Post Politics Hour

Don't want to miss out on the latest in politics? Start each day with The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.

Washington Post congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman was online Friday, May 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 the daily Post Politics Podcast.

Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts

____________________

Princeton, W.Va.: Jonathon your story today is right on. Apparently McCain is so out of touch with economic matters (quote "I'm a free trader") that he can't even discuss it. We need somebody to discuss the free trade policies, NAFTA first, that have nearly wrecked our working class and our economy. When Americans realize that even Hershey's Chocolate has closed down in Reading, Pa., and moved to Mexico, maybe they'll force these candidates to talk about what has wrecked our economy.

Jonathan Weisman: No doubt, it works to the Democrats' advantage to keep the subject on the economy. The natural tendency of voters is to trust Democrats on economic and health care issues but defer to Republicans on war. Now, I know a lot of people will say: "What? After Iraq?" But polling is consistent on it, so don't bite my head off.

_______________________

Montreal: Jon, Congress-wise, which incumbents are in the biggest trouble this cycle? What races could become losing money pits? Any races promising to be especially ugly or otherwise entertaining?

Jonathan Weisman: On the Senate side, the most vulnerable incumbent bar none is John Sununu in New Hampshire. After that, maybe there's a tie between Ted Stevens in Alaska and Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, with Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Gordon Smith in Oregon not far behind.

But hey, have you seen the polling out of Mississippi? Sen. Roger Wicker, just named to Trent Lott's seat, is in real trouble. Talk about a sign of the times.

_______________________

Delmarva Peninsula: We've had several special elections where the GOP has attempted to link their Democratic opponent to Obama, and it hasn't worked. Now that we pretty much have got our presidential nominees, how are they impacting the down-ticket races. Who's helped by being on a ticket with either candidate? Who's hurt by being on the same ticket?

Jonathan Weisman: Good question. I think Obama really helps down-ticket Democrats in states with lots of African Americans and young folks who have not been inclined to vote in the past. Look at North Carolina, but also Mississippi, Georgia and Minnesota.

McCain will help down-ticket Republicans in states that have moved away from the GOP as it has moved to the right, especially on social issues. That means New Jersey, maybe New York, and, paradoxically, also Minnesota.

But Obama may hurt in places where Hillary ran very strong, aka West Virginia and Kentucky, and if McCain turns off hard-core conservatives, especially social conservatives, states in the south (think Virginia) will be all the more in play.

_______________________

Clinton's female supporters: Jonathan: Could you thank E.J. Dionne for me for revealing the shocking news that female-elected officials who've endorsed Clinton think she's the victim of sexism? I just didn't know that.

Two points did strike me about the column. One, while these women claim "sexism reigns supreme" (a quote from the column,) they've all been elected and have advanced to high ranks (Congress, state senate, city council). How is that possible? Two, this line from E.J.: "These are professional politicians, so they know that Clinton is on the verge of defeat because of her campaign's organizational mistakes, its failure to take Obama seriously early on and the difficulties created by her husband's presence." What about the candidate herself? Isn't it just possible that people didn't want to vote for her because of her: her stance on the issues, her personality, her campaigning style, her vision for the future?

washingtonpost.com: 'Look What They've Done to Her' (Post, May 30)

Jonathan Weisman: I'll pass on your snarky comment to my good friend E.J., who is very astute.

Just because he quoted women pols blaming sexism doesn't mean he believes that was the prime force in Hillary Clinton's downfall. I'm sure he doesn't.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: So I see Nancy Pelosi is pushing superdelegates to make a choice very soon, in the interests of ending the campaign and not dragging it out to the convention. A smart move, I believe, but the question I have is, even if superdelegates do make a choice (and let's say they largely favor Obama), do you think that Hillary Clinton still will cry foul, sexism, victim, and still will stay in the race until the convention? It seems to me that she wants the presidency so badly that nothing but nothing will get her to stop.

Jonathan Weisman: Nancy Pelosi has tremendous sway over Democrats in Congress and I think thee are around 75 who haven't endorsed. If they go en masse for Obama, she as convention chairman can really ratchet the pressure on Clinton. Even if Hillary maintains the campaign to the bitter end, I don't think it will be all that damaging. The press has already moved on to a McCain-Obama general election campaign. It is not like Clinton represents a whole new ideological wing of the party, like Kennedy did in 1980. I just think her Quixotic campaign will fade into background noise.

_______________________

Re: Free Trade: I'm so tired of people who don't get it. Globalization is going to happen whether you like it or not -- if you didn't see the writing on the wall, I don't want to hear you whining about it. Americans didn't want to hear the truth: You can't sustain the highest standard of living ever recorded in history while the rest of the world can barely feed itself. Something's gotta give, and guess what gave? Wake up and smell the coffee.

Jonathan Weisman: I'll tell that to all the Democrats and Republicans who voted overwhelmingly for a farm bill (and veto override) that maintains the kind of domestic farming subsidies that price poor third world farmers out of the international market.

_______________________

Virginia ticket: Isn't Virginia tending to lean less conservative than in the past, if only because of the "close to the Beltway" counties? Fairfax et al tend more toward Democrats, and are so populous that they carry the rest of the state.

Jonathan Weisman: Yes it is, but that's the double whammy. Overall, the state's conservatism is being diluted by an influx of immigrants and high-tech workers in the D.C. suburbs, but their impact will be all the more pronounced if social conservatives in the southern and western parts of the state don't turn out for McCain.

_______________________

Woodbridge, Va.: Jonathan, the problem with free trade is not that it has failed, but that it has never been tried. How can anyone (in either party) claim to be a free-trader when they still support the ridiculous farm subsidies (as do the Europeans) that give Western farmers a significant advantage on the global food market and put third-world farmers out of business? Or how can they claim to be free-traders if they think it's okay for companies to relocate across the Rio Grande but not okay for labor to do the same in the other direction?

Jonathan Weisman: I agree that we do not have a truly free international marketplace. And by having a relatively free flow of some goods (manufacturing) from some parts of the world (China) into other parts of the world (the U.S.), while other goods like food are stuck, the system is all the more distorting.

_______________________

Madison, Wis.: Has this business with McClellan (i.e. the validation of basically all the main critiques of the Bush administration) changed the way that you and others view the administration and their press representatives?

Jonathan Weisman: Not really. McClellan's message was interesting because of the messenger, but it was hardly revelatory. There is a remarkable consistency in the message of all the former White House officials who have "told all" -- from McClellan to John DiIulio to Paul O'Neill. I don't think anybody should have been surprised by Scott's "revelations."

_______________________

Washington: Jon, those automated pollsters have been coming out with a lot of interesting snapshots of some Senate races. Democrats are running even or just behind in Alaska, North Carolina, Texas and Kentucky. I think I need another reminder that I shouldn't take pollsters like Rasmussen very seriously, or else I'll start getting crazy ideas about how many seats the Democrats will pick up in November.

Jonathan Weisman: I was just talking to our own pollsters about this. When we poll, we emphasize random. The person who answers the phone tends to be the mother of the house. So we make sure we speak to men as well, old and young. We try to reach cell phones. We watch the demographics of who is and is not answering.

When you look at Rasmussen polling, think about who would actually sit on the phone answering robotic questions. I know I wouldn't.

_______________________

Snarky or sarcastic?: Fine but important distinction ... your 'tude is less than helpful here. Making grand statements that can then be picked apart is hazardous.

Jonathan Weisman: I stand by my characterization.

_______________________

Chicago: Hey Jonathan, is Geraldine Ferraro crazy? She is absolutely livid that race has been an unmitigated boon to Obama and gender has been an unmitigated burden, stealing the nomination from Clinton. Is she acting on her own volition or taking her talking points from the Clinton camp?

Jonathan Weisman: Well, I was sitting down the other day with Gerry. She was lying on the couch. I talked to her about her mother, showed her some ink blots, asked her about her dreams. And concluded, yes, she's crazy. (But she's earned the right.)

_______________________

Washington: I just got one of those Nigerian scam letters only now, instead having access to a dead businessman's money, they claim to be from an American serviceman in Iraq, Sgt. Frank Daniel, who made off with some of the money found in barrels in Iraq. Evidently the money found in barrels part is true (it gives a link to a BBC story), but I find this latest ploy particularly and highly distasteful. Not political, sorry.

Jonathan Weisman: If you haven't seen the movie "Three Kings" run, don't walk, to the nearest dying video store.

_______________________

Hersheys in Reading?: Wait a second! As a longtime resident near Hershey, Pa,, I had no idea that Hersheys had any plant in Reading. Certainly if they did, it wasn't very important. Their real operations are in Hershey, and as far as I know they're very much still in place. Sounds to me as if one reader has swallowed an urban legend as "fact."

washingtonpost.com: A Reading plant is listed here.

Jonathan Weisman: I just let that slide right by. Quite right!

_______________________

San Francisco: Good morning, Jonathan, thanks for chatting today! Will the GOPs who gave the GI Bill veto-proof majorities in both Houses stick with it to override the president's threatened veto? And might that affect Bush and Cheney's fundraising or campaign plans this fall?

Jonathan Weisman: How are your values, San Francisco? Considering the pummeling that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee are dealing out over the GI Bill, I'd say yes, the Republicans will hold. The problem may be with the Democrats. If the final bill is basically stripped down to war funding and the GI Bill, I'll bet a whole bunch of anti-war Democrats will vote no.

_______________________

Washington: The farm bill. Feh! I can't believe that it passed. Again! It's more than a travesty, it's a vulgarity, and every elected official who let it go through should hang his/her head in shame. And so should the public that let it happen.

Jonathan Weisman: But it obviously is beloved in the farm lands of this country.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: On CNN last night I think it was Wolf Blitzer that pointed out to Donna "that the superdelegates can vote for anyone when they vote," and she agreed. That means that in theory (perhaps not in life) there could be enough superdelegates to win the nomination for Hillary who perhaps do not even say who they will vote for or even (shudder faint) lied.

Now I am not a Hillary supporter, but it would be great fun to see the faces of Tim Russert and all who have said she is politically "dead." Dewey defeats Truman -- again. Or for me, "ha ha ha." But I know the one who laughs last gets the most fun. Enjoy.

Jonathan Weisman: Yes, you are right. When it comes time to cast their votes in Denver, they all could decide Obama wasn't so great after all. I doubt it, but it could happen.

_______________________

Anonymous: The Reading plant is for packaging.

Jonathan Weisman: This is so far above my pay grade.

_______________________

Re: Nancy Pelosi: Jonathan: What is the conventional wisdom on the Hill about Pelosi's performance during the primary campaign? She seems to be pulling strings behind the scene to push the party leaders to a decision (and, not coincidentally, to nominate Obama over Clinton), cutting off any chance for the Clinton campaign to drag out this thing, while remaining above the fray. Is she getting passing grades on this one?

Jonathan Weisman: I think she is getting very high marks. She has been putting her thumbs on the scale, but subtly. She has turned out to be far more powerful than most outsiders expected.

_______________________

Chicago: I've always wondered about this. The press does a story about candidate A giving a speech or attacking candidate B. The story describes what A said, then a spokesman for candidate B is quoted as saying candidate A is full of it. Shouldn't there be some sort of rule of parity in these situations? If the candidate him or herself is saying something, shouldn't his/her opponent have to respond, and not some underling?

Jonathan Weisman: That would be ideal, but it is not always possible. I can't get Barack Obama on the phone to respond to everything McCain says. If he addresses it, we'll use it. If he doesn't (yesterday, Obama had no public events) we have no choice but to use his staff.

_______________________

Bremerton, Wash.: Jonathan, how do you size up the Oregon Senate race after the primary? Is Smith in for the biggest fight of his career? And are there any House seats in Oregon that are vulnerable to a switch?

Jonathan Weisman: For a long time, I was of a mind that Smith would do fine. He has been a strong, anti-war Republican of late, and has established a genuine moderate voting record. But I'm shifting my thinking. Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island was by far the most liberal Republican -- basically a Democrat -- and Rhode Islanders tended to like him, but in 2006 they wanted to punish a Republican. They couldn't punish Bush, so they voted Chafee out. Oregon is not as Democratic as Rhode Island, but I'd venture it will go for Obama, and I think a similar dynamic as Rhode Island could be waiting for Gordon Smith.

I think the House seats are safe. Darlene Hooley's retirement offered Republicans a chance, but they didn't get a very good candidate.

_______________________

Washington: Great report yesterday, Jonathan. I think it is clear you struck a nerve, but as they say, the truth sometimes hurts the most -- which leads me to this question: Do you think it is appropriate for a straight reporter to call administration critics "left-wing haters"? Have we reached a point where journalists no longer should act neutral? If they are trying, they are doing a bad job. I guess it is good the Mike Allen left The Post, because it seems like he may be causing editors headaches if he were still there. Thoughts? Beyond, "I like Mike," please...

washingtonpost.com: For McCain, A Switch On Telecom Immunity? (Post, May 29)

Jonathan Weisman: I haven't seen the comments you are referring to. I did see the Politico's blog posting on the McCain campaign's attack on me over the story, and I was not happy about it. The campaign is saying McCain has not changed his position, but that is demonstrably false, even to his allies on Capitol Hill. Sometimes we just have to lay it out and show the shift.

_______________________

Anonymous: Is it a good argument that the next seven days may be the most important in Sen. Clinton's political life? If she accepts defeat and with her steely eyed gaze and fighting voice shouts her support to Obama to defeat McCain in November, her stock within the party skyrockets. If she suspends her campaign until the delegate votes at the convention, she plummets and becomes and afterthought.

Jonathan Weisman: I think the most important period of her political life came in the days before South Carolina and after Super Tuesday, when she let her shot at the presidency evaporate. But I agree this period will be very important. That said, Ted Kennedy fought Jimmy Carter to the bitter end and made quite a career for himself in the Senate afterward.

_______________________

Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: Yesterday online, Dana Milbank said that you can't kill a campaign that's already dead. He was referring to Clinton, ostensibly. What about the Lazarus effect? Is rising from the dead out of the question in this bizarre and eerie election year? And who or what is going to do the Lazarusing? Thanks much.

Jonathan Weisman: Well, as Hillary Clinton herself said, things can happen in the month of June. But I would defer to Dana on this one.

_______________________

Iowa Farmland: I do not love the huge subsidies -- the super-large corporate farmers get lots of those, which does not help the (fast-disappearing) family farmer in the long run. You should see all the empty farmhouses -- there are many out-of-state owners.

Jonathan Weisman: Glad to hear from you, Iowa. And those corporate farmers are showing how much muscle they have on Capitol Hill these days.

_______________________

New York: Snarky, sarcastic -- what the heck, it is pretty funny, and you have all the right to speak to it how you feel. In fact, most comments pale to your wit and brains. Don't let the low-hanging fruit get you down.

Jonathan Weisman: It does make my hair sticky, however.

_______________________

Philadelphia: What is the status of McCain's campaign finance troubles? He may be facing some trouble because he secured a $5 million loan with his prior commitment to using federal funding. Now he is saying that he is opting out of the federal funding. Have you or your colleagues looked into this? It is quite interesting, given that McCain may actually be breaking the very laws he worked to enact. The only thing saving him now is the lack of a quorum in the FEC

Jonathan Weisman: The Democratic law suit was dismissed. The FEC is defunct. Like so many campaign finance issues, this one will be dealt with long after the election is over. I think Bob Dole is still paying some fines.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: What do you see in your crystal ball for the race to take retiring Sen. John Warner's seat?

Jonathan Weisman: Oh man, this one's easy. Even the Republicans are largely conceding the seat to former Gov. Mark Warner. Jim Gilmore's got no money and is getting none from the national party. The only real way Warner loses is if he's picked for Obama's veep instead -- but Chuck Schumer would personally throttle Obama if that happened.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: Let's see if I understand how the pure free trade idea would work: We import all our manufactured stuff from China; to make up for this, we dump our farming subsidies; then we import all our food from the third-world countries. The third-world countries now have enough money so that they can import all their manufactured stuff from China. Now we don't make manufactured stuff or grow food. This is a great solution, isn't it?

Jonathan Weisman: But we would still get to send out all those Hollywood movies and TV shows!

_______________________

Atlanta: Mr. Weisman, you were attacked by the McCain campaign for showing "a reckless disregard for key facts" regarding McCain's new position on the telecom immunity bill. First of all, congratulations. Secondly, what is any campaign's strategy to attack a specific reporter instead of disputing what was written with facts of their own?

Jonathan Weisman: I was pretty amazed that the McCain campaign singled me out by name, especially given that the story was joint bylined with our telecommunications reporter, Ellen Nakashima. But I was the one who spoke to the McCain campaign, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

I really do not believe they had a single factual nugget to stand on. They haven't called me or my editors, haven't asked for a correction or clarification. I just think that was some CYA going on.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: So after November, what are the odds that Virginia will have two Democrats representing the state as U.S. Senators? Seems pretty good to me at this point.

Jonathan Weisman: See above. Yes, two Democratic senators, a Democratic governor, probably a new Democrat in Tom Davis's House seat, maybe even another in Frank Wolf's. Amazing, ain't it?

_______________________

Helena, Mont.: Well, we here in farming country love us some farm subsidies. It's really what has kept our food and fiber prices down for so long. Don't forget, just a few years ago the price of wheat on the commodities exchange was lower than what it cost to produce, so wheat farmers depended on the subsidy to keep in business. The real issue isn't the "family" farms, it's the industrial farms. Just doesn't seem to be a way to wean them off the public trough and keep the subsidies for the family farmers -- those who farm 360 to 1,200 acres.

Jonathan Weisman: I am thrilled that this chat has gotten so far beyond the Beltway. I'd love to ask you folks in farm country a question: Do you think John McCain will be helped or hurt by his opposition to the farm bill?

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: Jon, the Politico is reporting that the McCain campaign is going after you hard because of one of your recent pieces that they disagree with. What effect do these kinds of attacks on reporters have? Many of us on the left fear that the right's systematic (and bogus) claims of "liberal bias" in the media has resulted in political coverage that slants to the right. Does a reporter like you have the guts to keep calling 'em like they see 'em when a Republican campaign slams you unfairly? Thanks -- I hope you take this one.

Jonathan Weisman: I have had the White House also call me out by name. It doesn't feel good, frankly, and it makes me nervous. I am going to have to speak to Doug Holtz-Eakin at the McCain campaign frequently in the next six months as I cover issues on the campaign. If I am iced out, it will hurt my reporting. But I have to believe we're all professionals, and Doug (whom I have great respect for and have known for a long time) will understand that the McCain perspective has to be reflected in The Washington Post.

_______________________

Anonymous: From your telecom piece: "The biggest telecom carriers in the nation participated in the program before it came to light and have since been deluged by nearly 40 lawsuits from customers claiming their privacy rights were violated." How many lawsuits are those telecom carriers party to at any given moment? Does 40 constitute a "deluge"? Sorry, it struck me as a baseless characterization favored by proponents of amnesty, and I wondered how you determined 40 suits, in terms of quantity, do not constitute a mere pinprick annoyance to a group of entities of that scale. Thanks.

Jonathan Weisman: Some of those 40 are class-action. I think virtually every one is still active. I think 40 lawsuits is quite a bit.

_______________________

Rolla, Mo.: Jonathan, please, can you find me one voter who decided to not vote for Sen. Clinton because of the sexist coverage by the media as her camp claims? Even if you give them the argument on the media slant, who exactly did this affect? ("I was going to vote for Hillary but Chris Matthews said...") It seems the most notable affect was to energize women to turn out for her.

Jonathan Weisman: Probably so. I'll alert our polling unit to insert a fresh question.

_______________________

Baghdad, Iraq: Why doesn't Obama remind voters about McCain's last Iraq trip more whenever McCain raises the joint Iraq trip idea? Just say I'd like to go but I don't want to divert 1,000 soldiers from their real duties to playing photo-op bodyguard. It seems like he isn't swinging at a hanging curve right over the plate.

Jonathan Weisman: How's the weather, Baghdad? Actually, Obama has raised the McCain-in-the-market issue quite often, but I agree that it wasn't part of the talking points yesterday, which was something of a surprise. The Obama staff did say all those trips to Iraq were not very illuminating to him, a pretty good attack line. But this whole debate has really shown the Republicans still can push Obama around.

_______________________

New York: Commenting on Dionne's column today: He is correct -- my own impression, as a graduate of a woman's college with many high-achieving females through the decades, is that the higher a woman rises, the more frustrated she is when the doors begin to close because there remain offices and rooms where she is not trusted nor particularly wanted. Perhaps it's because they conquered sexism on their way up the ladder.

Jonathan Weisman: Thanks Chelsea. As a member of the other gender, I really don't want to touch this issue. I'll only get myself in trouble.

_______________________

Phil Gramm: Okay when do we get a look at Phil Gramm's not-so-great record? This is the one person more responsible than any other individual for the financial crisis we are in, and he is the guy McCain chooses as his top economic advisor?

Jonathan Weisman: I know it's not comprehensive, Phil, but this did run on the front page of The Post.

_______________________

Anonymous: I've read talk about the Democrats not being able to afford losing Webb as a senator if Obama picks him as vice president, but doesn't Kaine pick a Democrat to fill his seat?

Jonathan Weisman: Yes, he does. I don't think that will be a big issue in Obama's deliberations, and I think Webb really has a shot. Obama does want to toughen his military/foreign policy credentials. But he also has to think about disgruntled women out there, so Kathleen Sebelius is also a smart choice.

_______________________

Southwest Nebraska: A joke from farm country: Why do they bury farmers only two feet deep? So they still can get a handout.

Jonathan Weisman: Ugh, another one I won't touch.

_______________________

Dallas: Why can't Sen. Obama respond to the "hasn't been in Iraq" attacks by saying that he wouldn't want to waste a battalions' resources or take away from their objectives just so he could walk down the street?

Jonathan Weisman: See above. And I agree that deploying the presumptive Democratic nominee to Baghdad for a photo op would be quite the misuse of military resources. Can you imagine the security?

_______________________

Helena, Mont.:"Do you think John McCain will be helped or hurt by his opposition to the farm bill?" Depends on whether he actually voted against it or just expressed opposition. Actually, farmers are a pretty conservative lot -- they really want to support Second Amendment, want to be able to farm like they want (without environmental considerations), so they might vote for any Republican regardless of farm bill. This would have hurt McCain more in primary than general, I think.

Jonathan Weisman: He spoke out against it but didn't show up for the vote.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Reston is forgetting "services," which includes banking and Hollywood -- lots of money in that.

Jonathan Weisman: I said Hollywood, but you're right. We've got insurance. We've got lawyers.

_______________________

Floris, Va.: Politico has a headline this morning that says: McCain Camp Hits Post Reporter. I believe they're talking about you, esteemed journalist. So, was it an uppercut or a right cross? Care to elaborate?

washingtonpost.com: McCain camp hits Post reporter (Politico, May 30)

Jonathan Weisman: You should see my left eye. Deep purple.

_______________________

Seattle: By your estimate, how seriously are the undeclared superdelegates in Congress taking Speaker Pelosi's statement that they choose a side soon after June 3? How much attention have they been giving the campaign since Indiana and North Carolina?

Jonathan Weisman: I think they are taking her quite seriously, but a lot of them are hoping their votes won't be necessary to decide it. Obama's pretty close already. Not everyone will have to endorse. And in true profiles of courage, a lot of them don't want to.

_______________________

Des Peres, Mo.: I know newspaper guys don't have time to watch TV, but just in case, did you catch the cable docudrama "Recount"? If so, how accurate was it, scale of 1 to 10? And is it not true that all the newspapers that examined the rolls after the fact found that Bush was in fact the winner? Thanks.

Jonathan Weisman: Not only do I not have time to watch TV, I don't get HBO.

_______________________

Central Massachusetts: Hello Jonathan -- thank you for chatting, you are one of my favs! I am so confused as to how clergy (Wright, Hagee, Pfleger -- take your pick) can be so involved in politics and back a candidate. Aren't there strict tax-exemption codes that prevent churches from allowing this to occur on their property? How can Obama's church give pro-Obama, anti-Clinton (soon anti-McCain, I'm sure!) sermons and still maintain tax-exempt status? I get Dobson's dual-establishment set-up -- one for political advocacy and one for ministry -- as a workaround for this requirement. I don't get the Chicago church and how they're getting around it. Thanks for clarifying.

Jonathan Weisman: I think the exemptions are for the church itself, not the individual. So long as the endorsements are clearly not representing an organization, they're kosher. (That was for Hagee, who loves us.)

Alright folks, time to wrap up. Thanks everyone!

_______________________

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.