|
Political Insider Live
With Charles Babington
Staff Writer and Chief Political Correspondent for washingtonpost.com
Friday, May 11, 2001; 1 p.m. EDT
While some are complaining over President Bush's judicial nominations, a looming energy crisis might derail the new administration's carefully laid out agenda.
Charles Babington, chief political
correspondent for washingtonpost.com and Washington Post staff writer, will be online every Fridays at 1 p.m. EDT to discuss political news from past week.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live
Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts;
guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Charles Babington: Greetings. All kinds of news today: A delay in Tim McVeigh's execution date because FBI files weren't promptly sent to his lawyers; a delay in Ted Olson's confirmation as Solicitor General because of questions about his role in a magazine's investigation of the Clintons; Congressional approval of a budget plan that clears the way for detailed decisions about a big tax cut. Thoughts? Questions? Arguments? Let's get started.
Boston, Mass.:
What effect will the McVeigh debacle have on the debate surrounding the death penalty -- a cornerstone of the conservative agenda?
Also, I have always been curious how conservatives reconcile a minimalist role for the government in most affairs (especially taxes) and then hand the criminal justice system the means to take people's lives.
Your thoughts?
Charles Babington: First, I don't think the death penalty is the "cornerstone of the conservative agenda.'' Surely tax cuts, military spending, reduced government regulation, etc., would come first... And it's not just conservatives who support the death penalty. It's also Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, many other moderate Democrats. (The current issue of New Yorker magazine has an interesting riff on all this, btw, in Talk of the Town section). I won't defend or condemn the death penalty here. Perhaps some of our other readers will weigh in. Thanks.
Herndon, Va.:
Whats the deal with the infantile behavior of Congress to cut repayment of debt to the UN? Is there some other possible motive other than the "retailation for losing a UN seat"? Also, isn't this the first time that Congress has deliberately ignored Bush whitehouse wishes?
Charles Babington: 1. Isn't the United States' loss of a seat on the UN Human Rights Commission a plausible enough explanation of Congress's actions... whether you agree with the vote or not?
2. Congress has rejected Bush's school voucher proposal, plus several hundred billion dollars of his $1.6 trillion tax cut plan. I'm sure I'm missing one or two other things.
Fairfax, Va.:
Is it safe to say that the Ted Olson nomination is toast?
Charles Babington: No, it's not. Today's article in the Post (and other papers too, I'm sure) quotes Sen. Orrin Hatch, chm. of the Judiciary Committee, predicting that the nomination will be confirmed next week.
Silver Spring, Md.:
Does it mean something that Attorney General Ashcroft stayed the execution for 30 days instead of the judge who presided over the case?
Charles Babington: It simply means the Justice Dept. realizes there's a problem in the fact that McVeigh's lawyers didn't see all relevant files before the trial. Prosecutors have an obligation to provide such information, and they don't have to wait for a court order to announce that they erred and things should slow down until matters can be cleared up.
Crystal City, Mo.:
How do you think Sen. [Jean] Carnahan (D-Mo.) is doing? I think she's doing a good job but I rarely hear about her. I think its odd the media doesn't give her a little more coverage considering the unusual circumstances of her being a senator!
Charles Babington: I'll confess that I haven't heard a great deal about Sen. Carnahan since her swearing-in. But keep in mind, she's one of 100 senators, one of 535 congressional members, and there's also a White House in town... so it's rare for any first-term lawmaker to grab a lot of attention in D.C. I trust the Missouri news media are giving you adequate coverage. If you think she's doing a good job, that's more important to her than what non-Missouri residents think.
Laurel, Md.:
I'm reading lately that this budget agreement doesn't need the President's signature and is merely a guideline for future appropriations bills. So why do we care about it? I imagine actual spending typically far exceeds that in the budget agreement.
Last fall John McCain complained about all the new spending going on. Was that an example of nonbudgetary spending?
Charles Babington: The budget outline is important because, even though it's non-binding, it signals Congress's overall tax and spending goals. Suppose you and your spouse are trying to craft an annual budget for your family. You first must determine about how much money you'll earn; about how much you plan to spend, how much to save, etc. THEN you can get down to more detailed decisions: How much for restaurants, for clothes, etc... Now Congress is about to get down to details on exactly how to shape the tax cut, the education bill, etc.
Arlington, Va.:
Re: the firing of the Senate parliamentarian. You know that if the Democrats did this, people would be screaming bloody murder and there'd be hearings. Are the Republicans hypocrites or are the Democrats just rolling over? washingtonpost.com:
Stories:
Key Senate Official Loses Job in Dispute With GOP (Post, May 8, 2001)
Successor to Ousted Senate Parliamentarian Named (Post, May 9, 2001)
Charles Babington: The reason you don't hear much screaming? Because Democrats weren't happy with Mr. Dove, either. In fact, some of them had accused him of making key rulings that unfairly helped the GOP. When Republican leader Lott grew unhappy with Mr. Dove, the Dems didn't stand in his way.
New York, N.Y.:
Do pool reporters confirm Dan Balz and John Harris' report, which they admit is based on the word of administration hacks, that the publicly tentative Bush is privately a master of the universe?
Charles Babington: Well, pool reporters can't help us here. A pool reporter is someone from the White House press corps who attends public, but generally small, events involving the president. For example, when the president greets a foreign leader in the Oval Office, a handful of pool journalists (representing photographers, TV, radio, magazines, newspapers, etc.) go inside briefly to record the scene and try to ask a question or two (almost never getting an interesting answer). Then they are shooed out before the real talks begin. They share their photos, or file a "pool report,'' for their colleagues who weren't allowed in. Only administration officials (you call them hacks) have access to the president's private meetings.
Washington, D.C.:
What about Olson? If a Democratic president tried to nominate someone who'd been involved with a project taking aim at his/her Republican predecessor, there'd be plenty of flak. Give me a break.
Charles Babington: Thanks for writing.
Arlington, Va.:
As with the Ascroft and Norton nominations, all the titter about Olson being in trouble will end up being nothing but a contrived fund-raising opportunity by the Dems.
Charles Babington: Thanks to you, too, for writing.
Washington, D.C.:
Good afternoon. I'd appreciate it if you would answer this once and for all. (BTW, if you can guess my party affiliation, that would be amazing.)
I hear that five Democrats went with the Republicans and passed the Bush budget. The way the front page of The Post has Trent Lott with a big smile makes it look like a clear Bush victory. My question is, when we have a Dem in office in four years, how much effort will there be to undo the damage the budget will inflict on us or is it set in stone for 10 or so years where we have to live with it?
Charles Babington: No, there's no way a Congress (or a state legislature, for that matter) can tie the hands of future legislatures in matters of taxation and spending. They can lay out a 10-year plan. But future legislatures can change it. (If that were not the case, we wouldn't be able to adjust to major economic changes; and we'd have little need for a Congress over the next decade).
Chicago, Ill.:
In your opinion, how much of a role, if any, did the president's aggressive selling tactics for his tax cut and budget have in getting Democratic Sens. Cleland (Ga.) and Nelson (Neb.) to vote with the Republicans? What are the odds that Jeffords (Vt.) or Chaffee (R.I.), the only two Republicans to vote against the budget, bolt the GOP for the Dems?
Charles Babington: 1. I'm guessing that Sens. Cleland and Nelson were more concerned about the opinions of their constituents than about the president's lobbying.
2. The odds of Jeffords or Chaffee bolting to the Democratic Party? About zero, I'd say.
Arlington, Va.:
I'll answer the death penalty question from Boston. None. However, it will contribute to the continuing paranoia of the far right that the FBI has a far greater bias against the extreme right than the extreme left (as represented by Earth First or the animal liberation Front et al).
Charles Babington: OK, thanks.
Bloomfield Hills, Mich.:
Mr. Babington, do you think that the Democrats' opposition to some of the recent Bush circuit court nominees and their vow to the use the "blue slip" tradition will result in any bargaining with the White House? Will they succeed in getting some changes, or additions of judges of their own liking to the list? Thanks.
Charles Babington: There definitely will be negotiations, or bargaining, between the White House and Congress over judicial nominations. That's not new. I don't know whether any nominations will be withdrawn or defeated. But the president takes Democratic sentiments into account before making nominations, so the minority party has some influence we don't always see. Note, for example, that Bush hasn't nominated Rep. Chris Cox for a judgeship, although it's know he would like to. The reason: For now, at least, there's too much opposition from Calif. senators Boxer and Feinstein. thanks
Elkride, Md.:
Could you tell us why the news media allows this president to play and LIE -- worse than Reagan? I thought there was a liberal media bias in the press corps?
Charles Babington: What lies are you referring to?
Memphis, Tenn.:
I saw where my congressman, Harold Ford Jr., was one of People magazine's 50 most beautiful people. Any chance he will take on Sen. Fred Thompson? Any chance Sen. Thompson will retire (or go back to Hollywood, or take over from Jack Valenti at MPAA).
Charles Babington: Hmmm, why do I get a Harold Ford question every week?... There are rumors in Washington that Sen. Fred Thompson isn't wild about being a senator and might retire. But that might just be wishful thinking by Democrats.
Silver Spring, Md.:
Is the coalition of Senate moderates permanently fractured over the budget outline or can they still come together to be a force in the Senate?
Charles Babington: I see no reason those senators would be "permanently fractured.'' There's an old adage in Washington: There are no permanent enemies or permanent friends.
Chicago, Ill.:
Vice President Cheney has appeared to be in the background in recent weeks, not in the role of "Prime Minister" that we were expecting. Is this simply the PR team in the White House trying to prop up Bush by de-emphasizing the VP, or has Cheney's role been previously overstated?
Charles Babington: I dunno. Maybe he's just been busy and hasn't had much time for the cameras.
Lawrence, Kan.:
USA Today just published the results of the first collaborative media effort to examine the undervotes and overvotes in Florida, with few big surprises (except for intriguing finding that overvote mistakes appear to have cost Gore at least 15,000 votes). However, I know that another recount collaboration involving The Washington Post and New York Times is also underway. When will its results be released, and how do you anticipate that they might differ from the USA Today results just announced?
Charles Babington: There is indeed such a collaboration underway. But I don't know when it will be finished, or what it will say. The findings are being kept under tight wraps, it seems.
Boston, Mass.:
Why is it that when someone asks you folks (You, Kurtz and Balz) a question about the Republicans or Bush, the answer includes some pull back to Clinton (or Hillary)?
To wit, your earlier response on the death penalty. I asked Kurtz about turning T-ball into a spectacle and he launches into the boxers or briefs episode on MTV.
Jeez!
Charles Babington: I dunno... Guess we're just not very creative.
Washington, D.C.:
Now that Krugman has called the misdirection on the Bush tax/budget policy, will the media actually review this? Or will it be more of the "Oooh, that's math, math is hard -- I'm gonna write about how warm and nice everyone is instead" routine. And what is your explanation of the pass the administration has gotten from the press, as pointed out by Harris?
Charles Babington: 1. I assume you're referring to the NYT's Paul Krugman? He's widely read, I'm sure, but so are many, many other commentators.
2. I think my colleague John Harris put it very aptly in his Washington Post Outlook piece last week: Anti-Clinton activists were well organized and energetic, and they put lots of stuff out there for journalists (and other members of the public) to chew on.... The latest details about the American Spectator's "Arkansas Project,'' stemming from the Ted Olson confirmation effort, provide a perfect example.
Rockville, Md.:
Someone ought to give Tom Edsall a pat on the back, for having the courage to report on the false and misleading testimony from Mr. Olsen. I wonder how much play will be given to the summary of the special prosecutor who concluded in '83, that Mr. Olson was misleading and unforthcoming.
Charles Babington: Tom sits right across from me. I'll pat his back as soon as this chat is over.
Reston, Va.:
The reason the United States was voted off the Human Rights Commission at the United Nations is our continued demand that we have capital punishment. Had the U.S. not had the death penalty, we would have retained our seat. Many countries of the world view our position is being hypocritical. Governments that kill are viewed as an enemy to human rights.
Charles Babington: Actually, I think several other issues motivated the UN members who voted the US off the panel.... For example, Bush's outright rejection of the Kyoto accord on global warming.
New York, N.Y.:
I'm curious how you perceive this very forum we're all participating in. Do you get anything out of it? Do you enjoy it? Or is it just a weekly hassle someone forced you into? And when do you take lunch?
Charles Babington: I enjoy it. I'm eating lunch at my desk as I type... How 'bout you?
washingtonpost.com:
John Harris's Outlook piece: Mr. Bush Catches a Washington Break (May 6, 2001)
McLean, Va.:
Mr. Babington,
What do you think of your colleague, Mr. John Harris's comments, in Sunday's Post, that the media has, so far, been too easy on Bush?
To quote "The truth is this new president has done things with relative impunity that would have caused huge uproars if they had occurred under Clinton."
Charles Babington: As I noted above, I thought John's article was smart and perceptive. I'd urge you to read all of it, though. I don't think his conclusion was simply that the media are going easy on Bush. His thesis, and his supporting evidence, are more complex than that.
Hyattsville, Md.:
Do you think The Washington Post editors, and their access journalists, will now be off the Olson's cocktail party list?
Charles Babington: None of us drinks, anyway.
Mobile, Ala.:
Do you think the new info released to Tim McVeigh's lawyer has anything to do with Louis Freeh leaving his post early? It looks fishy.
Charles Babington: You're not the only person speculating on that today.... But for now, at least, it's only speculation.
Charles Babington: The hour is up. Thanks for the good questions and comments. Hope to see you next week.
washingtonpost.com:
That was our last question today. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
© Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company
| 
