|
Political Insider Live
With Charles Babington
Staff Writer and Chief Political Correspondent for washingtonpost.com
Friday, Aug. 3, 2001; 1 p.m. EDT
Clinton is back in the news, the IRS continues to send out rebate checks and the House passes Bush's Energy Bill. Is Clinton's move into Harlem the start of a new role for the Ex-Commander and Chief? Will the tax rebate boost the economy? Will it boost Bush's poll numbers?
Charles Babington, chief political
correspondent for washingtonpost.com, will be online every Friday 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 and happy August. Plenty to discuss today, including: Isn't it remarkable how two previously rather obscure politicians -- Sen. Jim Jeffords and Rep. Charlie Norwood -- can single-handedly prompt stunning changes in national politics, dominating headlines (and events) for days? It's one of the reasons I find politics interesting year after year.
Hamilton, Va.:
I know people will talk about "party discipline" but I can't believe the Republicans. Those so called moderates are a bunch of sheep. One guy sells out his long held "principles" and the rest fall in line. Not a single one voted against that sham patients right bill.
I have no respect for Connie Morella at all. Every campaign she portrays herself as a reasonable centrist candidate, but this year she has voted with the right wingers straight down the line.
Charles Babington: Hold on. On the really crucial vote -- the amendment to embrace the compromise that Rep. Norwood cut with President Bush -- Rep. Morella voted nay (as did 5 other Repubilcans: Greg Ganske, Tim Johnson, Jim Leach, Marge Roukema and Chris Smith.) The amendment passed, 218-213, because one independent (Virgil Goode) and 3 Dems voted for it: Ken Lucas, Collin Peterson and Jim Traficant.
Once the amendment was adopted and the full bill was up for a vote, yes, all Republicans voted for it.
Sparta, N.J.:
Does the Bush/Norwood Patients' Bill of Rights compromise have a good chance of passing in the Senate? It seems like the Democrats might be a bit upset that the bipartisan compromise was done without consulting them. On a side note, what do you think the White House staffers did to Norwood to convince him to switch: Chinese water torture, electric shocks?
Charles Babington: President Bush and his top aides worked and worked and worked to persuade Norwood that he'd have to make some concessions to get his bill. Two of my Post colleagues wrote a very good story on the wooing process in today's paper. We'll provide the site so you can check it out.
washingtonpost.com:
On Patients' Rights Deal, Bush Scored With a Full-Court Press (Washington Post, Aug. 3, 2001)
Silver Spring, Md.:
We have gotten a mixed bag about Bush's poll numbers this week. Will he become more of a centrist because of them?
Charles Babington: My colleague David Broder noted in his online chat earlier this week that President Bush obviously isn't driven by polls. If he were, for example, he wouldn't be promoting oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.
Somerville, N.J.:
I'm not knocking their position, but I'm wondering what gets Democrats so passionate about ANWR. Are they really concerned that the drilling poses a threat to the animals that live there, or is it the idea that there should be somewhere in the US that is unspoiled by mankind?
Charles Babington: Speaking of ANWR.... I'm sure some legislators have a fairly detailed understanding of ANWR and oil exploration implications. And for those who don't, well, just consider the juxtaposition of these two phrases: National Wildlife Refuge and Drilling for Oil. They don't sound so great together, do they? It's the type of issue that lends itself to caricature... like clubbing baby seals, harpooning whales, etc.
Frederick, Md.:
Mr. Babington,
I am a summer intern at the Frederick News-Post and a junior journalism major at the University of Maryland. I would like to give more credit to my fellow colleagues but I am fed up with what seems to be apparent laziness on the media in general on reporting certain policies as having negative effects (based on what the talking heads say) instead of reporting it as fact after they investigate it themselves. For example, has anyone done a story on the actual negative impacts of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge instead of taking the Sierra Club's word for it? I have worked extensively with members of the Maryland Sierra Club and they are just as good as "spinning" as politicians. I think the media are being lazy by taking political interest groups' word on things instead of finding out for themselves. We owe a little more work to the public. Do you agree?
Charles Babington: There have been some good, in-depth reports on ANWR and oil drilling. And not surprisingly, they don't always reach the same conclusions. Some say exploration would harm caribou herds, etc., while others say it probably wouldn't. It sounds like a good topic for you to report in greater detail. Just get the News-Post or U.Md. to send you to Alaska.
Springfield, Va.:
I have yet to understand the venom people feel toward the Clintons. I have never seen anything like it. I am not a big fan of either of them but when I read where Paul Gigot is blaming "Hillary" for the defeat of Ms. Gall and when I see the comments of the wife of the solicitor general about the dead mother of the former president, they do something that one would think impossible -- make the Clintons look sympathetic. Have you ever seen such a distaste for political figures before that make otherwise rational people appear to be petty and vindictive?
Charles Babington: Bill Clinton is probably the most polarizing U.S. politician since Richard Nixon... and Hillary isn't too far behind. I can't fully explain the intensity of hatred and devotion he inspires in many Americans. All I know is that whenever I write about Bill Clinton, I get bombarded with e-mails from readers who flay me for being too easy on Clinton, and readers who flay me for being too rough on him. Clearly, Clinton's personal behavior became an easy target for conservatives who opposed his political ideologies. And clearly Clinton's success at restoring a Democratic administration after 12 years of Reagan/Bush made him a hero to many Democratic loyalists.
But there's more to it than that. Clinton is almost a Rorshach test for Americans. Some dwell on his draft evasion, dope-smoking (though not inhaling!), etc. Others dwell on his command of complex issues, his sex appeal, etc.
I think psycho-biographers will have fun with him for years.
Annandale, Va.:
What is your take on the continued, overwhelming popularity that President Clinton enjoys in the African-American community, particularly in light of some of his actions that would have (and have) caused other politicians to be rejected by African Americans? (for example, allowing the execution of a retarded African American in Arkansas during the 1992 campaign, signing the welfare reform bill)
Charles Babington: More on Clinton?!
In 8 years as president, Clinton did several things that endeared him to many African-Americans, including: Appointing large numbers of minorities to judgeships and other key positions; devoting more attention to high-poverty (and high-minority) regions of the country; talking passionately about the need for better race relations in America.
Brooklyn, N.Y.:
I was in utter disbelief when congressman Norwood destroyed his own signature issue. The Patients Bill of Rights will now die in committee, which is exactly what Bush and the republican leadership want. Norwood surrendered to a man that has never signed a patients bill, despite being presented with two separate ones as governor of Texas. Norwood did not even have the courtesy to notify his longtime partners in the fight, and as it turned out, every single cosponsor of the House and Senate bill denounced the changes. It seems evident that Norwood was duped into a deal with Bush that he did not even know the substance of. I watched some of the debate and it was particularly disgusting when Norwood broke into tears while thanking the very men he had just stabbed in the back.
I firmly believe a Patients Bill of Rights will never reach the president's desk until Democrats control both houses.
Charles Babington: Well, you might be right about the bill's eventual fate. But it's also possible that Senate Democrats, House Republicans and the Bush administration will all decide that the issue is too important for them to fail to reach some kind of compromise that all three parties can accept. To be sure, neither Republicans nor Democrats want to enter the 2002 elections being blamed for doing nothing to help patients who feel mistreated by HMOs.
Laurel, Md.:
In the House-passed version of the "Patient's Bill of Rights," can people sue their EMPLOYERS for the mistakes made by the HMO they offer? washingtonpost.com:
Complete Patients' Bill of Rights coverage
Charles Babington: Employers could be sued only in federal court (generally less friendly to plaintiffs than state courts), and only if the employer had directly made a decision about the patient's care. See the above site if you want more details. thanks.
Alexandria, Va.:
I read this is a John Fund (Wall Street Journal) op-ed the other day.
"Congress is allowing its desire to protect one of its own to override its responsibility to police its own ranks. Obviously, some members of Congress have strayed from their wedding vows. Mr. Condit, though, has engaged in reckless behavior and compromised the public trust. It's imperative that the House remove him from the Intelligence Committee and initiate an Ethics Committee probe that doesn't interfere with the police search for Chandra Levy."
Do you recall any such calls for removal when it was Republican congressmen (Newt, Livingston, etc.) that strayed? The hypocrisy of this town is often sickening!
Charles Babington: I'll let you and Mr. Fund fight this one out.
Orange, Va.:
Shouldn't the Republican President be expected to get legislation approved in the Republican-controlled House? Seems like a dog bites man story to me, but by all the excessive praise over Bush's role in the patients' rights bill passage, one would think he had split the atom. Or is he just already beginning to benefit from the diminished expectations that also served Reagan so well?
Charles Babington: You make a good point about a GOP House and GOP president. Still, in recent days a number of House Republicans had defied Bush on high-profile issues, such as arsenic levels in drinking water, and Clinton's rush of new regulations before leaving office. It was in that context that the patients' rights deal seemed especially surprising and noteworthy.
New York, N.Y.:
I know it's far down the road, but how do you think the 2004 Democrats will handle the issue of the tax cut? Most voted against it, so are they going to have to make an opinion on whether to increase taxes, or grudgingly admit that the tax cut is fine the way it is? Mondale got creamed for supporting a tax increase in 1984. I can't imagine any Democrat openly doing so again.
Charles Babington: By 2004, we'll know a lot more about the election-year state of the economy and the impact of the tax cut. It's possible that by then, the tax cut will appear ill-advised, and those who voted against it might have a good campaign issue. It's also possible that the tax cut will be popular, and those who opposed it could have some tough explaining to do. It's much too early to tell.
San Diego, Calif.:
Hi Charles, thanks for being online. From the results of last November, America seems to be divided into:
-liberal tending states, e.g., Massachusetts, Hawaii (large Democratic majority)
-moderate states, e.g., Iowa, Oregon (close contest)
-conservative tending states, e.g., South Dakota, Georgia (large Republican majority)
According to my research the liberal states have most statewide and national offices filled with Democrats or liberal Republicans, moderate states don't seem to tend toward any one party by and large. But many apparently conservative states elect both conservative Republicans as well as fairly liberal Democrats to important offices.
E.g., there are 20 Democratic senators from Bush states many of which he carried by huge margins but now only nine Republican senators from Gore states of which only two (Illinois and Rhode Island) were by large margins. A case in point is South Dakota, which gave both Bush in 2000 and Tom Daschle in 1998 huge victories despite their obvious differences.
To what do you attribute this discrepancy?
Charles Babington: Very interesting (I'll take your word on the math). Here's one thought: Most American voters discriminate between the offices of president, senator, House member, county council, mayor, etc. In most cases they really do vote for the person and not the party. And one candidate whom they see as quite fit to be president or senator, they might see as ill-suited to be mayor or whatever.
So in South Dakota, for example, plenty of voters feel quite comfortable with George W. Bush as president and Tom Daschle as senator. They have a reasonably good feel for both men (especially Daschle, of course), and they feel the men's personal qualities (for the jobs they're seeking) are more important than blind loyalty to the Democratic or Republican parties.
Arlington, Va.:
Re: Why some people hate Clinton. Some people just hate liars, cheaters and scoundrels.
Re: drilling in ANWR. I couldn't agree with the journalism student more about the laziness of many in the media about ANWR. Even you said drilling in a wildlife refuge is an easy topic for the environmentalists to mock and caricature. But should journalists be aiding and abetting caricature or ferreting out the truth?
Charles Babington: What about the reports that suggest drilling in the ANWR would play havoc on caribou calving grounds? Are they not also "the truth''? One might conclude it's an acceptable price to pay. But that's different from pretending that there's only one well-reported side to the issue.
Houston, Tex.:
An acoustical expert released findings to a peer-reviewed forensic journal several months ago which proved that there were four shots fired at JFK and that at least one came from the "grassy knoll". A congressman's sexual escapades take precedence over such an important story? Especially if it proves that our government was a willing participant in the slaughter of one of our presidents and the following cover-up?
Do a search on washingtonpost.com and you won't even find mention of the study or it's findings. Coincidence or collusion?
Charles Babington: "Our government'' is "a willing participant in the slaughter of one of our presidents''? Wait a minute -- isn't the president a pretty important and influential part of "our government''? He slaughtered himself? In a democracy, we're ALL part of the government. Yes, YOU are the government!
Oh man, don't get me started....
Fairfax, Va.:
How much input do Post political reporters get into how their stories are headlined? I can't imagine that the writers of the story about Bush's rather high poll ratings would have wanted the headline to end with that rather deflating "...For Now". It came across as so churlish and snide.
Charles Babington: Newspaper reporters rarely see the headlines on their stories. That's because copy editors assemble the pages -- and write the headlines -- fairly late at night, after the reporters generally have gone home.
In their defense, headlines are tough to write -- kind of like Haiku.
My friends are always surprised when I tell them I've been a newspaper reporter for 20 years and I've never written a single headline.
Iowa City, Iowa:
You wrote "they feel the men's personal qualities (for the jobs they're
seeking) are more important than blind loyalty to the Democratic or
Republican parties." Eh? The person wasn't talking about political
parties. He was talking about political policies. People are voting for
two candidates who have exact opposite positions on just about every major
issue. That's what's surprising.
Charles Babington: Well, I guess I didn't express myself very well. But you see this kind of "curious'' voting all the time. How else to explain that the same Iowa voters consistently elect Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley to the Senate? Edwards and Helms in NC? Moynihan and D'Amato for many years in New York?
These patterns are weird only if you assume that voters make political ideology the paramount issue by far. But they put personalities high on the list, too.
New York, N.Y.:
How can the media allow the White House to call the House passage a "bipartisan" victory while the compromise was made with a Republican in secret and passed basically in a party-line vote?
Charles Babington: Do you think we should excise the word "bipartisan'' whenever Bush or Cheney say it? Is that what the media should "allow''?
Sticksville, Va.:
Dear Mr. Babington:
Your take, please, on HRC's tiptoeing around a possible run for the Presidency in 2004? The latest story I read -- from the MSNBC gossip column -- had her and Bill gifted with baseball caps embroidered "44" and "42," respectively, at a party in the Hamptons earlier this week. Apparently, she took it with the customary demure denials and then couldn't be parted from it. I'd rather her come right out and state honestly and firmly her position on running than her pulling some coy, flirtatious, "oh, my, you want -ME-" self-deprecating attitude every time there's an opportunity. Coy, flirtatious, and shy: definitely not HRC.
Thanks!
Charles Babington: I'd be very, very surprised if Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2004. Very.
But as my children often remind me, I'm often wrong.
Charles Babington: And on that humble note, I bid you adieu until next Friday. Thanks for tuning in.
© Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company
| 
