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 White House reporter Peter Baker was online Tuesday, July 3, 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

____________________

Peter Baker: Good morning, everyone. The town's abuzz with President Bush's decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby, Tony Snow is defending it at the White House as we speak and there are lots of other things happening in the political world to talk about too, including Sen. Obama's fundraising prowess and Sen. McCain's political troubles. So let's get started.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: I think it is fascinating that Bush asked if the unpopularity of the United States was related to his personality. My general understanding is that his personality is fairly charming -- it is his character that is the problem. Character is what molds ethics, compassion and concern for the truth.

washingtonpost.com: A President Besieged and Isolated, Yet at Ease (Post, July 2)

Peter Baker: Thanks for the post. Don't see a question in here, but I agree, I thought it was interesting that he was exploring whether he as a person or personality was behind the country's image problems abroad. On the one hand, it was fascinating that he was making that linkage, and it suggested he's thinking about these issues; on the other, a lot of people would point to policy rather than personality. But either way, it was a revealing moment, I thought.

_______________________

Teaneck, N.J.: Great but scary article on the "serene" President. Does he just not get it? Is he truly convinced he's doing all the right things? What's going on here?

Peter Baker: It's hard to know what's inside someone else's head, but all indications are that he genuinely is convinced that he is doing the right thing. He believes, rightly or wrongly, that he is fighting a dangerous enemy and pursuing noble goals -- and that while events look bad now, the answer is perseverance, and history will vindicate him. His friends of course admire that as resilience in the face of adversity; his critics of course see that as detached from reality. And that's one of the things that makes President Bush such an interesting figure, because different people see him in such different ways.

_______________________

San Francisco: Hello Peter, thanks for chatting today. I was surprised your article said the President reads the papers, and that the public has a misconception he doesn't. That misconception has been created by the President himself, who's been quoted elsewhere saying "I look at the headlines to see what's moving. I don't read the stories." So which is right?

Peter Baker: Yes, you're right, he has said that, but I think that's more a matter of appearances. He likes to appear as if he doesn't care what the newspapers say and he's above all that. And he likes to play the down-home, Texas anti-intellectual. So I think those kind of comments are more for effect.

_______________________

Washington: So the president takes all of, what, five minutes to decide, all by his lonesome apparently ("I'm the decider!") to commute Scooter's sentence. Is this the final exclamation point at the end of what could fittingly be described as the motto of his presidency, i.e. "I don't care what anyone else thinks"? Barrack Obama described the impact of this move as cementing Bush's legacy of cynicism. Does this in fact compound the negatives for Bush and the Republicans, or have these already largely been cemented in place because of other administration fiascoes?

Peter Baker: Well, to the extent the commutation was influenced by politics, I think the calculation at the White House was that everyone who would get mad at President Bush for keeping Scooter Libby out of prison already hates him. My colleague, Mike Abramowitz, has a smart story this morning that looks at this.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: A Decision Made Largely Alone (Post, July 3)

_______________________

Washington: The other chatter couldn't really answer the question earlier, but how do you think the the Libby pardon/commutation will play out in the 2008 elections?

Peter Baker: It's a good question. I'm sure Democratic candidates will use it as an example of what they call an administration that considers itself above the law and so forth, and it could be an effective political point, one more piece of a larger argument. I'm not sure, though, that by itself it will move votes. There hasn't been signs of much interest on the part of everyday voters outside the Beltway that would past 16 months. And except for Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon, anger over controversial clemency decisions has a way of fading. Bill Clinton fares well in public attitudes today according to many polls despite the white-hot reaction to his last-minute pardons of financier Marc Rich, former cabinet secretary Henry Cisneros, Whitewater figure Susan McDougal and his brother Roger. Still, I did find it interesting that Hillary Clinton would weigh in yesterday decrying political clemency decisions, given what her husband did on the way out the door. She has a delicate line to walk there.

_______________________

Seattle: I read the other day that Wolfowitz had taken a job at a right-wing D.C. think tank, presumably for a solid six-figure salary. Can we expect the exact same thing for Libby? And how can the public not view that as Libby's "reward" for covering for Cheney?

washingtonpost.com: Wolfowitz Joins Think Tank as Visiting Scholar (Post, July 3)

Peter Baker: Scooter Libby actually got a perch at the Hudson Institute about 18 months ago after he was indicted and resigned from the White House. I don't know anything about his salary.

_______________________

St. Paul, Minn.: Hi Peter -- thanks for a fascinating (and disturbing) article on Bush yesterday. This is a more of a comment than a question, but I found it incredibly appalling that he should now, four years after the fact, suddenly become this deep-thinking, introspective philosophical type. I wish he'd done some of that a lot earlier when making the decision to get us into this disastrous war we're in now. In other words, I don't buy it ... to borrow a well-worn phrase, it's the legacy, stupid.

Peter Baker: Thanks for the comment.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Re: Bill Clinton in Iowa: I am going to assume that it is fair game to call on anyone to speak on your behalf, but here is a question I cannot answer. What is Hillary's dependence on her husband's appearances saying: I know my negatives are high, and Bill can help me lower them? I'm not strong enough to compete on my own? If I win, Bill will be very hands-on in my administration? In short, are there messages in Bill's extroverted support that are important to Democrats?

washingtonpost.com: In Iowa, Clinton Relies Heavily on Husband's Star Power (Post, July 3)

Peter Baker: Can I choose all of the above? Obviously this campaign is like no other in American history, with the spouse of a former president running for the same office. People are going to read what they see in his presence, or lack of presence, on the campaign trail and it may be impossible to game it out too much. It will send many messages all at once. Obviously, as we were just saying, he does remain largely popular with the public, and particularly with Democrats, so to the extent he can lend some of that luster to her campaign, that's a help. But voters also tend not to transfer allegiance from one politician to another, no matter how close. And she needs to be careful to be her own person too.

_______________________

San Francisco: The teevee White House press corps got stuck in Kennebunkport reporting on the commutation, because the President flew back to Washington and then signed the papers in the Oval. Was this a way for Bush to avoid any questions, as well as a way to disrupt their travel plans before the holiday? Some of your colleagues looked rather put out last night during their reporting -- everyone certainly was caught by surprise.

Peter Baker: Well, he wouldn't have had to take our questions about it even if we had come back from Kennebunkport earlier, honestly. The press corps remained in Maine even after he left because the networks wanted to have their correspondents still "on scene" as they reported on the meeting earlier in the day with Vladimir Putin. Obviously the commutation sort of trumped the Putin meeting story.

_______________________

Lansdale, Pa.: I am quite amused by the chin-stroking speculation expressed in the article by Abramowitz regarding whether the Angler had any influence on the commutation. Perhaps the next issue to investigate is the extent to which the statements of Charlie McCarthy were influenced by his close relationship with Edgar Bergen.

Peter Baker: Thanks for the comment. Obviously it would be hard to imagine Vice President Cheney wasn't involved in the decision to commute Scooter Libby's sentence, but unfortunately, it's extremely hard to dig out facts about how that works inside this White House on the same day. Our writers Barton Gellman and Jo Becker --, who just published our four-part series on Cheney -- spent more than a year to unearth what they found.

_______________________

Baltimore: The "inside Bush's brain" story a few days ago (which was great) humanized our current president in a way that I've never thought about before. It's a curious thing for a partisan to read a story that shows cracks and human traits and normal weaknesses in someone who's shown nothing but unfaltering belief in the cause, a belief that borders on willing blindness. Are we seeing a president making a drastic change in the way he acts on consensus? Has Iraq broken that unfaltering belief? What do you think? Has he changed? Can he change?

Peter Baker: Well, as we were talking earlier, it's awfully hard to know what someone's thinking -- and this president may be more than most resists being "put on the couch," as he puts it. But you have to believe that after as long a streak of miserable news that it has to make someone think about how that happened and what it means and where to go from here. Is there a drastic change in the works? Not that our reporting indicates at this point.

_______________________

New Jersey: Peter, your story yesterday about the president was clearly really well researched and very detail-oriented. How long did it take you to complete the story? Can you give us some insight into where you got some of your details and information?

Peter Baker: I spent several months working on it in between other stories. It's hard to get inside this White House but you have to figure that every day of the week the president sees someone from the outside, whether it be friends or scholars or congressmen or lobbyists or what have you. And they all come away with a little bit of insight that you can mine to develop a fuller, richer picture.

_______________________

Seattle: After a cursory glance, it looks like the comments in this forum have been positive with regard to yesterday's article. I just wanted to send some support and tell you to ignore the partisan comments that were posted on the article and in the blogs yesterday. Great reporting.

Peter Baker: Thanks very much, I appreciate that. I knew in writing the piece that it would make some people unhappy, and I've gotten predictable complaints from the right that it was too mean and from the left that it was not at all mean. The purpose of writing a piece like that, of course, was not to put a foot on the scale but to try to find information so that others could draw their own conclusions. I imagine some could read such a piece and decide it shows that the president really is in his own world, while others could see it and admire his resilience. The one thing I'm certain of is that no leader, whether we like or hate him/her, is exactly like the public caricature and the more we can dispense with that and go a little deeper, the better informed we will be.

_______________________

Bridgewater, Mass.: About the meeting at Kennebunkport: I don't remember ever seeing an interpreter hovering in the background in any of those pictures showing Bush and Putin apparently conversing in private. Is Putin's English that good? He looked distinctly uncomfortable standing with Bush in front of the cameras while Bush gave his interpretation of what had occurred.

washingtonpost.com: Putin Proposes Broader Cooperation on Missile Defense (Post, July 3)

Peter Baker: There was an interpreter standing to the side with a microphone so that he didn't need to be in the picture. Vladimir Putin's English has improved significantly in the past several years and is good enough to understand what someone else is saying and even correct his own translator from time to time. But while he can chat informally with President Bush in English, they still need translation for the serious talks.

_______________________

Chevy Chase, Md.: Your article on Bush was a unique take on his opinion of himself, but why did The Post put it on top of the front page?

Peter Baker: Thanks, I guess you'll have to ask the editors who make that call. Hopefully they did because they thought it was an interesting read.

_______________________

Ontario, Calif.: Peter, as everyone seems to be agreed on tougher border and workplace enforcement, will legislation addressing those two aspects of immigration reform be forthcoming? Thanks for your thoughts!

Peter Baker: That's a good question, and I don't honestly know. A lot of the border enforcement stuff is already in the works, such as President Bush's expansion of the Border Patrol from 9,000 agents when he came into office to 18,000, and the 2006 legislation that authorized hundreds of miles of new barriers along the border. It wouldn't surprise me to see more legislation addressing specifically that. The interesting question would be whether Bush would sign it or stand on his position that immigration requires a more comprehensive solution.

_______________________

Parkville, Md.: Wow, I've been watching Tony Snow's news conference, and it's unbelievable. Snow is insisting that the president felt that circumstances specific to this case made the prison sentence excessive, while steadfastly refusing to say what those circumstances were. I just have to say that I find this stunning claim absolutely contemptuous of the American people's basic right-to-know about the reasoning behind governing decisions.

Peter Baker: Thanks for the comment.

_______________________

Los Angeles: The "I" in I. Lewis Libby is for Irving. Why does the media decline to use it?

Peter Baker: I'm not aware of any conspiracy here. We tend to frame a newsmaker's name as he or she does.

_______________________

Anonymous: How will it effect Republican candidate Fred Thompson, who is on the advisory board for this effort?

Peter Baker: Sen. Thompson has been very outspoken on behalf of Scooter Libby, and as you say is part of the legal defense fund. He may have been the first Republican presidential candidate to call for a pardon. The rest of the field split on the question during a recent debate, with Mayor Giuliani and Gov. Romney expressing outrage about the sentence and seeming to lean toward clemency, while others -- including Sen. McCain -- were more reticent. The issue could help Thompson with conservatives who have been most engaged in the Libby case, but of course he could then face questions about it in a general election.

_______________________

Silicon Valley, Calif.: Why bother to write articles pointing out Bush and Cheney's corruption and abuse of power if Impeachment is "off the table"? Without any danger of being removed from office, why should Bush care at all?

Peter Baker: We don't write articles for the purpose of creating specific outcomes -- we write articles to inform the public. How the public (or the body politic) responds to the information we can provide is not something we consider.

_______________________

West Palm Beach, Fla.: Every time reporters and Republicans revert to the old "Clinton pardoned Mark Rich" mime, you ought to mention as well that Scooter Libby was the lawyer for Rich and arranged the pardon.

Peter Baker: Yes, he was a lawyer for Marc Rich, and we have reported that he crafted many of the arguments used to support his pardon. But he declined to work on the actual pardon effort because he was advising Cheney at that point.

_______________________

Silicon Valley, Calif.: Is the president still considered "Impeachment-proof"?

Peter Baker: I don't know if he's "impeachment-proof," but the Democratic leadership in Congress at the moment shows no interest in pursuing impeachment.

_______________________

Camas, Wash.: Kudos to The Post for an excellent series on Vice President Cheney. It seems that Cheney and Bush increasingly are isolated as they speak in front of smaller and smaller "friendly audiences." Their misdeeds of the past are catching up on them so they seek still further privacy and resist speaking openly and coming clean with the American people as a whole.

As a White House reporter, I would think covering a clearly declining and isolated administration in its final 18 months would be extremely interesting and could lead to many good stories. What do you look forward to as you climb into the President's bunker to report on in the final throes of this administration?

washingtonpost.com: Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency

Peter Baker: I do find covering this administration extremely interesting. The issues at stake are enormously consequential and obviously how a president (and vice president) respond to this sort of adversity is fascinating. I don't presume to know what the next 18 months will bring -- maybe more unraveling, maybe a comeback of historic proportions, who knows? That's why it will be so compelling to watch.

_______________________

Philadelphia: Thanks for the terrific piece on the state-of-mind of the President; I very much enjoyed the insights it provided -- even though it in no way changes my opinion on his character or Presidency. One thing struck me: your use of the word "nadir" very early in the article. I thought at the time, "hoo, boy ... I know I'm expecting things to go lower and get worse..." And now, enter the Libby commutation ... doesn't that drop the bar further? How much lower do you think he can sink in the polls? Thanks for another great job of reporting; I envied your chance to speak with Alistair Horne, a really great historian.

Peter Baker: Thanks for the kind words. By nadir, I meant in the sense of "so far." Obviously, you're right, in theory it could go lower, though how much? Just happened to look up Harry Truman, who bottomed out at 23 percent in approval polls by Gallup. The last Gallup poll has President Bush at 32 percent (and the last Post poll at 35 percent). What Bush hangs on to is the fact that Truman looks a lot better today than he did then.

_______________________

Washington: The president's argument for commutation (boiled down to its essence) is that the prison sentence was too long, i.e. excessive. If the president truly believed that, couldn't he have held off commuting the rest of the sentence until Libby had served whatever time the president believed was just?

Peter Baker: That's a good question. I think we have to assume from his action that he believes any prison time would be excessive and that in his mind the $250,000 fine is enough.

_______________________

Austin, Texas: Would one reason for the commutation of Libby's sentence be that a pardon would mean that Libby was no longer exposed to criminal sanctions and thus had no Fifth Amendment privilege? As it stands he has a fine and probation at stake during the pendency of the appeal which insulates him (and Bush and Cheney) from having to answer questions before Congress.

Peter Baker: Another great question. That's certainly an interesting point and we'll ask about that.

_______________________

Peter Baker: Ah, we've gone over our time again. Thanks so much for all the great questions today. Have a terrific Independence Day and we'll return with more chats later in the week.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over 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.