• 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. 31, 2001; 1 p.m. EDT

Bush and Congress may be on vacation, but we aren't.

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.

Brunswick, Maine: What's your sense about whether the tax cut will be modified by Congress, given the drop in the projected surplus?

Charles Babington: There's no question that Congress will alter the tax cut. The only question is when and how. The tax cut is predicated on all sorts of implausible (and downright impossible) scenarios, including unattainable spending cuts (politically unattainable, that is, because neither party will support them); the elimination of existing tax cuts that won't really be eliminated (for the same reason); etc.
This was true even before the latest surplus projections. Congress may wait until after the 2002 elections to change the tax cut legislation. But it definitely will be changed before its 11-year life span expires.

Mission Viejo, Calif.: What happened to the FBI investigation on the Bush practice videos found and returned by Gore camp just before their debate?

James

washingtonpost.com: Former Aide to Bush Campaign Jailed for Leaking Debate Prep Video (AP, Aug. 31, 2001)

Charles Babington: She did time.

Miami, Fla.: I have heard rumors that several income tax refund advance checks have bounced. Is this true?

Charles Babington: First I've heard of it.

Washington, D.C.: Zell Miller was pretty tough on McAuliffe in his letter to the Post. Any thoughts?

washingtonpost.com: Making Moderates See Red (Washington Post, Aug. 27, 2001)

Charles Babington: Sen. Miller seems to enjoy zinging leaders of his own party. Recall his tough words on Democrats who criticized the Bush tax-cut package, etc?
My thoughts: Sen. Miller often disagrees with the more liberal members of his party; and he gets the double pleasure of enjoying being a contrarian.

Annandale, Va.: Hooray for the Post editors who are fighting back against the anti-Washington rhetoric employed by the Bush Administration (and many others) ("Fake People Welcome Mr. Bush," August 31). Do the "Real People" in the "Heartland" really have that much scorn for, and even animosity towards, those of us who live here, and do politicians actually gain a political advantage by fostering this kind of antipathy?
-Feeling Persecuted in Annandale

washingtonpost.com: Fake People Welcome Mr. Bush (Washington Post, Aug. 31, 2001)

Charles Babington: My guess is that politicians get modest gains, in some places, by bashing Washington. But the tactic is getting kinda old, and I wonder how much oomph it still carries.
Don't feel persecuted. Stand proud in Annadale!

Annapolis, Md.: Since you're the former Maryland correspondent, any thoughts on the ramifications of today's article about the Governor in the Post?

And, incidentally, how must the Sun feel about being scooped yet again on Maryland happenings (including Cal's retirement)?

washingtonpost.com: Glendening And Staff Aide Have Personal Relationship (Washington Post, Aug. 31, 2001)

Charles Babington: For those who missed it (and here's the link), the story reported that Gov. Glendening, who is separated from his wife, has a personal relationship with a high-ranking aide on his staff.
Certainly the story will create some buzz in Maryland. But its impact will be less than it might have been under different circumstances. First, Glendening is term-limited and therefore can't run for reelection next year. So it won't be a campaign issue. Also, his year-long separation from his wife has been well publicized. Finally, this relationship was something of an open secret among State House insiders. Therefore the employees, lobbyists, journalists, etc., who deal with the Glendening administration often won't be shocked by the news.
As for the Baltimore Sun: I'm sure it's not a great day there, because they've been pursuing this story for some time. But I'll say this for my friends at the Sun: They get scoops, too, and they put out a good newspaper.

EG, D.C.: Yo, Chuck, what do you think about the Post holding the story about Gov. Casanova Glendening until Comptroller Schaefer made the remark about her influence? I mean, why didn't they just run it after their takeouts earlier this summer proved the rumors true? It seems to me like the Post is using Schaefer's comment as a sort of smokescreen to lend a patina of respectability to their coverage of a sordid affair. But your reporters already had plenty of evidence that Ms. Crawford was wielding a lot of influence, so I think it was a chickens--t play to hold the story until now.

Charles Babington: (I take it you mean stake outs, not takeouts... Hmm, I'm getting hungry).
I had no role in reporting or editing the story, and your questions about editorial processes might be better addressed to our media critic, Howard Kurtz. I'll just say this: It's one thing to show a politician is having an affair. It's another thing to show that it matters in any way to the public. If Glendening's personal relationship had no bearing on public policy and the state government's operations, it would be hard to argue it's a newsworthy story. But if it does affect policy -- or if enough people believe it does, and they talk openly about it, as Schaefer did -- then it arguably becomes newsworthy.

Re: Scooping the Sun: If this was an open secret, it just sounds like the Post finally got up the gumption to run the story. Maybe the Sun is content to play catch-up and let the Post take the flak for doing a stakeout.

Charles Babington: Well, again, it's one thing to know what the rumors are. A newspaper has to take two more steps:
1. Prove, irrefutably, the relationship exists.
2. Show convincingly that it somehow matters (or should matter) to the public.
I can't speak for the Sun. I can only guess they didn't feel they had solidly nailed down both tasks.

South Bend, Ind.: This year Tom Dashcle has emerged as a national political figure. He strikes me as an impressive Harry Truman-type senator whose low-key approach seems to generate trust among colleagues of both parties. I'd be interested in your view of:

1. How he emerged from the pack to lead the Democrats, even before the Jeffords switch.

2. His skill as a legislative leader.

3. His standing among fellow senators.

Charles Babington: Sen. Daschle has made good impressions on lots of people, and he has been the subject lately of some favorable (some would say fawning) press coverage. Legislative bodies (be they the House, Senate or state assemblies) are small, intensely political and often quirky. Daschle obviously struck his Democratic colleagues as someone they could trust, someone who could represent them well before the public, the White House and the GOP leadership.
Here's a recent profile that can tell you more. Thanks.

washingtonpost.com: At Senate Helm, Daschle Isn't Shying From Fight (Washington Post, July 27, 2001)

Frankfort, Ky.: The Louisville Courier Journal reported a couple of days ago that one guy's tax check bounced, but it was considered a fluke and eventually corrected.

Charles Babington: Thanks for the update. If all the refund checks start bouncing, we'll know the surplus is REALLY in trouble.

Middlesex, N.J.: Any chance the House will get back to Campaign Finance Reform? Will they need to have the discharge petition fully signed to force it or will Hastert see the writing on the wall?

Charles Babington: They need several more signatures on the discharge petition to force the issue to the House floor. I don't believe Speaker Hastert or his fellow House leaders have given up the fight at all. The issue remains very much alive and in doubt.

Washington, D.C.: How bad is the redistricting going to be for Democrats? I've been following it closely and know things are going to be rough in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio. California and Georgia should be helpful, but what about Indiana, Iowa, etc.?

Charles Babington: The key to redistricting, as you know, is whether one political party controls all three of the crucial players: the governorship, the state Senate and state House. If that leadership is divided between the parties, then it's hard for one party to steamroll the other, and some compromises must be made. Unless I'm mistaken, Democrats control the process in Calif. and Georgia, and thus you're right, the Democrats should fare OK there. I believe the powers are divided in Indiana and Iowa, so it's hard to say what will happen there.
Another important point: Some states are losing House members, some are gaining. In most cases (except Mississippi and Okla.), the member-losing states lean Democratic in national elections. And in most cases (except Calif., and who knows about Florida anymore), the member-gaining states lean GOP. Therefore in the big picture, the Republican Party should gain overall from redistricting because the biggest population growth is occurring in GOP-friendly states.

Chantilly, Va.: Charles, I've always been far more interesting in redistricting than any sane human has a right to be. (I'm an old poli sci guy from Johns Hopkins, where I learned all about American politics from, among other people, the great Milton Cummings)

Anyway, I see that the Democrats and Republicans in California appear to have worked out a redistricting that makes everyone more or less happy and tells Gary Condit "You're no longer welcome here."

Thoughts?

Charles Babington: The Condit scandal caused an obvious problem for California's Democrats. Before the scandal broke, he was a cinch for another reelection; now it's likely he won't be renominated, let alone reelected.
Condit's district is fairly conservative (as is Condit, as Democrats go). An open seat in the district as it now exists would give the GOP a good chance to win the seat. Therefore Democrats (who control the redistricting process, as we already noted) have to change the district to add more liberal, solidly Democratic voters. It's an aggravation they didn't expect.

Cleveland, Ohio: Why is it that the Republican party always chides Democrats for spending when they are guilty of doing the same. Here we have a shrinking surplus which I believe is the main factor which is holding back investment in this country. Is it not strange that when taxes were increased in 93 the dollar was a safe haven for the investment of capital in this country. This is because it said to the people both domestic and overseas that the United States was serious about working on its debt. In my opinion the Bush administration has eroded that concept through an irresponsible tax cut and proposed new spending. Even if we are going through hard economic times I believe we should not have steered off course for a short term , short lived tax cut. I believe it was a politically motivated act and shows lack of any true leadership by this administration!

Charles Babington: Needless to say, plenty of people will agree, and plenty will disagree, with your assessment. Quite a few economists, however, say extra government spending, on a temporary basis, is a good idea when the economy is slumping. These Keynesians, I think, would not fully agree with your claim that the shrinking surplus is the main factor in holding back investment.

Somewhere, USA: This on-going thing about married politicians having affairs disturbs me. If they can't or won't honor their marriage vows, why should we trust them to honor their vow to uphold the constitution (or whatever vow they take in Maryland)?

Charles Babington: I'm not looking for a quarrel. But I'm curious if you think it makes any difference that the politician in question has been separated from his wife for a while; the "other woman'' is single; and there are no young children living at home?

Bethesda, Md.: Hi. I just read the story in the Post today about Gov. Glendening's relationship with his deputy chief of staff. What is the reaction to this kind of behavior among Glendening's other employees and political associates? What do you think of it?

Charles Babington: I'd be surprised if any of Glendening's top aides and associates were not already aware of -- or certainly suspicious of -- the relationship.

Cottage City, Md.: Sigh. We've got a great budget and a governor who's going through change of life, dating a woman who is -- easily -- young enough to be his daughter. Thank God he's not running again. Saves me one ugly decision: Republican or fool.

Charles Babington: OK, let's let that be the last word today on Mr. Glendening.... And the last word for this week's chat. Have a great Labor Day weekend, and see you next week.