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, Nov. 30 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: Hello, everyone. I'm gonna start this chat a tad early, because I may be interrupted. But we've got so much to talk about. So let's just jump right in.

_______________________

San Jose, Calif.: Why in the world did the Republicans agree to appear on CNN? The Democrats refused to appear on Fox because they feared exactly the kinds of tricks that CNN pulled. The Republicans have to be smarter than this. Several media organizations have essentially already endorsed Hillary -- CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, NPR, and The Washington Post. What is the point of even talking to those media outlets if you're a Republican? It's always an ambush, right?

Jonathan Weisman: Oh boy, how do I answer this? The Washington Post ran a story just today about what a pain the Clinton campaign is.

San Jose, get a grip. The Republican debate was a great showcase for the candidates. If you don't think they acquitted themselves well, why are you blaming CNN?

_______________________

Anonymous from a small planet: Jonathan, the media keeps remarking that Republicans oppose illegal immigration. Does no one understand that working-class Democrats are just becoming aware of lost jobs to illegals by the thousands? And those Democrats are every bit as angry as Republicans? As they understand how many millions of illegals are here and how much money they are costing Americans, the Democratic working class will become even more furious.

Jonathan Weisman: I personally did a story about the danger of the illegal immigration issue for Democrats, especially from working class Democratic voters. That is especially true in some House districts, but it could swing the other way in Senate and presidential races, where the backlash against illegal immigrants could be countered by anger from mobilized legal Latino voters. Anyway, this will be playing out for the next year. Only Nov. 2008 will tell which side has the numbers.

_______________________

Anonymous: I'm not sure I understand the outrage coming from the right about the YouTube debate. So what if Democrats affiliated with campaigns asked legitimate questions about the policies in this country? The right seems to be dodging the underlying argument, as this retired general is Exhibit A for how gay Americans can contribute to our military without risk to the cohesion of the unit. Perhaps it is because they know they have no good argument on their side!

Jonathan Weisman: I tend to agree with you. A Clinton supporter should not have asked a question without identifying himself as affiliated, albeit tangentially, with the campaign. But it was a legitimate question about gays in the military, and frankly, I thought the candidates gave honest, forthright answers. The questioner might not have liked the answers but the candidates didn't seem flummoxed at all.

_______________________

Washington: Rudy Giuliani: Accused of using city taxpayer money to chauffeur his mistress around, and found to have business ties with shady characters from Qatar. Not a good week for "America's Mayor." Long-term fallout?

Jonathan Weisman: I think the Democratic National Committee had a good week. They're amassing a dossier for negative campaign ads, not only if Giuliani gets the nomination but also if Romney or Huckabee gets the nod. No question, there are long-term ramifications.

_______________________

Wilmington, Del.: Everyone thinks you guys in the media are just a bunch of partisan Democrats, but I think the truth is more complicated. If you look at the retirements in the Congress and Hillary's big lead and conclude that the Democrats will retain solid control in 2008, you might try to ingratiate yourself with the Democrats now so you have access later. It's pragmatism, not bias. Am I right?

Jonathan Weisman: I think this is ridiculous. We've been pretty hard on the Democrats. We had a story on Hillary Clinton's vaporous campaign and Barack Obama's leadership PAC peculiarities in today's paper alone.

Read the paper, folks!

_______________________

Chicago: With LaHood, Hastert and another Republican congressman not running again in 2008, isn't this more of a chance for new Republican blood in these strong GOP districts? Isn't it realistic to consider these as a new chance for new Republican ideas and efforts to govern our nation?

washingtonpost.com: The Fix's Friday Line: GOP Exodus From House Puts Party on Defense (washingtonpost.com, Nov. 30)

Jonathan Weisman: Absolutely, and in some cases, I think Republicans feel retirements will actually help them. Look at Barbara Cubin in Wyoming, or certainly Larry Craig in Idaho. They may be the only Republicans who could have lost those seats.

_______________________

Anonymous: From the Trail piece on Joe Biden: "He added to his flag discourse a classic Bidenesque line: that he had recently been challenged about his pin after a speech in Boulder, Colo., by a 'very attractive woman who looked like she just finished a sociology course at Bryn Mawr college, if you know what I mean.' " What does Joe mean?

washingtonpost.com: The Trail: Biden Stumps in New Hampshire, Still Has Time For Olmert's Call (washingtonpost.com, Nov. 29)

Jonathan Weisman: Hmmm. Maybe it's Bidenesque, because it sounds erudite but nobody can figure out what he's saying!

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Thoughts on the Kennedy memoir? How candid do think he (and whomever ghostwrites it) will get? Do you think he ever can repair the damage to his public image after the Chappaquiddick incident, the womanizing, etc.? Because of all that and the "liberal lion" reputation, I don't think the public is aware of how significant a legislator Kennedy has been, especially in the past 25 years. He authored bills that included No Child Left Behind, portable health care, Family Medical Leave, a minimum wage increase or two, funding for AIDS research and sanctioning South Africa over Reagan's veto not long after Reagan had won 49 states, and he helped stop Robert Bork.

Jonathan Weisman: How candid are any political memoirs? I'm sure he'll have some good yarns to tell, but I'm not holding my breath looking for self-criticism. And if the word Chappaquiddick shows up at all, count it as a victory.

_______________________

Anonymous: What do you make of RFK Jr.'s endorsement of Sen. Clinton? Is it a signal that Uncle Ted has picked his horse in this race?

washingtonpost.com: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Endorses Clinton (AP, Nov. 29)

Jonathan Weisman: Nah, RFK Jr. is an important environmentalist more than a Kennedy, but he's an establishment environmentalist, not a Greenpeace bomb-thrower. It's more evidence that Clinton has really lined up the Democratic establishment.

_______________________

Anonymous: Why isn't Mike Easley running for the Senate against Elizabeth Dole down in North Carolina? Chuck Schumer needs to get on that!

Jonathan Weisman: He's tried. He's failed.

_______________________

Honolulu: Aloha! About the Republican debate: What do you think about the discussion of Huckabee as a vice president for Rudy, to help him get the evangelical vote? I think a more winning ticket would be Rudy and Rice, since she is going to be seen as a heavy-hitter on foreign policy by September 2008. Also, wouldn't a Rudy-Rice ticket offset Hillary on the women vote?

Jonathan Weisman: Condoleezza Rice is not running for office, people. Mark my words! And even if she wanted to, I don't think she's much of a draw. Republicans want to distance themselves from the Bush administration, not tie themselves to one of its icons. As for Rudy-Huckabee, I guess stranger things have happened, but if Giuliani wins the nomination, he's gotten through the tough part with the evangelical vote. He'll be going after independents and Democrats this summer.

_______________________

New York: Yesterday in this chat your colleague, Lois Romano, defended the Post's neutral stenographic coverage of the factually false right-wing smear campaign against Barack Obama writing: "airing some of this and giving him a chance to deny its accuracy could be viewed as setting the record straight." Now, I ask you: Considering that Obama's "denials" of the false (that's right false) charges were relegated to the twelfth paragraph in that article, do you understand why some of us who think journalism should be about reporting the truth (rather than parroting he-said/she-said) might be seeing red, as we peruse The Post's increasingly "neutral-about-the-facts" black-and-white?

washingtonpost.com: Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him (Post, Nov. 29)

Jonathan Weisman: Did you see Tom Toles's cartoon today, attacking The Washington Post? Wow.

I kinda think we should avoid doing stories on rumors, to be honest.

_______________________

Dallas: I think I heard briefly on NPR this morning that Mike Huckabee had taken the lead in the Iowa polls. Is this true, and what do you think led to this surge in his numbers?

washingtonpost.com: Success Is Testing the Huckabee Campaign (AP, Nov. 29)

Jonathan Weisman: He's ahead I think in one Rasmussen poll. We had him near the margin of error. They have a real barn burner going on in the Hawkeye state. The evangelicals have come home to roost.

_______________________

Washington: Do you see Carter, Gore, Kennedy or Kerry endorsing anyone before Iowa? What impact would that have on the race?

Jonathan Weisman: When Al Gore and Bill Bradley endorsed Howard Dean four years ago, people declared Dean had the caucuses wrapped up. 'Nuff said.

_______________________

Centennial, Colo.: If the Dems should pick up three or more seats in the Senate next November, any chance Joe Lieberman would become a caucus of one? Is there any love left?

Jonathan Weisman: If the Dems picked up three or four seats and the war in Iraq was in its end state, I'd be less surprised if Lieberman simply returned to the Democratic fold. Everybody wants to be on the winning side.

_______________________

Austin: Today's article on Hillary's (and other candidates') use of the press on their terms gives me great concern. If these candidates do not want to make themselves available for frank discussion of the issues, then the American voter should disregard them. It is our right to know as much as we can about their positions on relevant topics and it is the press's responsibility to ferret out the truth, whether it comes from them or not. I am concerned that the media consolidation in this country has made editors and reporters less aggressive in fact-finding and I find that important stories are being left on the back burner (e.g. McClellan's revelations and Rudy's creative bookkeeping). Such activity makes the public wary of not just the candidates' word but the press integrity as well.

Jonathan Weisman: Austin, I agree. Many reporters are frustrated with this arms-length treatment of the press. That's why there was such a McCain press lovefest in 2000. We had so much time with the guy, we ran out of questions.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: I very much agree with the staff editorial about the new nativists in the paper today. What I'm not clear on is what those who are all fired up about illegal immigration would want done with the 12 million illegals already here? "Secure the border" doesn't do anything for those already in the country and "enforce the law" (which I guess means deportation?) isn't realistic!

washingtonpost.com: Editorial: the Newest Nativists (Post, Nov. 30)

Jonathan Weisman: I'll answer your question on their behalf. They believe that if you sealed the border and made it impossible to get a job without legal documentation, the 12 million would go home on their own rather than face starvation.

That's not an endorsement of the view, just an articulation.

_______________________

St. Paul, Minn.: Jonathan, after reading the "Catch Me If You Can" article this morning, I was first struck by how uneasy it made me that Clinton was so difficult to talk to; would she be just as inaccessible as Bush? And then I noticed most of the questions reporters were trying to ask were horse-race questions. Then I thought, well, Clinton is tired of making time for non-substance questions. Which of my instincts is right? (And, P.S., I hadn't realized only Dems can ask Dem candidates questions, and vice versa. Were any of the YouTube questions themselves objectionably worded?)

washingtonpost.com: The Candidate's 'Catch Me if You Can' (Post, Nov. 30)

Jonathan Weisman: I understand your criticism, but once reporters get through the horse race questions, they'd get to the substance, believe you me. I do believe the candidates need to be more accessible, because certainly these canned town-hall meetings and rallies are not going to give voters a real sense of their beliefs.

_______________________

Plainsboro, N.J.: Do you think the story that Sen. Obama may have bought his endorsements through his PAC contributions have any legs?

washingtonpost.com: Obama Campaign Worker Discussed PAC Donations (Post, Nov. 30)

Jonathan Weisman: It's pretty complicated. It was buried in our paper today and we broke it. I have a feeling it may be withering.

_______________________

San Diego: Thanks for the chats. What are the chances that candidates who portray themselves as good, moral, Christian folks will be asked substantive questions dealing with the Earth's natural history? For example, say Huckabee believes that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, as described in the Old Testament. I'd like to know if he then doubts the fact that glaciers covered much of North America and Europe tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years ago. Similarly, I'd like to know his view on dinosaurs. Were brontosaurus fossils put on Earth by God to test our faith, or by Satan to tempt us? Seriously, all the jabber in the media about a candidate's "faith" entirely misses the point. A candidate who believes the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that the second coming is just around the corner may be prone to policy decisions and behaviors that most sane people would avoid.

Jonathan Weisman: I thought the What Would Jesus Do question on the death penalty during the YouTube debate was a good one. I'd be surprised if creationism doesn't come up, especially if Huckabee stays on fire.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: What are the negatives on Huckabee that you say the Dems are amassing? Most of the things Republicans say negatively about Huckabee would seem to make him more popular in the general.

Jonathan Weisman: Bank shots can work. The same issues that Republican candidates have been picking up -- immigration, taxes -- can be repackaged by Democrats as evidence of inconsistency and flip-floppery. Huckabee can be very disarming, I'll grant you, but you never know. Who'd have thought we'd spend the summer of 2004 debating John Kerry's war record?

_______________________

Salinas, CA: Hi Jonathan. Why would it be such a big deal if Hillary and Bill had different views on the rationale for involvement in Iraq (as reported in The Fix)? Isn't it more important that Hillary appear consistent with her story? I don't necessary see a problem here.

washingtonpost.com: The Fix: 'Good Bill vs. Bad Bill' (washingtonpost.com, Nov. 29)

Jonathan Weisman: I tend to agree, but the whole issue of whether we want to return the nation to the psychodrama of the Clinton era is a potent theme that's not going away.

_______________________

Atlanta: I don't see the problem with undocumented workers -- but if you really wanted to shrink their numbers, you have got to start putting some employers in jail.

Jonathan Weisman: That seems to be the one area where Republicans and Democrats are coming together.

_______________________

Lost Jobs: I am having a hard time equating lost jobs to immigrants. If I am not mistaken, we are running at about 4 percent unemployment, which is considered the full employment rate. So I would like the people that keep saying that jobs are lost because of illegals to show me where these lost jobs are. Just because a politician says jobs are lost because of illegals do not make it so.

Jonathan Weisman: There have been economic studies showing illegal immigrant labor has depressed wages for the least educated, least skilled segment of the work force (i.e.-- high school dropouts). But the economic effect on jobs doesn't go much beyond that sector.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: Study after study have shown that on balance, the undocumented aliens have added as much to the economy as they have cost. Do you believe the comments about them costing the country a fortune are simply because of ignorance or bigotry?

Jonathan Weisman: It all depends whether you're looking at the micro or macro level. For some locales, the strain that illegal immigrants have put on schools, hospitals, and other public institutions is very real, and probably not offset by economic positives. For the nation at large, such costs to local governments are offset by payments to Social Security that will never be returned as benefits, lower costs for services, etc.

_______________________

Anonymous: How was Europe? Did any of the strikes effect your travel? Any wisdom from your trip you can share?

Jonathan Weisman: Hey, thanks for remembering. I blew into Paris at 6:30 a.m., had a political discussion over lunch, then fled to the Gare du Nord for a train out before the 8 p.m. strike deadline. So much for my night at a Parisian restaurant.

One bit of wisdom to stoke the political embers out there. Forget the Fair Tax. Wherever you go in Europe, shop owners are flouting Europe's Value-Added Tax, offering discounts if you pay in cash so they don't have to report the sales taxes to their governments. And the VAT is much lower than the Fair Tax would be. My bet, the day you instituted a national sales tax, the same black market would emerge in spades.

_______________________

Abingdon, Md.: How well do the demographics of Iowa and New Hampshire match the rest of electoral America? I think one problem that many have with these two states having the clout they do regarding primaries is that the demographics probably aren't that similar -- and because of the weight given these two states, many feel not only left out of the process, but when elections finally make it to their states, only a partial candidate list is available to select from. I can understand and respect (some) traditions, but wouldn't the parties be better served with some sort of regional or national primaries for the sake of having the parties determine the best of their lot to compete in the general election?

Jonathan Weisman: They don't match well at all. Iowa and New Hampshire are far more white and protestant than the rest of the country. New Hampshire is more affluent. That's one reason why the Democrats pushed earlier primaries in Nevada and South Carolina, to give black and Hispanic voters more say.

_______________________

Re: The CNN/YouTube debate: Jonathan, I think you're being a bit unrealistic. If Fox had sponsored a Democratic debate and then stocked the questioners with declared Republican supporters, a Giuliani campaign operative, and a guy sporting a Ho Chi Minh poster (like CNN's Confederate flag guy), you guys would all be writing about it as a dirty trick.

Jonathan Weisman: Well, the guy with the confederate flag was undoubtedly a conservative, if not a Republican. And a Ho Chi Minh poster would be very much off kilter with the national debate. Gays in the military is not.

_______________________

Herndon, Va.: If Murtha thinks "The Surge" is working, isn't that just disastrous for the Democrats? Is it time for Hillary to lurch to the right on the war?

Jonathan Weisman: Murtha sent out a "clarification," saying that there still is no political reconciliation. I think the obvious military progress poses a huge dilemma for Democrats. On the other hand, a new poll from the Pew Center found that Americans are far more optimistic about military efforts in Iraq and still back Democratic efforts to end the war. For Republicans, that is the dilemma. If things are going well, people say, great, let's leave. If they're going badly, they say, drat, let's leave.

_______________________

Seattle: At next year's Retirement Party for GOP Congressmen stepping down, will the honorees outnumber the incumbents?

Jonathan Weisman: No, but the numbers are getting impressive.

_______________________

Kensington, Md.: Jonathan, in all the (somewhat muted) coverage of Giuliani's routing the taxpayer-paid expenses for his security detail through obscure agencies when he visited his mistress, there's one question I don't think I've seen asked. If these security agents were there "protecting his life" as he has indignantly protested, then why were they sometimes staying in motels several miles down the road? That seems like an awful long reach for jumping in front of a bullet. Have I missed something??

Jonathan Weisman: If you've got one guy on security detail and another sleeping in a motel a few miles away, don't think that negates Giuliani's argument. The potency of the issue lies in two facts, "tryst" and "tax-payer-funded."

_______________________

Albany, N.Y.: Sen. Leahy has just rejected the White House claims of executive privilege on the fired U.S. attorneys issue, which is being interpreted as the first stage of a contempt proceeding -- could Congress hire its own lawyers to seek a citation if the Bush Justice Department refuses to do it?

washingtonpost.com: Leahy: Bush Not Involved in Firings (AP, Nov. 29)

Jonathan Weisman: Yes, this time Leahy really, really, really, really means it. Where have I heard that before?

_______________________

I don't see the problem with undocumented workers: The problem is that they are treated as a slave labor class. They are paid approximately half the going rate, forced to work in unsafe conditions, no time-and-a-half or paid holidays, etc. Plus they don't pay taxes, costing the Treasury billions. I've worked around them for the past 20 years. With the housing slowdown or stoppage and an overall economic slowdown possible, if more Americans are out of work yet see the illegals working, the backlash against illegals could take a more confrontational tone.

Jonathan Weisman: It's frightening to think the tone could get worse, but I'll bet you're right.

_______________________

Washington: Why should CNN or YouTube do any vetting of the questioners at all? Wasn't the point of the debate supposed to be about answering questions from Americans? To filter the questions for topics and things is one thing, to filter them to vet the questioner is another (and wrong). They say "don't shoot the messenger," but in the case of debates like this, it should be "don't shoot the questioner."

Jonathan Weisman: There has to be some vetting. Read the comment section on any given story at the Washington Post Web site and you'll see what I mean.

_______________________

Gays in the military is not: Isn't this issue so 1990s? I'd rather talk about social security, you know, the unsexy issue that everyone likes to talk about but then ignore after each election.

Jonathan Weisman: They talked Social Security too. It was a scintillating discussion led with gusto by Fred Thompson.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Regarding the age of the Earth -- Huckabee would say that Jesus was too smart to be a Geologist. Case closed, we all get a little chuckle.

Jonathan Weisman: Darn, you're good.

_______________________

If you don't get it, you don't get it...:"by a 'very attractive woman who looked like she just finished a sociology course at Bryn Mawr college, if you know what I mean.' " What does Joe mean?"

I know exactly what he means, but it's near impossible to put into explanatory words. I was about to say "you wouldn't understand; it's a Seven Sisters thing" -- but I'm positive Sen. Biden isn't an alumna!

Jonathan Weisman: I'll take your word for it.

_______________________

Baltimore: I'm an undecided voter (not like CNN's undecided voters), but watching the ethical-challenged poll-driven Hillary Clinton's machinations just really turns me off. Her fundraising scandals are bad. But her planted questions in many forums -- including the CNN Republican debate -- shows her utter lack of respect for democracy, and that's much much worse. I simply can't vote for her even though I want to punish the Republicans for the Bush years. Any chance the Democrats will wise up and pick someone else?

Jonathan Weisman: Opinions like yours do count. Remember, Iowans decided four years ago that Howard Dean wasn't electable. Dated Dean, married Kerry. On the other hand, I think you're overstating this "planted question" thing. I have seen no evidence that the gays-in-the-military question was somehow orchestrated by Hillary central.

And why is it undemocratic to ask a legitimate question?

_______________________

New York: When will anyone with the Post sue to obtain Giuliani's depositions in his divorce, et al, and evaluate them with the "Clinton Standard"? Shouldn't Giuliani be disbarred, as Clinton was? Or is it okay for Republicans to lie under oath?

Jonathan Weisman: I'll forward the question to the appropriate reporters.

_______________________

Lake Forest, Calif.: Good morning. To me the answer to illegal immigration is to really close the borders, deport all criminals in jails and prisons and those convicted of crimes in the future, and let the rest assimilate into our society as the Irish, Italians, etc., did. Do any of the candidates agree or come close to agreeing with this solution?

Jonathan Weisman: Deport to where? Who is going to take all our criminals? Or did you have something else in mind for clearing our jails?

_______________________

Centreville, Va.: "Once reporters get through the horse race questions, they'd get to the substance, believe you me." Don't you have that backwards?

Jonathan Weisman: I wish, but alas, reporters on the campaign trail are political reporters.

_______________________

Toronto: Can you help out a foreigner? Lindsey Graham is a lawyer, a Naval Reserve officer and a JAG officer. So how can he accept the spin-doctor's claims, at face value, that 31 Guantanamo captives "returned to the battlefield"? Just a few months previously, on March 6 -- during a press conference where his identity was concealed -- a "senior Defense Official" said only 12 captives had been confirmed to have "returned to the battlefield." As a lawyer shouldn't, Sen. Graham know better than to throw around wild accusations?

Jonathan Weisman: Sen. Graham is a politician first, one that has a very strong opinion on the war and the detainee issues. I don't think he would deliberately lie, but he may be inclined to accept information that bolsters his views.

_______________________

Kettering, Ohio: G'morning Jon. I know you don't like media bias questions, and I think The Post has actually done a wonderful job at keeping it professional -- irrespective of blips like the recent Obama/Muslim dustup, which was perhaps a lackadaisical editing job. But why the lack of concern over Ted's big book deal and the apoplexy on Gingrich's deal? What is the difference this time?

Jonathan Weisman: Gingrich's book deal could be linked directly to a political backer with business before him -- and the Democrats raises a holy stink about it. The press covered the accusations and the issue took off.

I haven't had a single Republican contact me about Kennedy's book deal. He's not Speaker of the House of Senate Majority Leader. That may be the difference.

_______________________

Chicago: Good morning and thanks for taking questions. To what extent does the mainstream media's interest in making the news interesting conflict with actually reporting the news? As an example, for a long time a political story was the "inevitability of Hillary Clinton becoming president." Then with a minor/major flub in a debate the story was "Hillary in trouble."

The MSM seems to love the latter story as it makes the presidential race more interesting. A recent Zogby poll showing Hillary losing to all four top GOP; another poll released at the same time showed the opposite and got little play in the press (and there candidates got wide play in the MSM even though was evidence the Zogby poll was an aberration). Discussing the Zogby poll supported the MSM's story du jour and therefore seemed to warrant the MSM's attention.

washingtonpost.com: New poll shows Clinton trails top 2008 Republicans (Reuters, Nov. 26)

Jonathan Weisman: We do like a good story, no doubt. I take issue with your Zogby example, however. That was an interactive Internet poll. We tend not to cover other people's polls anyway, since we have our own, but we certainly wouldn't cover Zogby interactive.

_______________________

Washington: Regarding immigration, shouldn't we be happy about the history lessen we received at the Republican debate? After all, the Republican Party had it's roots in northern anti-slavery Whigs, and in the remnants of the anti-immigrant Know-Nothing party of the 1850s. Rudy and Romney sounded like Millard Fillmore. I have no doubt that, should either be elected, they could match his record.

Jonathan Weisman: I think the debate really was important. The Republicans are pushing themselves far more to the right than the Democrats are driving to the left. The eventual nominees will try to tack back to the center, but it may be that the Republican has farther to travel.

_______________________

Minneapolis: I fully understand why Democrats in Congress are fearful of being overly aggressive on oversight of the Bush administration -- they fear being painted as overreachers fixated on Bush and ineffectual on legislation. But why not look to the example of Henry Waxman: conservatives (e.g. Bob Novak) really go after him as overaggressive, yet he repeatedly has been successful at generating news of the Bush administration's problems and misdeeds with a series of hearings. Why not follow his example?

Jonathan Weisman: Waxman is the House's guy and he's doing it. In the Senate, Joe Lieberman chairs the committee that is Waxman's counterpart, and for obvious reasons, Lieberman is no Waxman.

_______________________

Manakin, Va.: With Congress not passing the war supplemental funding, the Army has said it may have to furlough -- which I read as "lay off" -- lots of people. And this in a time of war! What do you think of all of them out campaigning while they failed to do what they need to do in Congress?

Jonathan Weisman: The Pentagon has said it has enough money to fund the Army through mid-February and the Marines through mid-March. Those furlough notices (for civilian employees and contractors) are 60 day warnings, not pink slips.

Democrats say they are perfectly willing to fund the war, once Bush accepts a timeline for withdrawal by the end of 2008.

By February, we will have a real donnybrook on our hands.

_______________________

Anonymous: Do you think that Trail piece where the Post refers to Sidarth as Macaca is appropriate? I see they added quotes around it, does that fix it?

washingtonpost.com: A New Gig For 'Macaca': Richardson Staffer (washingtonpost.com, Nov. 29)

Jonathan Weisman: Guys, I'm sorry but I have to call it quits a tad early. Sorry for this Macaca meeting. See ya 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.