|
Political Insider Live
With Charles Babington
Staff Writer and Chief Political Correspondent for washingtonpost.com
Friday, Nov. 16, 2001; 1 p.m. EST
A tentative pact has been reached on the airline safety bill, but will it pass muster with both parties? Is the three day summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Bush the beginning of a new partnership between two former enemies? Is it too soon to wonder who will govern a post-Taliban Afghanistan?
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.
Charles Babington: Greetings and welcome. With the Russian president in Texas this week; the NJ and Virginia elections still being rehashed; and the 2002 primaries close enough (yes, folks, I'm not kidding) that political insiders already are fretting, there are plenty of political issues to discuss. This morning I attended a briefing at the DLC where Democratic consultants exulted over their gubernatorial wins in NJ and Va. They said the key was that the Dem. nominees ran in the center and the GOP nominees did little but pound the old anti-tax/anti-abortion drum.... But maybe the Dems simply had better candidates?
Please join in with your thoughts, questions and arguments.
Lexington, Va.:
The stupidity of the Republicans on the Hill and the class warfare and trust in bureaucracy of the Democrats never cease to amaze me.
It seems to me that the Republicans lost the battle over the airport security bill when the only argument (or the one they presented most often) was that it would mean that the Dems would have 28,000 new dues paying union members adding money to their coffers (which is, of course, true and could arguably have been seen as a payoff to union supporters). A much stronger argument would have been pointing to the security lapses at O'Hare airport and what happened to the workers who failed to perform their jobs -- they got fired. If they had been federal workers, that could NEVER have happened.
What's your view? How is it that Republicans always seem to fall into this kind of trap?
Charles Babington: I see a couple of other questions on this topic. I'll post them now, and then respond.
Sparta, N.J.:
Regarding the Senate's win in federalizing the airport screeners, what happened with Tom Delay's and Dick Armey's opposition to this? Did other Republican House members abandon them?
Charles Babington: And still one more....
Washington, D.C.:
Charles -- I have two questions.
Public opinion was overwhelming in favor for federal baggage checkers, but Republicans continue to fight for a private alterative. Were the Republicans playing brinkmanship with the issue? Were they hoping public opinion would turn to -- just get something done?
Is the Florida recount issue really over despite the fact Bush probably would have won without taking Gore to court making Bush appear anti-democracy?
Charles Babington: Let's start with Washington's first question. I don't think the Republicans were playing brinkmanship. I think they were acting from their conviction that a large federal bureaucracy is not a good thing and that, in general, the private sector handles chores more efficiently than the public sector. Hard to believe, but sometimes politicians really do stick with their convictions even when it threatens to hurt them with the public.
To Sparta: I think Armey and DeLay just couldn't hold the troops in line because there was so much pressure to reach a compromise quickly, before the heavily traveled Thanksgiving holiday. With Democrats holding firm on the federal worker issue -- joined by some crucial Republicans, including Sen. John McCain -- the GOP House leaders just didn't have time to keep holding their ground.
To Lexington: Actually, federal employees can be fired. But yes, it's more difficult than firing a private contractor.
Finally, to Washington's second question: The Florida recount issue, except for historical purposes, was over long ago. The media consortium's project just added a few more details, nothing earth-shattering.
I think the main point that Democratic loyalists will keep making (to historians, at least) is this: Forget whether you count dimpled chads or hanging chads or whatever. Polls, interviews, etc., leave little doubt that most Florida voters INTENDED to vote for Gore. That in no way invalidates Bush's presidency. But it certainly underscores how confusing and fouled up the ballot process can be.
Waco, Tex.:
How do we go about getting rid of the
NSA, or the CIA? It seems like these two
agencies, working in secret for the most
part, are responsible for the disgust with
the US.
Thank you.
Charles Babington: I don't quite understand. You think the CIA and National Security Agency are the cause for foreigners' "disgust' with the USA, or domestic disgust? And what would you replace these agencies with? Nothing?... That wouldn't make me sleep any better at night.
Washington, D.C.:
I’m curious to know what you think about comments being made regarding Bush and Putin’s recent meetings. It feels like some journalists are referring to this meeting as merely “fluff.” I disagree with this. It seems that some might be “letting the perfect get in the way of the good.” Realizing they didn’t solve all the problems of the world in one fail swoop, it shouldn’t be forgotten and it should be stated that every idea, every action and every accomplishment has a starting point. I am personally amazed by the present camaraderie between these two leaders. In fact, anyone above elementary school age should be amazed. I also think this camaraderie sends a pretty loud shout out to our current adversaries. What do you think? washingtonpost.com:
A Summit of Style Over Substance (Washington Post, Nov. 16, 2001)
Charles Babington: I think you're quarreling a bit with your own point. You say Bush and Putin accomplished more than fluff in their chummy appearance in Crawford. But then you go on to marvel at the details of their camaraderie, not details of nuclear disarmament, etc.
That said, you make a good point: If the leaders of Russia and the USA can form a strong personal bond, perhaps it will help them tackle meaty issues.
Alexandria, Va.:
In the recent Virginia elections, Ralph Nader's Green Party only ran one candidate for the state legislature, and that candidate only got three percent of the vote.
Did Ralph Nader accomplish in Virginia his goal of creating a meaningful third party?
Charles Babington: I'm not aware that Mr. Nader seriously tried to create a third party at the state government level in Virginia.... And I'll be surprised if meaningful numbers of Green Party candidates get elected to the legislatures of any state (well, except maybe the Green Mountain State)... This isn't Germany.
Arlington, Va.:
Afternoon Chuck,
Would you like to comment on the results of the latest Gallup poll regarding the media's coverage of the war on terrorism?
"The only organization that gets a negative rating by the public is the news media. A majority, 54 percent, disapprove of the way the media are handling the war on terrorism, while 43 percent approve." http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010926b.asp
Personally, I have been heartened by some of the editorials and coverage in the Post. Keep up the good work.
Charles Babington: Thanks for your encouraging words. Gotta say, I don't get terribly worked up about polls on the public's views of the news media. I don't get depressed when those polls show how much we're despised (which is most of the time), so I'm also not gonna take comfort when the Fickle Finger of Fate swings around and suggests we're merely disliked or tolerated.
Look, the news media is an easy target, and sometimes we deserve it. When news organizations are innaccurate, unfair, lazy or naive, we deserve criticism. We should own up to our mistakes and try to learn from them.
But very often our job is to dig up things that people don't want to hear: A certain government agency or official is a crook who's been ripping off taxpayers; your local schools aren't as good as they should be; your neighbors died in a car wreck or shooting.... and so forth.
It's not fun to bear that sort of news (well, OK, the government agency stuff can be kinda fun)... but it's our job.
Oxford, Ohio:
Does Jim McGreevy's victory in the N.J. Governor's race, securing that even if he resigned, the seat would stay in Democratic hands, have anything to do with the U.S. Attorney's apparent decision to close down the Torrecelli probe?
Charles Babington: I don't think the investigation of Sen. Torricelli (D-NJ) is officially over. The Manhattan-based U.S. Atty's office still might seek an indictment... But Torricelli's people don't think that will happen. The head of the office, Mary Jo White, announced yesterday that she will step down by year's end.
I have no way of knowing whether McGreevey's election played any role in her thinking (tho I have my doubts). I'd point to three other possible factors in the Torricelli case:
1. The case hangs largely on testimony by David Chang, who allegedly gave cash and gifts to the senator. Federal prosecutors have called Chang untruthful. That won't help them.
2. White's office recently lost another politically charged case, involving former Teamster prez. Ron Carey. His case, like Torricelli's, dealt largely with campaign money issues.
3. The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks gave White's office lots and lots of other things to worry about.
Hamilton, Va.:
Al Kamen's column in today's Post has a story about Dick Armey being unhappy about being referred to with Lott and DeLay as a Republican Taliban. He thinks that the press should not have reported that and should call the Democrats who have been using that term to task. He thinks it's the old double standard, if he had said same he would be hearing about it.
Is it possible that Armey and DeLay are simply unlikable folks and the press don't feel any strong compunction to defend their honor? washingtonpost.com:
"Turns of Endearment," (Post, Nov. 16)
Charles Babington: If by "the press'' you mean plain ol' news reporters (as opposed to pundits, columnists and editorial writers), I hope none of us would base our coverage on whether we find Armey, DeLay or another politician likable or unlikable.
Washington, D.C.:
Regarding your earlier response about terminating federal employees. While it is theoretically possible to discharge a federal employee, isn't it true that this hardly ever occurs in practice, since federal managers are rarely required to reduce (as opposed to slowing the growth) in their operating expenditures?
Charles Babington: My Post colleague Steve Barr, an expert on such matters, tells me the federal government fires between 3,000 and 5,000 beginner workers a year, for poor performance, while they are on probation. The idea is to get rid of weak employees before they get entrenched. After they pass probation, yes, it's difficult to fire them. That's because the civil service was created, in part, to protect federal workers from political pressures and retaliation.
As for the airport security workers: The new legislation will strip them of some of these protections, making it easier to fire them for cause, even if they've gotten off probation.
Charles Babington: The hour is up. Thanks for joining. Hope to see you next week.
| |
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
