Post Politics Hour

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, June 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.

Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts

____________________

Washington: Both D.C. papers write that John McCain's presidential campaign is on life support. It is a near certainty that some of the "frontrunners" must fall from grace, at some point. What does he need to do to stay competitive in this race?

washingtonpost.com: The Selling of 'McCain 2.0' (Post, June 13)

John Solomon: The experts I talk with offer this formula: He needs to have a stronger fundraising showing in the second quarter that ends this month. Money often translates into enthusiasm and is a good barometer of support. I'm hearing he's likely to get to around $15 million, which will be an improvement on the first quarter but likely still behind Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. Secondly, he needs to change the policy dialog from the two issues that recently have dogged him -- Iraq and immigration. McCain's rise in the 1990s was based on a reform agenda, yet his vision for ethics, legal and government reform mostly have been drowned out by these more controversial issues. I think some of his supporters want him to reclaim the dialog on reform.

_______________________

New York: Congress finally has issued the first subpoenas for White House officials on the U.S. Attorney firings. Executive privilege claims come next. Then what? The White House never will budge, which tells me that eventually the U.S. Attorney for Washington will have to decide whether to settle the question by picking up a contempt referral from Congress. He won't do it -- either because he's a partisan hack or because he doesn't want to referee a balance-of-powers fight, so unless Congress works up the support (and courage) for a long-overdue impeachment I have a hard time seeing the White House not coming out on top. What do you think?

washingtonpost.com: Officials: Subpoenas for Bush Figures (AP, June 13)

John Solomon: I don't get the sense that the White House is fixing for a long, protracted legal fight. I've heard people suggest that maybe Republicans would simply drag this out in the courts through the end of Bush's second term; I'm not sure that gets the White House much benefit. If Bush is trying to burnish his legacy, ending his term with an unsettled political controversy probably doesn't help. My guess is White House counsel Fred Fielding will try to find some sort of middle ground on testimony that will allow the White House to claim it preserved the principle of executive privilege but were giving the Congress some of what it wanted. Democrats will then get to decide whether they went such a deal.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I'm growing weary of all these complaints that the Democratic Congress hasn't done anything since elected. What people fail to understand is that by electing a Democratic Congress, we've re-achieved a state of checks and balances. Under the Republican Congress, the Bush administration essentially got anything and everything rubber-stamped without question. Now, with the Democrats holding power in Congress, this administration no longer has the "blank check," to use Nancy Pelosi's phrase.

That being said, what we have is largely a stalemate, because we have a Republican president and a Democratic Congress that are polar opposites of each other. That's why little legislation has been passed. People seem to think that a Democratic Congress equates to an end to the Iraq conflict, which is an unrealistic premise -- because under checks and balances Congress doesn't have the authority to draw down troops without the president's authorization. The president vetoed Congress's timetable for withdrawal, and the only way around that is to achieve the two-thirds majority to override his veto. Because that two-thirds majority hasn't been met, the only real way to break the stalemate right now is for Republicans to start abandoning the president. A Democratic majority in Congress can't do it alone. And this applies to other areas of legislation, including immigration and stem cell research.

My point is, before we start criticizing Congress for "not doing anything," let's take a good look at the dynamics at work here: a Republican president facing off against a Democratic Congress; two political bodies with polar-opposite belief systems.

John Solomon: The new Congress actually has accomplished quite a bit -- particularly in changing how lawmakers themselves do business in an heightened ethics climate and in providing oversight to the administration's conduct. But Democrats set a high bar for their early agenda and two of the marquee goals have not been met: They didn't get a strong Iraq bill, as the party's base wanted, and they've been unable so far to get a deal on immigration. I'm not convinced immigration is dead yet, and there is room for compromise. That said, I think that window closes if lawmakers go home empty-handed for the Fourth of July holiday. Back in 1995, voters and the media judged the new Republican leadership on whether they accomplished the Contract with America agenda. At year's end, a similar scorecard will be made for the new Democratic majority. There's still plenty of time for Democrats to mold the outcome.

_______________________

Newburyport, Mass.: I was very surprised to hear Susan Collins blame Bush for the Republican's problems. Wasn't she in the Senate majority for six years of carte blanche for Bush?

John Solomon: Susan Collins clearly hails from the moderate wing of the party, which always has been wary of Bush and his brand of Texas conservatism. And as the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, she played a key role in identifying many of the Bush administration's mistakes in the handling of Hurricane Katrina. So it's not surprising to me that some of her frustrations and criticisms are bubbling out now.

_______________________

San Francisco: Several current and former Justice Department officials obviously have lied to Congress recently. Regardless of whether or not they were under oath, lying to Congress is a crime. Why aren't they being indicted? Regular Joes don't get to "clarify" their testimony.

John Solomon: This is one of the questions the Democratic Congress still must address -- what to do with the concerns about inaccurate or conflicting testimony. One option that the Judiciary Committees have at the end of their investigations is to make a criminal referral to the Justice Department of certain individuals they believed lied. And that poses another complication -- the Justice Department can't investigate itself. So I'd watch to see if Democrats, joined by some Republicans, make a criminal referral later this summer with a recommendation for a special counsel to oversee the probe. That's how Pat Fitzgerald ended up in charge of the CIA leak probe.

_______________________

Los Angeles: I fear that I am missing something about the popularity of Giuliani in Republican circles, so I am turning to you for help. Giuliani is supposedly the Republican candidate of choice for those who want to be tough on terror, because of his first-hand experience with terrorism as the Mayor of New York. My question is, how does being the mayor of a city that was attacked by terrorists make one a terrorism expert? To me that is like saying that because I was in an auto accident, I suddenly am an expert on auto safety issues. Giuliani, as far as I can tell, has absolutely no experience in foreign affairs, military matters or anti-terrorism strategies. He was a convenient symbol when the towers went down, but how does that translate into becoming an anti-terrorism expert? Indeed, significant questions are now being raised about Giuliani's post-attack performance in terms of how safety concerns were addressed with respect to first responders and those working on cleaning up the post-attack World Trade Center site. Am I missing something here, or is this another in a seemingly endless line of examples where image trumps substance?

John Solomon: I suspect this is a line of inquiry that Giuliani's opponents will zero in on as the primaries draw closer. Is being a big city mayor enough of a credential maker to warrant a run for the White House? In fairness to Giuliani, his resume is more substantial than just mayor -- since leaving office in 2002, his lucrative security consulting business has brought him in contact with political and corporate leaders worldwide and forced him to fashion security plans for buildings, cities and countries. He's dabbled with emerging anti-terror technologies as well as an investment banker. As mayor, Giuliani was forced to work with the Clinton and Bush administration to address the endless threats against New York City that persisted after the 1993 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Before being mayor, he was a federal prosecutor who took on some major mob cases. I suspect these are the things Giuliani will point to when the questions about his experience become more pointed.

_______________________

Baltimore: In his chat yesterday, Thomas Ricks said that on his most pessimistic days, he sees little kids waiting for the school bus and thinks of them going off to do their duty in Iraq in 15 or 20 years. He seems to know what he's talking about when it comes to Iraq. It just gets more terrible and more terrible there. My question: Is it assumed in Washington that there is no good course at this point? Or are people still putting stock in the President's "surge" plan or whatever comes down the pike next? Thanks.

John Solomon: We've seen a recent spate of senior military officials publicly questioning the surge strategy; I think its popularity is waning. I suspect the administration and its supporters are in the process of changing the dialog -- and Americans' focus -- from merits of the surge strategy to a debate over whether the Iraqis are really doing their part in taking control of their own destiny. We saw some of this playing out for the first time in the past couple of weeks -- and with some impending deadlines drawing near for Iraqis to meet certain benchmarks, I suspect the debate and dialog will go further in this direction.

_______________________

Washington: Senator Lott said the Gonzales no confidence was playing politics. Yeah? So? Was he worried about playing politics when the Senate voted on Schiavo? My point is, why does the press play these statements at all? Whether from Democrats, Republicans or the White House, the hypocrisy alone is offensive ... but how is the claim that the other side is playing politics news?

John Solomon: The "playing politics" defense was the Republicans' explanation for the position they took on the no confidence vote, and we're obligated to provide their side of the story. But that said, I agree the media has a greater responsibility to "truth watch" such cliche responses and to hold them up against the backdrop of recent history. The Republicans of the late 1990s took a much different position on everything from administration competence to executive privilege when they were pursuing the lame duck Clinton White House as the majority party. We owe the reader some of that context, identifying when their positions on issues change because of the change in their position of power.

_______________________

Boston: I'm curious as to how you feel Mitt Romney is received around the country. It's hard to get perspective on his campaign, because I already had a very clear (and unfavorable) view of him after his time as governor. I always found him to be disingenuous, and very willing to say whatever the people who happen to be listening to him wanted to hear. When it became clear that he was planning to run, and started distancing himself from the state, he lost huge ground with the people here. His Lieutenant Governor lost handily to Deval Patrick. I was shocked that the media didn't pick up on his nonsense that Saddam wouldn't let weapons inspectors in comment at the last debate. All that said, how are people reacting to him and his candidacy in places other than true-blue Massachusetts?

John Solomon: Donors from the Republican base seem to have warmed to him nicely, and that is why he has had such early success in fundraising. Plus he has one of the heavy-hitters of the GOP money world in his corner in the likes of Mel Sembler. Likewise, voters and consultants I talk to in the early primary states, where retail politics really counts, suggest he's a good one-on-one campaigner. But the fact that his national numbers haven't moved very much suggest there is some uneasiness among Republicans who only see him in debates or through the national media coverage. To win, he'll need to address whatever those voters' concerns are -- whether he appears too "plastic" or has flip-flopped on issues or whatever. And it's not easy, because his opponents will be spending money trying to highlight those attack issues. All that said, there's still plenty of time.

_______________________

Washington: President Bush is scheduled to name Ed Gillespie to replace Dan Bartlett this afternoon. How do you see Gillespie helping the president?

washingtonpost.com: Missing Rummy -- and That Other Guy, of Course (second page) (Post, June 11)

John Solomon: Bringing in someone like Ed Gillespie would address one of the biggest concerns Republicans voice privately about President Bush -- that he has surrounded himself for too long with people who are too friendly to tell him the advice he needs to hear. Ed is an accomplished political strategist with plenty of experience and respect in political circles -- and he almost certainly would bring fresh ideas and energy to a battle-worn White House.

_______________________

John Solomon: Thanks again for all the good 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.