|
Political Insider Live
With Charles Babington
Staff Writer and Chief Political Correspondent for washingtonpost.com
Friday, Oct. 19, 2001; 1 p.m. EDT
U.S. and British forces began a series of strikes in Afghanistan targeting al Qaeda training centers and the country's ruling Taliban on Sunday, Oct. 7. President Bush described the strikes as a "sustained, comprehensive and relentless" campaign against terrorism.
Charles Babington, chief political
correspondent for washingtonpost.com, was 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.
Arlington, Va.:
After several months of abuse over both his legitimacy and qualifications, President Bush seems to startled his critics with his post-Sept. 11 leadership. Given congressional embarrassment over the House's sudden decision to shut down yesterday, is Bush emerging politically as some sort of juggernaut? And what effect do you think the now-delayed Florida presidential election studies might have on the presidency?
Charles Babington: The president continues to get good reviews from most quarters for his handling of the anti-terrorism effort. No question, some of this is the Rally-Round-the-President effect that we see in any time of war or national emergency. And that, of course, might abate if the war settles down into some not-so-newsy routine. (Remember how his father's popularity plummeted after the Persian Gulf War victory).
As for the Florida recount: Even if the results strongly suggest that Gore should have won, I doubt it will have a great impact on Bush's presidency. Most Americans realize the election was so close that it essentially boiled down to a coin toss. Bush won the toss, he's the president, nothing will change that, and people are ready to move on -- especially in light of Sept. 11.
Virginia:
So what's the word on Cheney? Is it really a security risk to have him and Bush in town at the same time or are they trying to keep him from looking more presidential than his boss? It also appears that Ashcroft is becoming a threat to Bush's leadership role. Will he too become a security risk and placed in the Bush cabinet protection program?
Charles Babington: I'm in no position to gauge the security risk of having Bush and Cheney under the same roof. I'm willing to take the Secret Service at their word on this one.
How has Ashcroft become a threat to Bush's leadership? Maybe you can write back and elaborate. thanks
Cambridge, Mass.:
What is the new conventional wisdom on the tenure of the Cabinet members? Have Rumsfeld and Powell saved their jobs? Is Thompson on the way out?
Charles Babington: 1. I can't imagine the Secs. of Defense or State leaving while we're at war.
2. Why should HHS Sec. Tommy Thompson leave? Have I missed something?
Boston, Mass.:
You have suggested in previous forums and columns that the Republicans gain an advantage in the next round of elections (bit cynical I would say) given the current crisis.
So far, though, we have seen a resurgence in faith in government to solve problems as measured by opinion polls. This, combined with the perception that the Republicans would run over grandma to save themselves from a burning building (when the going gets tough, the tough go into hiding) makes the Democrats prospects look pretty good.
And there is still that little matter of the economy, tax giveaways and Paul O'Neill.
My money is on the D's.
Charles Babington: I stand by my earlier comments that the Sept. 11 attacks gave a short-term boost to Republicans for this reason: It stopped Democrats cold, just as they were gathering momentum on the issues of the deficit and Social Security.
In the longer term (i.e., probably in time for the 2002 congressional elections), those issues probably will re-emerge, albeit with different emphases (and with great competition from the anti-terrorism issue).
As to your larger issue: If the terrorist attacks have rejuvenated public faith in government, why wouldn't that help ALL incumbents, Dems and Republicans alike?
Boston, Mass.:
Charles,
Did you (or one or your colleagues) happen to catch former Natural Law Party presidential candiate John Hagelin's press conference a week or so ago at the Press Club? If so what was your take on his plan to end this recent violence?
Charles Babington: Sorry, I missed his speech. (In my defense, there HAS been a lot of competing news lately).
Moraga, Calif.:
Take your pick:
1. It looks like Sen. Lugar's presidential campaign commercials that focused on the threat of nuclear terrorism were politically stupid but raised an important question. Will other politicians follow his lead?
2. Any chance Giuliani will run for president, perhaps in a third party bid?
3. Why did the House get hammered for closing down, while Bush got a free pass for not flying on Air Force One, even though he had fighter escort that could have shot down any conceivable threat?
4. Pro-life terrorist organizations have been operating in the U.S. for over 20 years -- can pro-choice politicians use the current anti-terrorist fervor for political gain?
Charles Babington: I pick 'em all.
1. The thrust of Sen. Lugar's concerns -- that we remain at risk from outside threats -- have been tragically borne out. Will other pols jump on the bandwagon to combat a nuclear threat? For now, at least, our energies will focus much more on fighting bioterrorism (and, of course, airplane hijackings). President Bush's push for a national missile defense system may appear a bit outdated after 9/11, but there will be a big debate on that.
2. I seriously doubt it.
3. Bush got a free pass?? In fact, he got criticized so roundly for not quickly returning to DC on 9/11 that his aides spent much of Sept. 12 and 13 defending their decisions. (And in turn, they got roundly criticized for THAT).
4. I dunno. I have my doubts.
Crystal City, Mo.:
How dedicated do you think Majority Leader Daschle is to seeing Senators Johnson and Carnahan get re-elected?
Charles Babington: Very very dedicated. He wants to remain majority leader, not become minority leader. (BTW, my Political Insider column today -- on your favorite Web site as we speak! -- deals with the SD Senate race between Tim Johnson and John Thune).
Mt. Lebanon, Pa.:
In spite of all the talking heads now in Pakistan, the media coverage of the Iraq-Kuwait conflict was much more extensive and interesting. And Vietnam with Halberstam, Sheehan, Safer, Bradley -- was the pinnacle. Is there any feeling among the major news organizations that it's high time to take the training wheels off of their news coverage bicycle and JUST GO COVER THE WAR? Nightime shots of fireworks 50 miles away is as poignant and important as watching manure being spread on a corn field. Thanks much.
Charles Babington: Well, let's compare. In Vietnam, we sent thousands of troops, over several years, into a jungle war against thousands of enemy soldiers. In the Kuwait-Iraq war, we sent several thousand troops (in a short time) against a large (but largely inept) army. So far in Afghanistan, we've dropped quite a few bombs, but sent only a handful of special-op troops into the country. What, exactly, would you have the war correspondents do? March into Afghanistan and wait for the U.S. troops to show up?
Coverage of those earlier wars was a lot more interesting because the WARS were more interesting.
Salem, Ore.:
With regard to the House Republicans:
I know everyone is on edge back there with the anthrax scare and everything, but it seems on two issues the House Republicans have overplayed their hand.
First: baggage screeners. If they are so gung ho on not having more federal workers,they should say "our proposal will better promote safety because..." rather than complain about creating more federal workers or union members.
Second: terrorism bill. As I understand it, such diverse people as Reps. Sensenbrenner and Frank agreed on the bill that went into the Rules Committee where it was scrapped. The Post says they "made a mockery of the legislative process." People on interview shows and in private conversations and e-mails are complaining about it. Seems like they dug themselves into a hole! Not as if they have a huge majority in the House. Do they think people aren't watching, or don't they care?
Charles Babington: Obviously I don't speak for Reps. DeLay, Armey, et al. I assume their stands are based on their general political beliefs (e.g. smaller government is better). It will be interesting to see if the Bush administration sides against them on matters such as federalizing airport security workers (in order to break a legislative logjam).
Arlington, Va.:
I think what Boston meant about the public perception of government helping the Dems rather than the GOP is that many Republican campaigns are traditionally run with an anti-government stance, or at least arguing for reducing the size and scope of government.
However, given that the current administration is Republican, I don't think government improving in the public view is going to help the Dems much. (Though I'll bet not many Republicans will run strong anti-government campaigns this time around.)
Charles Babington: OK, that's helpful, thanks.... And I think your analysis is on the mark. (Keep in mind, Republicans generally are seen as opposing a large, activist government in general, but they typically get good marks on handling national defense matters).
Boston, Mass.:
You ask:
"As to your larger issue: If the terrorist attacks have rejuvenated public faith in government, why wouldn't that help ALL incumbents, Dems and Republicans alike?"
Sure, unless you have made "government is the enemy" your political raison d'etre (read Bob Barr). I'm trying to remember who held hearings on Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Charles Babington: OK, point nicely made.
Alexandria, Va.:
How likely are we to get a national ID card? Why would we get one? Why are some people so upset about the prospect of getting one?
Charles Babington: I've heard no serious talk of national ID cards lately. I don't get the sense it's a high-priority proposal. Seems to me that if bad guys can obtain counterfeit passports (and they can), then they can obtain counterfeit ID cards.
Marble Falls, Tex.:
Mr. Babington.
Has the great "cultural divide" of the 2000 election gone away since the terrible events of 9/11?
I notice that the vast majority of the folks down here with "United We Stand" messages on their vehicles have other messages that indicate their politics to be strongly flavored by the right. Is there a sub rosa thing going on here where they are remembering the cultural divide, and saying, in effect, "Hush up you Bush criticizers and support the president?"
Charles Babington: You've hit a pet peeve of mine. In the 1960s and '70s, liberals and middle-of-the-roaders made a terrible mistake by ceding outward signs of patriotism -- such as displaying the American flag -- to those on the political right. Please tell me how being a strong advocate of the Bill of Rights isn't a profoundly patriotic act? And that means defending freedom of religion (and separating it from government), freedom of the press, freedom from unreasonable search and seizures -- in other words, things usually associated with "civil libertarians'' and often attacked -- on the margins, at least -- by right-wing talk show hosts, etc..... Seems to me those civil libertarians should be flying the flag from their front porches every darn day.
Silver Spring, Md.:
Who are the most vulnerable Senators on each side of the aisle in next year's election?
Charles Babington: Vulnerable Republicans: Smith of NH, Hutchinson of Ark., Allard of Colo. (and the open Helms seat in NC).
Vulnerable Democrats: Johnson of SD, Landrieu of La., Wellstone of Minn., Baucus of Mont., Carnahan of Mo., Harkin of Iowa and Torricelli of NJ.
Maryland:
With regard to the anthrax scare, why do we see so much of Tommy Thompson and so little of Surgeon General Satcher? It seems like the nation's top physician would be more credible in discussing a medical issue.
Charles Babington: The HHS secretary oversees a broader array of issues (health policy, legislation, etc.) than does the Surgeon General. Also, of course, he's in the president's cabinet. That said, both Sec. Thompson and SG Satcher played prominent roles in press briefings yesterday and today.
Arlington, Va.:
As a nation we seem to be acting on the premise that all our leaders have to do is "take out" Bin Laden and the Taleban and everything will be fine.
A former Illinois legislator commented to me that this "war" is like fighting cobwebs, as opposed to smashing a roach.
The 9/11 terror had been planned carefully for years. Do we honestly think there won't be a "next phase" and a next and a next, even if Bin Laden is captured?
And aren't we making the whole of Asia unstable by pounding on a dusty, stone-age "nation?"
Charles Babington: In fact, President Bush has said quite emphatically that wiping out bin Laden and al Qaeda will not end this war. He repeatedly says the anti-terrorism war will last for two years at least. He has not, however, spelled out the likely next steps if and when the Taliban and bin Laden fall.
Washington, D.C.:
You mentioned Carnahan as a vulnerable Democrat. Why is she at risk? Has anyone assessed what kind of job she has done?
Charles Babington: She's listed in the "at-risk'' category for the same reasons that all the other Dems in that list are: Their states went for Bush (or he lost very narrowly there), and their states are either GOP-leaning in general or highly competitive.
The vice-versa can largely be said for the at-risk Republicans, except for Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.). He brought special problems on himself by bolting from the Republican Party in 1999 (to run for prez as an independent). He eventually returned, but now he faces a tough challenge from within his own party from Rep. John E. Sununu.
Washington, D.C.:
When in Congress going to start passing the appropriation bills for the various government departments. I am a federal worker and I would like to know?
Charles Babington: Seems it would be a higher priority, doesn't it? Sorry, I don't have the answer. Since the new fiscal year began on Oct. 1, obviously the government can stay in business even when the approps bill are pending. That, of course, is one reason Congress doesn't feel a greater sense of urgency.
Oklahoma City, Okla.:
re: the "delayed" Florida election study
I think is a bit wishfully naive to assume that most Americans believe the presidential election was a coin toss that Bush legitimately won. Most Americans voted against Bush, and many are quite suspect of the conservative tactics used to influence the toss of this coin. I feel the Media Consortium shames patriotism and brings their credibility into question by squelching this most critical information. To claim that all hands are busy reporting the war effort seems a shallow defense, indeed, when sports, movies, fashion, etc continue to command column inches and reporter's labor.
Charles Babington: OK, let's strip all the sports, movies and fashion coverage out of the papers. (Believe me, it would suit most Washington Redskins fans just fine). Does that make you happy?
You're entitled to all your opinions but this one: The media consortium has not squelched anything. The Florida recount project has not -- repeat, has not -- been completed. When it is completed, it'll be reported, and I can assure you that the great majority of journalists associated with it won't give a darn which way it falls out. I know that lotsa people love to say otherwise. They are wrong.
Charles Babington: On that grumpy note I bid you good day and good week. Thanks for joining, and see you next Friday.
© Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company
| 
