John Solomon

Washington Post money and politics reporter John Solomon was online Wednesday, July 25, 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

____________________

Philadelphia: A friend and I were discussing the Gonzales testimony last night, and she pointed out something to me that hadn't occurred to me: at repeated points during his testimony, Gonzales simply refused to answer questions. He didn't claim executive privilege, he didn't take the Fifth, he didn't say that it too classified for an open session, and he didn't say that he couldn't remember -- he simply said "I'm not going to answer that question." Period. End of discussion. Umm ... is that legal? Can anyone just refuse to answer questions without citing any justification?

John Solomon: I was struck by the same thing, and the fact that no senator really challenged him to provide a reason why he wasn't answering. If the Senate wanted to pick a fight, it could make a formal request for an answer now that the hearing has ended. If Gonzales formally refused, the Senate Judiciary Committee could seek to vote him in contempt. If the committee approved, the full Senate would have to vote on it and then it would get referred to the Justice Department or the federal courts.

I think this is unlikely, however. I think the bigger problem for Gonzales is that Republicans and Democrats yesterday openly declared they no longer believed the attorney general. Senators could refer him or others in his department for prosecution for false testimony or take some other punitive action.

_______________________

Chicago: Have you done any analysis of the money being raised by the two parties, and the Senate and House campaign committees for both parties? I have read that the Dems are out-raising the GOP significantly, which would be a first and would have to bode quite ill for the GOP in 2008. Your thoughts?

John Solomon: You are correct. The Republican fundraising committees for House and Senate candidates -- which for more than a decade enjoyed unprecedented success as their party controlled Congress -- now are trailing their Democratic counterparts and falling further behind.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee reported raising nearly $8.6 million in June, giving it a cash balance of nearly $20 million after debts. In contrast, the Republican senatorial fundraising arm raised just $3.4 million last month and had just $5.7 million on hand.

On the House side, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee raised nearly $10.4 million in June and finished with more than $15 million cash on hand after debts. The National Republican Congressional Committee raised $5.9 million last month and spent nearly all of it, leaving it with a net debt of more than $2 million.

The only bright side for the GOP is at the national party level, where the Republican National Committee raised more than $6.5 million in June and finished with nearly $16 million in the bank. In contrast, Howard Dean's Democratic National Committee raised about $4.2 million for the month and finished with a net cash-on-hand total of about $2.7 million.

_______________________

Floris, Va.: As someone who frequently writes about John Edwards' sartorial expenditures and his finances in general, what is your opinion of his YouTube commercial that was broadcast during the Monday night debates?

washingtonpost.com: John Edwards - Hair (YouTube, July 23)

John Solomon: It clearly has been effective, because more than 128,600 people have clicked on it since it debuted. And most Americans would agree with its message that issues like Iraq, the economy, health care and fighting terrorism are far more important than personal grooming habits or hairstyle.

That said, the fact is the haircut story got new life because Edwards did not give a full and complete account when the questions first arose. He acted like he didn't know the hairstylist, that the $400 haircuts were an aberration and that he didn't know such clippings cost so much. His response only prompted his hairstylist to correct the record, divulging that Edwards had been getting such haircuts since 2003 at costs as much as $1,250 apiece. Hairstyles may not be important to presidential voters, but credibility and candor usually are -- and that is the issue that extended the haircut story.

_______________________

Frederick, Md.: Thanks John for taking my question ... and good morning! The "Today" Show this morning "led" with a pretty gloomy picture on the declining housing market. Given that "a strong economy" is one of the few arrows in Bush's quiver remaining, how much impact will a declining housing market have on the economy overall -- and on Bush's political capital? And regarding that "capital" -- why hasn't Bush been able to "do more" with economic good news? After all, until yesterday Wall Street and other economic factors had been on the rise.

washingtonpost.com: Stocks Fall With Lender's Earnings: Countrywide's Dip Ignites Concerns About Economy (Post, July 25)

John Solomon: I'm not sure Bush's favorability ratings can or will fall much further, and he's not running again. So I'm not sure a softening economy would have much effect -- politically -- on the president. Still, it would provide a significant policy challenge for him, the administration and the Congress. That's because one quick fix for a housing slump is to lower interest rates, but inflationary pressures with high gas prices and a mammoth national debt make that a more difficult solution. The bigger political implication is for the other Republicans who want to win the White House or congressional seats in 2008. Voters often vote their pocketbook and a weak economy would create another reason for voters to vote against Republicans.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: What does it ultimately mean, though, to say the Senate (both Democrats and Republicans) no longer "believe" or "trust" Gonzales? Bush's approval rating is now 35 percent according to a Washington Post story today. Gonzales' is probably 0 percent among Americans who could identify who is he (which I doubt 1 in 20 could, at least outside of the Beltway). I guess I'm not certain what exactly is the blowback to having an Attorney General who is seen only as a President's puppet?

washingtonpost.com: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights (Post, July 25)

John Solomon: Don't underestimate the impact when Congress turns on a Cabinet official because of issues of credibility. It has all sorts of implications -- big and small. If there were another terror attack or a need to expand terror-fighting capabilities to address a new threat, lawmakers might be unwilling to approve that expansion because they don't trust that the chief law enforcement officer would administer the changes appropriately. Appropriations committees might ignore budget requests sought by Gonzales for the same reason. And talented people who could fill key vacant positions inside the Justice Department and solve some of its current problems might choose not to take the jobs for fear of being tainted with the credibility issues. In talking to DOJ officials recently, these are real concerns.

_______________________

Baltimore: John, great job on the stories involving the inspector general at Commerce -- Johnny Frazier, who resigned -- and NASA's IG, who may be next. Are there any plans to expose additional inspectors general who are under investigation by the PCIE or the Department of Justice?

washingtonpost.com: Commerce Inspector General Quits (Post, June 8)

John Solomon: Many thanks. The inspectors general are important players in government, working on the front lines of government contracting to guard against the sort of waste, fraud and abuses we saw in the past with overpriced hammers and toilet seats. They also have helped uncover important cases of corruption, like Interior Department Inspector General Earl Devaney's work in pursuing the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal inside his department. Keeping an eye on the watchdogs is an important role for journalists, and we'll keep it up here at The Post.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: I think you're distorting Edward's haircut expenditures. The cuts never cost more than $165. The rest is transportation and tip. Many lawyers on K Street spend more than $100 a haircut to have someone come to their office so they can maximize their billing hours.

John Solomon: Sorry, but you are wrong. Edwards paid travel costs on top of those fees. Here's how it worked, according to hairstylist Joseph Torrenueva and the Edwards campaign: The base cost for a cut at Edwards's stylist was $150 to $175 if you went to his shop; the price rose in Edwards's case to compensate the barber for the additional hours he took to leave his shop -- sometimes for a day or more -- to cut Edwards' hair on the road. For instance, John Edwards's base cost for the haircut in Atlanta back in 2004 was $1,250 because Torrenueva was taken away for two days from his shop. But Edwards also paid Torrenueva's travel and hotel costs on top of such fees.

_______________________

New Hampshire: Thanks for talking with us this morning. After John McCain's disappointing fundraising totals in the first and second quarters of this year, what is the minimum amount he'll need to bring in by the end of September to stay in the race?

John Solomon: This is an interesting question. In talking to his fundraisers in recent days I think they are hoping to pull in between $5 million and $10 million in the third quarter, which traditionally is the slowest fundraising period because of summer doldrums. But McCain has another wildcard that could infuse his campaign with cash: He now is considering accepting public financing for his campaign in return for accepting spending limits. If he does that, McCain could get several million dollars in tax dollars to augment his private fundraising.

_______________________

Washington: Peter Baker tried for a "gotcha" on Hillary Clinton today, writing that her statement during the debate the other night that the Clintons sent Chelsea to private school to keep the media away from her is inconsistent with what the White House said in 1993. Baker wrote, with evident snark: "Funny thing -- that's not what the Clintons said in January 1993," suggesting that Clinton is being dishonest. Come on. Do you think there is any chance -- any chance at all -- that privacy was not one of the reasons for sending Chelsea to Sidwell? How do these bogus gotchas-that-aren't get into the paper? This story tells us more about The Washington Post than about Hillary Clinton. And what it tells us about The Post isn't good.

washingtonpost.com: Chelsea's Schooling: Blame the Media? Once It Wasn't So. (Post, July 24)

John Solomon: Actually, I didn't view Peter's filing on The Post's new Web-based campaign diary (called "The Trail") as a "gotcha" at all. Rather, it was an insightful catch of Sen. Clinton changing her story. When political candidates change, alter or augment their explanations on issues as important as public schooling, it is important for reporters to note that. Hillary Clinton may have had privacy in mind back in 1993 when she and her husband made the choice for Chelsea, but they didn't tell us that then, so noting it now is useful. By the way, if you haven't seen the new "The Trail" campaign diary, take a gander right here. 

_______________________

Philadelphia: I read in today's Post that neither Bush or the Congress wants a court to rule on the limits/extent of an executive privilege claim. I also hear many pundits arguing that executive privilege arguments are normally won by the Congress. If this is the case, why wouldn't Congress force a judicial showdown?

washingtonpost.com: Report Suggests Laws Broken in Attorney Firings (Post, July 25)

John Solomon: There are both legal and political calculations at work here. First, both sides always worry about the possibility that the courts might rule against them in an executive privilege fight. If the president lost, future presidents would be handicapped by that ruling. If Congress lost, lawmakers in the future might have less room to provoke an executive privilege fight. So there are some reasonable legal reasons for restraint. Keep in mind that the two executive privilege fights people most remember -- Watergate and Clinton impeachment -- involved issues of crimes. So far in the U.S. attorneys scandal, we don't have a clear criminal issue yet, though questions of false testimony could rise to that level.

Now for the politics. If an executive privilege claim went to the courts, the Democratic-controlled Congress would be left in legal limbo for months. It's hard to score political points that way. Politically, hearings like the one yesterday in the Senate score points for Democrats -- especially when the facts lure Republicans into criticizing their own administration.

_______________________

John Solomon: Thanks so much for all of your good questions. I look forward to chatting again in the near future.

_______________________

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.