Post politics hour: Fox News, public option, Afghanistan, more

Washington Post White House reporter Michael D. Shear discussed the latest news about the Obama administration, Congress and more.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Michael D. Shear: Good morning, everyone.

Lot's to talk about, so let's get right to it.

Mike

_______________________

Tuckerton, NJ: I watch FOX News, specifically for the entertainment value it provides and not for its news coverage. In fact, I don't see any news value whatsoever the FOX News network provides. With that said, why the major defense of that network by accomplished, veteran journalists such as Jake Tapper, Kurtz, Marcus, Helen Thomas, etc.? I don't remember the establishment media coming to the defense of Jeff Gannon a few years ago.

Have these journalists actually watched FOX News during the daytime or are some of these journalists just keeping their future employment options open?

Michael D. Shear: Ok, a lot of chatter about this "war" between Fox News and the White House, and especially other media coming to Fox's defense.

I can't speak, obviously, for Tapper or others. But I can say that those of us who have been reporters long enough have frequently been the subject of a politician's criticisms, often unfairly. And so there's a tendency to want to defend a fellow colleague or organization.

I thought Ruth Marcus made a cogent argument about how the White House attacks on Fox may turn out to backfire on them, and in the end will benefit Fox by increasing ratings, etc.

_______________________

public option lowers the deficit : Just FYI, from one of your sister news organizations:

CBO finds Dem bill with public option reduces deficit

So the negative to this is that insurance companies won't be happy? Wow, how sad...(note sarcasm)

Michael D. Shear: Here's a health care question.

The fight over the public option is one of the central pieces to be resolved over the next few weeks. But as the questioner notes, its inclusion is also tied up in the issue of deficits and affordability. The Democrats in the House and Senate have been working hard in recent days to tweak and tinker with their bills to get the cost of them down in an effort to prove that they won't increase the deficit.

Sarcasm noted.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Will Obama's dithering or deliberateness, depending on how you look at it, over Afghanistan policy, decrease public support for any policy coming out of the White House? Is the administration at all worried that the delay looks like indecisiveness, which is never a good for a major policy decision?

Michael D. Shear: Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked by reporters this morning whether the administration is concerned by the Post poll which showed that approval of Obama's handling of the Afghanistan conflict is waning.

He said, flatly, "no."

The president remains broadly popular, and White House officials have long said that he is willing to "spend" his political capital on tough issues. But there is no White House that can remain unconcerned forever about approval that is heading in the wrong direction.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Which side of the Government (House or Senate) will have the most power when the bill goes to conference? A respected Post source says the Senate bill will be the final bill. How can that be?

Michael D. Shear: I think the conventional wisdom is that the adjustments to the bill in conference will have to take into consideration the Senate more than the house because they have less of a margin, assuming that Republicans force them to get 60 votes to bring it to a final vote. That would give the Senate more power.

But having said that, the House is not necessarily a slam dunk for Democrats, in part because of the intensity of some of the liberals who have said they are going to demand a larger bill with a robust public option.

_______________________

Signing statements: How frequently and to what ends has Obama used signing statements when signing bills into law?

Michael D. Shear: I haven't look at this in a while, but the last time I checked, he had used them very sparingly and generally for purposes that were seen by constitutional lawyers, etc. as more in line with their anticipated use.

It's a good issue to follow, though, since President Bush's use of them was so highly controversial

_______________________

New York, NY: Michael, you wrote: "in an effort to prove that they won't increase the deficit." But as a journalist, shouldn't you be more truthful? These "efforts" have been wildly successful. Via the CBO they've literally (and effortlessly) proven that a strong public option saves billions of dollars, haven't they?

Michael D. Shear: Well, I'm not sure how "effortless" any of this has been. Yes, the CBO has certified that some of the bills would reduce the deficit, but those conclusions are challenged by many on the right. In the meantime, there's still plenty of work to be done as they merge all the various efforts in the House and Senate, and plenty of opportunity for things to be added that might add to the deficit.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Fox or faux?

My thought is that if you ignore the "talking heads" of opinion - All the network and cable news sources are very close to being the same. The problem is that people get used to a network slightly to the left and contact with one slightly to the right gives them a significant difference to see. But few will see the network without the opinion people and they evaluate their opinions as that of the network.

But so what? We are all consumers of news and we will have to decide what to believe and what to discard - even from the Post.

Michael D. Shear: Well, I have to assume there's nothing to discard from the Post until after you've consumed it all, right?

Seriously, I think that part of the problem with this whole story is the wholesale "mixing" of news and opinion on all of the networks. The news reporters are appearing on the opinion shows, which are interspersed between headlines and news anchors. I think it makes it very difficult for the average viewer to make a distinction between news and opinion.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Are there any 2012 candidates causing a stir among Washington Republicans? Romney? Huckabee? Pawlenty? Pence? Palin?

Michael D. Shear: No. Sarah Palin never causes a stir.

All of them? None of them? Some of them? Clearly there are people who want 2012 to start too soon. For me, I'm just recovering from 2008!

_______________________

Iowa: I've noticed some people comparing Fox News to MSNBC. When I watch MBNBC at night (Keith or Rachel) I know without a doubt that I am getting a liberal perspective on the issues. From the polls I've seen, some (many?) Fox viewers actually don't get that what they are watching is not fair or balanced.

Michael D. Shear: In my experience, I'm not sure it's that different for some of MSNBC's most ardent viewers.

_______________________

Wrong Direction: "But there is no White House that can remain unconcerned forever about approval that is heading in the wrong direction." Seems like the later polling is showing his approval going UP, not DOWN. Not that polling, facts, or reason are inputs to the conventional wisdom of the Beltway insiders, who have their own reality.

Michael D. Shear: I was referring to the approval ratings for his handling of the Afghanistan issues, which are going down.

_______________________

Baltimore: Two things: What has caused the shift on the public option, not only in opinion polls, but also on the Hill as the Post notes today?

Secondly, for what it's worth, the administration's strategy on FOX may be more subtle than people realize. Odds are, the hardball stance is is going to make FOX an even more virulent critic of the White House (if that's possible), thereby justifying the administration's own criticism of the network,

I think the same rope-a-dope strategy is being used with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, by the way. They attacked the administration, got cut off from any dialog, and now moan about it.

Michael D. Shear: I'm not sure I know what's behind the shift on the public option.

On the Fox "strategy," I also wonder whether there's not a hope on the part of the White House that other media outlets will think twice before following stories that originate or are hyped on Fox. I think of the Acorn story, which Fox ran hard with and most news organizations were slow to follow. By attacking the network as an arm of the RNC, perhaps they think that other networks and newspapers will be more wary still.

_______________________

I think you're wrong, Michael: What?! You wrote, "if Republicans force them to get 60 votes." That's crazy talk. The Republicans can't "force" anything here, can they Michael? The dems have a filibuster-proof 60 votes, don't they? It would need to be the conservative Democrats who turn away from their party to side with the Republicans and filibuster the health care bill before it comes to a vote, or am I missing something?

Michael D. Shear: True enough. Conservative Dems are part of the equation too.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: If Congress were to pass a bill with a public insurance option and the president were to sign it, when would we be able to take advantage of a public insurance option?

Michael D. Shear: I'm not our health care expert, but I believe the major portions of the bill don't kick in until 2013 and beyond.

_______________________

Florissant Valley, Mo.: Most thoughtful observers may well agree with the White House's definition of Fox as not primarily in the business of news, but they also seem to agree that WH complaints on the subject are self-defeating. Isn't there someone knowledgeable and wise in Barack's inner circle who could have warned them off this dubious strategy? thanks

Michael D. Shear: From what I can tell, the wise people here seem to believe that its a smart strategy, not a self-defeating one.

_______________________

Boston: Assuming Obama can get some health care reform passed by year end, what does the administration think they can get accomplished legislatively in 2010 (in an election year)? I have this picture in my head of a white board calendar in the West Wing with other agenda items scheduled for this Fall and Winter being erased and pushed back (and some having to wait til after the midterm elections). It must be frustrating for a guy like Rahm...

Michael D. Shear: The two major things headed for action in 2010 are climate change legislation and financial regulatory reform. White House officials are hopeful that both can be accomplished in the first half of the year, because they recognize the difficulty in getting things done during the silly season of an election year.

There's one other issue that has been tossed around repeatedly by White House officials as something they want to get done next year: immigration reform. There is, however, much skepticism on Capitol Hill and elsewhere that such a touchy, sensitive thing can happen in 2010.

And from what I can tell, everything frustrates Rahm, who's never satisfied that they are moving fast or aggressively enough. That's his personality.

_______________________

Princeton, NJ: Come on, coverage or affordability are not the principal concerns in health care reform. The prime rule is "Thou shalt take no action which will impact the obscene compensation of insurance executives and the high returns to their rich stockholders."

If this were not the case, we would be looking at the government run systems of other countries which get better care for all their people at half the cost per person. We would be voting on HR676( which is 70 pages), not these horrible complicated proposals which are over 1,000 pages.

As my daughter likes to say, "We are arguing about where to put a million band aids on the TB patient that is our health care system, while the rest of the world is using antibiotics."

Michael D. Shear: Oh, the cynicism

_______________________

Tinseltown: Breaking news: Kanye West is not dead. I am behind the times. I missed the original story that he was dead.

Michael D. Shear: There's always one question that I simply don't understand.

_______________________

New York City: By all accounts I've read, when it comes down to the cold, hard facts, Republicans are positioned this coming election cycle about as well as they were in 2006 and 2008, which is to say they're not well positioned at all. But I keep reading positive stories about the GOP's chances in the Post and other media outlets. Even after George Bush destroyed everything he touched, including the Republican party. And even after the country elected Obama in a veritable rout, you guys still have this odd deference to the remaining tatters of the GOP and their policy "ideas" which brought us to the brink. My question to you, is why is that so?

Michael D. Shear: The answer, New York, is because it is not our role to decide that a party is in tatters or that their policy ideas have brought us to the brink.

It's amazing to me that there's all this complaining on the left about Fox News being anything but fair and balanced, and yet many on the left seem to want news organizations to stray from an objective, fair approach when it comes to reporting on Republicans.

I may be old fashioned, but I believe it's our job as journalists to present, as fairly as we can, what's happening here in Washington, and leave it to the opinion pages and pundits to offer their opinions on whether George Bush "destroyed everything he touched."

Having said that, we shouldn't blind ourselves to the challenges that either party has, and should report those too. I think many news organizations have done just that, in the 2006 and 2008 cycles, and will continue to do that in 2010.

_______________________

Washington, DC: I am a loyal Fox News viewer, and as a holder of both a Ph.D. and a law degree from an Ivy League university, I get outraged when the left seems to think that, since I watch FNC, I'm so stupid that I don't know that I'm getting "biased" news. Quite to the contrary, what the left seems to fall to understand is that ALL journalists have their own biases and deeply held preconceptions, and that the better journalists are aware of that and work to overcome them. Since Obama and I attended the same law school, he should have learned that there just as I did (preceding him by a few years). I'm quite disappointed that he's engaging in what seems to me to be a silly diversion from real issues by attacking Fox. And frankly, if I were at FNC, I would urge the use of this advertising slogan: "Fox, the news that the President fears." It'll work well with the base.

Michael D. Shear: Here's the first comment I've gotten defending Fox this morning.

Worth reading, I thought.

_______________________

Big Filibuster News?: Michael have you (or anybody else) at the Post explicitly asked any conservative Democrats whether they would filibuster against their own party on the health care legislation? If so, what is their answer? If they won't answer one way or the other, isn't that sort of big news? I mean, a non-answer implies they might actually consider filibustering their own - party -... that would be unprecedented, wouldn't it?

Michael D. Shear: A good question for our Hill reporters. I'll see what I can find out.

_______________________

Nosy Parker: Do you think Oprah's gonna ask Sarah Palin any hardball questions, like what newspapers do you read, or what Supreme Court decisions besides Roe v. Wade do you disagree with?

Michael D. Shear: You know, I was surprised when I heard that one. But at the very least, it will be a well-watched show!

_______________________

Michael D. Shear: Ok everyone. That's all we have time for.

Thanks for the great questions

Mike

_______________________

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.