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 White House reporter Peter Baker was online Friday, Dec. 15, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest political news and The Post's coverage of politics.

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

A transcript of the discussion follows.

____________________

Peter Baker: Good morning, everyone. Jonathan Weisman couldn't be with us today, so you're stuck with me. Fortunately, there's never any shortage of politics in Washington to chew over, so let's get started.

_______________________

San Francisco: Hello Peter Baker, thanks for chatting with readers today. These chats are great! Isn't it odd for traveling legislators, especially in a war zone, to comment on foreign policy before they return home to Washington? Used to be the president wasn't criticized while abroad, and that non-executive branch members didn't criticize or comment on foreign affairs until they were home, and had at least an opportunity to speak privately with the president about their visit. I'm shocked, frankly, at Senators McCain and Lieberman having a press availability and photo op in Baghdad.

Peter Baker: Thanks for the kind words, I think these chats are great too. It's not unusual for senators to hold press conferences overseas, at least these days. I was posted in Russia for four years and plenty of lawmakers came through and talked with us while there. Criticizing a president while overseas is a different matter and still a bit of a red line. The accounts I read of the comments by Senators McCain and Lieberman didn't seem to be critical of the president, though they offered their own ideas about what should be done next, i.e. surging more troops in Iraq.

_______________________

Atlanta: Hello either Peter (stated participant) or Jonathan (pictured participant)(9:50 a.m.),

The word is President Bush is going to increase the forces and increase the influx of money to help employ young Iraqi men. Is he also going to ask Congress to raise taxes to finance this action or do we go even deeper into debt?

Also, if he does increase troops and they fail to quell the violence, which most likely they will, does this remove a campaign plank of McCain's? His call for more troops works great as campaign rhetoric if we don't send in more troops and he can say "I told you to send more troops but you didn't and see what happened." But if we do send in more troops and they fail doesn't he look as out of touch as the president?

Peter Baker: Do they really have Jonathan's picture up? Well, I guess they were afraid of breaking computer screens if they put mine up. How funny.

President Bush and his team are exploring proposals that would call for a short-term surge in troops in Iraq, but I'm not sure that they'll actually do it. The military, for one, seems to oppose it, unsure that it would do any good. Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, seemed to reflect the Pentagon's skepticism when he told reporters yesterday: "We would not surge without a purpose. And that purpose should be measurable."

Having said that, I think you make a good point: if the president did order more troops, it would in effect call Senator McCain's bluff. If it helped, then the senator would be able to say "I told you so" on the campaign trail and if it failed, it would allow his opponents to call his judgment into question. As for financing, the White House is expected to send a $120 billion war supplemental appropriation to Congress early in the new year. No new taxes are envisioned, and it's hard to imagine anyone has $120 billion in offsetting spending cuts they're prepared to make, so that would mean more debt.

_______________________

San Francisco: Hi, Peter, how's your White House Press Corps Trivia? Any idea when the last time a Press Secretary apologized from the podium as Tony Snow did to David Gregory of NBC? Were you there when it happened? Was it excruciating?

Peter Baker: Hmm, good question. I wasn't there, but it's fair to say Tony Snow is more willing to apologize and retract statements that go too far than most of his predecessors. As a former television and radio host, he can be very glib, which has its strengths and weaknesses. With that can come some snappy but ill-considered comments. But he's shown a willingness to rethink what he said and "revise and extend" his remarks, as they say on Capitol Hill.

_______________________

Rolla, Mo.: When Bolten resigned, my first thought for his replacement was Lieberman, but this was pooh-poohed as unrealistic, that Khalilizad was the top of the list, the political fallout would be too great. Well, now Joe Conason from Salon is suggesting Lieberman may be the choice, speculating that he was offered the job a year ago, thought about it a week and declined. Now, he could serve in this capacity while lining up a VP bid with McCain. Is this crazy, or a possibility?

Peter Baker: Maybe somewhere between crazy and possible. Anything's possible and I could see why the president would think it would be beneficial to make a bipartisan move while giving the Republican governor of Connecticut the right to appoint a two-year successor for Senator Lieberman. But it's a little hard to imagine that the senator would want to give up his seat after having waged such an intense, death-defying campaign to keep it. And given that he knows it would mean handing Republicans control of the Senate, it's even harder to imagine that he would pull the rug out from under his lifelong party even if he is unhappy about what they did during his general election campaign.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Good Morning Peter: You're a more-than-able substitute for Jonathan.

It appears as though the president wasn't kidding when he said he'd stick with his Iraq policy even if he only had Laura and Barney behind him. His unwavering belief in the correctness of his position seems to trump any fact to the contrary presented to him. Reminds me of the George Costanza line from Seinfeld. "If you believe it's true, then it's not a lie."

Peter Baker: Hmm, if the president is George Costanza, who's Jerry? (Let's not get into Kramer here ... )

_______________________

Chicago: Good news that early indications are that Sen. Johnson is recovering. However, given the razor of a margin in the control of the Senate, do you think both sides are tending the vineyards to be sure that no rogue senators are thinking of jumping ship?

Peter Baker: Certainly should be the top priority for both Sen. Reid and Sen. McConnell. It was quite striking that Sen. Reid spent most of the night at the hospital with Sen. Johnson.

_______________________

Chicago: Thanks for participating in these chats. Sen. Obama was interviewed by the Chicago Tribune's editorial board about running for president. A story appeared in today's paper. I thought he gave a really good answer to the question about whether he had enough experience to run for president: "The test of leadership in my mind is not going to be what's on a paper resume. Vice President Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had the best resumes on paper of any foreign policy team and the result has been what I consider to be one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes in our history." Seems to me that is a pretty effective answer, which would also work against any senators who voted for the war (e.g. Hillary, McCain) who might want to mention the thinness of Obama's resume. What do you think?

Peter Baker: Well, it's the obvious answer to give to that question. What else could he say? The real question would be, is it good enough to satisfy skeptics? For some, it may still be a bit of a leap to say that a candidate with just two years of experience at the federal level is ready to lead the country in a time of war. There have been others who made it work: Jimmy Carter had just one term as a governor and some time in the Georgia state senate when he was elected president. George W. Bush had just 1-1/2 terms as governor and no other elected service when he became president. Maybe as important as experience, of course, will be the power of ideas. If Senator Obama can articulate a coherent, compelling vision of where he wants to take the country that resonates with the public, that can go a long way to easing concerns over a thin resume.

_______________________

Atlanta: How do you think relations between President Bush and Congressional GOPers will be this last session?

Peter Baker: Strained. Many congressional Republicans blame him for their loss and some are particularly peeved that he waited until after the elections to push out Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And now that he's a lame duck with no election before him, they have even less reason to defer to him; they all still need to go before voters, and their own fates will matter more than his legacy.

_______________________

Miami, Fla.: Peter,

President Bush likes to compare himself to Harry Truman but wouldn't LBJ be an equally valid comparison?

Thanks for the chats.

Peter Baker: If you were the president in a time of war, would you want to compare yourself to Lyndon Johnson? It's easy to see why Harry Truman would be a more comforting model. (For those who haven't yet, check out my crackerjack colleague Mike Abramowitz's story this morning about the president's interest in President Truman.) But as you say, obviously Presidents Bush and Johnson have had some similar experiences, two brash Texans presiding over foreign wars that went badly and paying a political price at home as a result. They're also very different in other ways. Tapes of LBJ's phone calls published by historian Michael Beschloss show how much President Johnson agonized over the war -- and how he believed even from the beginning that there was no way to win but felt trapped by circumstance into continuing to escalate it. There's little indication that President Bush privately harbors the same sorts of feelings.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Truman's Trials Resonate for Bush (Post, Dec. 15)

Peter Baker: Here's that story ...

_______________________

Condi is Elaine: Rumsfeld is Jerry

Peter Baker: Hmmm!

_______________________

Rochester, Minn.: Good day and thanks for your time in taking questions. While I was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, I now feel much as Colin Powell stated that once we broke it, we bought it. Having spent a dozen years abroad with many friends still abroad I would feel a great sense of shame at having broken Iraq and possibly even the greater Mid-East and then just cut and run. I don't really hear any voices from the U.S. side advocating that we have a responsibility to fix things now.

Peter Baker: There are some out there who agree with your point of view, that whatever the merits of getting in, there are now consequences to simply getting out. I think that view probably fueled a lot of the thinking of the Democratic members on the Iraq Study Group, for instance.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Experience -- Jimmy Carter was also an Annapolis grad, nuclear sub officer and had extensive contacts with the defense establishment as a result of his service (Stansfield Turner, his classmate). Most importantly, we were not under threat of attack in 1976. It remains a threat today. Obama never wore the uniform and has not been around long enough to form ties with defense experts who he knows he can trust.

Peter Baker: Fair point -- although I would disagree with the notion that we were not under threat of attack in 1976. At least as I remember it, we always felt like we lived under a threat during the Cold War. And of course, President Carter was forced to confront the Soviets over their invasion of Afghanistan.

_______________________

San Francisco: Hello Peter, so glad you could chat with readers today! Not so sure the "Bush had 1.5 terms as TX-guv" argument will be one Obama wants to make, given the utter failure of the Bush presidency, especially in the foreign arena. Would it surprise you to see primary and caucus voters looking for more of a foreign affairs heavyweight in 2008?

Peter Baker: It wouldn't be a good argument in a Democratic primary, that's for sure. I would be surprised if voters in both parties weren't considering national security high on their list as they evaluate candidates in 2008. That obviously can work in the favor of candidates such as Sen.r McCain and will be a challenge for those such as Sen. Obama and Gov. Romney. But it's not a foregone conclusion that that will be the trump card. Gen. Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe who led the war in Kosovo, obviously qualified as a national security heavyweight in 2004 but got nowhere in the Democratic primary campaign.

_______________________

Gettysburg, Pa.: If Lieberman were offered ambassador to the UN, wouldn't that have to be confirmed by the Senate? Why would the Democrats in the Senate want to confirm Lieberman and thereby doom their fragile majority? Is it possible, as part of this appointment, that the governor of Conn. would be politely asked to appoint a Democrat to fill Lieberman's Senate seat?

Peter Baker: He would indeed have to be confirmed. Hard to imagine Democrats actually blocking a colleague, even with the consequence to their majority -- and if they did and he therefore stayed in the Senate, he wouldn't be in much of a mood to help them keep their majority, would he? Nor am I sure how much horsetrading could be done in connection with such a vote; it might appear too unseemly, at least if it was too public. But I guess it's not smart to rule anything out.

_______________________

LBJ/Bush: To corroborate your speculation that LBJ's agony at presiding over an unpopular, unsuccessful war isn't shared by the current incumbent: President Bush said to ABC News, "I must tell you, I'm sleeping a lot better than people would assume."

Peter Baker: And if that's true, it means he sleeps better than his own father did during the first Gulf War. President George H.W. Bush wrote in his diary and in letters at the time about his troubles sleeping and the enormous pressure he felt over sending U.S. soldiers into combat.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Peter, Your colleague at The Fix says that Stephanie Herseth would be the first choice to run for a open seat in South Dakota in 2008. Any ideas why Daschle's name is not mentioned? Is he no longer interested or does the SD party want to go with a different candidate? Thanks

Peter Baker: It's a good question and I don't know the answer. Tom Daschle, of course, lost a bruising race for reelection in South Dakota in 2004 and may not be eager to replay that campaign. He also may have other priorities at the moment. He just briefly weighed, and then ruled out, a run for president.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Why does the media uncritically report the use of the term "the way forward" without questioning what it means, or examining whether it is a term biased toward staying in Iraq. Why not "the way out"? as a term more reflective of what the electorate voted for just last month?

Why is the media giving so little ink to why the electorate voted the Republicans out and how that is being disregarded by both Republicans and Democrats (or "Centrists") who, without debate, have dismissed the option of "precipitous" withdrawal?

Peter Baker: Well, the question seems to assume that Democrats won Congress because voters want an immediate pullout of troops. Polls suggest otherwise. In the Washington Post-ABC News survey released this week, 52 percent want to decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq but just 15 percent want to bring home all troops right away. So many Democrats in Congress are pushing for a phased withdrawal, which in some ways is what the Iraq Study Group proposed, though not as precisely as many Democrats want.

_______________________

Say what?????:"Most importantly, we were not under threat of attack in 1976."

So wrote a chatter comparing Carter to Obama.

No question here, just a comment...one of the U.S.'s key problems, strategically, since 9/11 has been an utter lack of any sense of proportion. In 1976, there were thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at us, and a proxy war with our enemy had just ended the year before. Another in Angola was either ongoing or upcoming.

We've inflated the threat from international terrorism, and as a result made many, many foolish decisions.

Anyone thinking we were safer in 1976 than today is a cipher.

End of rant.

Peter Baker: Thanks for the comment.

_______________________

Roseland, NJ: I think of a different show:

Cheney = Lou Grant (without the soft, huggable side)

The President = Ted Baxter

Condi = Mary!

Peter Baker: I think it's best for me not to comment here, but this is getting fun.

_______________________

Anonymous: Is Newt Gingrich actually considered a serious contender for the GOP presidential nomination? Would McCain need to outflank him to the right? Gingrich does get exposure as a regular contributor to Fox News (I see he is hosting an upcoming special on why (not whether) some are trying to take religion out of public life).

Peter Baker: He could be a serious contender, but I think we won't know for sure for a number of months. Unlike, say, Senator McCain or Governor Romney, Newt Gingrich doesn't seem to be doing the sorts of things in terms of organization and travel that one would need to do for a full-fledged campaign. But he clearly wants at a minimum to influence the debate, to have a platform to advance his ideas, and so it's possible we'll see him jump in sometime in the later side of 2007.

_______________________

Washington DC: Thanks for these chats. I'll take advantage that you're a White House reporter to ask an administration question.

The military is stretched thin, the reserves are being called up repeatedly, and the new secretary of defense has said that he wants more troops in the army and Marines. Do you foresee a high level call to service coming in the president's address and if not, how do we get these troops?

Peter Baker: The president has on a few rare occasions appealed to Americans to sign up for the military, but it hasn't been a sustained effort. Not sure if he'll revisit that theme given the pleas by the military and some politicians to expand the number of men and women in uniform.

_______________________

From Kansas City: The comparison that President Bush is attempting to make with Harry Truman is shameful. One might make a case for a few surface-level situational similarities between their presidencies -- unpopular war, low poll numbers, etc. However, when we dig below the surface -- especially, in discerning the CHARACTER of each man -- there is no comparison. Harry Truman was a man of truth, honor, humility, and integrity. George Bush ... frankly, one historic American figure who comes to mind as a closer comparison with President Bush is Gen. Armstrong Custer.

Peter Baker: Posting for the sake of the discussion. Thanks for writing.

_______________________

WDC: The Post Web site has a link to the audio recording of Sen. Johnson having his seizure and becoming incoherent. What do you think of this? Seems a bit ghoulish to me, and not terribly newsworthy (I'm sure Matt Drudge would disagree).

Maybe I'm just getting tired of the cable news "Democratic Senator on death's door following complication-free surgery" nonsense.

Peter Baker: I guess that's a question better directed to the Web site editors. In this day and age, though, the tendency has been to err on the side of more information rather than less, and leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions.

_______________________

Sewickley, Pa.: Good morning and thank you for taking questions. If the president is committed to staying in Iraq regardless of what Baker-Hamilton says, wouldn't it be wise for the commander-in-chief to ask the entire country to contribute to the war effort by accepting a draft? Mr. Bush doesn't have to run for election and really does not seem to care what the polls say about his popularity or that of the war. My husband, a 50-year-old reservist, has just been called up for the second time -- thankfully he will be serving stateside this time. Our neighbor has a son in the Marines who is serving his third tour in Iraq. The country voted for this president and his policies in 2004. Doesn't the country have a moral obligation to contribute their children and grandchildren to whatever force is necessary in order to get the electricity on, the oil flowing, and the sewer system in working order before we leave Iraq? Why couldn't the president propose a plan that would entail sending 500,000 - 1,000,000 troops to the Middle East so that reconstruction can be accomplished in a secure environment?

Peter Baker: Thanks for writing and thanks to your husband for his service. You make some provocative points, obviously. Congressman Charlie Rangel of New York has raised the question of a draft, but it's not going to go anywhere. The multiple tours in Iraq and repeated callups of reservists and guard troops do raise the question of how we view our volunteer military in a new era. An awful heavy burden has fallen on a very small proportion of the population, with no obvious end in sight.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: Thanks for taking our questions.

I have a question about how you do your job. You, like George Bush, are one man. However, George Bush, whose White House you cover, has a massive staff to consult on complex matters ranging from tax policy to international trade law to the science of global warming to the sociology of housing aid to the poor, and so on.

You do not.

So while neither you nor George Bush are experts on all the matters his White House deals with, Bush has ACCESS to experts. How do you try to balance the scales and obtain enough knowledge about arcane issues to write good articles? Further, do you think this imbalance of expertise, between you and whom you cover, makes it easy for you to slip into long discussions of the POLITICS of a given issue, rather than the MERITS of the issue?

I think one lesson that's dawning on the news-consuming public is that there is a growing disrespect for objective facts in politics, and a hope that the media can restore respect for, for want of a better word, truth. But how can the media do that when each reporter is expected to be an expert on Congress as an institution or the White House, rather than doing the literally impossible and having enough expertise to evaluate claims and counterclaims?

Peter Baker: Good question and not one easily answered in a just a few lines. But I'll take a crack at it. You're right, of course, that the president has the advantage of an entire government at his disposal. And reporters have to file by a deadline that seems to loom ever closer all the time. So by definition, our ability to understand every issue we write about is limited by time and resources. Having said that, reporters are fortunate that we can call and get any number of knowledgeable people on the phone, and unlike the president, we can pretty much count on them giving us a straightforward briefing on an issue without worrying about currying favor with the boss. We're also not really alone, as you say. As I look around this newsroom, I see an enormous body of knowledge, talent and experience. When Sen. Johnson is sick, for example, we're lucky to have our colleague David Brown, himself an MD, to consult and, as he did this morning, to write a sidebar explaining the medical facts. We're lucky to have trained lawyers here as journalists and reporters who have followed issues like Medicare, military affairs, foreign relations and other matters for so many years that they often know more than the short-term officials assigned to brief them. So we do our best with what we have.

_______________________

Peter Baker: Thanks, everyone, for a fun session. At the end of the day, I'm not sure whether we've concluded that President Bush is Harry Truman or George Costanza, but we've provided some fodder for fun cocktail or TV dinner conversations for days to come. Have a great weekend and tune in again Monday.

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.