Opinion Focus

Washington Post opinion columnist Eugene Robinson will be online Tuesday, July 24 at 1 p.m. ET to discuss his recent columns and the latest news.

The Journal and the Mogul (Post, July 24) | Discussion Group: Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood

The transcript follows.

Archive: Eugene Robinson discussion transcripts

____________________

Eugene Robinson: Hi, everybody, and welcome. Lots of fodder today -- Alberto Gonzales is taking yet another crack at telling the truth to Congress (not doing too well, from what I can see); Democratic spinmeisters are spinning last night's YouTube debate; Lindsay Lohan appears to be on her way to the Paris Hilton Suite at the L.A. County Jail. ... For the record, this morning's column was about Rupert Murdoch's bid to buy the Wall Street Journal. Hey, what's he going to do, push the editorial page to the right?

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: Eugene, I have a different take than most of my fellow liberal friends about Murdoch and the WSJ. It goes like this: Whether Murdoch meddles with the editorial control of the WSJ or not, the perception will be after a period of time that the conservative nature of the paper is nothing more than an extension of the Fox News model. Whether that's right or wrong, it ultimately will be a big plus for left-wingers and liberals. It will, at the end of the day, be a bad thing for conservatives in general. Mark my words, perception of Murdoch controlling the WSJ will lead to its marginalization as just another conservative mouthpiece for the Australian.

Eugene Robinson: That's an excellent point, and I hadn't thought of it in those terms. That must explain the WSJ editorial a few weeks ago that talked about the prospect of a sale to Murdoch in a tone that reminded me of the last defenders of the Alamo. It makes sense that they would fear that their ideological conservatism would come to be seen as equivalent to Murdoch's much more situational conservatism.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Mr. Robinson, I enjoy your insights. Thanks for taking time with us. Here is an interesting historical situation: We have a president who may (if not already there) be moving into a position with "nothing to lose." Bush is not running for re-election; Cheney won't run; the Republicans are distancing themselves, poll numbers are very, very low. Now, with someone with nothing to lose, isn't this a bit of a frightful situation? Heck, might as well bomb Iran ... nothing to lose! Might as well exploit executive power ... nothing to lose! Any thoughts?

Eugene Robinson: It scares me too. I'm particularly worried by the fact that Bush keeps talking about the judgment of history, as if he no longer cares what his contemporaries think. What if he decides he doesn't "trust" his successor -- Democrat or Republican -- to deal "properly" with Iran?

_______________________

Washington: Re: Trusting Rupert Murdoch. Gene, as usual I find myself agreeing with the thrust of your column today (albeit much more reluctantly than usual). But I'm afraid I don't share your apparent confidence that Murdoch will keep his hands off the Wall Street Journal's reporting. Yes, he may love newspapers, but nothing I've read or heard leads me to believe that he welcomes dissent, or would hesitate to close bureaus and lay off staff if that saved him money. What am I missing?

Eugene Robinson: Don't get me wrong -- I don't think for a minute that Murdoch welcomes dissent. But I do think he's not stupid. I think he realizes it would be counterproductive, including financially, to spend all that money to buy the Wall Street Journal and then devalue his asset. If he is willing to lose tens of millions of dollars a year on the New York Post, which he owns just to have a New York voice and a tabloid to play around with, he's probably willing to spend much more on the WSJ, which actually has some strategic value to News Corp. I'm confident that he probably would open new bureaus rather than close them, and add staff rather than lay people off. Resources won't be the problem.

_______________________

Chicago: I guess what I'm looking for is someone who has a better grasp on history than I do to help me judge Obama's answer on the question of meeting with leaders of Iran, North Korea, et al. A major corner-stone of his answer was the fact that the U.S. and Soviet Union met during the Cold War, even during the "evil empire" days of the 1980s. To me, to compare the USSR of the Cold War to these nations (especially North Korea and Iran) in the 21st century is overly simplistic. The USSR was a superpower; it was not in need of showing its legitimacy on the world stage. It certainly did not need the imprimatur of a bilateral meeting with the U.S. president -- whether JFK or Reagan -- to demonstrate its stature. Secondly, speaking of history, the idea of "no preconditions" is disturbing. I think it's fair to demand of the Iranian president that he stop engaging in Holocaust denial before meeting with the U.S. president. Is my reading of history accurate?

Eugene Robinson: This question refers to an episode from last night's CNN-YouTube debate. I think Obama's answer was perfectly reasonable in light of the Bush administration's zipped-lip policy, which has been a total failure in my view. Hillary Clinton saw the opening and interjected that she wouldn't automatically agree to these meetings, but her position in the past has been basically the same as Obama's. As U.S. policy toward Cuba clearly has demonstrated in the past five decades, shunning a regime we don't like doesn't make it go away. In the case of Cuba, I think that by shunning Castro we've made him stronger.

_______________________

Washington: So I watched the YouTube debate last night, and it was refreshing to hear from "normal" folks. I liked it. But the one question about "is Obama black enough" is starting to get on my nerves. I am sure it has to be getting on his nerves too. Why do people keep raising this as if it's a legit question? It's not. One's blackness does not qualify or disqualify them from the position. Besides, at some point I hope people will get that Obama hits this question out of the ballpark every single time. It was one of his best moments last night.

washingtonpost.com: Authentic Obama (Post, Feb. 20)

Eugene Robinson: I, too, think that question is getting old. Time to give it a rest.

_______________________

New York: I didn't see the debate (contrary to David Brooks, some of us lower-income folks who've lost ground actually work a lot of hours) but from what I gather a certain percentage of the questions were fairly trivial. Do we know how the YouTube questioners were selected, and does it seem that those questions were truly representative of the 3,000-odd questions they got? What did you think of the questions in general? Better or worse than working journalists' questions? Or just different?

washingtonpost.com: What's Up?: Questions From the People, Sharp to Strange (Post, July 24)

Eugene Robinson: CNN (and, I guess, YouTube) chose the questions, and Anderson Cooper said they didn't make their final decisions until the night before. So we don't know if they were representative. I thought the format had potential -- a question about gay marriage, for example, has a lot more power coming from a gay couple asking "why can't we get married?" than from a disinterested journalist. But as The Post's legendary television critic Tom Shales pointed out, it was weird to have these small, grainy, off-sync videos in a little box on the screen. It was like watching YouTube on your computer, but from across the room. And some of the questions were not as sharp as you would have hoped. Still, I think it was promising -- and almost always interesting. The guy at the end who referred to his gun as his "baby" was something you haven't seen before at a presidential debate, that's for sure.

_______________________

Seattle: Why is Gonzo's testimony newsworthy any more? It's not like he answers the questions asks, provides new information or even tells something approaching the truth. Why don't Senators just ignore him as a way of showing how little they respect/trust him?

washingtonpost.com: Live Video: Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing (washingtonpost.com, July 24)

Eugene Robinson: I'd be tempted to ignore him too, but Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter take their jobs seriously and I think Gonzales's dimwitted prevarications literally have driven the senators to distraction. I think they are determined to get some straight answers out of him, remote though that possibility may seem.

_______________________

Boston: I just can't get over the idea of the Wall Street Journal being owned by Murdoch. He is everything that is wrong with the media today. I'm a liberal. I disagree with the WSJ's editorial page pretty much every day. But it's a great paper that does great reporting. It would be a crime to let Murdoch get his grubby hands on it. I really hope the Bancrofts decide that their stewardship is more important than money.

It's just sad to me that newspapers' missions are no longer reporting the news. The mission is to make money, and that's just not what they're designed for. Printing is expensive. Good reporting is expensive. To me, if a paper does good work, covers expenses and everybody gets paid, it is a success. Wall Street is the worst thing that ever happened to newspapers.

Eugene Robinson: Tell me about it. Here at The Post we've fared better than most, and still we face tough choices. The industry is at a point now, though, where we have to realize that the old economic model for newspapers cannot survive unchanged. The Wall Street Journal used to make a lot more money than it does now, and there's no way around that -- either it has to change or it has to cut. Hey, we're all dancing as fast as we can.

_______________________

Baltimore: After listening to Attorney General Gonzales's testimony today, I'm left wondering what he actually sees his job as and what he does. He says he is fighting terrorism and protecting our children from sexual predators. It seems to me there is a whole lot in between -- like maybe the fair administration of justice? It is sickening to watch this man, who has either delegated or been made to delegate so many issues to very junior attorneys. Does he still have credibility with the Republicans, and why?

Eugene Robinson: Is any more evidence needed that this man should not be attorney general of the United States? I think most Republicans on Capitol Hill would agree with that assessment, but are unwilling to stand up to a Republican president on the issue. Bush likes him, but even if he didn't like him he probably would fight tooth and nail to keep him in the job, because he doesn't want to have to try to get a new attorney general confirmed by a Democratic-controlled Senate.

_______________________

West Hartford, Conn.: To follow up on the different Clinton-Obama diplomatic responses, my biggest disappointment last night was Hillary Clinton's advocacy of caution -- caution covering so many subjects. To me that means she will be same-old, same-old, which for me does raise the issue of the Bush and Clinton families having such a long and similar leadership of the country. I also was surprised that she interrupted Anderson Cooper, speaking over him not once but twice, and that she leapt to deflect what she perceived as "blame" for Chelsea having gone to a private school. That reminded me of how both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have a history, like the current president, of an inability to take ownership of their decisions.

What are your thoughts, Mr. Robinson, on whether or not continuing the line of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton national and world leadership through so many years -- the same age as my son as a matter of fact -- is a worrisome prospect for the country? Lastly, how did you feel about the YouTube format? I really appreciated Anderson Cooper's talent in pulling the candidates back to the question and calling them on the times they did not answer a question. He and Tavis Smiley are the best moderators so far of all the debates. It was a great night of political importance.

Eugene Robinson: Hillary Clinton keeps one eye focused on the general election, it seems to me, and believes she has to establish "centrist" credentials to win in November. I think she's trying to inoculate herself against an anticipated Republican attempt to portray her as an "ultraliberal." The Clinton Method always has been to run for election from what they perceived as the political center. I do wonder whether the center might not be a moving target this year.

_______________________

Washington: Concerning the potential sale of the Wall Street Journal to Murdoch ... it's a shame there was no large movement by concerned Americans to organize an effort to tell the Bancroft family: "We aren't subscribers today, but we'll subscribe to the paper if you don't sell to Murdoch." I wonder how many fulfilled promises of new subscriptions would have made them reconsider...

Eugene Robinson: Well, they haven't taken the plunge just yet, so there's still time. You'd also have to do something about those advertising revenues, though...

_______________________

They all look alike...: I may be getting my celebutantes mixed up, but isn't Lohan the one who announced last week that she was "voluntarily" wearing some kind of alcohol-monitor device? So who is/was monitoring it? And why didn't they notice her alcohol use before she put others at risk by driving?

washingtonpost.com: Lindsay Lohan: An Arresting 2007 Timeline (Post, July 24)

Eugene Robinson: You knew I would have to take at least one Lindsay Lohan question. Yes, she was supposed to be wearing an alcohol-monitor ankle bracelet. Doesn't sound as if those bracelets work very well or are very closely monitored, given that her blood alcohol was supposedly well over the limit.

_______________________

Washington: Mr. Robinson -- the bottom line is it comes down to the money? Maybe we should really look into Murdoch himself. The guy is a mad scientist, really. I look at Fox with all its conservative jargon, then I see the most gross un-family oriented programs on TV. I just cannot fathom his impact on the stately Wall Street Journal.

Eugene Robinson: I've always thought that with Murdoch, it comes down to money. The political gap between Fox News and, say, "The Simpsons" is huge. But both make a lot of money.

_______________________

St. Paul, Minn.: Hi Eugene -- dumb question of the night last night: "Say something nice and then not so nice about the person on your left." Please don't take this the wrong way, but that's something I'd expect a journalist (think Chris Matthews or Wolf Blitzer) to ask. Dumb response to the question: Edwards' comment on Hillary's jacket. Huh?

Eugene Robinson: I'm tempted to take that the wrong way, but I'll be big. Yes, it was the stupid question of the night. And yes, I think John Edwards (whom I like) really blew it. You don't spend a week trying to convince people that you are the candidate who is the best advocate for women, and then go out of your way to criticize the appearance of the only woman candidate in the race. Plus, it was a jacket, not a "coat," as Edwards called it. And it was a nice jacket.

_______________________

My Gonzales Question: This man went to and graduated from Harvard, no? It's not like he was a legacy getting in on daddy's donations and then getting gentleman's Cs. He must have something on the ball. No? Yet he seems to be one of the most spectacularly incompetent government officials I've seen in a long time.

Eugene Robinson: I agree. When you figure it out, let me know.

_______________________

Off the political path and into pop culture: I'm very bothered by the whole Michael Vick thing. I do understand he gets his day in court -- the Duke case should have taught us all not to rush to judgment. But a big part of me thinks "the company he keeps." Maybe they can't prove he was involved in the dog fighting ring, but it says a lot about his judgment for providing his relatives/friends with the property and not even being a tiny bit aware of what was going on. Vick is an example of what is wrong with spoiled, overpaid athletes today.

washingtonpost.com: Scrambling for His Reputation (Post, July 18)

Eugene Robinson: Whatever happens with this case, Michael Vick needs to grow up. Fast. Or his brilliant career is going to come to a premature and inglorious end -- if it hasn't already.

_______________________

Anonymous: Ignore the testimony of the Attorney General? I do not understand why more has not be made of this entire episode. As the daughter of a career attorney in Justice's criminal division and as a retired federal employee myself, who spent my entire career in human resources (several years of which were at Department of Justice), to have heard Monica Goodling testify that she actually considered candidates' politics was a low point in a pretty horrible eight years. We have not heard from federal employees on this issue, and I am not sure why, but I never, ever thought I would hear that -- and from a lawyer, acting on behalf of the Attorney General no less. This is so in the face of the merit system, Hatch Act violations, and all the rest. Shame! And thanks also for adding to my worries by bringing up the specter of Bush not trusting his successors to "deal" with Iran. Oy vey!

Eugene Robinson: Sorry about that. And you're right -- what Bush and Gonzo have done to the Justice Department is an outrage. With this administration, you always have to guard against Outrage Fatigue.

_______________________

Eugene Robinson: Thanks, everyone, for tuning in. My time's up. See you next time.

_______________________

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.