Post Politics Hour
washingtonpost.com's Daily Politics Discussion

Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Congressional Reporter
Friday, September 22, 2006 11:00 AM

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 Congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman was online Friday, Sept. 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.

_______________________

Jonathan Weisman: Hello everyone, I have dashed out of the real world of my daughter's pre-school birthday party to join you in the virtual world of prognostication, punditry and deals deals deals. So let's get started with the torture.

____________________

Evanston, Ill.: For this compromise on detainees and torture. It isn't clear from the articles on the agreement whether a technique such as water-boarding is permitted. If it isn't laid out explicitly how can the President say that the CIA has the clarity that is needed to proceed with its aggressive techniques?

Jonathan Weisman: It isn't all that clear in the deal either. I specifically asked Lindsey Graham about water boarding, and he said clearly, the standards being set would rule that particular technique illegal. But when we started on 20 questions -- cold cells, chained to the floor, standing for 24 hours, etc. -- he didn't want to play that game.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Since Joe Lieberman was unable to get the Democratic nomination and Lincoln D. Chafee was able to get the Republican nomination without voting for the President can the Republicans claim they are more inclusive? Or will the Democrats say that Mc Cain and Warner are just doing their work?

Who will spin the most?

Jonathan Weisman: Both sides are spinning hard. Nancy Pelosi's spokeswoman told me this morning the deal is in the same spirit of the Democratic proposal put forward by Rep. Ike Skelton last week. That gives you an indication of where the Dems are: They're jumping at it, even if Democratic leaning groups like the ACLU and the New York Times edit board hate it.

_______________________

Anonymous: I've read that Hugo Chavez' speech was well-received, prompting a standing ovation. This is in contrast to Bush's speech from the day before, which was received with polite, cool applause. Should this be mentioned? I don't see it in the MSM too much, just Internet progressive sites. Thanks.

Jonathan Weisman: I wasn't at the UN so I couldn't tell you. If the MSM -- as you politely call us -- did offer that contrast, I would bet the right would proclaim another reason for the U.S. to drop out of the UN and the left would find wisdom in the collective opinion of the world's diplomatic corps.

_______________________

Greenville, Miss.: The head of the EPA is refusing to modify standards for soot that 22 out of his 24 science advisors support. Will this become an issue for the Democrats in the upcoming election? How can this administration support industry over science and clean air and get away with it? Does Congress care?

Jonathan Weisman: Ummm, let me guess, particulate matter standards? No. The Democrats want to keep the focus of the election tight and mainly on Iraq. Introducing still more grievances would only fragment their message.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: Yesterday in an article (can't remember if it was here or Rothenberg report) someone mentioned the Democrats vote tends to firm up early. Can you elaborate on what this means and how it will affect the polling results we are going to be seeing?

Jonathan Weisman: In the polling this go-round, you saw Democratic opinion and independent opinion firm up early, with most of the undecideds in the Republican ranks. That indicates misgivings in the GOP base, but it also indicates the races would tighten up as the polls come closer, with Republican voters coming home to roost. Democratic voters are very jazzed up to caste protest votes against the president. It didn't take much for them to firm up that position.

_______________________

Milwaukee, Wis.: I was very pleased to see the Post's Howard Kurtz mention Rajiv Chandrasekaran's new book, "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," about War Profiteering in Iraq. Mr. Kurtz also mentioned that Jim O'Beirne is responsible for administering the Bush loyalty tests from his office in the Pentagon to everyone working on "reconstruction." I also appreciated Mr. Kurtz mentioning that Jim O'Beirne is married to Kate O'Beirne who refuses to disclose this, as she promotes the occupation. Any ideas why the rest of the media is not picking up this Post scoop?

Jonathan Weisman: Of course, Rajiv is one of our own, the wunderkind reporter turned editor of our continuous news operation. Other media outlets do not much like to tout the scoops of their competition.

_______________________

Anonymous: I noticed in the Hugo Chavez speech that a number of listeners with head-phones

on were openly smiling. The question is whether they clapped for the entertainment, or for the actual content, or both? I was certainly entertained, weren't you?

Jonathan Weisman: I didn't watch it, but I'm not sure if all that money going to the world body is supposed to buy entertainment.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: I see torture as effective in interrogation as a hand grenade in surgery. Only an amateur would use it to remove cancer. And a stupid one at that.

Jonathan Weisman: Many of the military men who have weighed in agree -- torture isn't much good at yielding reliable information, information, yes, just not reliable. That was why the admissibility of coerced evidence was such a point of contention. The agreement leaves it to a military judge to decide whether coerced evidence is reliable and necessary.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: The other day Chris Matthews asserted on Imus' radio program that the Iraq war had fallen off the news (he was talking mainly broadcast)...

After he said that, I have to say -- I tend to agree. I know Bush got a slight bounce in his poll numbers, could less coverage of the war on the nightly news and cable outlets be a possible cause?

Jonathan Weisman: Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report said that the McCain-Bush blowup may have taken the Republicans off their national security game plan, but ultimately, any news cycle not devoted to Iraq is a good news cycle. There have been many big Iraq stories of late, a Marine colonel's assessment of Anbar province as all but loss, the declaration that U.S. troop levels will not be decreased any time soon, the staggering civilian death toll as reported by the UN. All of that has not gotten a whole lot of bounce, as we say in the news business.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: I have heard that James Baker and team will release findings regarding future options for Iraq. This will be released after the election. Do you have any idea what it may contain?

Thank you.

Jonathan Weisman: Baker said it will be hard hitting and spare no criticism. For that reason, in part, they will not release it before Nov. 7.

_______________________

Glen Ellyn, Ill.: Now that McCain and company have caved in, what can the Democrats do to keep this "compromise" from passing?

Jonathan Weisman: They could do quite a lot, if they so choose. Congress is set to leave town a week from today for the campaigns. Senate Democrats could easily run out the clock on this. My guess is, they won't. They have stood behind McCain, telling Bush he needs to listen to the military expertise of the Senate dissidents. Now that those dissidents have reached a deal, Dems can stand against it and watch Republicans say they are withholding the tools the president needs to fight terror, or they can go along and declare victory. Look for the latter.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: " I didn't watch it, but I'm not sure if all that money going to the world body is supposed to buy entertainment."

It is a good way to know how well our Department of State is doing. I give Ms. Rice lots of credit for turning it around, but over the last 50 years it has been a disaster. Perhaps Senator McCarthy did it in. I knew foreign service officers over seas and they were not good for the most part.

We need to fix the problem, not the indicator that we have a problem.

Jonathan Weisman: OK

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: Why is someone who has never even served in the military trying to dictate what works and what doesn't?! There was something in last week's New Yorker that had someone who was working at the DoD (I think...)saying that these techniques just plain don't work. Shouldn't this be an issue that is dealt with by them?

Jonathan Weisman: That was an FBI agent, describing how he got Al Qaeda's best turncoat to cooperate -- persuasion, friendship, hand-holding, not torture or coercion. The issue of Sens. McCain, Graham, and Warner and their military service vs Bush, Cheney and their lack of combat duty was certainly at play during negotiations. But a deal is a deal.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I nearly missed the article buried deep in today's paper about how a Cabinet Secretary had personally ensured that HUD contracts did not go to Democrats, according to a suppressed Inspector General report. I know there is a lot of news today, but page A15? That surprises me.

Jonathan Weisman: As someone who often writes for A15, I can only urge our readers to read deep.

_______________________

Denver, Colo.: Yesterday's opinion piece by David Broder casting the Bush administration as lawless and reckless really seemed like a landmark statement for a moderate columnist to make. Is Washington starting to judge this administration more harshly? Is there a sense in Washington that this is an unusual administration that does not play by the rules and adheres to an ideology that creates reckless policy?

Jonathan Weisman: I think it was a landmark for our mild-mannered Mr. Broder. And wow, look at all the grief he took from the left for his aspersions on bloggers. He would probably say it only proved his point.

_______________________

Chevy Chase, Md.: What a great move by the Republicans, politically that is, don't you think. It looks like Bush didn't get all that he wanted, but he still gets immunity from whatever might have happened in those secret prisons, and he will be able to continue "alternative means" to extract information from those people he thinks are a threat to the U.S. This is the wedge issue of all wedge issues issues for the Democrats. Karl Rove must be very proud. As I see it, the Democrats can either come out against continued "alternative means" and guarantee that a frightened and uninformed public will turn against them, or they could go along with the torture and escape clause, and risk losing their left. Not sure what to say...it's just shameful.

Jonathan Weisman: I think you have captured the politics of it. However, that was going to be the choice the Democrats faced all along. The blowup with the McCain dissidents gave the Dems a two-week reprieve. In some sense, they are better off than if there had been no intraparty spat. At least now they can say they are siding with McCain instead of Bush.

_______________________

Ogden, Utah: Has The Post sent a reporter over to the back lot of the Dept. of Interior to see if there's a yard sale of computer equipment going on? How do 1,200 or so laptop computers just disappear like that? Are there that many thieves employed over there? Today's story does not make this clear -- but how can so much valuable equipment just vanish?

Jonathan Weisman: Actually, it was the Commerce Department, and the vast majority of the laptops belonged to the Census Bureau. Not to stick up for incompetence, but as someone prone to misplacing things, I have to say if I was a census taker on the go, I would probably have to chain my laptop to my wrist.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: This is a bit local, but hopefully you can answer it. Governor Ehrlich (in Maryland) has been very outspoken about voting procedures the last few days. His latest is that people should avoid the polls and just vote absentee (even though he had previously vetoed absentee voting "without reason" claiming it'd increase fraud).

Now, in a state that is 2-to-1 Democrat, many believe that the only way for Ehrlich to win is for a strong Republican turnout and a weak Democratic turnout. While I know he really doesn't like electronic voting, do you think that these latest statements are a political move in an effort to suppress voter turnout and hopefully eke out a win?

On a side note, all this discussion also means we aren't talking about issues. Since Ehrlich and Steele are far more conservative (and cozy to Bush) than other Marylanders, and in my opinion, than most in Maryland even know, could it also be a tactic to take the focus off issues?

Jonathan Weisman: I find this issue fascinating. For months now, the left has been fretting about electronic voting, fearing that the machines will be rigged by Republicans. Now you have a Republican governor saying, let's go back to paper ballots, and Democrats are crying foul. No doubt, Ehrlich wants to increase turnout among those with the wherewithal to get an absentee ballot, figuring they will be more likely to be Republican. But is that really so nefarious?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I too don't understand why the HUD director (a cabinet-level official) playing politics and refusing to give contract to Democrats isn't a bigger deal. Not only is that an abuse of power, but it has real impact on millions of American's lives (you know, the people HUD is supposed to be serving by finding the best contractors, not those whose politics they happen to like).

Have we really reached the point where these things don't outrage us anymore?

Jonathan Weisman: I think it should be a big deal, and in a quieter news moment, it would be. The news business moves in waves, and the wave right now is on national security and war issues.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Oddly, you state that American liberals liked (or maybe more accurately would like) Chavez's speech. Do you have any attribution for that idea or is that an editorialization? Further can you respond to the idea that the U.N. is a platform for free discussion. One of the pitfalls of a free society is you cannot control the stupid things people will say. It is not the U.N.'s fault that the leader of Venezuala says stupid things. You seem strongly anti-U.N.. which is a departure from the standard "we report you decide" approach most journalists take on these chats.

Jonathan Weisman: I said nothing of the sort. I said the American left probably would have enjoyed the reaction to the Chavez diatribe, not the diatribe itself. Rep. Charlie Rangel and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi recoiled at Chavez's sentiments, and I think many other Democrats did too.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: So, seems that when the front pages were about Iraq, polls showed Democrats doing better. Think Republicans will (or can) continue to keep they're heavy hitters on the front pages? Thanks.

Jonathan Weisman: Republicans have proven themselves to be excellent closers in election seasons. Democratic closers have ERAs in the stratosphere. So yes, I think the Republicans have more cards to play. Just think what President Bush's announcement on moving the CIA detainees to Guantanamo did to the news cycle.

_______________________

Rawlings, Md.: Do conservative-minded folks ever participate in these chats? Here's one: Americans think Democrats are more concerned with protecting terrorists' rights than they are with keeping us safe and that's why they won't take either House this fall. Thanks.

Jonathan Weisman: I must say that conservatives are badly outnumbered among the chatters. Your sentiment is certainly what the GOP is banking on. We will see Nov. 7.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: The disparities in this year's midterm election polls seem larger than normal. I'm think of the recent LA Times/Bloomberg and the NYT/CBS polls on the direction of Bush's poll numbers and the Gallup poll compared to about every other polling organization on Dem. vs Rep. Congressional support. Do the polls this year actually have higher limits of confidence, or does it just appear so from this hand full of samples? If the polls are less certain this cycle, to what do you attribute the cause?

Jonathan Weisman: Actually, we have seen similar disparities before. Someone told me yesterday that Gallup had Al Gore 7 or 9 points down before an election day when he won the popular vote. But the simultaneous release of the LA Times/Bloomberg and NYT/CBS polls was striking. Don't believe the polls. Just vote.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Dear Mr. Weisman, with the recent opinions expressed by The Post editorial page, David Broder, Bob Woodward, and Ben Bradlee, regarding the Plame investigation ("it's over, Armitage did it, Rove deserves an apology") -- do reporters at The Post feel that they're being discouraged from covering this topic?

Thank you.

Jonathan Weisman: Not at all. I know many won't believe it, but we really do not take our cues from the edit page. We rarely talk to them.

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: Didn't Cesare Beccaria lay out the case against torture more than two centuries ago in Chapter 16 of "On Crimes and Punishments?" Have any of the Congresscritters read it? Do we really need to relearn this lesson?

Jonathan Weisman: I think Torquemada may have laid out the other case.

_______________________

Re: Denver/Broder: If Mr. Broder, the "moderate," had actually spoken disparagingly about bloggers on the left and right I (for one) wouldn't feel outraged about his most recent column.

Where does he get the idea that only leftie bloggers are obnoxious? Maybe he was actually smearing the people who disagreed with his column about apologizing to Rove, rather than to the blogosphere generally?

Maybe he was deliberately targeting the left, just as he was supporting Mr. Rove despite Karl's long struggle with Fitzgerald and Libby's repeated lies to the FBI and the grand jury.

Jonathan Weisman: Speaking as the recipient of criticisms from both sides of the blogosphere, my own observation is that the left tends to be more persistent and vituperative. The right tends to be more crass and profane.

_______________________

Milwaukee, Wis.: What does MSM mean? Unless it is something very rude in which case you don't have to answer. Thanks

Jonathan Weisman: Main Stream Media. It is only rude in context.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: Re the Senate/White House agreement: Any legislation would only impact possible legal actions in the U.S. Has anyone ever discussed whether President Bush, VP Cheney, et al. might find themselves arrested for war crimes if they traveled to the "wrong" foreign country after leaving office. (I am thinking of General Pinochet's arrest in Spain.)

Jonathan Weisman: I have certainly heard the question raised.

_______________________

Houston, Tex.: It's interesting that the strongest rebuke of Chavez's comments came from two Democrats, and not from members of the president's own party.

Jonathan Weisman: I found it interesting that Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Rangel felt the need to issue the rebuke. I suppose they feared that Democrats would be assumed to agree with Chavez.

_______________________

Burke, Va.: I was really unhappy with the way the article on the torture compromise accepted the administration's euphemism for torture. They used words such a tough interrogation techniques. That sounds like something that might happen legally in the U.S. rather than the torture techniques that have been described in The Post.

Jonathan Weisman: I hear your concern. But torture is an extremely loaded word. We have also shunned Bush's phrase, alternative methods.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Thomas Ricks's book Fiasco has a great quote from George Washington about why Americans shouldn't mistreat captives:

"During the Revolutionary War, the historian David Hackett Fischer noted, Gen. George Washington had 'often reminded his men that they were an army of liberty and freedom, and that the rights of humanity for which they were fighting should extend even to their enemies.' This compassion toward prisoners was extended by Washington expressly in the face of the cruel British handling of American captives. Washington ordered Lt. Col. Samuel Blachley Webb, in a passage quoted by Fischer, 'Treat them with humanity, and Let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British army in their Treatment of our unfortunate brethren.'"

Jonathan Weisman: Thanks for sharing. And Tom will be pleased someone has read his book so closely. I'm only on page 130. (Sorry, Tom)

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The McCain /Warner/ Graham "alternative" to the White House's proposed legislation on detainee rights has been roundly criticized by progressive as itself failing to adequately respect due process. (1) Does this criticism have any hope of finding a receptive ear in a Congress still dominated by the right-wing; (2) why have media reports focused only on opposition within the GOP to the President's plan; and (3) will the progressive critique of both bills ever get a fair hearing in the court of public opinion?

Jonathan Weisman: 1) In this political season, I imagine the criticism will find an audience only among a minority of the Democrats.

2) Now that the Republicans have reached accord, we in the media will quickly pivot to the Democrats, as I have been doing all morning.

3)We fully intend to air the criticisms in tomorrow's newspaper.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: "The blowup with the McCain dissidents gave the Dems a two-week reprieve. In some sense, they are better off than if there had been no intraparty spat."

How are they better off? Because if they were the ones out front on this issue the press would have dutifully (I know this word will elicit a negative comment from you) reported how the Dems are somehow aiding the terrorists or are on the terrorists side?

Jonathan Weisman: No, because Republicans set up this fight to be between Republicans and Democrats, whom they were all set to blast as being weak on terror. It was hard to make that case when the fight was between the GOP leadership and three military men, McCain, Warner and Graham (not to mention Powell). If Democrats oppose the deal, Republicans will go on the attack with guns blazing, not muffled.

_______________________

London, U.K.: Does anyone not think that the Pelosi move was motivated on her possibility of becoming speaker of the House? Trying to possibly appease some of the GOP?

Jonathan Weisman: Good point. I'm sure she was thinking it would be good to look statesmanlike.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: "my own observation is that the left tends to be more persistent and vituperative. The right tends to be more crass and profane. "

This seems to be a very small or insignificant difference. A pox on all of them. If you watch Inside Washington you know people can discuss these issues and be mostly polite.

Jonathan Weisman: Amen. I thank you and my e-mail in-box thanks you.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: Keep up the great chats--great for political awareness--not so great for my workplace productivity!

Cynical question somewhat related to an earlier comment about soot standards. Since the Republicans know the Dem's want to stick to a narrow message (Iraq, jobs/economy) in the remaining time to the election, will they push the envelop in other areas in an effort to shore up support (but without taking on additional risk) in the midterms?

Jonathan Weisman: Absolutely. Next week, the House is voting on a bill to make it a crime to transport minors across state lines for an abortion and something called the Public Expression of Religion Act. They are aiming at their base religious conservatives, who will be the only ones who take much notice.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Do you think Richard Armitage is being used as a scapegoat by the administration these days? Sure seems like he's getting nailed where others aren't and not supported where others are. Is this the old battle between State and the White House reappearing?

Jonathan Weisman: He's being a good soldier, though. Which calls into question your thesis. Richard Armitage is NEVER a good soldier.

_______________________

Pittsford, N.Y.: Do you agree with David Broder that the biggest political problems we face are not the quagmire in Iraq, runaway budget deficit, and 40 million uninsured Americans, that it is really "left-wing bloggers" and "religious extremists"? Is this a widely held view in Washington?

Jonathan Weisman: Don't be ridiculous. That is not what David Broder said. The column was about what he called a lawless, untethered president and the independent center that is coalescing to check his power. You may argue with that, but don't set up strawmen.

_______________________

Melbourne (the one in Fla.): Good Morning Sir: My question is with regards to the GOP in FL accommodation with Ms. Harris. The President , his brother and all the top GOP leaders are now praising Her even though Senator Nelson appears to have an insurmountable lead. Every GOP member was trying to distance from her just a month ago. What gives?

Jonathan Weisman: They tried desperately to get her off the ticket, but once they failed, they had no choice but to fall in line. Sen. Nelson is one lucky pol.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Is there really such a thing as the Democratic Party? I ask because, despite two weeks of Republican war on terrorism talk slowly lifting Republican polling numbers, there has been no Democratic nationalized coherent response. Why can't the Democrats, with only seven weeks to go before the most critical midterm election in a long time, not speaking out about anything: Iraq, global warming, wages, etc.?

Jonathan Weisman: On this one, I must say the media is partly at fault. Congressional Democrats have been holding near daily press conferences on their agenda and their response to Republicans. But in the hullabaloo over dissent within Republican ranks, the Dems have been shut out of the news. Little wonder that you think they have been silent.

_______________________

Mount Savage, Md.: Why is it, do you think, that when Republicans alter their message to appease public opinion ("We're tough on terrorism"), it sounds so much better than when Democrats do it (as in Pelosi's rebuke of Chavez's speech)? Republicans sound like they believe it (even if I disagree with their premise) while Democrats sound like they're just saying whatever Republicans are saying? Are we living in a one-idea kind of time or are Democrats incapable of coming up with a grand vision? I guess what I'm saying is that I long for a JFK-type to come along and make us all feel optimism again. Thanks.

Jonathan Weisman: Too much to consider with one minute to go, so I'll post your thoughts and let readers ruminate.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: Good morning, Jonathan, and thank you for joining us to chat today. What did Senator John Warner mean when he said he wanted the President sign off on the war crimes compromise? Is Warner trying to head off some late-nite conference shenanigans with Congressman Duncan Hunter, who got his committee to approve the White House bill on a second vote, with Democrats out of the room?

Jonathan Weisman: You may be reading a bit too much into it. The White House negotiator was National Security Adviser Steve Hadley, not the president. Warner wanted the blessing of the man on top. And Duncan Hunter made it clear he did not have sign-off from the House leadership. That is coming today.

_______________________

You know people can discuss these issues and be mostly polite: Wow. True. A bunch of six figure incomes, mostly born to six figure plus incomes who only really disagree on the margins can be polite about issues their wealth insulates them from anyway.

Color me stunned.

Jonathan Weisman: Are you suggesting those with incomes under six figures cannot be polite? The median household income in this country is around $44,000. That's a lot of impolite people out there.

_______________________

Jonathan Weisman: Still more questions out there. But I gotta go. Thanks everyone for participating.

_______________________

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.