• 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, Nov. 9, 2001; 1 p.m. EST

On Tuesday, Mark Warner became the first Democrat elected Governor of Virginia since Doug Wilder, while the Republican Michael Bloomberg narrowly defeated Mike Green to become the mayor of New York.

Charles Babington, chief political correspondent for washingtonpost.com, was online to discuss the election outcome, 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.

Plano, Tex.: How long do you think Bush can get away with withholding the Presidential Papers of Reagan and his Father? What possible justification can he have for withholding papers up to 20 years old. What information in a inter-office memo would still be classified? Remember when Clinton was about to take office, the Bush team set new records for the number of documents shredded, and illegally destroyed computer hard drives. After all that, there in no way that classified information is still contained within the records. Even if there was classified information in the Presidential records, there can't be any in Bush's records as Governor, unless someone there was a spy. How long is the Press going to remain relatively quiet about this attempt to hide who knows what? With Bin Laden being the number one threat, and the claims that the USA set him up, this information sure is timely since it could show that there are those in the current administration that may not want Bin Laden caught or even stopped. Is the press ever going to do its duty in regards to a Bush?

Charles Babington: Yes, there's something unsettling about the notion that an incumbent president can have veto power over the release of papers of his predecessors. The government, of course, has the right to keep certain documents secret (this should be only in the name of national security). But there's a mechanism for that. President Bush is taking a much broader power. My guess: Historians, journalists, academics, etc., will raise enough fuss that he'll eventually back away.

Why the hypocrisy?: During 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel during Ramadan, yet now we are told the U.S. will be ostracized from the whole Muslim world if we continue bombing during Ramadan. Sounds like a load of something to me.

Charles Babington: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has made this point several times. No one says the U.S. absolutely cannot bomb an Islamic country during Ramadan. But the administration wants to emphasize that this is not a war against Islam or all Muslims, so it is sensitive to actions that might cause special angst in the Islamic world.

Baltimore, Md.: I've noticed there has been total silence from the Hollywood elite about the war effort overseas. It surprises me, considering it is so hard to shut them up about all things political, that they choose not to offer their opinion about the war side of the equation. What do you make of this?

Charles Babington: To be honest: It never occurred to me to wonder what 'the Hollywood elite' think of the war in Afghanistan.

Vienna, Va.: Hi, Charles -- What I am so amazed about is how eager the voters in Northern Virginia were to support a referendum that calls not only for additional transportation taxes, but places the burden on THEM when it is really the developers who should be paying the fees needed. They are the ones who got us into this transportation mess to start with, and profited handsomely from the building booms. Apparently the average voter in Northern Virginia did not think of this -- witness Warner's large majorities there. It is even MORE incredible that Early did not capitalize on this truth. Had Early made it plain to the voters that it is not their job to cough up the dollars that will be needed, but the job of those who profited from it (the developers) he could have blown Warner right out of the water. THIS is what Early should have done -- proposed a specific tax on the sale of a home or building, especially a brand-new one. The more a developer makes, the more he pays -- that simple. While not everyone may agree with me, in my view Virginia's electorate (especially Northern Virginia's)let Warner make suckers out of them.

Charles Babington: You make some interesting points. Let me quibble a bit.
First, not all the Northern Virginians who voted for Mark Warner did so because they support a tax-increase referendum. Our polling and interviewing found that some voters welcome a referendum so they can vote AGAINST higher taxes. (They like the notion of self-determination). Also, voters had reasons beyond tax questions to vote for (or against) Warner.
Second, It's not unusual to have local referendums to increase a local tax to help solve a local problem. Virginia's big traffic problems are in the DC suburbs. Those residents are suffering the most, so they might be willing to pay a somewhat higher tax for better roads and mass transit. One could hardly expect people in other parts of the state to tax themselves for this purpose.
As for developers: We can argue all day whether developers should be forced to pay more for roads, schools, parks, etc. In the end, though, the money is going to come from the region's residents one way or another. If you jack up the fees on developers, they simply will pass along the cost in the form of higher prices for the houses and offices they build.... I disagree with you when you say Mark Earley would have had a winning issue by calling for higher taxes on home sales. Remember, lots of voters plan to buy or sell houses.

Allentown, Pa.: Chuck, In my opinion, you are one of finest reporters in our Nation -- if not the best. You have the "innate ability" to concise the "pomposity" of our pompous pontiff!

Question --
Total SALARY: N.Y. Yankees Baseball 25 Man Roster = 109.8 Million/2001;
Total Salary of 25 U.S. Army Ranger Sergeants = $414,300/year;
N.Y. Mayor Elect, reportedly, SPENT $50 Million/2001;
Question is "How, in good conscience, can ANY U.S. Citizen rectify this cavernous disparity?"

Thank You,

Charles Babington: First, thanks for the flattery. It'll get you nowhere (nor me, either, for that matter), but it does amuse.
As for Army Sgt.'s salaries vs. NY Yanks: Can the Sergeants turn the double play and hit the slider? It's still a supply-and-demand world out there.

St. Louis, Mo.: I would like to know your reaction to the staging of the speech last night. It seemed like a campaign speech that was intended primarily to generate support for the administration. If Bush really had an important "Presidential" message about progress, precautions, and such, then I would have much rather heard something from a more traditional "address the nation" setting without the cheering audience. Who decided to do it the way they did, and why?

Charles Babington: The president has used a variety of forums to address the nation since Sept. 11: A joint session of Congress, a desk in the White House, and now the Atlanta setting you describe.
The president and his aides, of course, decide when, where and how he'll address the public. The White House desk is best for a somber, issues-laden address. As you suggest, last night's setting was chosen, in part, to indicate that the president has widespread support (manifested by all the applause) for his policies in Afghanistan and on homeland security.

Washington, D.C.: What do you think Gilmore's future will be in politics? He seems to have done a horrible job, with all three major races being lost (I'm sorry but Bloomberg's a Democrat -- and a prime example of how poorly the Republican's did in fielding candidates)

Will he be able to stay at the RNC? Or will they try to get rid of him?

Charles Babington: First, fair is fair. If Bloomberg ran as a Republican (and defeated the Democratic nominee), then the Republicans get to chalk it up in the W column.
As for Gov. Gilmore: No, he didn't come out looking too good. It's possible he could bide his time and try later for a Senate run or something... but I think he may turn his attention more to a private law practice, or something like that.

New York, N.Y.: How much time do you think Bush has to capture bin Laden before we see erosion in his 90 percent approval rating? Personally, I think the public will give him more leeway on getting bin Laden than they will on finding the source of the anthrax threat. But, does he need closure on one of those two fronts fast?

Charles Babington: I agree with you that the public is likely to be more patient on the bin Laden matter than on anthrax here at home. But how the patience will last, I have no idea.

Arlington, Va.: After last year's election brouhaha, I assumed that this year's voter turnout would increase dramatically; after Sept. 11, I suspected it would plummet. Yet I've seen no analysis regarding voter turnout this week in any forum. Can you tell us anything on this point?

Charles Babington: The analyses I've seen from Va., NJ and NYC suggest this: Voters are, to a large degree, preoccupied with the aftermath of Sept. 11, and that dampened turnout in many places. But that's not the only factor.
Voters respond in big numbers when there are dramatic, steadily unfolding events they feel politicians can DO something about (unlike the more hopeless feeling we have about the sudden 9/11 tragedy). Think of Vietnam, or recessions. They also react when they're angry (Watergate, the Clinton health-care fiasco), or when there's an especially charismatic (or divisive) candidate.
In the Va. and NJ gubernatorial races, you had neither red-hot issues nor red-hot nominees. Warner, Earley, McGreevey and Schundler weren't terrible candidates or electrifying candidates. They were kinda average.
The overall result? Voter turnout not terribly different from gubernatorial races of the past.

Arlington, Va.: A follow-up on the whom-to-tax issue -- The question of taxing developers isn't so much a question of whether the tax is passed on to new homebuyers (which, as you suggest, it likely would be). Rather, taxing developers makes the decision to sprawl outwards more expensive, thereby removing an implicit subsidy on sprawl. So you'd get different development outcomes (which I would argue would be positive overall).

Charles Babington: You're touching on the notion of "Smart Growth,'' in which governments use incentives -- tax hikes or tax breaks, generally -- to try to steer development towards some areas and away from others. It's a noble idea, though tough to implement.
As for developers: It's easy to demonize them, and some are greedy to be sure. But it's not as though they're out there hypnotizing people into wanting three-garage homes on half-acre lots on quaint country roads. And then, of course, they want good schools, parks, etc. There's a big DEMAND out there for sprawl (AKA the suburbs and exurbs).

Arlington, Va.: Is it true your colleague R.H. Melton is leaving The Post to become Gov. Mark Warner's press secretary?

Charles Babington: Not true.

Fort Worth, Tex.: WHOA!

Why didn't you challenge Plano to substantiate the charge that the first Bush administration "set new records for the number of documents shredded, and illegally destroyed computer hard drives?"

It is the law that every administration must erase the hard drives of its computers before the next administration moves in. We covered this ground when the current administration took over from the Clinton people.

The kind of assertions made by Plano are highly inflammatory (is that how the lawyer would put it) and, I think they should either be backed up by the writer or exposed by you.

Charles Babington: I'll let you make the case. Fort Worth vs. Plano: The Battle of the Metroplex!

Chandler, Ariz.: A couple of quotations and a couple of questions.

Yesterday Ashcroft said this: "We cannot know with certainty what acts of terrorism our combined efforts have thwarted or prevented, but we have trusted the American people to act responsibly in the face of threats, and thanks to their patience and to their vigilance, we know this: We have not suffered another major terrorist attack."

Questions: does that sentence mean anything, and if so, what?

Yesterday Bush said this: "Many ask, `What can I do to help in our fight?' The answer is simple. All of us can become a September the 11th volunteer by making a commitment to service in our own communities. So you can serve your country by tutoring or mentoring a child, comforting the afflicted, housing those in need of shelter and a home."

Question: had Clinton suggested we fight terrorism by "mentoring," how do you think Republicans would have responded?

Charles Babington: Re Q1: I think the attorney general is noting that many aspects of anti-terrorist work is secretive by nature. And even if/when the CIA, NSA, whatever, thwarts a planned attack, they can't crow about it because that would give away too much information about how they thwarted it... The second part of his statement suggests -- but doesn't explicitly say -- that one or more planned assault since 9/11 was prevented.
re Q2: A fair number of Republicans would have teed off on Mr. Clinton.

Washington, D.C.: In response to your answer above ("As for Army Sgt.'s salaries vs. NY Yanks: Can the Sargeants turn the double play and hit the slider? It's still a supply-and-demand world out there.").

TOTALLY off-base answer. Turn your questions around -- How many baseball players could do the work of the Army Rangers? How many Americans, for that matter, could do the work of the Army Rangers? Not many. Baseball players play a GAME for a living. Surely a welcome diversion, but when you get right down to it, completely frivolous. Army Rangers risk their lives every day so that -- among other things -- baseball players can play baseball. It's a disgrace that don't pay them accordingly.

As a military person myself, I know young soldiers with families who qualify for food stamps and the free lunch programs at school. There should be no circumstances under which a soldier in uniform for our country is paid so little so as to qualify for food stamps/free lunch.

Sorry, I know I'm ranting, but this just makes me crazy.

Charles Babington: Yes, baseball is a game, and games are frivolous. This also is true: thousands and thousands of fans buy tickets of $30, $50, $75, $150, etc -- time and time again -- to watch MLB, NHL, NFL and NBA games. They also buy the beer and cars for all those darn TV ads on game day. That's why many baseball players make $5 million or more a year, and basketball stars make much more.
It may drive you crazy, but Americans value Cal Ripken at $6 million a year, and Alex Rodriguez at a quarter-BILLION dollars for his baseball career. They don't value Army Rangers -- or school teachers or firefighters or cops or you name it -- at anywhere near that price.

Crystal City, Mo.: Bloomberg's win makes me kind of worried -- coupled with Corzine's win in New Jersey last year doesn't this just prove that you can buy an election? Especially in Bloomberg's case (since New York is really pre-disposed toward a Democratic candidate?).

Charles Babington: Well, Michael Bloomberg and Sen. Corzine weren't the first to spend personal fortunes to get elected. Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) and several others fit the description, too.
In the end, voters decide. Yes, a Michael Bloomberg can buy a gazillion TV ads, but Mark Green and others can talk about it, and argue he's trying to buy the election. That's exactly what Green did in NYC, of course, and the news media paid plenty of attention to this issue. If voters decide they're disgusted by a candidate's spending -- of if they just don't like the candidate DESPITE his spending -- they can vote against him. Sometimes they do. Remember when Michael Huffington spent millions and millions to get elected in California? He lost.

Charles Babington: The hour is up. Thanks for joining, see you next week.