|
Political Insider Live
With Charles Babington
Staff Writer and Chief Political Correspondent for washingtonpost.com
Friday, Dec. 7, 2001; 2 p.m. EST
The war on terrorism continues in the Middle East while civil libertarians become increasingly concerned over broad powers the federal government is using to curtail another attack on our soil.
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.
Alexandria, Va.:
What are the chances that Hillary Clinton would run for President in 2004? Would she be a strong candidate outside of the deep South?
Bring back a Clinton to the White House, I say.
Charles Babington: The chances she will run in 2004? Nil.
In 2008? Perhaps a little more than nil.
Like all liberals, HRC would struggle not only in the deep south but also in the Rocky Mountain states and much of the midwest.
Bethesda, Md.:
Any potential democrats exploring a run in '04? I think if Bush does what he is doing now he is sure to be ousted like his father was.
Charles Babington: Plenty of Dems are eyeing a presidential bid in 2004 (tho I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the president's strength at this point). They include Sen. John Kerry of Mass.; House Dem. Leader Dick Gephardt; Sen. John Edwards of NC; Sen. Joe Biden of Del.; Sen. Tom Daschle of SD. And of course, don't forget that Al Gore hasn't ruled out another try.
Also, if Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes is re-elected next year (as he probably will be), watch to see if he makes White House noises.
Alexandria, Va. (at school in Ohio):
Is Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) more vulnerable now with Gov. Racicot at the head of the GOP?
washingtonpost.com:
Racicot Chosen to Head GOP National Committee (Post, Dec. 5, 2001)
Charles Babington: If anything, Baucus might feel even safer. Racicot's acceptance of the RNC chairmanship virtually assures that he won't be coaxed into challenging Baucus (he repeatedly said he wouldn't run, but that didn't silence the rumors). For now, the top GOP contender appears to be a state senator named Mike Taylor. The Baucus people would much prefer his challenge to Racicot's.
Miami, Fla.:
Do you know your Presidential political history well enough to tell us who was the last President before George W. Bush to be so secretive and whether that president was elected to a second term.
Who was the last president, before W., to reign in so much presidential power. Thanks
Charles Babington: I'm not a presidential scholar... but I know that Richard Nixon was secretive in many ways (he had a secret "enemies list,' secret campaign funds, a secret tape-recording system, a Plumbers' Unit, etc.). We know that he was re-elected in a landslide, and we know what happened next.
As for a president exercising extensive powers, I think of LBJ. He used his clout mainly on domestic issues (his Great Society agenda), but also in the Vietnam War (the Tonkin Gulf resolution, which freed him to wage war without a congressional declaration).
West Chester, Pa.:
I see that stimulus talks have broken down again. I guess I'm really surprised that the parties haven't been able to make a deal on this. Will there be a package, soon enough so that it will have a real impact on the economy?
Charles Babington: One reason Congress remains at an impasse is that many members don't truly believe that any measure they pass will "have a real impact on the economy.'' And plenty of economists agree with that. The U.S. economy is huge, and even a multi-billion-dollar tax cut or "stimulus package'' can make only a small dent at best.
Moreover, the American public seems quite divided on what type of package is best -- or whether we should have one at all. That division of public opinion makes it easier for Congress to delay and debate (or, flipping the coin over, harder to reach a consensus).
Dallas, Tex.:
"Many people have concerns about his
leadership in this uncertain time," sniffs
this morning's Washington Post. "He
doesn't get the message," whines the
New York Times.
Personally, I don't think either of these
fine editorial pages get the message. I'd
have a whole lot more sympathy with
these concerns if they were expressed
more as cautions than as accusations.
As for Sen. Leahy and friends, it doesn't
take a Republican to see their attempt to
corral Ashcroft as an attempt to build a
straw man and thereby undermine a
Republican president they don't dare
attack directly.
Or am I being unfair?
Charles Babington: Sniff? Whine? Can't these editorial pages simply SAY something you disagree with?
Lemme guess: The Dallas Morning News' editorial page takes a different view.
Washington, D.C.:
What's your take on Ashcroft's testimony yesterday -- win, lose, or draw? Lots of verbal shots being taken back and forth -- Ashcroft claiming his critics are aiding terrorists?!
Whatever one's views on him, he's performing a politically invaluable job in absorbing criticism for the administration, and is a great asset to Bush.
Charles Babington: Frankly, I thought Mr. Ashcroft dished out more criticism yesterday than he absorbed. He came close to questioning the patriotism of those who disagree with the administration's policies on military tribunals and the long-term detention of non-citizens.
So far, many in Congress and the general public seem to be on his side. But some pretty smart folks are warning that we may see these decisions in a different light a few months or years from now.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa:
Has Bush always been a secretive politician or did he just become that way as he watched his father's presidency? Was GW that way in his business life?
I would think with so little direct personal political experience that he would have developed in such a way.
Finally, as a woman, I have more respect for women such as Condi Rice than Hillary Rodham Clinton. HRC, in my opinion, has too much baggage of all varieties to make it beyond the Senate. Any thoughts?
Charles Babington: While Hillary Rodham Clinton and Condaleeza Rice may (or may not) be good role models for girls and women, I'm not sure we need to single out their gender to assess their roles in government and politics. I think history will judge them by putting them in the context of all other senators, male and female, and all other National Security advisers (all have been male up to now). Your point is well-taken that HRC's long and, um, eventful marriage to Bill Clinton clearly is part of the legacy she brings to Congress, for good and for bad.
As for President Bush's previous secretiveness, I'm afraid I have no insight.
Alexandria, Va.:
Ashcroft's the one aiding terrorists, using these simplistic methods that have already been tried in other nations, and failed miserably.
Why doesn't he use his brain and attempt to come up with a new, and hopefully effective, approach at dealing with terrorists?
Charles Babington: Thanks for sharing your opinions.
Dallas, Tex.:
I don't read The Dallas Morning News
editorial page.
And you watch YOUR sniffing and
whining, young man!
Charles Babington: YOUNG man? Why, bless you!
Mt Rainier, Md.:
It would seem that Dallas is not getting the message that many people (even editors) feel queasy about losing their rights for an indefinite period of time, to be decided by the president-of-the-moment. This undeclared "war" will not be ended by a treaty any more than our war on drugs -- and scary to think it may be just as successful.
Charles Babington: These are very tough issues, and smart, honest, patriotic people are bound to disagree. Luckily we live in a society that allows a robust discussion (which takes place, among other forums, on newspaper editorial pages).
Bandon, Ore.:
The Post's editorial, "Ashcroft's Smear" hits the mark. The guy's scary. washingtonpost.com:
"The Ashcroft Smear," (Post, Dec. 7)
Charles Babington: Like I just said....
Crystal City, Mo.:
If Ann Wagner had gotten the job as chair of the RNC, how do you think that would have changed the Senate race in Missouri (considering she is from there).
Charles Babington: I don't think it would have made a big difference. The Missouri race already is well-shaped: Former Rep. Jim Talent (R) will challenge Sen. Jean Carnahan (D), who was appointed to the seat after her husband died in a plane crash (and was elected posthumously, over John Ashcroft). The Missouri race is a very high priority for both parties. That would be true -- and IS true -- with or without a Missouri native heading the RNC.
Fairfax, Va.:
Is Senator Daschle (D-S.D.) up for reelection in 2002? I wish the GOP luck for trying to remove some of that nice guy persona when he's playing paritsan hardball, but I don't think it'll work.
If he is up, are there any GOP challengers yet?
Charles Babington: Sen. Daschle's seat is up in 2004. However, he will be very active in SD next year because Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) is seeking a second term, and the Republicans are going all-out to defeat him. President Bush personally wooed Rep. John Thune (R-SD) and persuaded him to run against Johnson instead of running for the open governor's seat (which Thune probably would have won easily). Daschle is determined to keep Johnson in office.
My colleague John Lancaster wrote a nice page-one story today about Daschle. We will provide a link.
washingtonpost.com:
"The Senate's Quiet Thorn in GOP's Side," (Post, Dec. 7)
Montreal, Canada:
How long do you believe Israel will wait for results from Arafat? Up to now it seems that Arafat has only arrested minor players and is very hesitant or perhaps afraid to arrest the big wheels.
Charles Babington: Israel's leaders face a dilemma re Arafat. They clearly are extremely unhappy with him, feeling he has done too little to curb terrorism. But if he should die or be ousted, they fear that even more militant, violent figures will succeed him. The Israelis obviously have the military expertise and intelligence to have killed Arafat by now if they wanted to.
Terrace Park, Ohio:
Do you think it's time for war between Israel and the
Palestinians?
Charles Babington: Shouldn't we pray for peace whenever and wherever it is possible?
Plano, Tex.:
I am amazed at the lack of public outrage at Bush's more questionable power grabs. Do you think if the Supreme Court was to rule that his Military Tribunals were a gross abuse of the Constitution it would affect public opinion?
Charles Babington: If the Supreme Court ruled that ANYthing was "a gross abuse of the Constitution'' I certainly hope it would affect public opinion a great deal.
Do you anticipate such a ruling?
Atlanta, Ga.:
What is it about Ms. Rice and Ms. Hughes, as well as one of the men close to Bush, and their history with Bush that makes Bush appear to pay more attention to their opinions than say Powell, who has considerably more experience, both political and miltarily.
I have read that these two women and one of the men are the closest to Bush and he defers to their opinions most often. Thanks.
Charles Babington: I'm guessing the man you refer to is political adviser Karl Rove. Or is it Dick Cheney? At any rate, there's little doubt that President Bush listens to an array of advisers -- but like any executive, he keeps some closer than others.
I know that Mr. Rove and Karen Hughes have been with George W. Bush for many years, and they've developed a deep trust and understanding. Rice, Cheney and others (such as WH chief of staff Andy Card) are newer to his circle, but clearly they've become important advisers, too.
Washington, D.C.:
With the administration pushing for a stimulus package, it's almost certain something will be passed.
But suppose the White House didn't care at all about the issue. How much pressure would Congress have to pass a stimulus bill? It seems to me many members would rather work on other issues -- terrorism related bills, and the regular appropriation bills just to name a couple. I just don't see a lot of pressure in Congress itself to pass a stimulus.
Charles Babington: Without White House pressure, I doubt Congress would be addressing a stimulus package. But that's true of many issues. The president (any president) has the clout to propose a broad-based agenda and try to push it through Congress. Congress spends much of its energy responding to the president's proposals.
Dallas, Tex.:
Hey, I like robust conversations,
especially on the editorial pages. What I
don't like are blanket statements about
"losing rights" when the writer doesn't
take the time to tell me which rights he's
talking about.
Nothing I've heard about suggests
anything except the POSSIBILITY of rights
being compromised in any way. And
THAT, not the expression of informed
opinion -- even if it disagrees with mine --
is what I object to.
Charles Babington: OK. Thanks for writing back.
Kansas City, Mo.:
John Ashcroft's recent performance (I'm
right and you're wrong) shows why Missouri
voted for a dead man rather than him.
Refresh me, did the GOP do an end run to get
Ashcroft voted in before the Senate changed
hands earlier this year?
Charles Babington: I think the Ashcroft confirmation was a straight-up deal (though hotly debated, to be sure). The Senate confirmed him, 58-42, on Feb. 1. Eight Democrats and all 50 Republicans voted for his confirmation.
Perhaps you are thinking of the tax-cut issue, when Sen. Jim Jeffords delayed his party switch long enough to let the President's measure pass before putting the Senate in Democratic hands?
Charles Babington: Thanks for the good questions and comments, folks. Next week we'll return to our normal 1 p.m. start.
| |
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
