, et al. But I'd guess you'd disagree.

Jonathan Weisman: Ahh, the media's fault again. Do you really think people who felt positively about the president's response to 9-11 and the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan were duped by the media? That is giving us a whole lot of power that you otherwise like to deny us.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Good Morning, thank you for taking questions of political matters.

Today I find that Secretary of State Condi Rice will be flying to Utah with President Bush to speak at the American Legion Convention on August 31. That alone is not unusual, but earlier this year, she was on the cover of the American Legion magazine. Does it sound to you that she is being groomed for higher office in the future? And if so, would it be more likely that she would be nominated as president or VP?

Jonathan Weisman: Her name has come up for 2008, but she has said she is not interested. I find it difficult to believe someone so connected to the war in Iraq would have much of a shot.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Dana Milbank's article on Allen's endless apologies for Macaca was delightful. Would you explain to those of us outside the beltway how it works with politicians when they say something... well... stupid? It seems so obvious to fess up and do the right thing right away, and one would have thought that some on the staff would remember the Nixion cover-up-leading-to-resignation lesson. Yet over and over, it takes days, weeks, or even longer of twisted, silly, fatuous, stabs to get around to saying I'm sorry.

washingtonpost.com: Another Day, Another Dozen Apologies from Sen. Allen , ( Post, Aug. 24 )

Jonathan Weisman: Lord knows how these things work. Look at Trent Lott's statement about Strom Thurmond's segregationist campaign. By the time he got around to apologizing, he was practically grovelling. But it was too late.

_______________________

Jonathan Weisman: Folks, I am flattered by all the questions and interest, but I must sign off. Please join me again same Bat Time, same Bat channel next week. Thanks again.

_______________________

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.