Opinion Focus

Washington Post opinion columnist Eugene Robinson was online Tuesday, Nov. 11 at 1 p.m. ET to discuss his recent columns and the latest news.

Discussion Group: Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood

The transcript follows.

Archive: Eugene Robinson discussion transcripts

____________________

Eugene Robinson: Hello, everyone. Well, it was an election like no other. Now it looks as if we'll have a transition like no other, followed by an inauguration like no other, followed by (probably) a first 100 days like no other. ... I think the only way not to get utterly lost in the broad-sweep-of-history fog is to take it one step at a time. Today's column, for reference, notes that the Republican Party seems to be on a Bridge to Nowhere and seems unlikely to reverse course. Let's begin.

_______________________

Brooklyn, N.Y.: Eugene, excellent observations in your column today. Here's my thought: What the Republican pundits trying to explain this election fail to grasp is that ideology matters more the labels. They have been citing exit polls which show that only about 20 percent of the voters identify themselves as "liberals," but all these polls show is that only 20 percent of voters are comfortable with the label "liberal." That does not mean that some significant percentage of the remaining voters are not comfortable with some ideas that Republicans derisively call "liberal" -- like universal health care, a woman's right to choose, etc. It's the ideas, not the label, that matters.

washingtonpost.com: A GOP Bridge to Nowhere (The Washington Post, Nov. 11, 2008)

Eugene Robinson: Precisely. That's the danger in using vague and shifting words like "liberal" and "conservative" as if they were fixed guideposts. Many people who don't like the word liberal are supportive of policies that most Republicans would consider liberal. It's as if saying the phrase "center-right nation" over and over, like a mantra, were comforting.

_______________________

Charlottesville, Va.: I am a staunch conservative but enjoy reading your and other columns with alternate views. I agree with you completely in today's piece on "The Same America, Seen Anew" in that the election result not only was historic but also very moving. As with you, I trust, President Obama will have my full support and respect until he deserves otherwise. He is my president.

My question is, where was this level of pride and emotion when Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell assumed their high and very prestigious offices? I know that none were elected by the people, but they should have received acclaim by you and the media, which I did not see. I saw no tears of emotion then from Rev. Jackson.

My simple theory -- and please correct me if I am wrong -- is that they did not represent the liberal agenda and therefore don't quite measure up (not "black" enough, as I have heard it derogatorily said). I have written you before with the simple question of what specifically the Democratic Party and liberal agenda ever has done for black America up to now. There have been lots of proposals, empty promises and no high-level appointments that I know of. Colin Powell, for one, did not receive genuine praise until he endorsed Obama. Rice and Thomas exemplified the real story of rising from the horrible discrimination of the black South. President-elect Obama, although very worthy, cannot begin to relate to what Rice and Thomas went through and rose above.

Why does a black person or white woman (your treatment of Sarah Palin was disgraceful) have to be liberal in order to receive media praise and respect? I want to live in an America where this praise and respect is given to any deserved minority regardless of ideology. I am practicing that today with my respect for our new president; you and other liberals have a ways to go.

Eugene Robinson: I like your opening paragraph so much that it pains me to take strong exception to most of the rest of your post. The key thing that is different about Barack Obama's election as president is just that -- that he was elected, chosen by the people, to hold the highest office in the land. He is not just head of government but also head of state, the embodiment of the nation. The presidency is in a different league from any other office.

That said, you have heard (if you've been paying attention) plenty of pride and respect for Colin Powell, even from self-described liberals. If you have heard less for Secretary Rice, and almost none for Justice Thomas, it's because so many self-described liberals believe their policies and opinions are wrong. And I'll let you in on a non-secret: "not black enough" is not a concept that the vast majority of African Americans ever would take seriously.

_______________________

Seattle: Gene, on Election Night, a good many people teared up. For me, it was when I saw Jesse Jackson openly weeping for joy. What did it for you?

Eugene Robinson: I spent Wednesday writing a column for Thursday's paper about what it felt like. The first paragraph was about seeing Rev. Jackson crying. It got to me, big time.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Add to the list of winners and losers the pollsters and the media, respectively. If not for the pollsters, I would have turned on my television or opened my paper every single day to the inexplicable media fanfare for Sarah Palin wondering if I was the only person on Earth aware of how completely unprepared, unknowledgeable, unserious and sickeningly unembarrassed (for the aforementioned) Palin was.

After her convention speech, the media, you included, were fawning all over the "abilities" of this woman, not having asked or heard her express a thought on any substantive issue. All it took was a well-delivered (she did read a teleprompter for a living at one point) but petty and childish speech -- written by someone else -- to get the media to declare her the next Ronald Reagan. After Katrina, two wars and an epic financial collapse, you and your colleagues should be ashamed for being so superficial.

Eugene Robinson: "You included"? If you can find a video clip of me fawning over Palin's convention speech, send me the link and I'll post it. I thought it was so-so, and didn't understand why the Republican faithful inside the convention hall were so jazzed.

That said, I wrote a column recently saying that I have changed my view of Sarah Palin. I think she has more political talent than I originally gave her credit for, and while she clearly was ignorant about national affairs -- which made her a drag on the GOP ticket -- that's different from being stupid or incapable or learning. I think she will be a force in the Republican Party for some time, and Democrats can disregard her at their peril.

_______________________

Knoxville, Tenn.: I thought George W. Bush butchered the English language, but I think Palin is even worse! "I would have preferred more opportunity to speak to the media more often, because there were a lot of things that I think it could have, should have said that could have, would have helped John McCain," Palin said in the interview that aired Monday night. Seriously, is this the future of the Republican Party? Whatever happened to "the best and brightest"?

Eugene Robinson: She still has far to go to match the best Bushisms "catapult the propaganda" is still my favorite. Or to match Dan Quayle's priceless gem, "what a waste it is to lose one's mind."

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Gene, I read your op-ed today about the Republican Party's problems going forward. In addition to discussions about center-right versus center-left, I think there is also a point about pragmatism. Americans seem to like ideas that will actually work, regardless of which ideological category they will fit in. Fareed Zakaria had an good point: "Conservatives were ascendant in the 1980s and 1990s because they offered powerful prescriptions for the problems of the 1970s."

There is a difference in identifying that high taxes are the core problem in 1980 when the marginal tax rate was more than 70 percent, and in 2008 when Obama's plan is the difference between a top rate of 35 percent and 39 percent. And most people remember the Clinton years as not particularly bad economywise with the same top rate. I don't believe that most (thinking) people consider today's economic problems to be the result of overtaxation of the wealthy for the past eight years. (Whether the current tax code is efficient is a different question).

washingtonpost.com: Obama's Third Way (washingtonpost.com, Nov. 5, 2008)

Eugene Robinson: Agreed. One of the things that I believe really frustrated voters was the sheer incompetence of the Bush administration -- incompetence at basic tasks like disaster relief (Hurricane Katrina). A lot of people in this administration just didn't believe in government, and thus didn't do it very well.

_______________________

Hollywood: Eugene: Do you think Oprah will have any role in the Obama White House? Couldn't she pay down like half the debt herself, and get guys like Bono to pitch in for the rest?

Eugene Robinson: I see the nation going wild as Oprah shouts: "Everybody gets a car! Everybody gets a car!" As an added benefit, that would save GM and the rest of the auto industry.

_______________________

Philadelphia: I saw that Palin's blaming Bush for the Republican defeat, and gearing up to be a big "star" in her party, and expressing doubt that she hurt the Republican ticket. I know of one person who definitely switched from being a McCain supporter (Annapolis grad, etc.) to a firm Obama supporter because of Palin, and strongly suspect at least five others switched for that very reason, too. Okay, six isn't many overall -- even when you consider that two live in Pennsylvania and the other four in Florida -- but these are all people who truly are slightly right of center. They're Republicans in the New England sense -- fiscally conservative and socially liberal -- and they're staying registered Republicans in an attempt to be nuisances during primaries. And when others call them Republicans in Name Only they point out that anyone who wants a small government by default should want that government out of people's bedrooms.

Eugene Robinson: Republicans like your friends are being made to feel not particularly welcome in the party. David Brooks of the New York Times has a good column on the subject this morning.

_______________________

Nashville, Tenn.: Hi Gene,

Would you put a good word in for me?

Thanks,
Al Gore

P.S: I sure miss the spotlight..

Eugene Robinson: Dear Al,

Richard Cohen wrote a whole column in The Post this morning lobbying for you to be named secretary of State. What more can we do?

Gene

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: I suspect you're getting a lot of submissions about William Raspberry's column today about the "grievance model" of race issues. So without any fanfare, let me just ask: Because one of the most important problems in the African American community is fatherlessness, how can that possibly be solved (or at least reduced) through affirmative action, changing white attitudes, or any of the other standard grievance/victimhood remedies?

washingtonpost.com: A Path Beyond Grievance (The Washington Post, Nov. 11, 2008)

Eugene Robinson: Actually, I haven't gotten a lot of questions about Bill Raspberry's excellent column. But who ever suggested affirmative action as a remedy for fatherlessness? And what are those "other standard grievance/victimhood remedies" you're talking about?

_______________________

Alex., VA: It's not about the right or left, it's about the middle. I think the Republican Party has lost ground because going "back to their roots" meant cozying up to religious conservatives and taking a hard right turn.

Most of the country -- regardless of how they register -- is in the middle, leaning right on some issues and to the left on others. The farther to the right the Republicans lean, the more ground they lose in the middle.

Eugene Robinson: The thing is, most people in the country are in the middle by definition. That middle point shifts, though, along the political spectrum. Under Reagan, it moved to the right. For the past few years, clearly it has been moving back to the left. But if you want to get votes, you always have to find that middle and go after it, because that's where the biggest number of people are.

_______________________

Boston: Hi Gene. So much for the calm after the election! It seems like the rollercoaster ride of the campaign simply is going to shift gears into things like the transition, the inauguration, etc. I think that some of the interest that this presidential race has generated will result in a healthy group of permanent political junkies. Good news for you folks, eh?

Eugene Robinson: Great news for those of us in the news-and-opinion business. I'd like to take a vacation someday, though. Please.

_______________________

Franconia, Va.: It seems like there's something about our system of government that automatically creates two parties. So if the Republican Party actually goes into caveman, super right-wing mode and collapses, does that mean that natural political forces will break up the Democrats into the two new rival parties? I think that would be a shame. As a Democrat, I like our new, pragmatic "big tent" approach, even though I'm personally way left of center.

Perhaps one thing that could split the party that way (if the Republicans were to fade into obscurity) is gay marriage, judging from the response to the Proposition 8 fiasco in California.

Eugene Robinson: The Republican Party is still too big to fail, in the AIG sense. If the far-right succeeds is losing even more congressional seats two years from now -- as is entirely possible -- a moderate, pragmatic, truly center-right faction would become ascendant.

_______________________

Knoxville, Tenn.: Your column "Morning in the America" was so moving, and best captured the emotions of Tuesday night. Thank you Eugene. Well done, sir.

washingtonpost.com: Morning in America (The Washington Post, Nov. 6, 2008)

Eugene Robinson: Thanks.

_______________________

Washington: I don't know about you, but I really am enjoying the Palin psychodrama. She's like some kind of science experiment whereby the entire script of "All About Eve" has been encoded into her DNA, and we get to watch it unravel before our eyes. Somehow she gets to play the Margo Channing to her own Eve Harrington. I can't explain it, but I love it. Can we hope for the spectacle of a Gingrich vs. Palin battle for the 2012 nomination?

Eugene Robinson: I'm still trying to figure out how she plays both Margo and Eve. But -- and I think this is the important thing -- we're all paying attention, aren't we? I was just watching her being interviewed by Matt Lauer. She was in her kitchen, whipping up a meal, and happened to be wearing a wireless microphone and an elegant outfit (but not -- I repeat not -- from Neiman Marcus)...

_______________________

The Post's "bias" toward Obama: I had to laugh when I read the ombudsman's column claiming The Post's coverage of the election was slanted toward Obama. Let's see, more columnists spoke highly of Obama than of McCain? Isn't that like pointing out that more sports columnists are saying good things about the Tennessee Titans than about the Detroit Lions? Of course they are -- one team's winning beyond expectations and headed for the playoffs and the other team has been a major flop with dysfunctional issues. Bias! Bias!

Then there's this: "But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager."

Ms. Howell had claimed earlier in the article that there wasn't enough coverage of issues during the campaign and then she claims these are the things The Post should have covered more? Really?

What's your reaction to her claims?

washingtonpost.com: An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage (Washington Post, Nov. 9, 2008)

Eugene Robinson: Deborah Howell is one of my favorite people and happens to occupy the office next door. That said, when we chat about that column, I'm going to bring up your Titans-Lions analogy. Which makes a lot of sense to me.

That's all for this week, folks. Thanks for tuning in, and see you again 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.