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 congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman was online Friday, April 13, 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.

____________________

Jonathan Weisman: I'm late, I'm late, I'm very very late. So let's get started.

_______________________

Burlington, N.J.: Has anyone yet asked the White House how it's squaring "we used RNC e-mail accounts to avoid violating the Hatch Act" with the clearly Hatch-Act-violating political meetings at the GSA (and presumably elsewhere)?

Jonathan Weisman: I would imagine that Henry Waxman is your man. He's looking into the GSA issue as well as the RNC e-mail issue. It will all come together. Patience, Burlington, patience.

_______________________

Louisville, Ky.: Good morning. Two questions: The suicide bombing yesterday in the Iraqi Parliament building is a huge breach of security. Is the White House worried about the ramifications of this Green Zone attack in the context of their surge? Secondly, are the missing e-mails that Congress is requesting linked at all to an intentional obstruction by the White House political office?

washingtonpost.com: In an Instant, a Junkyard of Humanity (Post, April 13)

Jonathan Weisman: Wow, very different questions. As for the first, how could the White House not be thinking about that? It has been clear from earlier attacks that the Green Zone security personnel have been infiltrated by insurgents. But this is the biggest breach yet, and it will raise more calls to find some kind of negotiated settlement, but who do you negotiate with?

As for the e-mails, I am sure subpoenas are coming. If those e-mails are found deep in the hard drives of the White House, I would imagine we will be able to see efforts to delete them. Spooky, scary, huh?

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Good morning Jonathan. Congress is about to have further hearings on Attorney General Gonzales' Justice Department and are seeking additional e-mails from the RNC. Two questions: First, are RNC e-mails or those on any outside account (mentions have been made of Yahoo! accounts) outside of Executive Privilege? And second, if the RNC is unable to produce said e-mails, who can the congressional committees call on to investigate? Can they call on FBI investigative and technical expertise, or is it congressional staff who would try to reconstruct the e-mails? Thanks!

Jonathan Weisman: I am not an IT expert, but I can say the use of outside e-mail accounts for official business -- e.g., the firing of U.S. attorneys -- is a breach of very specific federal rules. I think a lot of folks would argue none of this is covered by executive privilege. After all, the Justice Department has already turned over reams of e-mails about internal discussions on the matter. Can they really say that selective e-mails are covered but others aren't?

_______________________

Austin, Texas: I've been flummoxed on why the WH seems to be stonewalling the investigation. I've got two scenarios that seem reasonable: One, this is just what they do -- they just are not used to dealing with a hostile Congress. Two, there is really something there to hide, and it can't be that they fired the U.S. Attorneys -- good or bad, they have the right to do that. I leaned toward the former a few weeks ago, but every week is pushing me toward the latter. First question, do you think I'm typical of public or congressional opinion? Second, do you have a third or fourth scenario?

Jonathan Weisman: I think you've probably got it down. This White Hose has always had a reflexive response toward probing -- keep it secret. In this case, they made efforts to be forthcoming, only to quickly reach the limits of their tolerance. By being selective, they raise many more questions. Frankly, politically, they may have been better off giving no information at all, then suddenly saying, that's all folks.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Could you put John Warner's incredible fundraising numbers into perspective for us? How does he compare with Sen. Wayne Allard? Could you get a number like this without trying? Finally, assuming he does retire, who would be the best Republican candidate to follow him (Allen, Davis, Gilmore, or someone else)?

washingtonpost.com: Warner's Fundraising Prompts Speculation on Reelection Plans (Post, April 13)

Jonathan Weisman: Well, he's raised a whopping $500, not exactly the kind of war chest to scare away potential challengers. But really, Warner is an institution. When he wants to raise money, he will be able to, and because of his name and reputation, he wouldn't have to raise huge amounts, a la Hillary. He has said he is running for re-election. Still, ya gotta wonder!

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: There have been a great series of articles in the Times by Robert Frank of Cornell about the view of the American people that all tax cuts are good and all tax increases are bad. As he puts it, they would rather pay $2 for a private service than pay $1 for the same public one. Health care is a prime example, but there are many others. Looking at this from a political point of view, is there any way to change this stupid attitude?

Jonathan Weisman: Well Prof. Krugman, I'm not sure. It does raise that anecdote that a famous Democrat, Moynihan? Kerrey?, used to always mention: the senior citizen who said at a town hall meeting, Don't let the government touch my Medicare!

_______________________

Seattle: I can't help but think that the Green Zone breach is the absolute worst thing that could have happened in Iraq. While we knew the streets were unsafe, there was always the understanding that the Green Zone would always hold strong. Now that it's been breached, what can the administration do to assure us of "progress" in Iraq? Surely Bush can't make any more surprise appearances in Iraq -- it seems simply too unsafe to me now.

Jonathan Weisman: It took my breath away. Politically, it's horrible for everyone. Of course it undermines the case that military progress is being made, but Democrats are demanding the Iraqi government put down its petty feuds and come to accord on a true, nonsectarian future. How do members of parliament sing kumbaya when suicide bombers are in their midst?

_______________________

Woonsocket, R.I.: Jonathan, my understanding is that when an e-mail is sent and received, copies are created on not less than five different servers or hard drives -- and often far more than that (I'll spare you my methodology). Fully erasing the e-mail from any one of those hard drives requires physically smashing it into pieces or (better) melting it into slag. It's a virtual certainty that there are many copies of the e-mails out there, some on servers not under the control of the White House or RNC. Is some enterprising news organization trying to track those copies down? I'd bet they'd make for a great news story!

Jonathan Weisman: I think you overstate the power of the press. The way we would get those e-mails is through leaks from official sources with access. That means somebody subpoenas them, law enforcement goes and gets the computers, then the e-mails leak out, most likely just before Congress was going to release them anyway. We can't go steel servers from the White House, but some enterprising law enforcement officer with a subpoena can go and fetch them.

_______________________

Annandale, Va.: Why do McNulty and Gonzales need to be separated because of testimony? How can they do their jobs this way? Any way the Department of Justice probe turns out, can McNulty keep his position? Are you finding it hard to compete against The Onion discussion today?

Jonathan Weisman: Last question first, I have a ton of questions already in the queue, more than I will get to, so I guess I'm competing well enough. As for the first questions, I wonder how the top echelons are Justice are getting anything done, with the attorney general locked away with "murder boards" practicing testimony and his No. 2 in a secure location. That's why something has to give here.

_______________________

Seattle: What's the worst-case-scenario for the White House over the deleted e-mails? As Dan Froomkin's column pointed out, there's no penalty on the books for violating the Presidential Records Act.

Jonathan Weisman: Worst-case scenario? We go looking for worst-case scenarios until January 2009.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Propaganda mills do their job, but at what price? When I was a child, people were proud of passing bond issues for new schools and roads. Now they just complain and say "not in my back yard." What a difference. I am not sure it is good, either.

Jonathan Weisman: Hmm, is this a political question?

_______________________

Anonymous: Wouldn't we all just love to get access to Karl Rove's devise political plotting and scheming? However, I am a bit confused as to the legal grounds of the e-mail issue. Now, if these were in-person meetings about the firings, would there be a legal requirement for written records of the meetings?

Jonathan Weisman: During the Clinton years, written notes from internal White House meetings were routinely subpoenaed by Congress. It got to the point where nobody in the White House took notes at meetings. So if precedent has bearing, e-mails, written notes, telephone logs would all be susceptible to subpoena and should be preserved.

_______________________

Bridgewater, Mass.: Good morning. The bomber in the Green Zone reminds me: how is the State Department coming along with persuading personnel to volunteer for duty in Iraq? And what does it mean that Alhurra, the U.S.-sponsored Arabic-language channel, was the only one not to have its tape confiscated?

Jonathan Weisman: Oy, I think you're out of my league. As far as I know, those recruitment problems continue. It's one of the reasons why the WHite House wants a war "czar," so requests for personnel don't have to go through so many channels.

_______________________

White House, Stonewalling: They're just using the same tactics that Saddam Hussein did in delaying the weapons inspectors -- and we see how that turned out, so there's no e-mails there either.

Jonathan Weisman: First, Patrick Leahy accuses Bush of being Nixon, now you compare him to Saddam. What next?

_______________________

West Coast Transplant: Peter Wallstein of the Los Angeles Times writes: "With Imus' show canceled indefinitely because of his remarks about the Rutgers University women's basketball team, some Democratic strategists are worried about how to fill the void. For a national radio audience of white men, Democrats see few if any alternatives. "This is a real bind for Democrats," said Dan Gerstein, an advisor to one of Imus' favorite regulars, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). "

If the Dems were counting on Imus as one of their mouthpieces, they're in as bad shape as ever -- still in the throes of perpetual screw-uppedness aren't they? Seemingly determined to once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. As if Joe Lieberman is some kind of model to follow as well. I for one am sick of the cowardly white people (Dems, Repubs, red, blue, male, female, media corporations, advertisers and execs of all political stripes -- but mainly all white) who looked the other way and failed to even once challenge Imus before the proverbial poop hit the fan. Does the response perhaps remind you of the person who has been tortured for so long by the obnoxious and vile invective spewing cruel bully? Collectively embodying a response similar to Howard Beale or an abused spouse who is "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore"?

I had images of Thelma and Louise blowing up the ugly misogynist trucker's tanker truck while he was clueless and self-delusional until their gunshot set off the explosive fireball that flattened him on his smarmy behind.

Jonathan Weisman: Thelma and Louise aside, I find Dan Gerstein's judgment on this to be suspect. I like Dan, but he's not exactly the spokesman for mainstream Democrats anymore.

_______________________

Abingdon, Md.: Good morning! Question on the possible future Senate: If the Dems do well in 2008 and add a few additional seats to their count, how significant will Joe Lieberman be? I get the impression that he is something of a spoiler on some topics and has on occasion "reminded" folks that he could shift his leanings if he didn't get his way. Might he then actually declare himself an outright Democrat (as opposed to an independent/independent Dem) so as to possibly not forfeit any committee assignments he has? Or might he be held to account by other Dems?

Jonathan Weisman: In many respects, Lieberman has stayed true to the Democrats beyond the war issue, but when he publicly backed the re-election of Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), one of the Republicans' most vulnerable 08 candidates, I'm sure he really stuck his hand in the hornet's nest. Chuck Schumer, calm down.

I still believe he would never go GOP. It would be suicidal in Connecticut, at least right now. I don't think Lieberman is ready to retire just yet, or six years from now either.

_______________________

St. Louis: As a Federal Employee I'd like to say, the agencies bend over backward to conform to the "rules" when they are announced. Whether we have the funding for them or not, we are expected to "toe the new line" or else. I find it reprehensible that the politicos think they are above the rules and can do whatever they wish without consequences. Boot them all out!

Jonathan Weisman: Published as is.

_______________________

New York : Bush Declension: Nixon > Saddam > Hitler > ... Satan?

Jonathan Weisman: Ah, Satan! (I thought Hitler was as low as it goes.)

_______________________

Woonsocket, R.I.: Sorry to ask another question, but would you happen to know how many subpoenas were served on the Clinton Administration by Congress? I have a feeling we're going to hear a lot of complaints about the "subpoena-crazed" Democrats in Congress in days to come.

Jonathan Weisman: Woonsocket, I am not a magician. Suffice it to say, a lot.

_______________________

Reading, Pa.: Jonathan: Do you think all the hoopla about Imus is an attempt to open a real dialogue about racism and misogyny in the U.S.? Will this benefit Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton or both ?

Jonathan Weisman: Hey Reading, I was just up there for a town hall meeting with Jim Gerlach Wednesday night. The weather was horrible. I think you are looking for more meaning than is there in the mob-rule media. Certain stories snowball, and this one did. I don't see political ramifications at all. (Sorry, Dan Gerstein.)

_______________________

Cincinnati, Ohio: Why has no one focused on the lack of handwritten notes produced by DOJ? In my opinion the lack of handwritten notes is prima facia proof of obstruction. Can the press address this? Thanks.

Jonathan Weisman: Let's find the e-mails first. We know they are juicy enough.

_______________________

Are you kidding?: George Allen is done.

Jonathan Weisman: For sure.

_______________________

Austin, Texas: "First, Patrick Leahy accuses Bush of being Nixon, now you compare him to Saddam. What next?" Stalin?

Jonathan Weisman: Satan beat you to it.

_______________________

Pittsburgh: Yesterday a identity-theft tax-fraud was scheduled to testify before the Senate Finance Committee, although the Department of Justice tried to have his testimony blocked. But Judge Thomas Hogan -- who had ruled in the White House's favor on the William Jefferson office-search last July -- denied the Administration's request. Why did the Bush administration and its DOJ squander some of what little political capital it has left on this case? Do you think that, combined with the Jefferson ruling, they were hoping to beef up Executive branch powers over the Legislative branch, now that the Democrats have control of both houses of Congress?

Jonathan Weisman: I don't think much capital was squandered on such an obscure case. It does show how quick the White House is to use the courts to hold back testimony to Congress, and that the courts are willing to buck the president.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: How do you define "mainstream democrats"? There seem to be a few liberals in the Senate with the rest falling between moderate conservatives and centrist conservatives. How do you see it?

Jonathan Weisman: In that case, I was using Democrats in the party's good graces, willing to make the compromises necessary to bolster their leaders' power.

_______________________

Atlanta: President Bush wants to appoint a war czar. Is he tired of being the Commander-in-Chief?

Jonathan Weisman: That was Rahm Emanuel's line too. A good one.

_______________________

Washington: "Riza left the State Department last year for a position at the U.S. government-funded Foundation for the Future. She remains on the bank payroll with a net salary of $193,590." Am I to take it that Paul's girlfriend is drawing two paychecks?

washingtonpost.com: Wolfowitz Apologizes For 'Mistake' (Post, April 13)

Jonathan Weisman: No, I think she did have to drop one of her salaries, but only after she got a big boost and promotion as a send-off. Great story, huh?

_______________________

Baltimore: Re the White House e-mail dustup: I wonder why so few people in today's Washington know or live by Bob Dole's adage, which was passed along to me by someone who worked on the Hill: "Don't write it if you can say it. And don't say it if you can wink it."

Jonathan Weisman: It's the allure of the Blackberry. For some reason, Washington loves e-mails. And we in the press love them loving them.

_______________________

Washington: At its heart, the problem with the RNC e-mails is that the White House, and Karl Rove in particular, was being too clever by half. They wanted to avoid scrutiny, but now that the system is under scrutiny, they don't have an executive privilege leg to stand on. My question is, now that it seems they're trying to claim executive privilege anyway, how long can they stall? It seems like such a ridiculous charge...

Jonathan Weisman: We will soon find out how long they can stall, because I can see no way they back down without being forced by the courts. The longer this goes on, the worse it looks, and any effort to get Bush back on track (at least above 40%) is doomed. They need to get this behind them.

_______________________

Pittsburgh: Having been associated with the Army for the past twenty years, I think it is a lead pipe cinch the administration will fill the War Czar position. After all, Rumsfeld always found generals to go along with his grand plans, didn't he?

Jonathan Weisman: Yes, but now that The Post wrote that four top generals turned him down, Bush is going to have to find someone prominent. He had a hard time a while back finding a new Treasury secretary, but eventually he snagged Hank Paulson from Wall Street -- a huge catch. So, I'd imagine you're right.

_______________________

re: Satan: Isn't bin Laden worse than Satan these days? Oh wait, I've got it! Imus!

Jonathan Weisman: Rush!

_______________________

Reading, Pa.: Dude, come back to Reading in July -- cooler than your Frigidaire. Any word on a challenger for Arlen Specter from the Dem side, or is it too early for that? By the way -- isn't it sad that the Governor of New Jersey had to get injured because of this whole Imus fuss ?

Jonathan Weisman: Too early on the Specter front. They're still gathering up victims for 2008. And yes, Jon Corzine's crash was really sad. As if the guy didn't have enough problems.

_______________________

Washington: Is official business also political business? People constantly complain about political operatives doing political work on federal time and systems. So are the political e-mails by a political aide considered federal only for the purposes of finding a violation of law? Probably.

Jonathan Weisman: In this case, political business means campaign-related, or maybe talking points for the RNC. In no way are personnel decisions supposed to be done as the routine business of the Republican Party, but using RNC e-mails for such matters would imply that Mr. Rove and Co. thought that was OK.

_______________________

Boston: I can understand the Imus thing not getting any political traction, but what about when it's combined with the Duke Lacrosse story? How long can Obama dodge avoid taking a leading position on these questions? I understand he wants to be the President "of all of us," but he's going to need to beat Hillary for the black vote to make it out of the primaries. Thoughts?

Jonathan Weisman: If this happened in November, when attention was really focused on the primaries, I think Obama would be sucked in quickly, But we're still in the fundraising primary. The black vote is a big, big question, but it'll wait.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: I liked the part where Wolfie arranged that all of his gal friend's future ratings would be "outstanding." P.S. I am not Paul Krugman. I am the ghost of Albert Einstein.

Jonathan Weisman: I should have guessed. Nash, are you still hearing voices?

_______________________

Meadow Vista, Calif.: Jonathan, I enjoy your sessions. This question is somewhat big but here goes: Do you think the U.S. form of government is becoming less vital, less capable in this modern era of TV and instant communications? It seems like the output in terms of both quantity and quality from government (executive and legislative) is diminishing, with weak or ill-guided policies (Iraq, deficits) or inaction on important issues (health care, immigration). What should change?

Jonathan Weisman: Somewhat big? How about a dissertation? It is true that not much has gotten accomplished in recent years to solve the nation's problems, save an invasion, some really big tax cuts, and an education law that has impacted all of us parents of school-aged children, for better or for worse. But there have been periods of stasis throughout our country's history. Look back at Congress in the late 19th century for real bitter partisanship. I don't think electronics are to blame.

_______________________

Dunn Loring, Va.: Democrats on Imus? Perhaps, but he also campaigned for Rick Santorum, had Vice President Cheney on a few months ago, and regularly referred to Hillary Clinton as "Satan."

Jonathan Weisman: Satan, again. Idle hands are at work!

_______________________

Los Angeles: Unbelievable how bad things are going for the Bush administration. Do you think his poll numbers could go down even further or will there always bee at least a third of the country that supports him because they think he is down with Jesus?

Jonathan Weisman: I think he's at his base, and it doesn't erode any further. Remember, if you look at party polling, the core Republican voters are sticking with him.

_______________________

Seattle: Imus as a mouthpiece for Democrats? Please. It was a mouthpiece for mouthpieces. It has an individuality that most talk radio shows don't have, but I think the Dem party has been pretty obvious about ceding the entire genre to the right. Air America, while nice to see for balance, never was going to be as well-financed by the Democratic power structure as conservative radio is on the right. Democrats don't understand or appreciate the benefits of a massive, unified messaging machine. We can argue whether that's good or bad for rational thought, but I digress. That said, when does the moratorium on Imus begin? I think the story is more culturally fascinating than "American Idol" or Anna Nicole, but I also think it sadly has run its course.

Jonathan Weisman: I agree.

_______________________

Alpharetta, Ga.: From what you've seen and heard privately, how much intensity and enthusiasm is there for this message that "you have to stay in Iraq" among Republicans? Polling does show that's where they stand, but their concerns about Iraq on electoral fortunes might stand in the way of them rallying behind it, even if they agree with it.

Jonathan Weisman: I was just at a town hall meeting in Reading, Pa., with a swing-district Republican Jim Gerlach, in a working class neighborhood. And for an hour and a half, Iraq never came up. Not one word. Republicans believe they have time to watch events on the ground in Iraq and change tack if need be by this fall, still a full year ahead of the election. The votes right now will be long forgotten by November 08.

_______________________

New York: Speaking of... Any thoughts on Krugman today:

"The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda - which is very different from simply being people of faith - is one of the most important stories of the last six years. It's also a story that tends to go underreported, perhaps because journalists are afraid of sounding like conspiracy theorists.

"But this conspiracy is no theory. The official platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to "dispel the myth of the separation of church and state." And the Texas Republicans now running the country are doing their best to fulfill that pledge."

Jonathan Weisman: Until they let me read Krugman for free, I'm boycotting.

_______________________

Silicon Valley, Calif.: Also look at the manual pages for Backup and Restore. For information on mail, look at anything written by Eric Allman (I'm not him) on the program "sendmail".

Jonathan Weisman: I used to live in Palo Alto. Boy, do I miss this kind of conversation over seared Ahi Tuna and polenta.

_______________________

Silicon Valley, Calif.: Where's John Dean when you need him? Where are Woodward and Bernstein?

Jonathan Weisman: Hey, give us a break. I think the press is covering the hell out of this story. What you know of it so far, you know from reporters. And you already know a lot.

_______________________

The Golden Triangle: In the contexts of the e-mail and U.S. Attorney scandals, I just keep going back over and over again to one disturbing thought: Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court justice. Wow, what on Earth were they thinking?

Jonathan Weisman: And that's what Bush's right said.

_______________________

Santa Fe, N.M.: How much does Bill Richardson's trip to Korea and his recovery of the service members' remains help his White House chances?

Jonathan Weisman: Well, Santa Fe, outside of Santa Fe, it's not getting a whole lot of press. Poor guy, but I was thinking Hillary has got to be watching your governor for vice president material.

_______________________

San Francisco: Hi, Jonathan, thanks for chatting this morning. Can you clarify something, please? Most Congressmen seem to be away from Washington, but the clip I saw of Harry Reid answering Bush's "negotiation invitation" earlier this week looked like he was speaking on the Senate floor. Can Senators speak from there for the cameras when they are not in session?

Jonathan Weisman: I will end the chat today with a nice easy one. The Senate came back into town this week to finish its stem cell bill. Reid was around. Both houses are back next week.

Thanks everyone. Have fun watching your attorney general on the Hill Tuesday!

_______________________

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.