• Political Insider • Political Insider Live • Live: "Free Media" • Subscribe to the OnPolitics e-mail update • Talk: OnPolitics message boards • Live Online Transcripts

Political Insider Live
With Charles Babington
Staff Writer and Chief Political Correspondent for washingtonpost.com
Friday, Aug. 10, 2001; 1 p.m. EDT

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 on this hot and muggy Friday (in D.C., at least). Let's talk about President Bush's stem cell announcement, plus whatever else is on political minds today.

College Park, Md.: Hello Mr. Babington,

Stem cell research requires a lot of stem cells. But surely a successful stem-cell-based therapy, once developed, would require even more cells if it's to treat a large number of people.

By restricting the sources of embryonic stem cells, Bush has permitted research, but prevented the widespread implementation of any stem-cell-based therapy that the research might yield.

So, the next time you get a chance to question Bush or one of his advisers, please ask him whether he'd block the implementation of therapies that require the production of more stem cells than is feasible under his current policy.

Charles Babington: Some researchers indeed are concerned that President Bush's tight restrictions will provide too narrow a supply of stem cell lines for the medical breakthroughs they are hoping for. The president said there are 60 existing lines that can regenerate themselves. But scientists question whether 60 is an accurate number; and they note that some lines can essentially self-destruct unexpectedly.

Rosslyn, Va.: What will Congress' reaction to Bush's decision be?

Charles Babington: Mixed, of course. Sen. Daschle already has said the Democratic-controlled Senate will weigh in. Many House members will have an opinion, too.
Here's my guess: This is a tough, divisive issue. The president has taken his stand. The narrowly divided Congress will not muster a majority vote (in both houses) to overturn the president's decision one way or another; at least no time soon.

Arlington, Va.: The president is fond of remarking that he doesn't like to be in Washington because (I paraphrase) the White House is wherever he is. How does his anti-D.C. rhetoric play outside of the Washington area?

Charles Babington: Pretty darn well, I'm guessing.

Hartford, Conn.: From the reactions I saw on television from the pro-life supporters, I could swear they were almost relieved from Bush's position. Even though Bush supports limited research, they must have thought it was going to be much much worse. Did you get that feeling after hearing the pro-life side?

Charles Babington: You make a good point. I noted, for example, that Jerry Falwell was on TV last night, immediately after the president's speech, praising Bush quite strongly. Not all conservatives will agree with Falwell, of course. But I think you're right: Many had feared the president was going to go farther than he did.

Boston, Mass.: Why did the president need to make this announcement using prime time? The administration's assertion that stem cell research is the subject of conversation at dinner tables strikes me as odd.

This seems to be another episode in presidential family that often appears to be out of touch. What's the next prime time address -- a decision on gun buybacks at HUD projects?

Charles Babington: OK, I'll agree with you on one point, and disagree on another. I, too, question whether lots of American families have been discussing stem cell research at the dinner table. It's a very complex issue and, to my thinking, a rather odd one to accompany pot roast or pasta.
But why needle the president for using 11 minutes of prime time to announce his decision? It is, after all, an important and controversial issue. What's so bad about the president making it easy for Americans to tune in and get his thinking on the matter? Was it really so awful to have to wait a few minutes for the start of Who Wants to be a Millionaire?

Minneapolis, Minn.: Why do media outlets continue to give Bush high praise and credit for standard, simple things we'd expect from any president? When he met with the Pope, it was as if this was a new, bright idea. With stem cells, he was portrayed as "agonizing" and "thinking deeply" about it. When he invites Democratic members of Congress to dinner (yet doesn't work with them) he's praised as if no president has done this before. What's going on here?

Charles Babington: Hmmm, a tough audience today.... Where is all this "high praise'' you've read about Bush's visit with the Pope, or his dinners with Democrats? I try to read several publications, and I've seen plenty of criticism lately.
And speaking of tough audiences....

Boston, Mass.: What do you think of Gore's goofy-looking beard?

Charles Babington: C'mon, can't a middle-aged guy go to Europe and leave the razor behind for a few days or weeks? Let's see: Lincoln, Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, etc etc. Beards didn't seem to keep THEM out of the White House.

Mt. Rainier, Md.: It seems like President Bush gets an awful lot of PR mileage out "his Crawford ranch." As far as I can tell it's not a working ranch and has only been his for a matter of months. Yet somehow he makes it sound like this shows he's one of the folks? The real folk in Crawford take it pretty calm.

Charles Babington: Have you ever been in central Texas in mid-August? Staying calm makes a lot of sense.

Boston, Mass: To answer your question, a prime time address (on a matter with no immediate impact to the majority of Americans) trivializes the forum. It ends up making Bush seem smaller than the office.

The address was all about politics and less attention will be paid the next time around. Too bad for those who succeed Bush.

Charles Babington: I respectfully disagree. Do you have a loved one with Parkinson's? Alzheimer's? Adult diabetes? Heart disease? A spinal cord injury? (If you don't, you will eventually).
This is an important issue that potentially affects millions. ALL presidential decisions involve politics. It's pointless to pretend otherwise.

Bethesda, Md.: After all the "agonizing" and "gut wrenching" over the embryonic stem cell issue, we get a "decision" that helps neither side. Didn't Bush (or one of his cronies) say that his thinking was not going to be influenced by the polls? This seems to be right down the middle, not choosing one or the other so as to be able to say "I'm not on the other side."

Charles Babington: Maybe the president made his decision solely by reading the polls. And maybe he made his decision by deciding exactly what he thought was right, without consulting a single poll. How can you prove it either way? You can't.

Fairfax, Va.: Did you read Howard Kurtz's Online column? The analysis of the policy seems to be all over the map! One paper says that Bush turned his back on the conservatives, another said he gave in to the conserv atives, and a third says that he struck a good compromise.

They can't all be right.

My opinion is that it is a good compromise. I was unaware that those 60 lines existed already and when I heard his decision, was very surprised.

Charles Babington: 1. This is what happens when a complex decision is announced at 9:15 p.m. Eastern time, when east coast and Midwest newspapers are hard upon deadline. There's not much time to unravel the knottier questions.
2. As you'll note in today's coverage (see reporter Rick Weiss's story in today's Post, for example, or our Q&A now on our Web site): It's not clear that there actually are 60 lines.

The Hill: Hey Charles, well you know I can understand the tough crowd thing with the president, it's been a scary time for us as Americans, we didn't know what kind of direction the president was taking us. But, I must say, and I'm as liberal as they come, I was impressed with our president last night, he showed that he can be in the middle. Now the question is for how long will he stay there?

As for him not wanting to stay in D.C., who cares, with today's technology nothing could possibly come up that couldn't be handle wherever he may be. I mean come on, how many cowboys do we have walking around D.C.

Charles Babington: What, a liberal giving George W. Bush a break?! Has the heat gotten to you?

New York, N.Y.: Bill Clinton has been less than forthcoming throughout his tenure in office, so why should we think his book will be any different? I'm not so sure this book will qualify as non-fiction.

Charles Babington: That's the great thing about a free market. You can buy the book, or you can leave it in that big stack at Borders. (Better still, you can borrow it free from the library, provided you're willing to wait a few weeks).

Iowa City, Iowa: The networks allowing Bush on TV contradicted their earlier refusal of Clinton's desire to appear on network TV to explain why he supported allowing China in the WTO. Their argument was that Clinton's speech would have just been "political." How is the Bush stem cell decision speech any less "political?"

Charles Babington: How is any presidential decision (that's worth more than 2 cents, anyway) not in a large degree "political''? If we elect our national leaders, then their decisions involve politics (along with plenty of other factors).
The TV networks can decide when, and when not to, grant a president time for a speech.

Brattleboro, Vt.: It seems OK for the president to be on vacation in his home state, but what's this Western White House, Crawford, Tex. stuff about? (I'm referring to the banner behind the podium for the Hughes press conference.) I mean, isn't the one in Washington good enough? Or maybe George has decided that he'd rather join the growing ranks of telecommuters and just work from home.

Charles Babington: It seemed bit unnecessary, didn't it?

Washington, D.C.: I thought the mark of a good politician was the ability to compromise.

Why are these people giving Bush so much grief, I mean, besides the desire to complain about anything he does?

Charles Babington: I see the heat has gotten you, too.

Harrisburg, Pa.: Dan Rather suggested that newspapers are more well-suited to deal with a complex subject like stem-cell research than television. How long before media professionals admit the same is true of politics?

Charles Babington: You want me to declare that newspapers do a better job of covering politics than does television? What, is it my birthday?

Washington, D.C.: Charles --

There are some rumors flying around the Web that the president's speech was taped, not live? Is this true? I just assumed that it was live, any info?

Charles Babington: If it was taped, why didn't he clean up the couple of minor stumbles he made in reading it?

Eau Claire, Wis.: I have a John McCain question. Some people think he's out to make trouble for Bush by taking Democratic positions; others that he is still pretty conservative on most of the subjects (defense, trade, Commerce Committee issues) that he has a long history on. I lean toward the second explanation, but mostly I see a politician flying by the seat of his pants on everything except campaign finance reform. Do you think he has any kind of long term goal or strategy, or do you think that -- except for campaign finance reform -- he's basically just making it up as he goes?

Charles Babington: Sen. McCain takes a highly active role in a wide variety of subjects, and maybe that's why he seems a bit thinly spread at times. McCain obviously has a big ego and big ambitions. I'm sure he'd love another crack at the presidency if it presented itself.

Richmond, Va.: Do you think public opinion is going to force the Bush administration to become more actively involved in the Middle East conflict or is the administration going to able to remain on the sidelines?

Charles Babington: Thus far the administration is playing a very restrained role. Whether it can maintain that stance, while the Mideast situation gets worse and worse, is not clear.
Here's a link to a good story on the topic in today's Post. thanks.

washingtonpost.com: U.S. Urges Calm on Mideast Antagonists (Post, Aug. 10)

Charlotte, N.C.: Down here our local paper has been covering Senator John Edwards' visit to the Mideast. He is the highest ranking U.S. government official in the area right now. Is Bush not interested in going to the mat for peace in Israel? He seems less engaged than he should be. Thanks.

Charles Babington: What do you think of Sen. Edwards' obvious presidential ambitions? How's his popularity in N.C.?

Washington, D.C.: Well, I think the heat has gotten to me too, a dyed-in-the-wool democrat... I was going to give number 43 credit for moving to the center and actually compromising.

Charles Babington: Terry McAuliffe is coming by this afternoon to rescind your Democratic Party card.

Washington, D.C.: Does Charles Krauthammer really believe the stuff he writes? How can anyone read his editorial today and say it's anything but Bush cheerleading? In the vein of the editorial I put forward the idea that Bush has done such a good job he gets to take the next 3.5 years off. I want a boss with Krauthammer's views on vacation.

Charles Babington: Does Ellen Goodman believe what she writes? Robert Novak? E.J. Dionne?
It's fine to disagree with these folks. But why question their sincerity?

Reston, Va.: Has there been much comment on the cynical aspects of the stem cell issue? Such as debates with the Bush administration on the political advantages of making a moral and ethical issue a major issue investment of the president as opposed to the president addressing the people on the mechanics and economics of major legislation? I think Bush is of average intelligence but probably cares a lot about what's right and wrong and how people feel about important topics.

Charles Babington: Not quite sure I understand the first part of your comments when compared to the last part... But thanks for writing.

North Potomac, Md.: What does federal funding of stem cell research have to do with Chandra Levy? How dare the cable networks take the Condit story off the air? What's happening to this country?

Charles Babington: Must be the heat.

Niles, Mich.: Are the Joint Chiefs of Staff in charge of the Iraq bombings while the commander in chief is on vacation?

Charles Babington: President Bush said the military commanders on the ground can launch attacks when they deem necessary, unless the targets are near Bagdhad. In those cases, he said, he gets directly involved, whether he's on vacation or not.

Arlington, Va.: Did anyone else notice the very large flies buzzing around the backdrop of Bush's speech last night? Was that meant to be "western ambiance" as well? Perhaps they should have taped it.

Charles Babington: What a minute, I thought that fly was on MY television!

Charles Babington: OK, the heat obviously has gotten me. Thanks for tuning in, folks, and hope to see you again next Friday.