|
Political Insider Live
With Charles Babington
Staff Writer and Chief Political Correspondent for washingtonpost.com
Friday, May 18, 2001; 1 p.m. EDT
The president has laid out his new energy policy and not everyone is happy. Democrats are complaining that it doesn't focus enough on conservation and plan to fight proposed drilling in ANWR.
Charles Babington, chief political
correspondent for washingtonpost.com and Washington Post staff writer, 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, welcome. I have no opening statement. Let's get started.
Virginia:
I’m a Democrat who was sickened by Pres. Clinton saying one thing on the campaign trail, then acting differently once elected. Now I feel like I was duped again with Pres. Bush. He spoke as moderate during the election and that’s the reason why I voted for him – just like his father. My friends and colleagues tell me that I should have known he’s a conservative and I shouldn’t be surprised. But I honestly thought he was speaking to me as a moderate. Moreover, you had Nader running around saying Gore and Bush are politically the same. Boy was he wrong - especially about the environment.
My question is, like me will the public stop believing what Bush says knowing he may act differently? Can we honestly believe he’ll live up to his conservation promises he put in his energy policy at the last minute because there was public outcry? This is starting to look like the same PR approach Clinton gave us for eight years.
Charles Babington: I get many e-mails and questions similar to this, and I gotta say, I side with your friends and colleagues. Bush campaign repeatedly as a "compassionate conservative.'' I never heard him call himself a ''compassionate moderate'' -- or any kind of moderate, for that matter. To be sure, Bush avoided the fire-breathing, culture-warring comments of hard-righters such as Pat Buchanan. But he always said he was a conservative.
As for saying one thing and doing another: How many Bush examples can you think of? I can think of only two: His reversal on tighter regulations for Carbon dioxide emissions, and (hardly noticed), his new support for possible hybrid-fuel cars (which he ridiculed during the campaign). His other major changes (not total flip-flops) took him in a more moderate, not conservative, direction: Agreeing to a tax cut of $1.35 trillion instead of $1.6 trillion; dropping his push for school vouchers, etc. Thanks for writing.
New York, N.Y.:
I know Bush has been criticized for building his energy plan around the oil, gas and coal industry. Who is he supposed to cater to in his energy plan if he can't go to oil, gas, coal or nuclear power - the Pepsi corporation??
Charles Babington: Many people would like to see a greater emphasis on energy conservation.
Moraga, Calif.:
I just read that a man was "detained" by the Secret Service because he had a gun in his waistband and the man was in the same park where George Bush was jogging. The man had a permit to carry the gun.
Governor Bush argued that laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons increased public safety. Has anyone asked Bush or his spokespeople whether the Secret Service's actions are appropriate or even legal?
Charles Babington: Look, if you have gun in the vicinity of the president, and the Secret Service agents realize it, they are going to detain and question you. That's just the way it is. If you're clean and meant no harm, presumably they release you fairly quickly. I don't think the Secret Service is interested in gun control debates.
Aspen Hills, Md.:
Although Bush received fewer votes than Gore, he seems to be proceeding on many issues, including energy, taxes and the environment, as though he has a clear mandate. Do you think this is accurate and, if so, successful?
Charles Babington: I do think that's the way he's behaving. Some people (especially Democrats) feel the president should move more to the center in light of the 2000 vote. But many people, including some presidential scholars, think he's pretty smart to behave as if he won comfortably. I wrote a column about this very issue on Wednesday, which you can link to if you want more on this. thanks
washingtonpost.com:
Bush Moving in "Landslide" Fashion (Post, May 16, 2001)
Rochester, N.Y.:
I am interested to know if you have seen the newspaper reports that a GSA study found there was no vandalism in the White House by the departing administration, and if not, why is this not front page news in major media outlets? I have not seen anything about this on the Post or NYT web sites? I mean it was big news when it allegedly happened.
washingtonpost.com:
GSA: Clinton Aides Did Not Vandalize White House (Post, May 18, 2001)
Charles Babington: Many newspapers, including today's Post, reported on the GSA finding. For technical reasons, it didn't get posted on our website right away. However it's there now, as part of my Political Insider column (on our home page).
The rumors of White House and Air Force One vandalism did get a fair amount of attention, especially from conservative commentators. But most news outlets, including the Post, also promptly reported indications that the rumors were exaggerated or untrue. This included President Bush's statement, soon after taking office, that the rumors were unfounded.
Shawnee, Kans.:
Do you think it is likely that Dick Armey and Phil Gramm will prevail in reducing the top tax rate to 33 percent in conference for the tax cut?
Charles Babington: I think it would be very difficult, because it would require a total capitulation from the Senate. I think they'll have to settle on some compromise number.
Baltimore, Md.:
How can you call yourself a journalist when you write op ed and call it news. Your article on Bush acting like he won is total slanted garbage. That's opinion, not news. What is he supposed to do? Act like a loser. The fact is that he did win according to the Constitution and umpteen recounts of Florida. Shame on you and the Post.
Charles Babington: I have a feeling you read nothing beyond the headline. My article was a fairly straight-news report of a two-hour roundtable involving four presidential scholars. The scholars talked about President Bush's reaction to his election margin... and I summarized what they said. thanks
Niles, Mich.:
Did FBI Director Louis Freeh leave office in order to escape blame for unfortunate outcomes beyond his control or for getting clear and opening some new directions? T. J.
Charles Babington: Mr. Freeh says he is leaving for personal reasons, not to escape blame. At a congressional hearing this week, he accepted blame for the delay in forwarding the Timothy McVeigh investigation files to the prosecutors and defense lawyers.
Dallas, Tex.:
Charles,
I think Ted Kennedy is the only liberal Democrat who
knows what he's doing. He's dealing, willing to accept
half a loaf to make progress toward his goals.
Daschle and the other Democrats, on the other
hand, simply ridicule the President's plan de jour or
attempt to demonize him. Then they accuse him of
not dealing with THEM. You can easily predict the
Democratic response to whatever Bush says.
This pattern looks rather permanent at this stage.
What do you think the long terms results are going
to be politically?
Charles Babington: It's not my job to defend Daschle and Gephardt. But they are the opposition party's leaders in the Senate and House, and I think they feel obligated to state the Democrats' views (often strongly)of the Republican president's agenda. I agree with you that this all-too-familiar game of attack and counter-attack does get wearisome at times. But it doesn't mean they won't participate in future compromises that will enable legislation to get through both houses.
Takoma Park, Md.:
I was really happy to read former President Carter's opinion on Bush's energy policy. Even though I was only 7 when Carter was elected, he has been a personal hero for a long time. Why don't we hear more from former Presidents? washingtonpost.com:
Misinformation and Scare Tactics (Post, May 17, 2001)
Charles Babington: Jimmy Carter has been a highly active former president (for more than 20 years now!). I think his voice is heard fairly often on issues he cares about. Other former presidents, including Ford and Bush, have not plunged into public matters as deeply as Carter has... And there's certainly nothing wrong with that.
Ithaca, N.Y.:
Will John Edwards stick to his promise to block the Boyle nomination or will he cave in exchange for Gregory? washingtonpost.com:
For One Nominee, Fight Ahead (Post, May 18, 2001)
Charles Babington: I have no idea.
Lawson, Mo.:
Who has the advantage in the Ted Olsen battle. Since the Republicans can bring it to the floor and have the 51st vote I see them having the upper hand. Do you think it will come to the 51st vote?
Charles Babington: The first question is whether any Democratic senator will support Olson on the floor. If one does (and if all 50 Republicans vote to confirm), then VP Cheney won't have to break a tie. Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) has voted with the Republicans on sensitive issues before, such as the Bush tax cut plan and the John Ashcroft confirmation. Miller's office says he will make a statement later today, but I don't know what it will be.... Yes, the Democrats realize they can lose the fight even if they hold all 50 of their members (because Cheney would break the tie). That won't stop them from battling as hard as they can.
Washington, D.C.:
Why do you think the Bush administration continues to push for drilling in the Arctic refuge when most press reports and independent observers refer to the idea as a nonstarter?
Charles Babington: I guess it's a matter of advocating the policies you believe in, you support, even if you're 99 percent sure they won't be enacted. Other presidents (including Mr. Bush's father) have called for drilling in ANWR. Congress has blocked it every time.
South Riding, Va.:
Does the new energy proposal allow for exploration and drilling off the Florida, California and Atlantic seaboard states? It seems to me that these areas are much closer and would be less expensive to develop than the Alaskan fields.
Charles Babington: I haven't heard any of those places mentioned. Here's a big difference: Lots of people live and vacation on the coasts of Fla., Calif. and the Atlantic Seaboard. That's not true of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.
Kents Store, Va.:
Mr. Bush seems to be behaving like a spoiled child who knows there will be no ramifications for his bad deeds. Is he right?
Are we stuck with this? Do we just sit back and complain, without any avenue for change?
If his judicial appointments slide in the way Ashcroft, Norton et al. did, can we not expect the 2002 election to be decided in favor of the Republicans as well? Do we have to wait for Europe to solve this for us?
Charles Babington: How can any elected official believe there can't be "ramifications for his bad deeds?'' If most Americans agree with you, don't you think the Republicans would take a pounding in the 2002 elections, and Bush would be ousted in 2004?
Columbia, S.C.:
Spencer Abraham was interviewed this morning and had the gall to say that "we all remember the energy problems during the Carter administration and we don't wan't to go back to those days" as if President Carter were to blame for the energy shortages we faced in 1977. Do you think that the Bush team really thinks it is good strategy to try to talk its way out of the current energy problem by bashing Carter and making it sound like some kind of partisan issue?
Charles Babington: Maybe so. But it's certainly possible to overdo such a strategy. Remember Bob Dole's reference to "Democrat wars,'' including WWI and WWII? That didn't go over well with voters.
Asheville, N.C.:
For the Bushies: (re: energy program)
Why have we abandoned the idea of conserving priceless and limited natural resources? Americans would respond if they were challenged to help solve the current energy crisis. Speed limits could be lowered, people could car pool, we could invest in mass transit, etc., etc.
Charles Babington: Well, let's review some history: President Carter called on Americans to lower their thermostats in winter, car pool once a week, and make energy conservation ''the moral equivalent of war.'' He wore a cardigan on TV! Congress lowered the speed limit to 55 mph. Then the crisis passed, and speed limits went back to 65 mph, and Carter got voted out of office (tho certainly not on this issue alone). I wish I could agree with your optimistic view of human behavior.
Richmond, Calif.:
I find it hypocritical that the Repuplicans want the "politics of personal destrcution" to stop now that Clinton is out of office; particularly with regard to Ted Olson, someone who appears of have been part of the politics of destruction of Clinton. What is your feeling?
Charles Babington: These are tough issues. Senate Democrats oppose Ted Olson as Solicitor General (I'm convinced) because they think he's too ideologically rigid and right-wing, not because they think he's some kind of rotten person. And that's arguably a valid reason to oppose him. But their only chance to defeat his nomination is to highlight his somewhat hedgy answers to his role in the "Arkansas Project.'' And that, to some, looks like politics of "personal destruction.'' The same can apply for Republicans, of course. Where do you draw the line on personal attacks when you have a political/policy goal of blocking a nomination you think is bad for the country? This is the issue that's in debate here. Thanks for writing.
Moraga, Calif.:
I don't intend to hog the discussion on this seemingly trivial point, but you have misinterpreted my question. Its not about gun control, its about hypocrisy.
Governer Bush argued that the public will be safer when more people have immediate access to concealed weapons. Then he should stick by his own law rather than argue that it doesn't apply to him.
Of course, occasionally those people with legal concealed weapons may run across a President or other dignitary in a park. More likely, they will run across an ex-wife smooching with a new boyfriend on a park bench. Why does Bush support "detaining" (i.e. arresting - this was much more than a constitutionally permitted Terry stop) a citizen legally carrying a concealed gun in a park when Bush is there, but not when an ex-wife wants to use the park? That is hypocrisy.
Charles Babington: You get the last word on this matter.
Depression-raised child:
I read that Bush says we can all save lots of money by using smart meters to turn lights off when we aren't using them. Never mind the arguable point that there is much to be saved (especially in residents) with this. If my dad had raised Bush, he would have known better than to leave unnecessary lights on - without a bloody meter! Is common sense -absolutely- dead?!
Charles Babington: I wasn't raised in the Depression (my parents were), but I totally sympathize. Several times a day I go through the house turning out the lights my children leave on. I lecture them, plead, shout, cajole, all to no avail. We'd have a better world if human nature didn't mess it up, don't you think? thanks
Burke, Va.:
I think it's appropriate that the Democrats reject Olsen as soliciter general for evasiveness about the Arkansas project. What a low-down no-class trick the Conservatives pulled. Now I understand the whole right-wing conspiracy thing. I didn't belive it but there was one. If Democrats did a Texas project on Bush I wouldn't expect anyone involved to be able to work in the government afterwards.
Charles Babington: thanks for writing.
Alexandria, Va.:
The Post seems to be missing the story on the Olson saga. You seem to believe this is about "political payback" and, to some extent, it is.
However, the larger issue is whether or not Olson lied about his involvement with the Arkansas Project. Clearly, there is more than a little evidence to suggest that he did.
GSA undertook an investigation as to whether the Clinton administration "trashed" the White House based upon, using 20/20 hindsight, what appears to be far less evidence.
Charles Babington: I disagree with your first sentence. The Post, via reporter Tom Edsall, broke the story on Olson's role and comments about the Arkansas Project.
Plano, Tex.:
I have to agree that Bush himself didn't lie about be a far right conservative whose only difference from the other right wingers was that he was polite, and friendly. The Press, and other Republicans labeled him as a moderate, but neither his literal words, or his record in Texas would paint him as anything other than a member of the far right. How he maintained the compassite tag, while mocking female death row pleads is beyond me, a more apt title would be
"A Polite Conservative."
Charles Babington: Thanks for writing.
Washington, D.C.:
My Compliments to you, Charles. I'm a moderate Republican and I can't tell whether you are a conservative, liberal or otherwise. Thanks for doing such a great job, your answers to all these questions are VERY balanced.
Charles Babington: Thanks for writing in, Mom.
Jersey City, N.J.:
Does anyone believe that in a world dominated by oil consumption, that 13 billion gallons of oil in Alaska are going to remain untouched until the end of time? I don't like the idea of drilling in ANWR either but I believe sooner or later that oil is coming out. Eventually the world will run out of oil and when that happens I don't think there will be five gallons of oil left underground.
Charles Babington: Thanks for writing.
Woodland Hills, Calif.:
You say it's not your job to defend Gephardt and Daischle, and mildy criticize them being ornary, yet a few questions later you defend the President for wanting to drill where most of the planet wishes he wouldn't as being true to his beliefs, whether popular or not. Besides being hogwash, aren't you being inconsistent in your favors?
Charles Babington: I didn't defend Bush at all. I said he apparently believes that drilling in the ANWR is the right thing to do. I said nothing at all about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of such a policy.
Monterey, Calif.:
Chuck,
I think that you and the scholars are wrong that Bush's strategy of acting as if he has a mandate is smart. I would never have voted for him in 2004 anyway, but his arrogance has motivated me to become much more active politically. I will be donating much more money and time to those opposing his policies than I would have if he took a more centrist approach. And I don't think I'm the only one his mobilized.
Charles Babington: Thanks for writing... Not to be testy, but I said nothing about whether I thought his policy was smart. I just quoted the scholars who said they believed it was.
Pittsburgh, Pa.:
I agree with WDC. Your discussion reminds me each week how much 'far right' and 'far left' are in the eye of the beholder.
Charles Babington: Bless you. And on that gentle note, I bid you all a happy weekend and hope you'll tune in next week.
washingtonpost.com:
That was our last question today. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
Stay tuned to Live Online:
The
Chat House at 2 p.m. EDT
Film:
Rita Kempley at 2 p.m. EDT
The
Reliable Source: Lloyd Grove at 3 p.m. EDT
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
|
|
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
