|
Political Insider Live
With Charles Babington
Staff Writer and Chief Political Correspondent for washingtonpost.com
Friday, Dec. 14, 2001; 1 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 U.S. 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.
Bethesda, Md.:
I'm surprised by the reaction to the bin Laden video tape. I feel the Department of Justice had done a very credible job in developing the case against this man. What enrages me is the presences of the Saudi gentleman who was listening so attentively to bin Laden. I feel that President Bush should get on the phone to the Saudi ruler and explain what's going to happen next.
While it is true we are big consumers of their oil, I think we need to ask Saudi Arabia if they wish to be placed on the list of nations which sponsor terrorism. If they do not then the gentleman on the tape should be put on a plane to the U. S. to stand trial for providing aid and comfort to a murderous terrorist. As for Saudi oil, I'm perfectly willing to park my car and ride the bus.
Comment.
Charles Babington: What "reaction' has surprised you? The reaction has been quite varied, I think... As for the Saudi "gentleman,'' I assume you refer to the unidentified sheik talking w/ bin Laudin. A Saudi spokesman did condemn bin Ladin's comments, calling them cruel and inhumane.
South Bend, Ind.:
Hi Charles, a small deviation to more run of the mill political stuff;
from the results of last November’s presidential election America seems to be divided into
- liberal tending states eg. Massachusetts, Hawaii (large Democrat Majority)
- moderate states eg. Iowa, Oregon (close contest)
- conservative tending states eg. South Dakota, Georgia (large Republican Majority)
Now according to my research the liberal states have most statewide and national offices filled with Democrats or liberal Republicans, moderate states don’t seem to tend towards any one party by and large;
but in many apparently conservative states elect both conservative republicans as well as fairly liberal Democrats to important offices.
e.g. there are 20 Democratic Senators from Bush states many of which he carried by huge margins but now only nine rep. Senators from Gore states of which only two (Illinois and Rhode Island) were by large margins.
e.g. A case in point is South Dakota which gave both Bush in 2000 and Tom Daschle in 1998 huge victories despite their obvious differences.
To what do you attribute this discrepancy?
Charles Babington: You have nicely hit on one of the most fascinating aspects of politics -- that is, broad, sweeping assumptions are generally wrong, and elections nearly always hold surprises.
I think the main reason is this: Most voters pay fairly close attention to the candidates (and slightly less attention to the issues), and they have an instinctive feel for the candidates and how they match up to the office in question. Voters want different personalities for the job of mayor vs. governor vs. U.S. senator, etc. These desires often trump party loyalty. You often hear voters say, "I vote for the man (or woman), not the party.'' And they mean it.
South Dakota is a good example indeed. It votes solidly GOP for president, yet it has two mainstream Democrats (Daschle and Tim Johnson) as its senators. And Rep. John Thune's challenge of Johnson next year will be one of the hottest Senate races in the country.
Thanks for your good question and insight.
Washington, D.C.:
Mr. Babington,
President Bush said today that he does not care whether Usama bin Laden is brought to justice dead or alive. How exactly does one bring a dead person to justice? If justice is indeed the goal of the government instead of revenge, shouldn't it try to do everything it reasonably can to ensure that bin Laden is captured alive?
Charles Babington: I thought the president had said he simply "wanted' bin Laden dead or alive (remember, he cited the Old West wanted posters?).... Even if he worded it otherwise, I thought his meaning was clear.
ABM:
You think we hurt our relations with Russia with ABM withdraw? washingtonpost.com:
Putin Calls ABM Move 'Mistaken'
(Washington Post, Dec. 14, 2001)
Charles Babington: Clearly it's not what the Russians wanted us to do. President Putin restated that point yesterday. So in that sense, yes, President Bush's ABM announcement did more harm than good to U.S.-Russian relations. Will the damage be deep and permanent? Too soon to say, but the Bush administration obviously thinks it can take this step without causing serious new troubles with Russia (which still has nuclear weapons, of course).
Cherry Hill, N.J.:
Charles, what is your opinion of the president's decision to abandon the ABM? Also, will he get funding for it past next year?
Charles Babington: When you mention funding, are you refering to funding for continued development of a national missile defense system? (After all, that's the main reason President Bush wants to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, which bars such a system).
There will be a vigorous debate, probably for several years, over missile defense. Some people feel Sept. 11 hurt the case for NMD, because it suggests our greatest threat comes from terrorist cells using fairly low-tech means. NMD is designed to repel a nuclear missile strike that most likely would come from a national government (such as N.Korea perhaps ) -- if it comes at all.
wiredog:
If bin Laden is dead, then he's facing justice of a different, and far more serious, sort than if he were brought in alive.
Charles Babington: No quarrel here
Alexandria, Va.:
Will Tom DeLay's imminent ascension to the role of Majority Leader, and the polarization it will cause, lead any moderate Republicans into the Democratic Party? washingtonpost.com:
DeLay Appears To Have Backing To Follow Armey
(Washington Post, Dec. 13, 2001)
Charles Babington: Maybe, but I doubt it. DeLay's official title now is Majority Whip, the #3 leadership job (after Speaker and Majority Leader). In fact, however, his influence and visibility have been huge for a person who ostensibly is only the # 3 leader. In other words, he often overshadows Hastert and Armey, at least in terms of publicity. I'm not sure his impact will be substantially greater when he assumes the title of Majority Leader. Therefore, I question whether moderate Republicans will view their situation differently.
Boston, Mass.:
The Bin Laden tape shows some sick, twisted stuff. I don't think we're going to hear any criticism about military tribunals after this. Do you think critics of tribunals on both sides of the aisle will be silenced somewhat?
Charles Babington: Well, let's think a minute. While it was indeed chilling to see and hear bin Laden say those things, are we really surprised by his overall sentiments and plans? Surely we didn't expect him to show regret over the U.S. lives lost.
So in that regard, why should the video generate greater support for military tribunals (as opposed to criminal trials in regular U.S. courts)?
In other words, I don't see anything in the tape that would make someone say: On Tuesday I thought bin Laden deserved a trial in U.S. District Court, but now I think he should go before a military tribunal.
Evanston , Ill.:
I'm wondering if you think Enron and
Bush's long-time connection to Ken Lay
will be investigated at anywhere near the
level of intensity and scrutiny that
Whitewater was, and if not, why not?
Thanks.
Charles Babington: As my colleague Howard Kurtz and others have noted, the Enron implosion surely would be generating far greater scrutiny if it hadn't happened in the midst of the Afghan war, continued preoccupations with 9/11 and anthrax, newfound bin Laden video tapes, etc.
When (or if) things settle down a bit, perhaps Congress or other institutions will probe deeply into what happened at Enron. As you note, the president's friendship with Enron's CEO could put Bush in a difficult position.
Arlington, Va.:
The New Yorker called for John Ashcroft's dismissal/resignation a couple of weeks ago, arguing that his ultra-right wing background makes it almost impossible to trust him to render the Solomon-like decisions on civil liberties vs. national security in a reasonable way. Is anyone in Congress picking up this ball, especially in light of Ashcroft's "Smackdown" appearance before the Senate Judiciary committee?
Charles Babington: I'm not aware of anyone in Congress calling for Ashcroft's resignation.
Washington, D.C.:
What's next on the horizon for Armey? washingtonpost.com:
Armey Set to Retire From House
(Washington Post, Dec. 12, 2001)
Charles Babington: He says he wants to go home to Denton, Tx., and spend time with his family.
Alexandria, Va.:
Two fools from the Jewish Defense League recently got arrested for planning to attack the offices of California congressman Darryl Issa.
Will this arrest make Issa a more sympathetic figure to his constituents? As a freshman Republican in California wouldn't he normally be vulnerable? washingtonpost.com:
Two Calif. Men Charged In Plot to Bomb Mosque
(Washington Post, Dec. 13, 2001)
Charles Babington: I'm afraid I don't know enough about California's 48th congressional district to comment on Rep. Issa's reelection hopes. The Almanac of American Politics says his seat is safe. It notes that Issa defeated his Democratic opponent, 61 percent to 28 percent, last year. Bush carried the district, 60 to 36, over Gore. Because of redistricting, Issa's district will be somewhat changed, and I don't know the details.
Don't assume, however, that a freshman Republican in Calif. (or anywhere else) is automatically vulnerable. The great majority of House incumbents are favored for reelection, even in their first term.
New York, N.Y.:
I saw the tape and thought that while he
was clearly happy with the WTC events,
he also could have just been bragging. I
never heard him say "I thought this all up
myself," he just implies he knew about it.
He doesn't say "I told Atta to strike
Tuesday."
Indeed, he is surprised by the results. He
didn't expect the towers to collapse. Many
people I know said the same things
following the attacks. "I never expected to
see both towers collapse completely."
Evidence -- yeah. Clear and convincing?
Charles Babington: I was particularly struck by bin Laden's comment that someone informed HIM that the attack would take place on Sept. 11 (rather than bin Laden picking the date). It suggests that bin Laden was the overall strategist (or at least a party to the plans), but a great deal of autonomy was left to the key plotters in the U.S.
Arlington, Va.:
What's the status of Jeanne Carnahan's re-election bid? Is it going to be more about what Ashcroft's approval rating is than anything else?
Charles Babington: Sen. Jean Carnahan (D-Mo.) faces a tough challenge from former Rep. Jim Talent (R). As you recall, her husband -- then Gov. Mel Carnahan -- was locked in a tight battle to oust then-Sen. John Ashcroft. About 3 weeks before election day, Carnahan, his son and an aide died in a plane crash. It was too late to change the ballots, and Missouri's voters narrowly elected the late Carnahan over Ashcroft. Mel Carnahan's widow was appointed to the Senate seat, and now she faces her first election next year.
Jean Carnahan voted against the confirmation of Ashcroft as U.S. attorney general. That vote was rather controversial in Missouri before Sept. 11 -- and more so afterward.
But I don't think the election will become a referendum on Ashcroft. Talent and Carnahan will have records to defend and attack, on many issues.
The race, for now, is considered a toss-up.
Washington, D.C.:
Re: the question about moderate Republicans and Delay.
Did anyone suggest that moderate Democrats might be inclined to switch parties when liberal Nancy Pelosi was recently elected to her leadership role?
Charles Babington: Anyone care to answer out there?
Longmont, Colo.:
Where do you see the next big front on terrorism? One hears a lot about Iraq but also the low hanging fruits in the Philipines and Somalia.
Charles Babington: U.S. attacks in the Philippines, Somalia and Iraq? Wow.
Philadelphia, Pa.:
Charles, do you think that Tom DeLay will be the House Minority speaker next year? Doesn't he make a fairly easy target for the Democrats to campaign against nationwide?
Charles Babington: The general thinking is that Democrats face an uphill battle to regain control of the House in the 2002 elections. They need to pick up six net seats. That doesn't sound like a lot in a 435-seat body. But the great majority of seats are safe for incumbents of both parties. Moreover, the Republicans will benefit somewhat from the nationwide redistricting that follows the 2000 Census. Because most of the nation's growth is in Republican-leaning states (Ariz., Georgia, Texas, etc.), several of the newly drawn districts will tilt GOP.
It's certainly possible for Democrats to win enough seats. But a lot of things would have to break in their favor.
And like I said earlier: Tom DeLay is a lightning rod already, so I'm not sure his new post will change things much.
Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Is there any explanation for the fact that at no point in the Bin Laden tape anybody talks about the fourth plane? Why doesn't anybody ask, or why doesn't Bin Laden say, where this plane was supposed to go?
Charles Babington: Unfortunately, it appears that no journalists were invited to the video-taped dinner. Would they had been!
Charles Babington: That's all for today. Thanks for the questions and comments, and see you next week.
| |
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
