|
Political Insider Live
With Charles Babington
Staff Writer and Chief Political Correspondent for washingtonpost.com
Friday, Oct. 5, 2001; 1 p.m. EDT
Tuesday, Sept. 11, in a horrific series of events, hijacked planes hit
and destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center and crashed into
the Pentagon in what's being described as the single worst act of
terrorism on U.S. soil. The Bush administration and law enforcement
officials are actively seeking those responsible and have declared war
on terrorism.
Charles Babington, chief political
correspondent for washingtonpost.com, will be online to discuss President Bush's handling of the terrorist crisis and other political news from the 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.
Washington, D.C.:
Should Bush be more vocal and open about presenting the evidence linking Bin laden to the terrorist attacks? or is this something that will continue to be done by Tony Blair.
Charles Babington: A very good question. It is puzzling to quite a few people why the Bush administration has let the British take the lead in spelling out the case against bin Laden. Perhaps Blair and his team feel they're better positioned to go hard on this issue -- essentially playing the NATO leader for now -- while Bush has many other matters to juggle. But that's just speculation. I'd be interested in readers' opinions on this.
Monterey, Calif.:
Charles,
What are your thoughts about the impact of the 9/11 attacks on the Florida governor's race? Will the association with a "wartime" president save Jeb Bush from what would otherwise have been a very bruising campaign, or does the example of the relatively normal campaign in Virginia show that he won't get much help from that factor?
Charles Babington: You make a good point about the Virginia race. Both candidates suspended their campaigns after the terrorist attacks, and when they returned to the air, their ads were positive and patriotic in tone. Since then, they've dwelt mainly on the same issues that prevailed before 9/11: Taxes, transportation, education, etc.
In Florida, I suspect the same may hold. Voters differentiate among candidates when they elect a governor, a U.S. senator, a county council member, etc. They know that state governments yield to the federal government when it comes to dealing with terrorists and war, so I don't think they would measure their gubernatorial candidates on that scale.
That said, the Florida election -- like many other gubernatorial elections and the elections for the U.S. House and one-third of the Senate -- will be held in Nov. of 2002, not 2001. A lot will have changed by then. We will have launched a war against terrorism, and we can't know what the results will be. If President Bush is largely popular -- or largely unpopular -- a year from now, that could have a rub-off effect on Gov. Jeb Bush's reelection bid.
Fort Lee, N.J.:
After the attacks we've seen Republicans start spending money like big government Democrats. Bush is also pushing for more government involvement in areas such as the airlines and law enforcement. Do you think this is temporary, or have the attacks begun the process that will lead to an overhaul of basic Republican ideology?
Charles Babington: I think it's temporary. Yes, our country will never be the same after Sept. 11. But the economy will continue to rise and fall. And the Democratic and Republican parties will continue to hold their basic positions. President Bush is spending more now for two reasons: To stimulate a stalled economy, and to prepare the nation to fight terrorism at home and abroad. Both those needs will recede (though the threat of terrorism will never vanish completely), and Republicans will return to a more fiscally constrained platform.
Reston, Va.:
The Washington Post reported that Congress has been informed by top intelligence officials that the US is in danger of terrorist retribution following a military strike in Afghanistan. In view of this, what do you think is the appropriate way for President Bush to address this with the American people? Do you think he will? And will he do so before an attack on Afghanistan or afterward? washingtonpost.com:
FBI, CIA Warn Congress of More Attacks As Blair Details Case Against Bin Laden (Washington Post, Oct. 5)
Charles Babington: I don't think the president will speak to the nation to address the specific points in the Post article. But I do think he will speak on national TV -- perhaps quite briefly -- soon after the U.S. launches an overt attack on targets in Afghanistan or elsewhere.
As for worries about future terrorist attacks in the United States: It puts government officials in a tough spot. If they play it down, they may be accused of being insufficiently vigilant. If they play it up, they may cause a public panic. The administration seems to be trying to walk a middle line.
Arlington, Va.:
regarding Tony Blair stating the case against Bin Laden, I think that the US and UK believed that if the US stated the case, it would be perceived as self-serving since we were attacked and would therefore say anything. Actually I think that when Pakistan came out and said that the evidence seen was convincing, that was more important in terms of world opinion.
Charles Babington: Very good point about Pakistan. Thanks for writing.
Herndon, Va.:
My guess would be that Blair taking the lead on certain issues is to help pump up the "coalition." It helps to avoid the idea that the United States might be manufacturing evidence against bin Laden. Also, Tony Blair is more articulate than Bush has presented himself in the past. The War on terrorism requires a strong, verbose leader and that leader looks to be Tony Blair.
Charles Babington: I think even most Republicans would agree that Blair is an excellent public speaker. His addresses to Labour Party members on Wednesday, and then to the Parliament on Thursday, were powerful and eloquent, I thought.
Somewhere, USA:
Your thoughts -- did Ariel Sharon shoot himself in the proverbial foot with his remarks? washingtonpost.com:
White House Rejects Sharon's Criticism (AP, Oct. 5)
Charles Babington: Any time a national leader cites Adolph Hitler in criticizing another country, he or she probably has stepped over the line. When the US President's press secretary publicly rebukes the Israeli prime minister, things have gotten too incendiary.
Silver Spring, Md.:
What do you make of Uzbekistan's lukewarm response to overtures by Secretary Rumsfeld?
Charles Babington: Uzbekistan is a predominantly Islamic nation that once was part of the USSR. Under the circumstances, I don't think it realistic for a U.S. defense secretary to expect a warm embrace. Luke warm might me the best that Rumsfeld had hoped for.
Mckinney, Tex.:
I am still at a lost as to why there is a perceived need to not point out Bush's short comings? Just what negative effect would that have on the country? Our elite special forces have performed well under most presidents that let them do their jobs. The markets respond in the middle and long term to actions, and not words. If its important to debate issues in peace time, its clearly even more important to debate them in war time. I truly don't understand the attitude, it never applied to Clinton, Bush I or Reagan as far as I could see, why now?
Charles Babington: In fact, congressional Democrats are criticizing portions of the President's stimulus package and airport security proposals. For that matter, so are some conservative House Republicans (see story linked below for details).
In terms of military preparations for an anti-terrorism campaign, yes, criticism is quite muted.... at least for now.
This country's maxim is "Politics ends at the water's edge.'' In other words, the nation tries to show a united front when dealing with international crises. Otherwise, an enemy may take comfort in seeing a sharply divided United States, and feel emboldened to strike us in the belief that we can't agree on a response. I think Clinton, Bush the elder and Reagan all were treated roughly the same in this regard.
washingtonpost.com:
Democrats Resist Bush's Push For Stimulus Heavy on Tax Cuts (Washington Post, Oct. 5)
Washington, D.C.:
Tony Blair's more vocal role also solidifies the notion that this is not a one-nation war, but a cooperative, multilateral effort against terrorism. Another question: What and when will President Bush push his first major domestic initiative since the attacks? The climate seems right to revive prospects for his faith-based agenda.
Charles Babington: Good point re Blair.... And one additional point: Blair has a somewhat vocal and war-wary leftist component of his Labour Party. He wanted to speak forcefully to them to make the case for the NATO-backed action against terrorism.
As for Bush's domestic agenda: I think the timing will depend largely on the success of the first couple of strikes against bin Laden, et al. As for the subject matter, I'd be surprised if Faith-based initiative goes first. I'd look for education and other issues to have a higher priority. But that's just a hunch.
Fairfax, Va.:
Does Katherine Harris really believe that she has a snowball's chance in hell? washingtonpost.com:
Fla.'s Harris To Run for U.S. House in GOP District (Washington Post, Oct. 3)
Charles Babington: She pulled the rabbit out of the hat for George W. Bush, didn't she?
Kansas City, Mo.:
Following the 9/11 attacks the media delayed
announcing the results of the Florida
recount. I have read a few political
commentaries saying the results are
basically irrelevant now and that Bush has
been accepted as President. Yet it seems
after 40 years people still questioned
Kennedy's win. In short term people may not
care but by Nov 2002 or 2004 do you think
people will care?
Charles Babington: I believe three things:
1. The media consortium (which includes the Washington Post) will fully report the findings of the recount project.
2. The results will not be clean and clear cut. The results will probably say that if you allow ABC when counting questionable ballots then you get quite a different result from allowing XYZ. (I have no inside knowledge; this is my guess).
3. The country will care far less about the results than it might have on Sept. 10.
Orange, Va.:
Are Virginia Republicans united behind Earley? I ask because as an observer of Virginia politics since the mid-70's I can never recall such a paucity of wide displays of partisan public enthusiasm for a candidate. For example, I live in a fairly conservative area of the state and usually by this time the highways and byways with be filled with posters for the Republican candidate, but I see very few for Earley, even with only a month before the election.
Charles Babington: 1. Generally speaking, Earley has not been a charismatic candidate who has wowed his party's activists.
2. Yard signs and bumper stickers play relatively small roles in statewide and national elections. Personally, I like them. But they're almost as quaint as rotary dial phones, and thus I don't think they're good barometers of a candidate's popularity or lack of popularity.
Daly City, Calif.:
It's depressing to see the Clinton-bashers coming out of the woodwork this past week to blame him specifically for the attack. Predictable, but depressing.
It seems to me that our current system of campaign financing is a major problem here. Mr. Bush spent the first 7 months of his administration repaying those who raised $100 million for his campaign, ignoring a very important, long-term, bipartisan report that was dropped in his lap in January. The fact that politicians must expend so much energy and time courting and rewarding donors can't help but distract them from the very important business of protecting our country and its citizens. Thoughts?
Charles Babington: If you're referring to a report about the potential threat of terrorist attacks, you can't lay the blame entirely on Bush. Congress, the news media and others paid little attention to the same types of warnings.
Charlottesville, Va.:
Life is loss. This on a huge scale but we will go through the grieving and come out on the other side.
My concern is that our political agenda has slowed, Democrats hesitate to oppose any of Bush's proposals. Even the families of the 6,000 victims have moved on to funerals, life changes, all are healings. We as a nation need to leave the defense/war to those that are experts and turn our heads back to the day at hand. How can we encourage this with others and for our representatives?
Charles Babington: Wait a minute. Do you really want to leave a war (be it against terrorist cells or a traditional enemy) to 'experts' while we turn our nation's attention to 'our political agenda'? Given the current circumstances, what could be more central to our political agenda than the campaign against terrorism?
New York, N.Y.:
When Al Gore was enthusiastically saying that, "George Bush is my commander-in-chief," I thought that it was mostly out of patriotism. However, a part of me thinks it was shrewd politics as well. By reaffirming that Bush is commander in chief, he is also putting the handling of this crisis squarely on Bush's shoulders. If Bush falls short of the expectations he has set for his administration, Gore and others can swoop down in two years and say, "As the man in charge, he gave it his best shot but couldn't get the job done." It's not an unlikely scenario is it?
Charles Babington: Whether Al Gore says it or not, the waging of a war falls heavily on a president's shoulders, and that president will be judged by the war's outcome. The failure of Desert One (the helicopters that tried to rescue U.S. hostages from Tehran) sealed Jimmy Carter's fate. The success of the Persian Gulf War put President George HW Bush's approval ratings above 90 percent. (They plummeted only when he seemed to deny the recession that was clobbering average Americans). If Gore had been silent, that in no way would guard the current president from being held responsible for the war's outcome.
Charles Babington: That's all the time we have for today. Thanks for joining the chat. Hope to hear from you next week.
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
© Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company
| 
