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 Tuesday, Feb. 6, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest news in 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.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Peter Baker: Good morning, everyone. The president's just released the last budget he'll oversee in full, the Senate is gridlocked on Iraq and Rudy Giuliani is in and "in this to win." Another great day in American politics, so let's get started.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: The Libby trail does not seem to get much attention from the press as it should. Do you feel that The Post has undercut it for the news?

Peter Baker: Gosh, I'm not sure why you say that. Just a quick database search turns up 25 news articles and columns in the Post in the last three weeks, including five on the front page. And the trial's just in its first phase. Wait until Vice President Cheney testifies.

_______________________

Greenville, S.C.: Yo Peter -- you got any problems with your colleague William Arkin writing an entire column based on the American troops in Iraq being mercenaries and then, after taking a lot of heat, saying words to the effect of "I probably should not have used the word 'mercenary' "? Is this the kind of diversity The Washington Post is looking for?

Peter Baker: Sorry, this is beyond my field. William Arkin writes for the Web site and this is a question better directed to the editors there.

_______________________

San Francisco: Good morning, Peter, and thanks for chatting with us today. What possible leverage does a President at 28 percent approval hold over members of his party up for re-election to the Senate next year? I particularly am amazed at the party discipline exhibited by Senators Hagel and Smith, who seemed so keen on stopping the surge a few days ago.

Peter Baker: The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll has President Bush's approval rating at 33 percent, matching the lowest ever in that poll. Obviously that means he has limited influence over fellow Republicans, particularly the ones running for re-election. But I think some of the Republicans who oppose his troop increase are irritated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decisions about how to handle the debate -- which of the multiple resolutions would be allowed for debate and a vote.

_______________________

Washington: What's with the Republican's blocking the debate on Iraq? Are they thinking that by avoiding the discussion they will get the public's backing? I know they want the right to offer amendments, but come on!

Peter Baker: I doubt they think this will permanently avoid debate on the war. My guess is this is all about bargaining about the terms of the debate and we'll see this reach the floor before too long. This is fairly typical of the Senate.

_______________________

Washington: In the new budget the Administration seems to pay for continued tax breaks for the high-income folks by letting the alternative minimum tax cover an increasing number of taxpayers. My impression is that either the AMT or the tax breaks had to trump the other and the Administration has finally expressed its preference. Because I did my taxes last weekend and got hit with the AMT for the first time, I'm not happy about this. Do you think Congress will go along with this?

Peter Baker: Congressional leaders of both parties are eager to keep more middle-class people from being caught up in the AMT so it may be a safe bet that it will not end up the way it is right now in the president's budget.

_______________________

Dublin, Va.: If Nancy Pelosi wants to use government-paid transportation for security, how about the rest of the Congress? Don't they equally deserve security? And how about the constituency? We also should have free Air Force rides when we travel -- after all, it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, isn't it? Oops, no, I'm wrong -- it's a government for the elite elected, and their families and friends too. Come on! Where is the outrage from the liberal press on this one?

Peter Baker: Well, this is not something that started with Nancy Pelosi, it started with Dennis Hastert after 9/11. The House speaker is obviously different from the other 434 members since he/she is next in line to the presidency after the vice president. The question that is particular to Speaker Pelosi at the moment is whether she is seeking special treatment beyond that given to Speaker Hastert. The Air Force is going to provide her with a larger plane when she travels home to California because the plane that Speaker Hastert used to go home to Illinois is too small to make it there without refueling.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: Good morning! On Iraq and the surge and all that ... have you been surprised at how fast the debate has moved since the new Congress came in? At that time, just a month ago, the idea of cutting off funding was a fringe idea; now it seems like while it would lose in a vote, it would garner significant support. Today the Senate Republicans have to use the filibuster to stop a resolution against escalation from passing. I don't think that would have been true a month ago. What, in your opinion, has accounted for the movement -- Events in Iraq or pressure from the public? Or do you disagree with my basic premise that there's been significant movement in Congress?

Peter Baker: I think you're onto something, the debate does seem to have moved pretty fast in recent weeks. Just as you say, the idea of cutting off funds was considered fringe just a few weeks ago. When President Bush accused Democrats during the campaign last year of being willing to do so, the leadership argued angrily back that this distorted their position and it was only the most liberal antiwar part of the caucus that favored something so radical. Now it seems to be a much more central idea in the debate, although as you say it probably would not win a vote in either house at the moment.

Why has that changed? Good question. Certainly events on the ground have only continued to trouble everyone in Washington. The Iraq Study Group report crystallized the bipartisan sense that things in Iraq have spiraled out of control, even to the point that President Bush effectively agrees. And his plan to increase troops, which many Democrats and some Republicans consider contrary to the election results, has clearly fanned the fire in Washington in a powerful way. But some Democrats worry that the funding issue could be politically problematic for them; they're quite leery of appearing to do anything that would be seen, or portrayed, as undermining the troops. And some Republicans are eager to shift the debate to funding in part for that reason.

_______________________

Senate resolutions: Thank you for taking questions. I'm so confused by what happened yesterday I barely know what question to ask, so I'll keep it to this one: Did I hear correctly that Senator Warner voted against debate yesterday even though his own resolution was on the slate? If true, why would he have voted no?

Peter Baker: Yes, he did. He was unsatisfied with the way Senator Reid planned to control the debate and he sided with the near-unanimous Republican caucus in blocking it to force the Democrats to allow additional resolutions to be considered on the floor.

_______________________

Des Moines, Iowa: Will you be at the Iowa Straw poll in August 2007, and if so do you think a strong showing of support (15 percent or more) for Secretary of State Condi Rice would be seen as viable? And would that be evidence that people in Iowa really want her to run?

Peter Baker: I'm afraid I won't be there. Obviously, Secretary Rice has said consistently that she's not running. It would be surprising if a non-candidate got such a substantial vote; in the end, delegates tend to vote for people they think really are running for fear of wasting their effort. But if you're right, that would certainly be an interesting story.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Pelosi Catches Nonstop Flights Home (Post, Feb. 6)

Peter Baker: Here's that Pelosi-plane story.

_______________________

Rolla, Mo.: I've been against the Iraq War from the start, and here is how cynical I have become -- the Democrats should let the Administration have this surge, not find a way to block its funding and settle all doubts about who is to blame for the Iraq failure by 2008. I can already hear the arguments by McCain and others that the Democrats cut off funding for a surge, didn't give our brave soldiers a chance to finish the job, etc. Yes, this is about politics, as it has been for the past three national elections. If you believe the long-range health of this country depends on who is in power for the next decade, you have to look at it this way.

Peter Baker: Not really a question in there, so I'll just post it to see what reaction we get. Thanks for offering your thoughts.

_______________________

More vicious primary season: Dems or Pubs?

Peter Baker: Fabulous question! Wish I could give you a good answer. You can certainly the potential for a street fight on both sides. Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani -- these are all tough, tough pols. Look what they've each been through in the past. And the lesson that Senator McCain no doubt took from the South Carolina primary in 2000 and that the Democrats took from the 2004 race is once again to be as tough or tougher than the other guy. Now how much they're willing to unleash the dogs is another question.

_______________________

Anonymous: Did you see the poll done by Crain's NY Business that has Rudy winning the Repub primary but losing to Hilary statewide by 20+ points? I know it is crazy-early but that sounds bad for Rudy that he couldn't win his own state. Didn't Gore get crucified by the press for not carrying his own state? Similar situation, maybe?

Peter Baker: Somewhat similar, but in this case, both Sen. Clinton and Mayor Giuliani call New York their political home state, so it wouldn't be quite the same as Vice President Gore losing Tennessee. Have to say, as an old Virginia reporter, I was interested to see what a Mark Warner-George Allen matchup would be like in the Old Dominion, but I guess we'll have to leave that little hypothetical to the what-if crowd.

_______________________

Prescott, Ariz.: Hello. Were you at those Democratic meetings watching the speeches? I was curious because your colleague David Broder mentioned that General Clark's speech went over poorly, because he preached sacrifice for America (duty, honor, service) and had a pro-military message. Broder went on to say that "few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military."

Now the other reviews of the meeting I've glanced at made it sound like Clark got a good response. What did you see? And on a more holistic note, I seem to remember somewhere around 40 Iraq vets running as Dems this past November (not to mention heroes like Jim Webb), while there were only a handful of Repub. vets. What is Broder getting at?

Peter Baker: I was not there, so I'll have to punt that to David. Or you can ask Dan Balz the next time he chats, because he did cover it. Sorry.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: The Other Democrats Weigh In (Post, Feb. 6)

_______________________

Bluffton, S.C.: Why is it that I have to go to the blogs to get the actual facts? The Republicans are NOT blocking debate on Iraq. The Dems want to debate only one resolution and refuse to let others come up for debate. I do wish you writers would get it straight so that the chatter from Washington wouldn't be deceived by misleading headlines.

Peter Baker: Well, I think I've said several times in this chat already that the Republicans are objecting to the terms of the debate that Sen. Reid is imposing and that this is a tactical dispute that will presumably be resolved at some point. Our story this morning likewise made that clear: "Republicans said they have no desire to avoid a debate, asserting that they simply want a fair hearing on their proposals. 'We are ready and anxious to have this debate this week,' said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.)."

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: While I'm not sure I would vote for Giuliani, it is a shame that for people like him there is no plausible route to the White House. His views on gays (that it's "OK") and abortion mean he doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting the nomination. I only wonder why he isn't smart enough to see that. Perhaps is aiming for the VP?

Peter Baker: It's a good question. I've been surprised that he seems to genuinely be running too, given that his position on such key social issues is at such variance with the Republican primary electorate. No Republican favoring abortion rights has won the nomination since Gerald Ford in 1976, and he barely beat back Ronald Reagan. Having said that, Mayor Giuliani appeals to many conservatives -- even those who disagree with him on such issues -- because they perceive him as being the type of tough, decisive leader needed in dangerous times. What will be interesting to see is if that stays the same even after groups that care very deeply about abortion, gay marriage, gun rights and so on become active in the debate and throw a spotlight on the mayor's views in a more prominent way. And there are other things in his record and past that opponents presumably will remind voters of after the campaign really gets underway that could change the dynamic. So we'll see. He's certainly one of the most interesting candidates to watch in the race for a lot of these reasons.

_______________________

Iowa: Have we had any further word on Sen. Johnson's medical condition? I am assuming he is still hospitalized. Given the minute Democratic majority in the Senate, his absence is certainly a critical matter.

Peter Baker: He still is hospitalized in a rehabilitation unit at George Washington University Hospital. The last I saw was that he has begun to speak again but will require months of recovery before returning to the Senate. As long as he chooses not to resign, the seat is his and there is no procedure to replace him, so he can remain in the hospital as long as he likes and still remain a senator. And as long as he holds that office and is not replaced by a Republican appointed by the governor, Democrats can claim majority status in the Senate on 50-49 votes. But that's such a razor's edge for any majority to walk, especially when you have some pretty independent-minded members, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman, who actually still calls himself an independent while caucusing with the Democrats.

_______________________

Atlanta: Peter, you really believe Cheney is going to testify on behalf of Scoot? For what purpose would he?

Peter Baker: He's scheduled to testify, yes, and is not fighting it. I don't know specifically what the planned line of inquiry is going to be. But whatever it is, with cross examination in particular, it promises to be interesting.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: At least Rolla has some convictions and seems not to fear that the "surge" will work. Candor works for me even when I don't have the same analysis.

Peter Baker: Thanks for the response.

_______________________

Moneta, Va.: Did everyone miss fascist Hillary Rodham's "I wanna take those profits..." when speaking about ExxonMobil's very modest 10.5 percent profit margin in 2006? Did she flunk Econ 202 or what?

Peter Baker: Well, modest is in the eye of the beholder of course. Exxon Mobil posted a profit of $39.5 billion in 2006, the largest U.S. corporate profit in history. As you say, as a percentage that doesn't sound as big, so it depends how you present the information. As a matter of politics the Democrats figure it doesn't hurt, and may help, to talk about taking oil company profits at a time of high gas prices. Presumably more politically perilous may be former senator John Edwards's statement this week that he would raise taxes to pay for his health care plan.

_______________________

Campbell, Mo.: Mr. Baker, thanks for the chat. Why is there no talk about the House of Representatives passing a resolution on Iraq? The House has more structured rules on debate and the resolution would have a better chance of passing than in the Senate when you need 60 votes.

Peter Baker: House leaders decided to let the Senate go first on this one.

_______________________

Noam, Pa.: Peter, please let Dublin know that the larger plane for Pelosi was a decision made by the House Sergeant at Arms, Wilson Livingood. Livingood has been at that post since 1995. Lou Dobbs, Tucker Carlson, and Wolf Blitzer have been pounding this story (and I'm sure Limbaugh is all over it today). Pelosi was not The Decider here, despite what that bunch is saying.

Peter Baker: Thanks for the post.

_______________________

New York: Even though you're not a congressional reporter, I'd like you to elaborate on the success of the Republican leadership, if you can. Seems to me that McConnell and Lott are much more effective than the previous leadership. What do they offer their caucus?

Peter Baker: Well, Sen. McConnell has been an effective coalition builder within his caucus for some time and of course Sen. Lott has a lot of experience at vote-counting. Look at his election as whip -- he completely surprised Sen. Lamar Alexander.

_______________________

Lorton, Va.: First things first -- you are a terrific reporter and as a former journalist (trade, not daily), I appreciate your thoroughness and tenacity. Great job! Now to the question ... with all of the clamoring for earmark reform from the White House to Capitol Hill to taxpayer advocacy groups and others, how do you think the opinion from the 9th District Court of Appeals will play out with respect to requiring earmarks to be part of the statutory language in the appropriations bills as opposed to the more traditional practice of using report language? There have been calls for more transparency and reducing the number of earmarks, but few have called for an outright ban on earmarking, so what do you see happening with the Fiscal Year 2008 budget?

Peter Baker: Well, it may seem a little suspect to take such a flattering post from my hometown, but hey, flattery works. Thanks so much. As for earmarks, as you no doubt know the Democrats have banned them for the rest of this year. I suspect additional transparency rather than an outright ban is where this is going to end up next year. That's in keeping with the House leadership's campaign pledges and of course there's little interest among members in either party in a permanent ban. There's probably an interest in keeping the number down in fiscal 2008 though, so that the majority can go into the election bragging that they cut back on the pork.

_______________________

Los Angeles: Do you think that a Hillary/Obama (prez/veep) ticket is viable? And can they keep their campaigns clean enough so that neither is too bruised after the primaries to realize a partnership?

Peter Baker: I don't see any reason it wouldn't be viable at the moment. Obviously new information or developments could change that dynamic, and among the possible scenarios is a particularly ugly primary season. With all the bruised feelings George W. Bush didn't pick John McCain in 2000, even though presumably that might have helped him more in the general election than Dick Cheney. Keep in mind no presidential nominee wants to pick someone for the number two slot who may outshine them in some way or another.

_______________________

Carrboro, N.C.: To Rolla, Mo.: It already is well established whose war it is, and if a person is convinced that the surge would not improve the situation there and it would cost American lives, there is only one way to vote, no matter how tempting it would be to keep the focus on President Bush and his past, present and future mistakes in Iraq.

Peter Baker: A few more posts on this question.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Following on Rolla's question, I frequently wonder if it wouldn't be in this country's long-term best interests to learn the painful but unequivocal lesson that we cannot use our armed forces to quell a long-awaited civil war in a large country such as Iraq. That lesson requires a clear, complete disaster in Iraq in order to sink in. Let the idiotic sacrifice of our service members for a Hail Mary on Bush's legacy begin. Let's just hope a minimal number of them get killed.

Peter Baker: And another.

_______________________

Leesburg, Va.: I'm curious ... how many of the Republicans who supported the filibuster of the Iraq resolution were in favor during the last Congress of the "nuclear option" to take away the filibuster from the minority? Wasn't the Republican Senate leadership always complaining about the "obstructionist" minority party and how the filibuster/cloture/60-vote rule was un-democratic? So why are they using it now? Where are the cries for an up-or-down vote now?

Peter Baker: You make an interesting point. When you're in the majority you hate the filibuster, and when you're in the minority you defend it as a fundamental part of the system. The Republicans might make a distinction, though, between judicial confirmations and the current debate -- when they proposed the so-called nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster, they proposed to do so only for judicial nominations, not all filibusters.

_______________________

Boca Raton, Fla.: Peter, I don't understand this budget "thing." The President is proposing a budget for FY2008 when he hasn't signed the budget for FY2007 and the Government is running on continuing resolutions to provide funding at FY2006 levels. What's the story?

Peter Baker: No one understands the budget thing! But the basic answer is Congress basically broke down and decided to move past this year and start fresh with next year's budget. Congress passed, and President Bush signed, an omnibus spending bill that will keep government running through the end of the current fiscal year, which is Sept. 30.

_______________________

Maquoketa, Iowa: Peter, do you believe there is any chance there will ever be real, substantive campaign finance reform so that running for president -- or any elective office for that matter -- does not cost such an obscene amount of money?

Peter Baker: Not that I'm aware of. Various ideas have been pitched, a few have been tried and none of them has succeeded in stopping the money flow -- they've only redirected it in ways that ultimately change the tactics but not the overall picture.

_______________________

New York: I noticed in all the news articles of the Republicans blocking debate on Iraq, not one mentions that Harry Reid, the Democratic Majority Leader, voted nay with the republicans. The articles all mentioned Lieberman, Collins, and Coleman as senators who broke ranks with their respective parties, but failed to mention Reid as doing so. But at the same time the articles quote Reid as if he had voted yea with his party. This seems like a major omission doesn't it? If it was known that Reid also voted to end debate it would weaken the case against Republicans.

Peter Baker: Sen. Reid voted no as a parliamentary maneuver because under the rules someone who votes no can make a motion to reconsider the vote at a later time. This is typical when the leadership loses a vote and doesn't indicate a position of substance.

_______________________

Peter Baker: Once again time runs out with too many good questions still to answer. Thanks so much for another great chat. Tune in again tomorrow -- same time, same channel. And have a good 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.