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 congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman was online Friday, Oct. 19 at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest news in politics.

The transcript follows.

Get the latest campaign news live on washingtonpost.com's The Trail, or subscribe to a podcast of the show.

Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts

____________________

Jonathan Weisman: Hey everyone. Well, it was a bit of a rough week for the Dems in Congress, but who knows how S-CHIP, FISA and assorted acronyms will play out. On to the questions!

_______________________

Annapolis, Md.: Hi. What is the status of the investigation into GSA chief Lurita Doan and other administration officials for violating the Hatch Act? In May, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel found that Ms. Doan had violated the Hatch Act. Here's the story. By the way, could you encourage Stephen Barr, one of the writers for The Washington Post, to read The Washington Post? Mr. Barr wrote a column today on the Hatch Act and failed to mention this huge scandal and investigation involving the head of GSA. Thanks.

washingtonpost.com: The Hatch Act Meets the Digital Age (Post, Oct. 18)

Jonathan Weisman: I have no doubt Steve Barr is well acquainted with Ms. Doan. Henry Waxman still has his teeth sunk into the issue. When he wants to advance it, I have no doubt he will.

_______________________

Salinas, Calif.: Hi Jonathan. Interesting article yesterday in The Post regarding evangelical angst over the GOP candidate field. My favorite quote: "John Stemberger, an Orlando lawyer and conservative Christian who is active in politics in Florida, said: 'Every other candidate has been at least pandering at some level. I am not aware of a single effort by Giuliani's campaign to reach out to evangelicals, or Catholics for that matter.' " Isn't it possible that we're finally witnessing a Republican rejection of Rovian wedge politics of the past seven years, and a slight course correction towards the center, where the majority of the American electorate actually may reside? If true, isn't it fascinating that Mr. Stemberger would publicly acknowledge the half-hearted, cynical pandering that evangelical leaders are subjected to by GOP candidates?

washingtonpost.com: Evangelicals Lukewarm Toward GOP Field (Post, Oct. 19)

Jonathan Weisman: If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination (and certainly if he wins the presidency), I think the Republican Party as we have known it for 27 years will be fundamentally changed. The culture wars will be cut off at the knees. It's almost impossible to imagine an abortion rights, gay rights Republican leading the party, but we are remarkably close.

_______________________

Washington: David Brooks of that other paper wrote a nice piece on former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. At what point do Huckabee's rising poll numbers in Iowa translate into more financial support and even endorsements, especially among those in the evangelical community who so far are unsatisfied with the top tier of the Republican candidates?

washingtonpost.com: From the Back of the Pack (New York Times, Oct. 19)

Jonathan Weisman: Who? What paper? A lot of people that Huckabee's second place finish at the Iowa straw poll would propel him into the money race and the polling race, but it hasn't. The press loves the guy. He's funny, articulate, anti-Washington and plays rock guitar, but I'm not sure how he claws his way up if the straw poll didn't do it for him.

_______________________

Greenville, S.C.: Jonathan -- I've asked this question of several of your colleagues on this chat with no response; so, I'll try once again. In your lifetime, can you think of a more ineffective, ineffectual team of congressional leaders than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

Jonathan Weisman: Ummm, last year, Bill Frist was unable and unwilling to move a single appropriations bill. He blew it on some cute maneuvers on the estate tax. Almost nothing got done. Pelosi and Reid are struggling, no doubt, but having covered Congress since 1996 in one way or another, I see ineffectuality as par for the course.

_______________________

Kettering, Ohio: Hi Jonathon, thank you taking questions and comments on a Friday. You're awesome! I applaud The Post for doing a Fact Checker column. I have thought for years that it would be nice if instead of merely reporting what is being said, that the underlying (no pun intended) storyline was also being reported for accuracy purposes. My question is, will there be an award retirement ceremony be held for the award if someone wins a certain number of Pinocchio-noses? With the campaign season in full swing, I suspect the Clintons and others candidates, left and right, will make a runaway of the award early.

washingtonpost.com: The Fact Checker

Jonathan Weisman: I'll pass that idea to Michael Dobbs, who runs Fact Checker. I think it's great too.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: So, Mukasey demurred from classifying waterboarding as torture. That suggests he may have a definition of torture that is not mainstream. Did anyone ask him to define torture because without knowing that everything he says about torture is difficult to evaluate?

washingtonpost.com: On Day 2, Democrats See Change In Mukasey (Post, Oct. 9)

Jonathan Weisman: I'm not sure if the question was put that way, but his water boarding evasions shook up what had been a pretty smooth sail. I think it's clear the administration has its stand on the torture/"enhanced interrogation" thing down, and I wouldn't count on any changes until January 2009.

_______________________

Rolla, Mo.: Huckabee: "The press loves the guy. He's funny, articulate, anti-Washington and plays rock guitar." And he doesn't believe in evolution. Sounds like a winner to me.

Jonathan Weisman: You have no idea how much personality plays in politics, Rolla.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Once again the Republicans are working themselves into another high dudgeon, this time concerning the remarks of Rep. Pete Stark. Well, to all members of the GOP reading this, Rep. Stark's sentiments are my own. The Dems are (slowly) growing a pair, and I hope they hit back more and more. Even though Congress has an 11 percent approval rating, even more Pubbies will lose in 13 months, because of even more disgust with Bush and SCHIP.

washingtonpost.com: Stark Language Angers Republicans (Post, Oct. 19)

Jonathan Weisman: I was actually a bit reluctant to write about Stark's comments, not because they weren't inflammatory but because I was there and saw the context. After he made them, there was plenty of outrage on the blogs and in the press releases. But on the House floor, it was a pretty desultory affair. Indeed, Stark had to play the same riff three times before the Republicans motioned to strike his words. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, sitting in the speaker's chair, ruled that Stark was not out of order. Nobody called for a vote to overrule the chair and debate went on in the same lackadaisical way.

The fact is, Pete Stark always says things like this. Getting incensed at a Starkism is like getting riled by Dana Rohrabacher. You only encourage more.

_______________________

Washington: Is it really that big of a deal if Giuliani wins the nomination in regard to the culture wars? Giuliani has promised repeatedly to appoint only strict constructionists, which we all know is code for "I'm going to appoint anti-Roe judges." The gun control argument can be mitigated because he can say he doesn't favor a national solution to the gun issue and can claim the needs of New York are different from the needs of Montana. On gay rights, he can just say he doesn't want to discriminate, but he's also against gay marriage or something like that.

Jonathan Weisman: Yes, but you're hearing the Giuliani of the primary season. He's appealing to conservatives, while keeping avenues open to go after independents and Democrats once he gets the nomination. Given the pressures to swing hard to the right in the primary season, I think Giuliani has been pretty consistent with his social views, and I think he will go great guns for the center next summer if he wins the GOP nod.

_______________________

Washington: Did you read Karl Rove's Wall Street Journal interview when he left the White House? He said that Bush would spend the rest of his term vetoing spending bills to "rebuild" the GOP "brand." So, SCHIP got vetoed. Now he's threatening to veto spending bills that aren't much higher than what he asked for (and certainly less bloated than so many of the bills he's signed in past years!). How does this affect your reporting? Is it possible to convey both the facts of the moment as well as the ultimate reasons behind the actions?

Jonathan Weisman: We have written repeatedly of this "rebranding" effort, both in the White House and among House Republicans. I think it is possible to explain where this new-found fiscal rectitude stems from as we report the news, and we have.

_______________________

Norway: Which presidential candidate is more likely to be popular in the Southern states like Bolivia and Argentina?

washingtonpost.com: Councilman in Borat-Style 'Ambush' (AP, Oct. 11)

Jonathan Weisman: You mean the great and glorious states of Bolivia and Argentina, where the people love President Bush's war of terror?

_______________________

North McLean, Va.: I think anyone who wants a Democrat to become President should be donating large amounts of money to Rudy's campaign. If he is nominated I predict a third party "true conservative" candidate will emerge, and a split Republican vote is the ultimate dream of the Democrats.

Jonathan Weisman: That's one way to look at it. But if you look at head to head polling, Giuliani is running neck and neck with Clinton and Obama. No other Republicans are. And those who say they definitely would never vote for, say, Mitt Romney, compared to Giuliani tells me Democratic money should go anywhere but Giuliani.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: In the three days or so since Stephen Colbert announced his "candidacy" more than 100,000 have joined a Facebook group supporting him. That's about one-fourth the size of the Obama group and about one-fifth the size of the anti-Hillary group, ha ha!

Jonathan Weisman: Give it time, my friend. These Facebook things seem to mount exponentially.

_______________________

Just wondering: What newspapers do you read? What international new sources do you use? Which blogs do you read?

Jonathan Weisman: Ah, if I only had time. I read The Post, the Times, the Wall Street Journal when I can. We get the Financial Times at home for my economist wife. I also get the New Yorker, which I can only read when I have no book by the bed stand.

As for the blogs, I do read several, time permitted. But if I told you which, I'd only encourage them.

_______________________

Washington: "You have no idea how much personality plays in politics..." isn't that a direct quote from Dems after W and Reagan, Republicans after Nixon, the Weimar after 1933, oh and that Cassius fella in dear old Rome.

Jonathan Weisman: Don't forget Jesse Ventura!

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: Why is libertarianism dead in the Republican Party? Ron Paul seems to be playing the last gasp. Is small government seen by politicians as a bad thing?

Jonathan Weisman: Interesting question. Neoconservatism brought the GOP a love affair with foreign entanglement. The Republican alliance with Christian conservatives gave the party a need to involve itself in private lives. Small-government is still part of that alliance, but it's a crowded tent.

_______________________

Minneapolis: "Jonathan Weisman: You have no idea how much personality plays in politics, Rolla." Regardless of the specifics of Huckabee's case, this strikes me as strange. You are saying the press loves personality in politics, but if this is unfortunate, you all -- the press - -are in the best position to do something about it! Or are you saying the press just gives the people what they want, ridiculously personality-centered politics?

Jonathan Weisman: This is silly. Just because reporters personally like Huckabee doesn't mean we've given in inordinate coverage. I dare you to count references to the now-slender governor, compare them to Romney, Giuliani, Thompson and McCain, then tell me personality really drives coverage.

_______________________

Mount Rainier, Md.: Mr. Weisman, do you think the Democrats have now learned that opposing the president and failing to override a veto isn't the worst thing in the world? I'm more impressed that they fought and lost over SCHIP then I am with their handling of domestic spying. If they keep this up, I may vote Democratic again in the next election ... may...

Jonathan Weisman: Very good point, and I think they did learn that lesson, at least for the time being. For now, losing is winning on SCHIP, but as with the Iraq issue, losing only gets you so far. Eventually, the voters are going to demand a win.

_______________________

Little Rock, Ark.: Huckabee's never run a campaign larger than two hours' driving distance from Little Rock (center of the state) and there never has been any sort of political networking that larger states seem to have. That being said, his main problem isn't his appeal to voters based on their beliefs, it's that those who should be his largest backers, evangelicals, are more worried about selecting someone who will win rather than selecting someone who shares their beliefs.

Jonathan Weisman: Coming from the heart of the matter. (And just because he plays guitar doesn't mean reporters relish another round of circular trips from Washington to Little Rock.)

_______________________

Iowa: After searching to figure out just who was supporting Sen. Clinton here, I found out last week. My next-door neighbor and my father (two elderly white guys) both put up Hillary signs on their lawns.

Jonathan Weisman: I think the conventional wisdom that she only appeals to liberal women is just flat wrong. Sen. Clinton is running a very strong campaign. Her negatives are down, her positives up.

_______________________

College Park, Md.: SCHIP: Because this bill never did allow $83,000 households to qualify in the first place (unless the president specifically approved a state's request) shouldn't Pelosi just take that out? Make it explicit -- call the bill "No Family Over $60,000 Qualifies" or something. It still will give the coverage to the millions of children who currently are uninsured, and then the White House can't spin any lies about it. Bush will have to sign it. Well?

Jonathan Weisman: That's exactly what I'm expecting in the next bill. A hard cap on 300 percent of poverty (around $62,000 for a family of 4), an explicit prohibition with enforcement mechanisms barring access to illegal immigrants and maybe some more measures moving adults out of the program. All of those measures exist in the bill as vetoed, but the language can be hardened, taking away the attack lines.

A lot of Republicans yesterday were signaling that would do the trick, and it would have virtually no impact on the bill's scope or cost.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: Speaking of Jesse Ventura, why aren't more Minnesotans behind Al Franken? They clearly have a high tolerance for the absurd.

Jonathan Weisman: They think he's a bit obnoxious, but Franken is softening all that, trying to be more folksy. I've got a sister in law who was invited, along with thousands of his closest friends, to Franken's house, where for $25, they could help make a birthday cake for his wife.

I think that will end up a tight race, considering where Norm Coleman's negatives are.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: How to define torture? How about this: anything the person will not do personally for a press demonstration of the technique.

Jonathan Weisman: That could rule out bad breath!

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Do you think that Ron Paul might run as the nominee of the Libertarian Party? (He did it before in 1988). He certainly has an intense following, and has shown the ability to raise money. Republicans seem mighty dissatisfied with their choices, and some might vote for a third-party candidate who is pro-life, pro-gun, tough on immigration, and militantly anti-spending, even if he is anti-war. He doesn't have to be a Perot-type candidate (approximately 19 percent) to cause the GOP headaches -- even Nader-level support (2 percent to 3 percent) could be a real problem for them.

Jonathan Weisman: He doesn't have the money and he doesn't seem to have the inclination. Moreover, unlike 1988, he is a sitting member of Congress. I don't think he would give that up for a doomed, 3rd party bid.

_______________________

Washington: Can you really say neoconservatism brought the GOP a love of foreign entanglements? I thought the GOP had been more internationalist ever since Eisenhower defeated Sen. Taft for the nomination back in 1952? Certainly someone like George H.W. Bush was your consummate moderate Republican internationalist.

Jonathan Weisman: That's true. I just think it's a matter of degrees. George H.W. went into Kuwait only with a broad international coalition and resisted calls for a march on Baghdad. He didn't let the entanglement get too entangling.

_______________________

Washington: Is it me, or is the GOP better in the minority role than were the Dems? They seem more unified even though they seemingly have the losing hand (if the polls approval of the President are to be believed). Is it that close ... in the House especially ... or is the GOP just a more effective organization in Congress? Thoughts?

Jonathan Weisman: I think the Republican leadership has been unified and tactically very clever. But I don't think the party has been all that unified. The S-CHIP bill lost 45 House Republicans and 18 Senate Republicans. Most Democratic measures, including a lot with vetoes hanging over them, have passed with big margins. In the next few weeks, we could see the first veto override, on a pork-filled, pretty bloated water projects bill.

The unity is more on the war than anything else.

_______________________

Austin, Texas: Re: Personality and politics, isn't it possible that after deciding Bush would be more fun to have a beer with than Gore or Kerry, that the American voter will rethink the personality over policy thing? That hasn't worked out so well for the past six years or so ... I am hoping people will actually think before they vote in 2008. What are the odds?

Jonathan Weisman: If you look at Hillary Clinton's position in the polls, I think you have a good point. She's safe, serious and a bit dull, quite frankly. And Huckabee, for all his comic comments and guitar wielding, is not moving.

_______________________

Atlanta: The whole point of the libertarian party is that they want to be what the Republicans used to be. Get the government out of my life -- lower taxes, pay for what you're supposed to be paying for, get out of my bedroom, etc. They are just blowing it by not supporting the war and not supporting the FairTax.

Jonathan Weisman: If they supported the war, I'm sure they would say they are not being libertarians. hat's a pretty fundamental issue.

As for the FairTax, it still is a federal tax. That's not an easy sell for a party that still rues passage of the constitutional amendment allowing the federal income tax.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Interesting article by Krauthammer taking Pelosi to task for the Armenian resolution. Isn't it ironic that the Democrats would have complained about failed foreign policy while their own antics on this resolution could have sabotaged the U.S. relationship with our NATO ally? Do you know if Secretary Rice was able to explain to the Turkish leaders that Pelosi's Congress does not speak for the president, or do you think this will remain a blemish on our relationship while we try to retain permission to ship our troops and goods through Turkey? In other words, was "Steamed Rice" able to defray the sour Pelosi message with a bit of diplomatic sugar?

washingtonpost.com: Pelosi's Armenian Gambit (Post, Oct. 19)

Jonathan Weisman: The Armenia issue has been hanging around for a long time, and it's not really partisan. Remember, the last time it surfaced was when the House was under Republican control. It was driven by Rep. Jim Rogan (R-Calif.), one of Bill Clinton's impeachment managers, and it was pulled from floor consideration by Dennis Hastert at the pleading of one Bill Clinton.

Rogan was beaten by Adam Schiff, who's now the Armenians' champion. Your view on the matter is proportional to the number of Armenians in your district, not your political party.

_______________________

Anonymous: All Republican primary front runners are pretty cozy with Bush policies. I suppose this will help with their base in the primary, but to win the general won't they have to do a nice little two step away from Bush to gain moderates or even Dem voters?

Jonathan Weisman: Ummm, yes. This is the big quandary for the Republicans. Democrats and independents have turned virulently against the president and his policies. The Republican base is still with him. You turn on the president now and you never get the nomination. You embrace him too tightly and you never get the White House.

_______________________

Rolla, Mo.: One more on the personality issue in politics -- when you make such a statement about a candidate, you rub salt in the wounds of many of us over the disparate media coverage during the 2000 presidential campaign. Bush the friendly, regular guy, Gore the stiff, the phony. Are you saying the media covered their personalities fairly, accurately, and in an appropriate balance with stated policy positions and experience?

Jonathan Weisman: Rolla, what's with Rolla? I think the coverage in 2000 of Gore was generally tougher than Bush, but I don't think it had much to do with personality. In some cases, more experienced reporters were put on the Gore campaign with the expectation that Gore would win and they would cover the Gore White House. They asked tougher questions. But when Bush surged ahead in the polls, than things got neck and neck, coverage evened out.

_______________________

Abingdon, Md.: Question on the attorney general hearings -- when the discussion of waterboarding came up there was some dancing around the issue and speculating on the definition of torture. What I want to know is, who actually defines what torture is? Is there a law, code or something people can refer to, or is this some subjective thing decided by various parties to suit their needs?

Jonathan Weisman: It's defined in general terms by the Geneva Conventions, to which the United States subscribes. But ultimately, it is up to the courts to decide what is cruel and degrading treatment, just as the courts decide what is cruel and unusual punishment under our Constitution.

_______________________

Anonymous: Did Huckabee's "bath tub full of warm water and razor blades" comment hurt him with the Christian voters?

Jonathan Weisman: Dunno, but he must be happy about how much attention he's getting on this chat.

_______________________

Prescott, Ariz.: Ryan Singel of Wired Magazine did an interesting article on how donations from telecom executives to Sen. Jay Rockefeller have exploded in the past year. Does this have anything to do the amnesty for telecoms legislation he is currently creating or is besides the point?

washingtonpost.com: Democratic Lawmaker Pushing Immunity Is Newly Flush With Telco Cash (Wired, Oct. 18)

Jonathan Weisman: Donations to Democrats in general have exploded, especially for those assuming committee chairmanships. But there's no doubt, when an issue is pending before a committee, donors pay attention. The telecoms have always lavished money on the commerce committees. Suddenly, the intel committees are dealing with an issue near and dear to their hearts.

_______________________

Anonymous: Are you as excited as everyone else I talk with about Joe Biden chatting at 4 p.m. today?

washingtonpost.com: Upcoming Discussion: Sen. Joe Biden (D-Conn.) (washingtonpost.com, 4 p.m. today)

Jonathan Weisman: Well, because he probably can't type as quickly as he talks, you might get some of the most concise answers ever to emerge from the guy.

_______________________

Nashville, Tenn.: Huckabee doesn't play the guitar -- he plays the bass, which is kinda lame unless you're Paul McCartney.

Jonathan Weisman: Or in a funk band.

_______________________

Charlottesville, Va.: There's very little coverage in the Post today about Chris Dodd's courageous promise to block the new FISA law from passage in the Senate. I'm wondering why. (There was a sentence buried in an A2 article today.) Given the number of comments on the article published Thursday, why is this getting so little press? I imagine the "long-shot presidential candidate" Chris Dodd will be moving ahead because of his stand on this issue.

Jonathan Weisman: Since we led the paper with the issue on Thursday, it got a bit buried today. But saying you will take a stand is one thing. Doing it is another. When Dodd makes his move, we will cover it.

_______________________

Prescott, Ariz.: Jonathan, I read the article (of which you were an author) on granting immunity to telecoms who aided or abetted any warrantless spying. Forgive me for bringing it up, as I am not a Constitutional lawyer, a telecom lawyer or a senator, but I couldn't help but notice that Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states "no bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Now,I know the Constitution is one of those quaint little documents that gets ignored these days, but how did your sources plan on getting around this little inconvenience to make something retroactively legal?

Jonathan Weisman: If they pass it, I wouldn't be surprised if the ACLU pushes the issue all the way to the Supreme Court.

_______________________

San Francisco: I thought World War III already started. In May 2006, President Bush called the United 93 passengers' assault on the cockpit the "first counter-attack to World War III." Did he forget?

Jonathan Weisman: You forget, when the Soviets shot down the Korean Airliner carrying Georgia Rep. Larry McDonald, a John Bircher, his supporters claimed the first shot of World War III had been fired. This is a funny old world war, innit?

_______________________

Washington: Please tell me someone has been mocking Shailagh for her Yankees once again failing to make it out of the first round of the playoffs. Also, is Romney's support more a product of him largely being the only candidate on TV, or is it more solid than that?

washingtonpost.com: The Fix: Giuliani, Romney Camps Diverge on Ad Strategies (washingtonpost.com, Oct. 16)

Jonathan Weisman: As a pound Yankee hater, I have given Shailagh plenty of grief. As for Romney, well, he's not doing that great.

_______________________

Camas, Wash.: Bush just vetoed the SCHIP bill saying it was too expensive (while Congress and the president were probably $10 billion apart). Next, Congress is working on a water resources bill that will include money for Louisiana's wetlands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Bush is reportedly against that because it's too costly. The bottom line is that suddenly everything but war is too expensive in Bush's eyes. And he's escalated war costs with the continued surge and he's going to ask Congress for still more money for the war. Congress then is working on a bill that would supply more money for veterans benefits, but Bush signaled he's against that. Why do you think he's suddenly trying to cut costs on everything but the war? He never vetoed a Republican Congress's spending bill.

Jonathan Weisman: Rebranding, Camas. The thought is, the GOP has to shore up support with its base before going back out after the independents. Not sure it's gonna work.

_______________________

Boston: On SCHIP, it looks like the Dems can make minor tweaks to the first bill and peel off the 13 Republican votes necessary to override Bush's veto. Bush is not usually a gracious loser. How far could Bush go with signing statements and agency directives to change the law's intent on enactment?

washingtonpost.com: Democrats Press Ahead on SCHIP (Post, Oct. 19)

Jonathan Weisman: Hey folks, still questions in the queue but I've gotta go. The administration can indeed put all sorts of roadblocks using new HHS rules. But remember, it only has 14 months left.

_______________________

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.