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 Peter Baker was online Tuesday, Nov. 21, at noon ET to discuss the latest news on politics, Congress and the White House.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Peter Baker: Good morning, everyone. President Bush is wrapping up his overseas trip with a stop in Hawaii and tragically I'm not with him. But that means I'm back here in Washington and eager to take your questions, so let's get started.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: It seems to me that McCain has decided to gamble his entire political future on the "more troops to Iraq" theme. The country has ZERO appetite for that and wants us to find a way out. What is he thinking?

Peter Baker: Senator McCain may be taking a risk, but this is a consistent position he has espoused for quite a long time. Being pro-war in 2008 may be a big political liability, especially if things in Iraq aren't going any better, but the senator clearly hopes voters will respect him for what he considers a consistent, principled stand.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: What happens to the polling data accumulated or commissioned by the White House? Is it ever released to the public? How many polls are run by the Executive branch in a 12 month period?

Thanks.

Peter Baker: The White House itself doesn't do polls, at least that I'm aware of. (The State Department does do polls in foreign countries.) In general, the political polls that the White House looks at are privately commissioned, usually by the RNC or by other Republican allies.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: When do House Reps, who have only 2 year terms, have to start campaigning? These campaigns last so long and money raising etc. Seems like a never ending task.

Peter Baker: When do they start campaigning for the next election? Well, let's see, the last election was November 7 ... so, November 8? Seriously, you're right, it never really stops. These guys might take it easy for a few weeks but the fundraising and rotary club meetings and rubber-chicken circuit riding will get going pretty quickly. That's one reason so many House members want to run for Senate -- at least there, they have six years between elections. Though even there, it's becoming more and more full-time.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: So, big changes coming at The Post, with Harris and VandeHei setting up their new multimedia web-type political thing. Is this part of Washington Post online, or is it separate and unrelated? Are you going with them? Have you been asked? How will political coverage at The Post change?

Peter Baker: The Post is mourning the departure of our friends and colleagues, John Harris, our national political editor, and Jim VandeHei, a national political correspondent. They're going to start a brand-new politics Web site funded by the Albritton family, completely separate from the Post. No, I'm not going with them but all of us will miss them terribly. I was partners with each of them at different times on the White House beat and they really are the best. But we will now wish them luck and turn our attention to rebuilding our political team. The good news out of all this is the paper's leadership is energized these days about assembling the best political team in American journalism and there will be exciting new developments in our own coverage both in the paper and on the Web. You'll be seeing more news about that soon. With the most wide-open presidential election in generations coming up in 2008, this is a great moment of opportunity for the Post and we plan to rise to the occasion.

_______________________

Ellicott City, Md.: I never saw who won the Outlook contest for seats in the House/Senate. Is it still too close to call?

Peter Baker: Mort Kondracke, the editor of Roll Call, won. He nailed the House makeup and the governor's races perfectly, missed the Senate results by just one seat and correctly called all four of the individual Senate races that were listed. A bravura performance.

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: Mr. Baker,

You wrote a fascinating article for Sunday's edition about the lack of support Bush has been receiving of late from people whom he counted on on the past. How do you see this as affecting his presidency and the ability to get any legislation he wants passed in the next two years with such vehement opposition in Congress and throughout the Washington establishment?

Peter Baker: It's an interesting phenomenon and we'll have to see. In general, Republicans on the Hill are angry with the president and have less incentive now to stick with him than before, since he's no longer running and they're no longer going to be running with him. Add that to the fact that there won't even be a vice president running for president in 2008 touting the Bush legacy and it leaves him potentially more isolated. Having said that, President Bush didn't get to where he is by succumbing to adversity. Two years is a long time and the presidency is still a powerful tool. So there's still room for maneuvering if the White House is nimble.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: You write "Being pro-war in 2008 may be a big political liability, especially if things in Iraq aren't going any better, but the senator clearly hopes voters will respect him for what he considers a consistent, principled stand."

Why is it that when it comes to McCain, all of his stands are invariably described as "principled" whereas when, say, Hillary Clinton panders to voters, it is called by its rightful name "pandering." Why can't you just say that here, as with his other recent moves, McCain is pandering to George Bush Republicans in hopes of winning the 2008 Republican primary?

Peter Baker: Well, I didn't describe it as principled, I said he considers it principled and hopes you as voters see it the same way. As for pandering, that's in the eye of the beholder. Does Senator McCain pander? Does Senator Clinton? Those are judgments voters are going to make.

_______________________

Las Vegas, Nev.: Hi Peter:

I have a theory that it doesn't matter who wins each party's nomination -- Hillary Clinton, Barack, McCain, etc.

What matters is which party can get someone to run as a credible 3rd party to take at least 2% of the votes away from the opposing party.

This is based on 3 of the last 4 presidential elections being influenced (or potentially decided outright) by the interference of an independent/3rd party candidate.

Think Gore wouldn't want 2% of the vote from Florida in 2000?

That said, are there any likely Ind./3rd party candidates who could tip the playing field? How about any smoky backroom recruiting of such a candidate?

Peter Baker: You make an interesting point. Ross Perot, of course, in 1992 and 1996, Ralph Nader in 2000 particularly, played important roles. President Bush, though, won an outright majority in 2006, so that was not so much a factor there. I'm not aware of anyone at the moment planning a significant third-party run, but you can easily imagine a scenario where that would happen depending on who wins the nominations.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Considering the number of senior people that have moved away from their support of the President, how much do you attribute to honest dissent for whatever reason versus their desire to recuse themselves early enough to join on with others who are no seen as a lame-duck?

Peter Baker: I'd be loathe to assign motivations myself. Different people may have different reasons for growing more openly critical, or in some cases, it may be a genuine mix of these factors.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: Go long, go big or go home are additional bad Bush-Rove type simple slogans that should be relegated to a scrap heap along with stay the course & cut and run. The U.S. needs its military planners/strategists to solve Bush's foolish Iraq invasion decision rather than develop more catchy slogans. If these so-called options are the best military planners/strategists can produce, they should be fired along with pentagon military brass that developed or acquiesced to Bush's original failed war Iraq strategy.

Peter Baker: This is a comment regarding Tom Ricks's story that led the paper yesterday outlining the thinking in the Pentagon as they search for alternative policies in Iraq. Maybe we can post that story here.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Pentagon May Suggest Short-Term Buildup Leading to Iraq Exit, ( Post, Nov. 20)

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: It seems to me that McCain is sticking to his story, something that appeals to Republicans, even if they don't like the story. What isn't clear is have things changed so much in Iraq that our faulty entrance has made "more troops" now a not very effective tactic. We're hearing more and more about the Shiite/Sunni split, and in more detail. Who's Bush listening to now on the culture of Iraq and its neighbors? Happy TG to you.

Peter Baker: Happy Thanksgiving to you too. Besides his own staff, the president over the last few months has held private meetings with a variety of specialists on Iraq, the military or the Middle East more broadly, so he's getting some input from different voices. Sometimes these are even voices that have been quite critical of the administration, such as General Barry McCaffrey. But which of these voices he actually heeds, that's a harder question. Clearly at the moment, Jim Baker's voice seems to be the most important one in Washington. We're all just waiting now to see what he will say.

_______________________

Vermillion, S.D.: In your opinion what Republican will be most electable in 2008 for president?

In my opinion, 2008 will be a very hard year for Republicans because of Iraq. On top of that, none of the candidates seem very strong. Many of the GOP contenders have had multiple wives (McCain, Giuliani, Gingrich) which could turn off the base. As far as I know all of them support the Iraq war too. What Republican has the best chance in 2008? Or should the GOP just write of 2008 now?

Peter Baker: A good question. The conventional wisdom is that Senator McCain may be the most electable, that he has a powerful following that transcends party lines. Obviously Mayor Giuliani has the mantle of 9/11 hero and a moderate stand on social issues that would appeal to Democrats -- but also would alienate a lot of Republicans. As for the others, they're not well known enough nationally to really assess. We need to watch them campaign for a while to see how they stand up to the pressure and challenges of a national campaign. As for 2008, I don't think Republicans need to write it off because we don't know at this point what will necessarily be the most salient issue then. Anything's still possible at this point, and that's what makes it so interesting, right?

_______________________

Rolla, Mo.: Regarding McCain's war stance in 2008, it may not matter at that point. It seems most likely that by then the loss of Iraq will be clear, and that troop withdrawals will have begun. McCain supporters will admit that it is over, but claim "if we had just sent in more troops earlier, we would have prevailed," just as many still believe we gave up on Vietnam too soon, never really committed to it. He has called for this for a long time, but he must realize it's not going to happen, and there is no risk in continuing this argument.

Peter Baker: Certainly a possible scenario.

_______________________

Newport Beach, Calif.: Sooner or later, the U.S. will pull out of Iraq. How long will it the take for the conservatives to start the blame game of "Who lost Iraq?", just as they accused the Democrats of "losing China" in 1947.

Peter Baker: Well, whatever happens next, the who-lost-Iraq argument has already begun to a large extent. You see a lot of supporters of the war now saying, well, it wasn't done the way we recommended, and that may be the case. As our previous post-er noted, Senator McCain presumably will say: Good idea, but not executed the way it should have been. Rightly or wrongly, the dismissal of Secretary Rumsfeld obviously focuses a lot of the political blame game on him for the moment.

_______________________

Minn.: I enjoyed your article on Sunday, and found it telling that some neocons are publicly wondering now whether invading Iraq was fundamentally wrong, vs right but poorly done. Did election results prompt this soul-searching, or had people previously felt unable to speak out?

Peter Baker: Most of these folks had been talking about this to some degree or another or heading in that direction before the election, but in some cases did not want to speak as publicly as they have now until after the vote was over, fearing their words would be politicized and used against Republicans. That's what happened with Vanity Fair -- the magazine's article hasn't even come out (it's going to be in the January issue) but the magazine put out a news release highlighting some of the quotes in the article in the last week before the election. Richard Perle and some of the others complained that they were promised it would not appear until after the election and that Vanity Fair misled them.

_______________________

Bel Air, Md.: Your answer on the 'electability' of a particular candidate makes an interesting point in that the well known candidates are not strictly defined (or definable) by their positions as some of those positions cross conventional party lines - look at the number of pro-gun, anti-abortion Dems elected this year -- maybe we are beginning to see the emergence of a newly defined 3rd party, or candidates not so extreme in all of their beliefs. Possible?

Peter Baker: Possible. But there's a difference between a conservative Democrat getting the party nomination for the House in a conservative district (or a liberal Republican getting the party nomination for mayor in a liberal city) and getting the Republican nomination for president. The presidential primary electorate is several degrees more conservative than the general public, obviously, and issues such as abortion, guns, gay rights and so on play a powerful role that shouldn't be discounted. No Republican has won the presidential nomination without an avowedly strong anti-abortion position in the last 30 years. Even Senator McCain, who is anti-abortion, suffers sometimes among conservative voters who nonetheless question his commitment to the cause. If we talk about principles, these are very important principles for a lot of primary voters.

_______________________

Great North East: Tragically not in Hawaii or tragically not with Bush? Methinks the former.

Peter Baker: What's the Latin phrase? Res ipsa loquitur? The thing speaks for itself.

So alas, that's all the time we have for today. I recommend the Big Island for anyone looking for a break. Kuai is nice too.

Have a great day.

Best,

Peter

_______________________

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.