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 Jonathan Weisman was online Friday, May 11, 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.

Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts

____________________

Jonathan Weisman: Alright folks, my tendinitis may be flaring but my fingers are itching to roll. Let's see who can win the prize for most vituperative question, the left or the right.

Ready to rumble!

_______________________

Plano, Texas: Thanks for taking questions to the hardest-working chatter in show business! Today's Guardian reports that the most recent polling shows the public's opinions of Congress to mirror those of Bush, apparently losing their patience with the Dems' inability to force Bush's hand on Iraq. Do these people not realize that, without a veto-proof majority, there is little that Congress can do to control "the Decider's" behavior? Or that a majority of Iraqi lawmakers and public want the U.S. to start withdrawing? What is your take on the public's apparent disconnect between their expectations and what the Dems in Congress actually have the votes to do?

washingtonpost.com: Poll: Congress, Bush Share Low Approval (AP, May 11)

Jonathan Weisman: Ah ha, good question. In fact, our own poll -- which was noted as the lead story of the paper last Saturday -- found similar discontent. 73 percent of Americans say Congress is either doing "not a lot" or "nothing at all." Ouch.

The Democrats are starting to notice that Iraq is every bit the quagmire for them as it is for Bush. A Democratic aide told me yesterday he feels like a a yak stuck in a vicious eddy. We followed Bush in here and we can't get out, he said.

_______________________

Glen Allen, Va.: Jonathan, regarding the fired federal prosecutors, has anyone considered their firings to be part of a long term pattern of behavior by this administration? We already know that the objective of Karl Rove and others was to create a long-term Republican majority, essentially a one-party system. The group that was part of the Project for a New American Century held (or hold) key positions in our government (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton, etc.) where the tentacles spread to the U.N. and World Bank. They have advocated for "strict constructionist judges," which is code for overturning Roe v. Wade.

Where do these "strict constructionist judges" come from? Well, the U.S. Attorneys. This is typically the pool from which lower-court judges come from, who then work their way up the judicial system to higher courts. How better to achieve long-term Republican policies than through the judiciary, which are lifetime appointments? So, even if Karl Rove can't get his one-party Republican system through elected politicians, policy goals still can be achieved through the judiciary by stacking the deck, and that all starts with U.S. Attorneys. Plug those "loyal Bushies" into an attorney slot to get a few years experience, then on to a judgeship. That, in my opinion, is what this situation is all about.

And that is what I think the media is missing in all this -- the firings are being viewed as a stand alone incident, not part of a broader pattern of behavior. Focusing on so-called voter fraud issues or corruption cases is merely a diversion that keeps everyone from looking at the big picture.

Jonathan Weisman: Actually, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel gave a speech at Brookings last week tying all of it together into a grand plan to hijack the federal government for the GOP. We covered the speech, and prominently displayed it, at least on our Web site.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Senior Democrat Plans Speech Attacking Bush Record (Post, April 24)

_______________________

Warren, N.J.: Yesterday I wrote asking Mr. Balz to comment on the curious parallel situation where both a majority of Iraqi lawmakers and a majority of U.S. lawmakers were being stymied by their respective heads of government. This question was never printed. Today an article relegated to page A12 finally covers the AP wire story from a few days ago about the Iraqi Parliament, noting "the development was a sign of a growing division between Iraq's legislators and prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress."

My question today: Will you comment on whether the parallel efforts by Mr. al-Rubaie and Mr. Cheney, traveling to shore-up support in the face of growing opposition, indicate that Mr. Maliki seems more and more to be a puppet?

washingtonpost.com: Iraqi Lawmakers Back Bill on U.S. Withdrawal (Post, May 11)

Jonathan Weisman: I would be glad to. I also note that while the story ran inside the paper, it was flagged on the front page with what we call a tagline. That's the next best thing really. It is significant, but I must say the petition drive was organized by Moqtada al-Sadr's wing in Parliament. Yes, he speaks for a large number of Iraqi Shiites. But it's a little scary when anti-war activists in the United States latch on to the death squad organizers in Baghdad.

_______________________

St. Paul, Minn.: Hi Jonathan -- thanks for taking my question. How is the White House responding to the ads just out that feature retired generals criticizing the president and how he's handled Iraq? While it seems like they can get away with deflecting the criticism with subtle digs about the critic's personal life (witness Dowd a while back) or questioning their patriotism (numerous examples), it would seem to me that their options are pretty limited in this case.

washingtonpost.com: Retired Generals Challenge GOP in Ads (AP, May 9)

Jonathan Weisman: They're not. On the same day those ads came out, the Veterans of Foreign Wars were presenting petitions from active duty and retired servicemen calling on Congress to stay the course. The military is divided, just as the country is. Maybe military personnel leans toward withdrawal as the voters do, but I don't know that.

_______________________

Savage, Md.: Isn't any preemptive war, e.g. the invasion of Iraq or a strike against Iran, a violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, in which the signatories renounced war as a part of their national policies? According to the Wikipedia, the Pact is still a part of international law and is still in force here in the U.S. under Article VI of the Constitution.

Jonathan Weisman: Yes. It's also technically a violation of the U.N. charter. That's why the president sought and received, in the vaguest of senses, something akin to permission from the Security Council.

_______________________

Minneapolis: Honestly, it is simply breathtaking to me that President Bush is content to hold onto an Attorney General who is such a public embarrassment as Alberto Gonzales. I understand all the reasons he has for doing so -- avoiding ugly confirmation hearings for the successor and so forth. But at a certain point, I'd think those would be trumped by the sheer absurdity and shame of having a person like this as the leading law enforcement officer in the country.

In light of Gonzales' testimony and the evidence that has been publicly disclosed, does any doubt remain that the key decisions were made in the White House and were motivated by a combination of trumped-up voter fraud concerns (i.e. partisan efforts to depress Democratic voting) and concern about public corruption investigations (such as the one Carol Lam was pursuing of Republicans in California)?

washingtonpost.com: House GOP Stands Behind Gonzales (Post, May 11)

Jonathan Weisman: I suppose they are calculating that the Gonzales issue will blow over, with the public focused on Iraq, and a confirmation battle over a new attorney general would actually extract a higher price, as Senators grill the guy (or gal) over views on Habeas Corpus, torture, Gitmo, etc.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: Good afternoon! I'm not gonna compete in the "most vituperative" question, you worthless piece of garbage. (Joking.) In your experience, has the White House staff been more accessible since the November elections (either on-the-record or off-the-record)? Or is the famed discipline still there?

Jonathan Weisman: I'll give you a little clue, dirt bag (bless your heart). Yesterday, I was talking to House Republicans about their relations with the White House, especially the legislative affairs office. They were frank conversations, but not particularly pointed. Well, someone ratted on me to the White House and a Bush aide shot me an e-mail last night saying she heard I was spreading dirt about the legislative affairs staff. Wow! Spies abound.

_______________________

Do-Nothing Congress: The Democrat party campaign offered more to its base than just surrendering to the terrorists in Iraq -- they also promised to put small businesses under with minimum wage increases and a bunch of other stuff too. No wonder their approval ratings are low, according to a socialist British paper.

Jonathan Weisman: A) That socialist British paper was running a story by our good old capitalist Associated Press and my free-market friend Alan Fram.

B) You're right. The Democrats are feeling the heat for failing to deliver a single piece of their domestic agenda, even for a veto.

_______________________

Wake Forest, N.C.: I am kind of surprised you have the nerve to take questions but I will ask anyway -- why the hit pieces on the Democrats all the time? Republicans have been completely in charge for the past six years and basically have screwed up everything -- no hit pieces for them (maybe some very gentle rebukes from time to time sprinkled with more jabs at Democrats). Democrats have a slight majority in Congress for a short time, and you can't wait to stick it to them (or publish complete fiction on them). What gives? Let's have an honest answer.

Jonathan Weisman: An honest answer -- are you crazy?! Okay, I'm calm. C'mon. When the Republicans were in charge, conservatives always came on these chats and accused me of taking cheap shots and writing hit pieces on them. It is our job to watch Congress with a critical eye. The folks in charge will always get more scrutiny, as they should.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: I never understood why we went into Iraq. In fact, after the passage of the bill to allow the use of force, I bet three of my friends that even George Bush was not stupid enough to invade Iraq. I didn't believe that even George Bush would wage war to enrich his friends in the oil industry. Now after the analysis of the oil bill currently in the Iraqi Parliament published in The Post, which showed that 83 percent of all current oil fields and all of future oil fields would be controlled by the multinational oil companies, I have my doubts. Why do you think we invaded Iraq? P.S. -- I asked this question of Dana Priest and she said "inattention to reality."

Jonathan Weisman: My wild guess? What the hell. George W. Bush felt like he was on a roll. I thought he was the luckiest man in politics, if not the country. I remember shifting to the Pentagon beat just before the invasion. When news broke that the U.S. had fired an early cruise missile strike on intelligence that Saddam had been found, I told a colleague I'll bet they got him, even before the troops crossed the Kuwaiti border. That was the pattern at the time, but I guess everybody's luck eventually runs out.

_______________________

New York: "That's why the president sought and received, in the vaguest of senses, something akin to permission from the Security Council." Really? When did this happen? The Security Council never approved a use-of-force resolution.

Jonathan Weisman: No, but they did declare him out of compliance with UN resolutions.

_______________________

Floris, Va.: Jonathan: The first Iraq funding measure passed by a margin of 218 to 210. Last night it was 221 to 205. What will the margin have to be in a subsequent vote to assure an overturning of the President's veto?

Jonathan Weisman: They need a 2/3 majority. They are nowhere close. But I don't think the Democratic leadership needs to get the 290 votes for a veto override before they hit critical mass. Significant Republican defections -- maybe 50 or so -- would signal that Bush needs a change of course.

_______________________

Boston: I personally am thrilled Giuliani has decided (publicly) to focus on larger states (California, Florida, NY) during the primary race because of his stance on abortion. I don't see any downside for him because these states have more moderates than traditional early primary states. What are the downsides?

Jonathan Weisman: The only real down side is that although those states have moved up their primaries, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina still go first. If he gets trounced there, conventional wisdom will have him in a deep hole before he gets to his strongholds.

_______________________

Casselberry, Fla.: I do not recall anyone promoting the U.N. takeover and policing of Iraq. It would appear that this may be our solution to get out of Iraq without additional violence.

Jonathan Weisman: Casselberry, wow, I once was an intern for the Orlando Sentinel in your fair town (which, at the time, was mostly sand and orange trees). But on to your question. At one time, a lot of people were talking about turning the mess over to the UN. But the UN made it very clear it did not have the military capacity or the desire to take it. When the UN's main mission was bombed, prompting a pullout to Jordan, the idea was pretty much put to rest.

_______________________

Cheney and Iran: Hi Jonathan! First, thanks for doing these chats -- you're one of the fastest typists, which is great! Second, what is Cheney trying to do with his Iran comments? Doesn't he know that the world knows that he and the Bush administration enjoy sparse support at home and that he never could carry through (militarily, at least) on his thinly veiled threats to Iran, given the mire that our forces are in in Iraq? Why must he go throwing around such comments and ticking the rest of the world off? Can anything be done to pull in the reigns on this administration's disastrous foreign policy, or do we just have to wait out another year or so?

washingtonpost.com: Cheney Warns Iran Sea Lanes Must Be Open (AP, May 11)

Jonathan Weisman: I don't think there is a person in Washington who has less concerns about polling data than Dick Cheney. By now, we should know he is who he is, politics and power be damned.

_______________________

Washington: Just a general chat question. Do I really have to respect those (from both sides of the political spectrum) who are huge bores when they write in? Some people have legitimate questions, but I just scan over when I see the words "Bushie" "Democrat Party" etc.

Jonathan Weisman: A wise decision, but hey, everyone's entitled to an opinion.

_______________________

Tempe, Ariz.: "But I don't think the Democratic leadership needs to get the 290 votes for a veto override before they hit critical mass. Significant Republican defections -- maybe 50 or so -- would signal that Bush needs a change of course." Nice try, but since when has Bush heeded signals that he needs a change of course?

Jonathan Weisman: I don't think even he really wants to destroy the Republican Party.

_______________________

San Francisco: Hello Jonathan, these chats are great, thanks! What's the House GOP leadership have to say about the "Gang of 11" and their trip up Pennsylvania Ave.? We know Tony Snow's asked everyone not to make too much of it, but did these so-called endangered moderates act with the permission of Boehner, Blunt et al, or in defiance of them?

Jonathan Weisman: Interesting question. Boehner was actually in the room at the White House during the meeting. He didn't say anything, apparently, but his presence showed he was very attentive to their concerns. Yesterday, as I walked through the Capitol, I had Republicans of all stripes tell me they are with the moderates and were glad they spoke out. But significantly, none of them would go on the record. They are teetering but they're not quite ready to tip.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: In the legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia, a bill was introduced to legislate how high the interest can be on payday loans. Currently it can go as high as 700 percent or so (no, that is not an extra zero or two) and the bill would have capped rates at a still-outrageous 72 percent or 76 percent. The legislator who introduced the bill -- whose name I can't remember but who is male (okay, okay, that's the majority of the Virginia legislature) -- pulled the bill when it looked like it was going to pass, because of pressure from the payday loan lobby, as they gave money to his campaign and were going to refuse to fund him in the future and fund his opponent no matter what if he didn't pull the bill. Isn't that a textbook case of why we need campaign finance reform, and why there should be spending limits on how much you can spend on a campaign (thus limiting how much money you actually have to raise)?

Jonathan Weisman: I'll take your word for it. Personally, I get a little nervous at interventions in the market place that are that bold.

_______________________

Anonymous: "When the Republicans were in charge, conservatives always came on these chats and accused me of taking cheap shots and writing hit pieces on them." But they're big whiners who believe in crazy conspiracy theories about you being a big liberal who purposefully distorts your reporting to serve the great liberal MSM master, 'cause Rush told 'em so. It's not really the same thing.

Jonathan Weisman: I beg to differ. I think it's the exact same thing.

_______________________

San Francisco: Conventional wisdom seems to grant Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina great power. Will the media really anoint either party's candidate based on performance in these four states, prior to Super Tuesday? I hate that these small states could decide either party's nominee.

Jonathan Weisman: I feel your frustration, but a win is a win, and somebody has to come out on top in those first states.

_______________________

Baltimore: Isn't "bless your heart" Southern Lady code for "F You"? I was stunned yesterday that Gonzales said he didn't care how many U.S. citizens were being held under suspended habeas corpus, and he couldn't tell whether any U.S. citizens remanded overseas had had their rights violated. Isn't that, well, his job? I understand he's trying to look incompetent rather than criminally culpable, but what level of incompetence should we tolerate in our nation's chief law enforcement officer?

washingtonpost.com: Remembering Molly Ivins (Post, Feb. 1)

Jonathan Weisman: I'm glad you offered the Molly Ivins link. I stole that from her. She once said you can say just about anything about somebody, e.g.-- that woman is a real witch -- as long as you conclude with, bless her heart.

Anyway, as my colleague Dana Milbank wrote today, Alberto Gonzales is not a details man.

_______________________

Kingston, Ontario: Might the White House be right in thinking that the attorneys scandal will just blow over if they just keep blocking? What I mean is, will the investigation lead to a make-or-break point -- for example, about handing over incriminating e-mails, or Rove testifying on oath?

Jonathan Weisman: I think they might be right. The RNC is showing no signs of turning over those e-mails, if they have found them. And time is a-wastin'.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Of course Rudy is focusing on the big states! Lots of rich people there, unlike a farm family in Iowa who were asked to do a meet and greet with Rudy, and then was canceled when the campaign found out they weren't wealthy farmers who would be affected by the "death tax."

Jonathan Weisman: There really aren't too many farmers affected by the death tax, although most of them think they are, so if that's his criteria, he's gonna have some trouble stumping in farm country.

_______________________

Blacksburg, Va.: Out of curiosity, what has happened to the 100 Hours agenda? Are the House and Senate working on compromise bills? I remember at least the minimum wage bill passing the House. Thanks for taking the question.

Jonathan Weisman: Ugh, I wrote a whole story on this. Read it and weep.

_______________________

Chicago: How is Washington handling the news that almost 40 percent of Americans support impeachment of Bush and Cheney?

Jonathan Weisman: We're not. I haven't seen the polling that you are referring to, and until I do, I won't quite believe it.

_______________________

Re: Republican Primary Voters: I know conventional wisdom is that California, New York, etc., are more moderate and more congenial places for Giuliani, but have you looked at who votes in Republican primaries there? These are rock-solid conservatives and are not at all moderate on abortion, etc. For example, in California the last Republican primary for governor was won by Bill Simon, who is pretty far right. Schwarzenegger did not win governorship by primary, he won by the recall.

Jonathan Weisman: I'm not sure about New York, but you are dead right about California. That has been the GOP's big problem in the recent gubernatorial races, nominating conservatives that could not win state wide. The reason they have the governator is that he first won in that bizarre, wide-open recall campaign and got to bypass the core Republican base.

_______________________

Getting "ratted out": That's kind of scary, that the White House legislative affairs office might try to shut down your reporting just because you were -- well, reporting. Do you mention this example as an exceptional instance, or does this happen often to congressional correspondents? I can't imagine you were doing whatever bashing was happening; clearly a Hill source didn't like what you were hearing from a colleague.

Jonathan Weisman: That was my first experience with it, and I was taken aback. You can never be too careful, I guess.

_______________________

Chicago: Regarding Iraq, wouldn't the true Republican thing to do be to have both carrots and sticks, not just the endless-carrot and stickless policy of the Bush Administration? In a vacuum one would think that the current Democrats are the Republicans, no?

Jonathan Weisman: I'm not sure what a true-Republican policy is anymore. But I think Congress is going to have to find a carrot-and-stick compromise, sooner rather than later.

_______________________

Corning, Ark.: Would the meeting between the President and House Republicans taken place if the vice president were in D.C. instead of the Middle East?

Jonathan Weisman: Yes. The question is, will something like it happen again?

_______________________

Rockville, Md.:"I had Republicans of all stripes tell me they are with the moderates and were glad they spoke out. But significantly, none of them would go on the record. They are teetering but they're not quite ready to tip." Isn't this pure cowardice? Not saying anything because they're more worried about their own political career than those who are fighting overseas?

Jonathan Weisman: Call it what you will, but the White House does still wield a big stick, at least in the House. Not so much in the Senate.

_______________________

Boston: Read an article saying LaHood was rebuked at the White House yesterday for speaking with the press about the "11" meeting with the President. At what point do congressional Republicans tell Karl Rove to stuff it? He's only holding a position of power for 18 more months...

Jonathan Weisman: I mentioned that in my story this morning as well. Apparently, Karl Rove really chewed out Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who organized the get-together. I talked to one of the 11 who was really upset about it. Instead of the White House using the news to say, see, the president isn't in a bubble, he can take criticism, they apparently tried to shut it down.

_______________________

"Read it and weep.": I'm not weeping! As, apparently, the only conservative who plays on this chat, I'm generally in favor of congressional gridlock in a governs-best-which-governs-least kind of way. It worked in the early '90s, at least domestically, and it's working again now.

Jonathan Weisman: Good point. I covered the last year of the Clinton White House, and in those circumstances, gridlock worked wonderfully. But then again, we weren't at war. The federal budget was in surplus. Poverty rates were falling, and folks were generally happy with the direction of the country.

_______________________

Buffalo, N.Y.: Somebody savvy said: "It takes a horse to beat a horse." While Democrats do okay in generic polls, the same folks often lean GOP once the pollsters name names. In your assessment, isn't the '08 race very much wide-open?

Jonathan Weisman: Absolutely. No one has really emerged as a force in the Republican field, but ditto for the Dems.

_______________________

St. Paul, Minn.: Hey Jonathan, Just returned from a nice vacation in Washington (I love that city) to 90 degree temps in Minnesota (July weather) and got to wondering where oh where did the attention to global warming go? Did it surface because of Gore's stunning Hill testimony and subside in the face of the Iraq clustermuck? Or is there still legislation swimming around up there?

Jonathan Weisman: Are the skeeters out yet?

Nancy Pelosi has promised, promised, promised global warming legislation this session of Congress. It'll still be a tough sell. Let's wait and see.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: There are no working farmers who pay any Estate Tax. In 2000, the Treasury Department looked at the estates that paid Estate Tax and contained a farm. They found that of the estates in which the farm was the largest percentage, it still only accounted for 15 percent of the holdings. So these were farms that raised polo ponies or flowers for the manse -- just another Republican lie.

Jonathan Weisman: Thanks for writing, Prof. Krugman. I won't challenge your numbers because I know if there are any, it's negligible

_______________________

Warren, N.J.: Your comment "I would be glad to" comment on whether Mr. Cheney and Mr. Maliki's delegate were on parallel track was followed by no answer on that question at all. I would ask that -- rather than denigrating the majority of Americans/Iraqis as "latching on" to death squads (also curious because Mr Maliki seems willing to tolerate these) -- you do what you stated you would "be glad" to do and comment on the parallel efforts to extend a U.S. presence by heads of governments at odds with their own legislators.

Jonathan Weisman: Okay, I will elaborate. It is significant, and I'm sure lawmakers in the United States have taken notice that their counterparts in the Iraqi parliament are on the opposite track. Polling from Iraq has long suggested a majority of the country want the U.S. out, but not necessarily immediately. That said, I still think it will be hard for Republicans in Congress to take their marching orders from Moqtada al-Sadr's buds in the Green Zone.

_______________________

Portland, Ore.: Hi Jonathan. Because Bush will veto the latest short-term funding bill just passed in the house and the Dems don't have the votes to override the veto (never mind the Senate), isn't this whole "dance" an empty existential gesture? (Unless maybe they want to get the GOP House members on record as supporting Bush for the 2008 elections.) Why not just a pass a sense of the Congress bill repealing the authorization to use force and be done with it? The president ain't gonna' budge -- that much is clear. Thanks.

Jonathan Weisman: Isn't everything an empty existential gesture, when you really think about it?

No, it's not empty. This is a process. The Democratic leadership had to put up a tough bill to keep the liberals in line, and get something to conference where it will be negotiated with the Senate and the White House. Then when a real compromise emerges, Pelosi can say, look, I tried. I even strengthened our hand with a stronger-than-expected vote for withdrawal. But at some point, we have to compromise and move on. It's all about positioning for the upcoming talks.

_______________________

Re: N.Y. Conservatives: Not sure if this will get in in time, but the previous poster is right-on about New York conservative voters. Seems people often forget that Upstate New York is much different from NYC.

Jonathan Weisman: Too true. But a lot of upstate House Republicans got the scare of their lives in November, ad many did not survive.

_______________________

Claverack, N.Y.: Vituperative tendinitis is the worst of all the nomenclatorial tendinitises! My sympathies. Did you find it odd that after Obama's gaffe about the number of fatalities in the Kansas tornadoes (not a big deal, really) he would come out and say something like "I'm going to be weary, I'm going to be tired"? That's typically something folks running for high office go to great lengths to conceal, isn't it? On the theory that voters want you tireless and energetic?

Jonathan Weisman: If he's tired now, just think how he'll feel in March! Ya know, this is Obama's shtick, not to say it's not genuine. He likes to be self-deprecating, to show he does not have all the answers, that he's human and willing to listen. It's working pretty well.

_______________________

Washington: In regards to the war spending bill, do you think the Democrats in Congress will send this next bill to be vetoed, then step back and say "we fought like the American public asked to change the direction of the war, but we are at the end of our power, anything that happens with the war now is the administration's fault"? I can't see any other way to, for lack of a better word, spin this.

Jonathan Weisman: No, I think the next bill that goes to the White House will be signed. It won't emerge without Bush's blessing.

_______________________

Kettering, Ohio: Hi Jon! I would enter your contest for today and say your columns were nothing but warmed-over Gila monster saliva, but a synthetic of that substance is giving this 54-year-old diabetic a healthy and productive life. So I maybe I should say thanks instead! Just kidding darlin'. Many of my social circle are college faculty or administrators, some of the most liberal folks you will ever want to shake a stick at, but I haven't heard one of this group call for impeachment, and two laugh at the suggestion. I suspect you will find the "nearly 40 percent" number to be a polling of the DNC's black helicopter watch team. Have a good one Jonathon!

Jonathan Weisman: I'd bet it's the RNC's black helicopter watch team.

_______________________

Re: Ready to rumble!: Oh please don't turn this into "Crossfire"...

Jonathan Weisman: Have a sense of humor, re: I can't exactly raise my voice from the keyboard.

_______________________

Washington: I have been giving a lot of thought to the GOP and minority/African-Americans in the past week. Talk about vetoing the bill that would give those of us in Washington just half of our right to equal representation (as we are equally taxed, etc.) seems to be an admission that the party (GOP) "gives up" on the black vote. I mean, this is a majority-black city, and will likely have a Democratic bent for a very long time. But to say "nope, don't give them representation" basically says "we can't win them over." Coupled with the Rove Plan to focus on voter fraud/suppression, it just seems to me like this really is a party that doesn't care that they don't have any significant percentage of the black vote, and is willing to let it go. Comments?

Jonathan Weisman: I do think the Rove strategy has been to focus on the Republican base, energize conservatives and squeak out 51 percent. That's a big change from the initial strategy of wooing minorities, especially Latinos. But the real problem with the D.C. vote bill comes from Senate Republicans, not the White House. The fear is, give Washington a House vote and the next thing those uppity District folks will want (I'm one of them) is a Senate voice too.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Jonathan, I read your piece today about the Iraq funding and benchmarks and was wondering if you knew anything about one of the benchmarks from the previously vetoed bill dealing with hydrocarbons? On the one hand politicians (both Dems and Repubs) are arguing that Iraqis need to get their act together. But on the other hand, this benchmark seems to indicate that we want them to get their act together to privatize oil resources, adhere to IMF policies and make it virtually impossible for the state to regulate oil production and make profit from the oil. Doesn't this seem contradictory? Why haven't we heard more about this?

washingtonpost.com: House Approves Revised War Bill (Post, May 11)

Jonathan Weisman: Last question, then on to my day job. This is all the talk in liberal circles these days. I really need to check out the facts, but it's a little premature to say what the hydrocarbon law would finally look like. There's been a recommendation to Parliament, but the actual parliamentarians have done Jack with it. And they don't much like the U.S. prodding.

Okay, folks, see ya 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.