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, May 16, 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

____________________

Silver Spring, Md.: I was stunned when I read the account of Comey's testimony this morning. The mad dash to the ill attorney general's bedside by the acting attorney general, in order to cut off Gonzales and Card's attempt to get Ashcroft to sign off on wiretapping program, despite the Justice Department's finding that the program was illegal, was incredible. It's like something out of a Hollywood political thriller. And it appears that the program continued for two-three weeks in its illegal state before the President finally agreed to the changes requested by DOJ. My question is: Will this story have legs? What Gonzales and Card did, presumably at the bidding of the president and vice president, was despicable. Apparently even DOJ officials believed that the wiretapping program, in its original form, was illegal. Would this be grounds for impeachment of Gonzales, or any of the other characters here? Will they be held accountable in any way?

John Solomon: It is one of the most vivid, dramatic stories I've seen in many years. It is one of those rare moments in politics where reality meets a Hollywood thriller. You are correct that the questions can't stop with Gonzales and Card. We in the news media are pressing today on what the president knew, whether he dispatched those aides to Ashcroft's bedside and whether he supported trying to get a program restored even after being told it was illegal. Stay tuned. This has all the makings of a political trilogy.

_______________________

Davis, Calif.: What can Waxman's committee do if Condi Rice continues to refuse to comply with his committee's subpoena to testify about the Niger documents? Also, what legal authority does the State Department cite for prohibiting Simon Dodge (the analyst who notified Rice that the Niger documents were forgeries) from testifying before Waxman's committee? I am very frustrated that our Congress, whose function is to provide oversight of the executive branch, is being blocked. I thought all this "executive privilege" stuff was put to rest by the Supreme Court during the Watergate hearings.

John Solomon: The administration has several options for refusing to disclose information to Congress on something like the Niger document. The most famous, of course, is executive privilege, the right of the president to get candid advice from his aides without unnecessary public intrusion. Watergate actually upheld this principle, not weakened it. However, the privilege isn't absolute. Something as important as a criminal case or an impeachment proceeding can pierce the privilege. Whether a more run-of-the-mill congressional oversight inquiry could overcome that privilege remains to be tested fully. I'm not sure that is the first line of defense here, though. Information from an aide to Secretary Rice might not involve the president and therefore might not be covered by executive privilege. More likely, Rice could invoke something called the deliberative privilege, which holds that federal agencies are entitled to keep deliberations prior to a final decision secret. Waxman's committee options are many. They could build a public relations campaign to try to politically pressure the White House to answer questions. They could seek a House vote hold the administration in contempt of Congress. Or they could go to court to challenge any claim of privilege.

_______________________

Chicago: With all of the objective economic indicators showing that the economy is doing very well, why do you think people are so pessimistic about it? Is the economy really good for the people at the top and not so hot for the people at the bottom? Or is the economy more fragile than the statistics would indicate? If the economy were to take a significant downturn (say, because of the housing market crash and gas prices) would that plus the Iraq mess indicate an anti-GOP tsunami in 2008?

John Solomon: One sure rule of politics is that voters most often vote with their pocketbooks in mind. The economy still is chugging along at a healthy clip, but high gas prices and declining home values are two very tangible factors that strike close to the pocketbook. Even if the overall economy remains strong into next year, as expected, it is possible that Democrats could use an argument in 2008 similar to the one Ronald Reagan used against Jimmy Carter in 1980: Are you better off today than eights years ago? Things like prices at the pumps and depressed house values could be used to make a pro-Democratic argument. Republicans, however, would almost certainly counter with a healthy stock market, a stable unemployment rate and high home ownership rates.

_______________________

Minneapolis: A philosophical question, if you will: There have been stories -- particularly about John Edwards -- that suggest that one's wealth and lifestyle call into question his proposals to help the poor. Why don't we see similar stories that would evaluate the impact of certain proposals, such the extension of the Bush tax cuts as an example, on the personal finances of Republican presidential candidates?

John Solomon: I'm one of the authors of The Post stories that divulged Edwards' ties to the Fortress Group hedge fund. The question those stories raised wasn't "can a wealthy politician advocate for the poor?" We already know some of the greatest advocates for the poor were wealthy -- the Kennedys and Bill Gates to name two right off the top of my head. The question those stories legitimately raised is whether a candidate who says he opposes off-shore tax havens and subprime lending should have worked for a firm that engaged in both practices.

_______________________

Boyds, Md.: The White House now is saying that, if the World Bank doesn't fire Wolfowitz, they're willing to discuss (as separate issues) both his ethics and his management style. For myself, unless Bush gets on the phone and directly calls all the other World Bank heads of state and pleads directly, I just don't see how Wolfowitz keeps the job. (Pretty much, unless Bush does get on the phone, the only way I see Wolfowitz not getting fired is if he resigns first.)

Even if he does keep the job, I don't see any way for him to be effective in it. He's apparently lost the trust and respect of almost everyone at the World Bank and most of the governments supporting it, and if the World Bank lets him keep it, it just sets a bad "corruption" example to all the countries they're lending to. But apparently the White House feels differently, that he can be effective if he keeps working there. I don't see how that's possible. If you do, could you please explain it to me, 'cause I keep poking at it and not coming up with a different answer. (Also, a friend says that if Wolfowitz is in office on June 1, he gets some bonus. If that true? Can the World Bank rescind that if they're trying to oust him at the time?)

John Solomon: I don't know about the bonus issue but will pass that question on to the reporters who have covered this so well for us. The Wolfowitz saga really is a case study for the broader issue of what has happened to U.S. relations with our allies, which were frayed openly during the lead-up to the Iraq war. Secretary Rice has worked hard to mend fences in the past couple of years but the Wolfowitz case adds salt to some countries' old wounds. The unknown factor here is the same as the one in the U.S. attorney controversy: What role does President Bush's famous loyalty play in the outcome? There is plenty in the public record that Bush could cite in dumping Wolfowitz. Likewise, there was plenty of GOP support to fire Gonzales a few weeks back -- but Bush stuck by Gonzales, whose friendship with the president dates to Texas. I'll suspect we'll learn in coming days how strong Bush's loyalty is to Wolfowitz.

_______________________

Boise, Idaho: As one who makes his living owning and managing a marketing research and political polling firm, I have a mathematically oriented question: Romney is increasingly doing well in GOP primary/caucus sites that are early in the process (i.e., Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan) but nationally his numbers are virtually unchanged. I have my own hypotheses as to why this may be the case. But as Rod Serling might have said, "how can this be?" Thank you for answering my question, John. Keep up the good work!

John Solomon: I, too, have been interested in Romney's rather static national popularity. I suspect it mostly has to do with name recognition, something that can be improved with intense advertising. It's just too early to be blitzing the airwaves when the first primary votes aren't cast for nearly eight months yet. So I suspect he has plenty of time to drive up his national numbers with ads later this year. Still, the primaries are all about winning specific states and a candidate who wins some early races almost always starts gaining national popularity. The fact that Romney is performing extremely well in fundraising and is rising a bit in some early primary state polls tells me something. I hear from GOP consultants in multiple campaigns that Romney is getting some good reviews as a retail campaigner, a skill key to any victory in Iowa and New Hampshire. I'll be interested to see where Romney sits in the national polling at the start of the fall. By that time, many consultants say, he'll need to show some improvement in his national numbers.

_______________________

Minneapolis: A response: I don't disagree that one can fairly look at Edwards' practices. I would also argue that it is equally worth looking at politicians who support laws that would benefit themselves financially.

John Solomon: I completely agree. A lot of the political accountability projects I've done over the years have focused on this very issue, and it is important to regularly examine politicians' actions as they relate to their personal or political wealth. As the Abramoff scandal showed us, earmarks are a way for lawmakers to use their legislative powers to enrich themselves or their political backers. Rifle-shot tax breaks are another area for potential abuse. Starting today, we are beginning to get the latest financial disclosure reports for all the presidential candidates and members of Congress, and we'll be doing lots in the next months to look for potential abuses or conflicts of interests.

_______________________

Baltimore: Is it breaking any laws to try to get somebody's signature while they're intoxicated or under the influence of heavy medication? Gonzales and Card's actions are most definitely immoral, but were they illegal? Should they be?

John Solomon: From what I heard yesterday, I'm not sure Ashcroft's signature would have had any legal validity at the time of the meeting. That's because Ashcroft legally had transferred his powers as attorney general to James Comey and therefore had no authority to renew the program. That was the point Ashcroft himself made to his visitors.

_______________________

Santa Fe, N.M.: What are the chances that we'll now see Ashcroft testify before Congress? I wonder if he'd have any loyalty to the Bush team (particularly Gonzo) at this point.

John Solomon: I suspect there is some interest inside Congress to call Ashcroft. The details yesterday were riveting and I'm sure some lawmakers would love to hear Ashcroft's account. I think it is telling that Ashcroft didn't mention this story in his book, even though it would have been a thriller anecdote. I suspect that if a request is made for Ashcroft to testify, it will be left to the former attorney general to decide. He's a former senator, and Congress often is very deferential to its former members.

_______________________

John Solomon: Thanks again for all the good questions. Looks like we have some interesting news events to keep an eye on in coming days. 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.