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 money and politics reporter John Solomon was online Wednesday, Feb. 7, 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.

____________________

Claverack, N.Y.: Are there any presidential candidates that are surprising you so far in terms of total dollars raised? Anyone make you go, "wow, he raised that much?" Or conversely "that's all?"

John Solomon: Right now most of the presidential candidates have not disclosed the full extent of their early fundraising. The early exploratory committees that filed through December, such as McCain and Giuliani, showed less than $2 million. We'll get our first glimpse of the real fundraising prowess of the candidates when their quarterly reports come out in mid-April -- expect big numbers for many of the candidates. To manage your expectations consider this: many jaws dropped back in the first quarter of the 2004 presidential race when John Edwards hauled in about $7 million over three months. This election, Mitt Romney hauled nearly that much in a single day of staged fundraising in January.

_______________________

Marin County, Calif.: On a regular basis I ask someone leading this chat to follow the war profiteering money. No one has answered it yet. Many of us know the open connections to the top tier like Halliburton, but we also know there are many more. Bottom line: who profits? Who loses? Who has stock in those companies producing manpower and product for the Iraq War? Bush's entire regime seems to go to the money first and damn everything along its pathway.

John Solomon: There's no doubt that this is a critical issue and that the media needs to continue to dig deeper and deeper into the contractors. There's been some very good reporting, especially on Halliburton and the early audits by the special inspector general, but the story goes much deeper. An area I expect will get some more in-depth coverage this year is subcontractors who get business after an initial award is given to a main Pentagon contractor. These subcontracts often occur without full vetting or disclosure by the public. So keep an eye on that as an area of media coverage this year. FYI, the Post has a full-time reporter dedicated just to studying how contractors win their business.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Why do reporters feel it permissible to call Sen. Clinton by her first name when they do not do the same thing with other presidential candidates? I frequently see references to Hillary, Obama, and McCain in the same article. Shouldn't all be treated the same way? I consider this a sign of disrespect, although I did read an article in the New Yorker where the writer claimed that calling a politician by his/her first name was a sign of respect (he was writing about Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont)that the politician had earned.

John Solomon: I always refer to Mrs. Clinton by her last name on second reference in stories and I think most of my colleagues do the same. However, it can depend on the context. If a story is focusing on how Mrs. Clinton uses her first name as a political moniker -- for instance she deftly calls her political action committee HillPAC -- it may be entirely appropriate to use "Hillary" references in the story. And sometimes the people we quote are going to inevitably use her first name. On a similar note, I'm sure we've all seen references to President Bush as "Dubya" in news stories that were designed to be light-hearted.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: I have a kinda sorta money question. Behind the scenes, I think the Dems are in a quasi-primary for grassroots Internet money. Do you have any insight into how that is going? Further, for whatever reason, direct mail is by far the right's preferred method of generating small donations. Do you see this changing in this election cycle? Will Republicans be at least competitive with the Dems for mass small donations made via the Internet? How hard are the various Republican candidates working to generate money this way?

John Solomon: Those first formal FEC reports in mid-April will allow us to examine how Internet fundraising has gone so far. Nearly all the candidates give visitors a chance to donate by credit card from their Web sites, so the numbers inevitably will be large throughout 2008. It's true Republicans long have mastered direct mail fundraising -- and there's no doubt Internet fund-raising got lots of attention on the Democratic side when Howard Dean caught fire early in 2004 primary season -- but many forget that one of the most successful early fundraisers via the Web was John McCain back in 2000, especially around the time he stung Bush in the New Hampshire primary. McCain is back again raising money via the Web and both Republicans and Democrats no longer can ignore it. It will play an important role this election -- probably more so later in the year. Right now each candidate is trying to raise big figures for those first reports due in April and that means focusing on maximum $2,200 donations early on that often come from events and personal solicitations.

_______________________

Washington: In your last online chat, you said John Edwards is bound by "federal campaign law" to disclose the buyers of his house. Do you stand by that claim, or do you agree with Media Matters that it seems to be false? If you stand by the claim can you please tell us what you base this on?

John Solomon: I think you should go back and read my entire chat from last week and not the snippet some bloggers have miscast. In my session last week here's exactly what I wrote about John Edwards' compliance with disclosure laws: "Sen. Edwards hasn't filed his financial disclosure form yet. He still has some time to do that. That's where he'll fulfill his legal obligation. There are very specific and technical rules for how to handle everything from stock transactions to house sales. My point was simply that the laws that govern presidential candidates are steeped in an well-grounded expectation that candidates give voters as much information as possible to make informed decisions about a candidate's business and financial dealings. Once again, Sen. Edwards doesn't have to break a law or even do something wrong to ask and answer these very basic questions."

_______________________

Washington: Yesterday I saw where Bremer explained that the surest way to keep Iraq afloat was to distribute 360 tons of US $100 bills, which amounts to about $8.8 billion in cash. What assurance do taxpayers have that all of that money went to Iraqis and that none of it, not even 10 pounds of $100 bills ($125,000) found its way back to the United States in anyone's luggage?

John Solomon: I didn't get to see the whole hearing yesterday but it's a very good question. When mass money is handed out there is always chance for abuse -- just take a look at the all the abuses that occurred when Katrina victims got those cash cards from FEMA after the hurricane. I imagine the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, will investigate or audit what happened to that cash -- if he hasn't already. His office really has highlighted the many problems with accountability and accounting and abuses and fraud that have occurred during the multi-billion dollar reconstruction effort. Keep an eye on his Web site.

_______________________

Concord, N.H.: The 2008 race is certainly on up here. What I don't yet understand is the antipathy (mainly Southern) evangelicals have for John McCain. I understand their problems with Giuliani and would understand their problems with Romney (although he seems to have avoided their displeasure for now, which may be its own mystery). What is McCain's history with the religious right that makes them hate him so much?

John Solomon: I don't think it is a completely clear yet how this relationship will evolve. McCain has worked hard to improve his relationship with the religious right and social conservatives since the 2000 primaries, when he took a beating. There are signs that he has made some strides, though distrust still is palpable in some quarters -- there's lots in McCain's record to show he has voted with anti-abortion supporters on many issues for instance. But during the 2000 campaign the Bush folks were able to highlight key differences that social conservatives seized upon -- including fetal tissue research and some of his comments on repealing Roe v. Wade. More recently McCain has differed with the establishment of his party on the key issue of immigration -- he supported allowing illegal immigrants to keep the Social Security benefits they earned in the United States when many Republicans sharply opposed it.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: Do you expect to see a different, more aggressive attitude from reporters if a Democrat wins in 2008, especially if that Democrat is Hillary Clinton? It is rather striking that the press has been so gentle with Bush after being so tough on Bill Clinton, wouldn't you agree? Is it a matter of it being easier to attack Democrats than Republicans (because of they myth of the liberal media) or is it largely a matter of different personal styles -- Bush more jocular than Clinton, etc.?

John Solomon: As a reporter who worked hard to expose what Bush knew about unaddressed terrorism threats before the Sept. 11 attacks I don't subscribe to your thinking that the media has been easier on Bush. Certainly the issues and subjects that drew scrutiny during the Clinton and Bush years are different. Much of the scrutiny during the Clinton years focused on his personal conduct and finances (Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Whitewater) and his '96 fundraising machine's abuses. The Bush scrutiny has been driven by the issues of his presidency -- the 9/11 attacks, the faulty Iraq intelligence and the problems with Iraqi reconstruction and war strategy. But reporters have worked hard on exposing many issues of importance to voters -- including who Vice President Cheney met with during the Energy task force deliberations and what the administration knew and did not address about al-Qaeda before the attack. Add in Abramoff and Cunningham and DeLay and Libby as other Republican controversies that the media has covered aggressively.

_______________________

Iowa: A story in today's Washington Post says 2008 will be the nation's first billion-dollar presidential campaign. Trying to think why anyone would spend that much money to have to figure out a sensible way to leave Iraq, whittle away the deficit, rebuild New Orleans, restructure Social Security and Medicare, and take care of all the other problems that Bush is going to leave hanging at the end of his time in office.

washingtonpost.com: In Campaign 2008, Candidates Starting Earlier, Spending More (Post, Feb. 7)

John Solomon: All right, last one for today. The point of the story wasn't to make a value judgment that the size of the spending was bad or good. That's for voters and lawmakers and policymakers and candidates and pundits to debate. What the story did well was to illuminate what sort of costs are driving that price tag and what the consequences are for voters and candidates. I was particularly struck by Sen. Evan Bayh's comment that to raise $100 million as a single candidate before the primaries would have required squeezing fundraising into the daily schedule from dusk to dawn.

Thanks again for all the great questions. I look forward to chatting again soon.

_______________________

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.