Washingtonpost.com: Live Online

In his first State of the Union address, President Bush emphasized and outlined the administration's war on terrorism, the goal of bringing the economy back to full strength and protecting the American homeland. He also turned toward an ambitious domestic agenda, focusing on taxes, health care, welfare and education.

How did he do? Did he accomplish what he set forth to do? Washington Post Associate Editor Robert G. Kaiser was online Wednesday, Jan. 30, to talk about the president's speech and the administration's priorities, both domestically and on the foreign policy front.

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.

washingtonpost.com: Good afternoon. I have just read through a dozen of your questions (less than 10 percent of the number already submitted),and I have to say that something interesting is going on out there. The emotional level of today's comments and questions is much higher than I remember seeing in any analagous situation. You'll see this for yourselves in a moment. I'm struck that the mild-mannered President Bush has become a polarizing figure for many Americans--not what I would have expected, I confess. We live in interesting times...

Greeley, Colo.: When I was a child I wondered why people followed a right-wing "leader" like Hitler and allowed him to trash their cConstitution, their republic and thereby their individual rights in favor of the state and his dictatorship. Both Hitler and Reagan carried the designation "great communicator" but this right-winger will never be known in that way. I guess those sheep who insist upon following a blind and demented goat, those who are trully "authoritarian personalities" will always try to destroy democracy in favor of a totalitarian regime.

My first post is as follows:

"Why no investigation of this bunch of right-wing thugs? Impeach Bush and half the Supreme Court. Impeach all members of Congress who voted to suspend the Constitution with the idiot "Patriot Act" on the supposed authority of the "Federalist Society" all the members of which should be tried for treason, then, after all corruption has been dealt with, lets check the "state of the union." How about it?"

Robert G. Kaiser: Excuse me, I used the wrong form. That was my comment above--Bob Kaiser's. Here's the first question to illustrate my point. I fear this person out in Greeley may be somewhat out of touch with the rest of the country, but of course he/she is as legitimate aspokesman as the next American...

Elyria, Ohio: Was that a State of the Union, or "Hate of the Union"?

So the greatest gift the U.S. can give to the world is bombs. Not safe food, clean water, fuel efficiency, clean air, alternative fuels, or living wages.

Not an open and responsive government, restoration of our civil liberties, election reform, or health care.

Not respect for those who differ, or tolerance of other ways of life.

As I see it, Bush's speech was 50 minutes of spin aimed at lining up funding to be given to large corporations for military buildups.

Who benefits? The Bush family, or course, as well as other Carlyle Group investors.

Why don't we hear more about W's conflicts of interest? If I was president and said that we needed to protect ourselves from evil by sending widgets to other countries, and my wealth came from widget-related business, you think it would be major news.

Robert G. Kaiser: Here's another...

Fayetteville, Ark.: A lame speech by a lame president. His lack of detail is comical.

Robert G. Kaiser: And another...

Detroit, Mich.: I thought the emperor's new clothes were lovely.

But seriously. What he's doing here is declaring war on anybody we happen not to like, using trumped up terror charges. The Europeans are very troubled by all this, even a lot of the Brits.

Mark my words, this illegitimately selected dork won't rest until the American economy is run totally for the benefit of the richest 2 percent and the rest of us are reduced to serfdom. Oh, and the world will be at war, too. Funny thing how Mr. AWOL seems to love a wartime presidency so much.

Robert G. Kaiser: and one more...

Washington, D.C.: I realize the Democrats must and should stand behind President Bush on the foreign and homeland security issue. I was expecting Gephardt, in his response, to be the one to separate the foreign issues from the domestic one, being the economy. I was expecting a "let the congressional battles begin" type of response. Nothing doing, he stood right behind him as if he was from either side of the aisle. Is the reason he (Gephardt) played it safe because it is bad strategy to start a battle when the nation is feeling this after-speech high? Let's face it, the money has to come from somewhere. Do you think after more congressional sessions take place will the battles begin or am I deluding myself?

Robert G. Kaiser: And here's the sort of question I'm used to from washingtonpost.com readers.

I too was intrigued with Gephardt's tactic. I sense that the Democrats are just spooked by Bush's poll numbers. I hope you all saw yesterday's Washington Post-ABC poll, which was fascinating. So far, Sept. 11 and its aftermath has been wonderful political news for Bush and the Republicans.

Personally I don't think it can last. I lived through this before, when the elder Bush won the Gulf War so magnificently, then sunk into political oblivion. I am not predicting that for this president, not at all, but I do think we know that a wartime glow doesn't last. As I've said here before, remember what happened to Winston Churchill in 1945--he was thrown out of office unceremoniously by a British electorate ready to get beyond the war.

Hudson, Fla.: Mr. Kaiser:

What is your response to accusations over the internet that the only reason U.S. troops are in Afghanistan and will STAY in Afghanistan, is to make sure that an oil pipeline will be built to carry Russian oil to market?

Robert G. Kaiser: This one is all over the place, sometimes in the simple form you put it, sometimes in elaborately-woven conspiracy theories about the role of Chevron oil, Haliburton and other corporations.

Whatever form it comes in, I think it's essentially nonsense. Imagine the scene on Sept. 11 or 12: Bush and aides around a table, saying "The U.S. has been attacked by terrorists based in Afghanistan; 3000 plus Americans have been killed. What a great pretext to make sure we get that oil pipeline our friends want to build!" Can anyone seriously imagine that's the way the conversation went? I cannot.

I hope all readers are following the remarkable series by Dan Balz and Bob Woodward about what happened in September. Admittedly, it is the administration's version of events, but it is compelling reading, and very convincing to this reader.

New York, N.Y.: Of course, you don't expect a politician making what is essentially a glorified campaign speech to speak to ugly truths, but I wonder what it meant that Bush glossed over the signature failure of the Afghanistan action, which is that Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar are still at large. Not only did Bush gloss over their escape from our clutches, but he even made a curious assertion about teaching all of the perpetrators what happens when they mess with the U.S. I wonder what you think of the omission.

Robert G. Kaiser: Good point. I can imagine an interesting debate in the White House over what, if anything, to say about Osama. I think I expected a more direct reference, perhaps with a promise that America and its allies WILL get him eventually. Instead Bush chose to emphasize how many potential terrorists bin Laden has trained, and how big a problem remains with or without his capture.

Hillsboro, N.M.: The administration has indicated that it will be asking Congress to raise the national debt limit. Will that be needed this year?

Robert G. Kaiser: Yes it will

washingtonpost.com: Story 4 in the "10 Days in September" series: ">A Day to Speak of Anger and Grief (Post, Jan. 30, 2002)

Greensburg, Pa.: I'm still concerned that President Bush has not laid out a vision for the pos-terrorist world as compelling, for instance, as the one enunciated by President Roosevelt in the midst of World War II for the post-war world (the UN, GI Bill of Rights, etc). It seems to me America and the world need something much more compelling than, "Let's roll." Is this asking too much of the president?

Robert G. Kaiser: No I don't think it is asking too much. I was struck by references in the speech to new beginnings, new opportunities and such, none of them accompanied by specifics. The United States still faces a huge challenge to re-engage meaningfully with the entire world, in my opinion. Like you, I'm waiting for more specifics.

washingtonpost.com: A Day to Speak of Anger and Grief (link fixed)

Cherry Hill, N.J.: I heard nothing last night regarding Enron. How will this impact his agenda?

Robert G. Kaiser: Well there were several sentences that clearly arose because of the Enron debacle, those devoted to corporate governance and accounting procedures and such. They were a signal, I suspect, that the administrationis going to join the side of the angels on all these issues. That was Arthur Levitt's side in the last administration--he was CLinton's chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, whose efforts to force tougher standards on corporate accounting were blocked by politicians on Capitol Hill. But Demcrats were as involved in that as Republicans were. A year from now, I suspect, we'll have a lot of Levitt-style new regulations in place--another barn door slammed shut... But in this case they could so some good for the future, I think.

Vienna, Va.: All of these morons trashing Bush and Ashcroft should try putting themselves (and their loud mouths) into his shoes and see just what a difficult job he has trying to deal with terrorism, recession, and these idiotic loudmouths all at the same time. I for one am glad he is president today -- especially after eight years of lying, fornicating, deception and general incompetence in the white House.

Robert G. Kaiser: Another precinct heard from...

Boston, Mass.: The speech was a success, he's up in the polls for a sustained period of time, and all I see on this list so far are negative messages. Maybe it says something about the ideology of who participates in this chat. Anyway, here's one guy who thought the president did a wonderful job last night. I have to disagree with you. At this point I don't see how his poll numbers decrease for a few months anyway. Not at this point.

Robert G. Kaiser: Now the other side is reporting in. Thanks. I won't quarrel with you about the next few months, even the next year; I just don't think this sort of wartime glow is permanent.

New York, N.Y.: Mr. Kaiser, you admit that Balz and Woodward are merely regurgitating the administration's version of events, so why are you running this propaganda piece? Why is the Post allowing itself to be used this way?

Robert G. Kaiser: Whoa, I didn't say that. These are two of the best reporters in America, and they don't easily get used. The point is, if you set out to reconstruct events in which ONLY administration officials took part, who are your sources going to be? The pieces are what they are--and they acknowledge this directly, particularly on the first day. They are not propaganda, they're good journalism.

washingtonpost.com: FYI, Woodward will be online tomorrow at noon EST to talk about the series.

Irving, Tex.: The president said he wanted corporations to be held more accountable and disclose their financial status honestly, but he and Cheney have refused to disclose the details of their energy task force. What are they hiding? The Republican Party has sold it's soul to the wealthy interests at the expense of the rest of the country.

Robert G. Kaiser: We don't know what they're hiding, which is why we'd like to find out what the information is that Vice President Cheney doesn't want to provide.

I won't get in a debate about the "soul" of the Republican Party, but I have long been struck by the fact that modern Republicans show little if any compunction about their preference for lining up with big corporations. They do it openly, repeatedly, often proudly. It seems to me you have to say that they believe in what they are doing.

Cape Girardeau, Mo.: Bush is once again pushing his "economic stimulus plan." Does he know that this includes a $254,000,000 tax return to a company which has not paid taxes in the past four of five years -- namely, Enron? It is also known that 10 different corporations in Texas are receiving disproportionate tax breaks in this same stimulus plan. What is so important about these 10 corporations?

Robert G. Kaiser: Actually the rebates of the minimum corporate tax, which I believe you are referring to, did not survive in the stimulus bill; they weren't in the last version of it.

Alexandria, Va.: After reading some of the comments on the State of the Union I realize that President Bush was wrong about one thing, cynicism in this country is alive and well. How can people be so cynical, negative, and try to slant every word a man says or does not say? (the Clinton after effect?) Economy? It is the Congress that is responsible and it has done well since 1994 elections and will continue to do well hopefully (for the Senate Democrats' sake) before the next election. It's the war on terrorism stupid!

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks.

Atlanta, Ga.: What do you think of the way President Bush has achieved and grown so much over the last year?

Robert G. Kaiser: We don't often get to see a man go through what Bush has experienced in a year. It will take more years to evaluate all that has happened, but it did strike me last night that this is quite a different person than the one who addressed the Congress a year ago.

Wichita Falls, Tex.: When so much is involved in the welfare of the nation, why does the press, mostly Eastern and West coast, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, go to such lengths to control public opinion that one sees a crusade taking place, and in so doing, destroys honesty in publishing believeable and unquestioned honesty?

Robert G. Kaiser: I don't know what you have in mind here, so I can't provide an effective answer, but I can assure you from 38 years experience on The Post that "controlling public opinion" is not something that interests us here. We try to find out what's happening, andtell our readers about it.

Alexandria, Va.: President Bush denounced Iran as a part of an axis of evil that is developing weapons of mass destruction.

Will President Bush now increase pressure on Russia's Putin to halt nuclear cooperation with Iran?

Robert G. Kaiser: There has already beena lot of pressure, with real results, though not all the results the U.s. has sought.

Crystal City, Mo.: If Bush tries to push his far right of center domestic agenda, and the public wakes up to this fact that his domestic agenda has nothing to do with the war, do you think that the Republican Party will take a mortal wound from his flagrant abuse of wartime support?

Robert G. Kaiser: Here's a question from Bill Bradley's home town, but we won't let that fact color our view of it!

I do think the Republicans could be at risk if they conclude that the new support for their president is a mandate for there most conservative policies. But we haven't seen them trying that yet, have we?

Silver Spring, Md.: Could you please shed some light for me on why it is that both the administration and a large portion of mainstream media seem to be stuck on the idea that just because we have unified as a nation in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, we must also blindly support any and all political agendas of the Bush administration?

That to not do so (according to Ari Fleischer, anyway) would make one less of an American, less of a patriot?

Robert G. Kaiser: Do you think a lot of people believe this? I don't.

Venice, Calif.: Who are you polling in your ABC/Post poll? Your results bear no likeness to my personal reality or that of my friends and family. I was suprised by the results of your "poll."

Robert G. Kaiser: We poll a mathematically random sample of American adults. I'm sorry to have to break this news to you, but the chances are excellent that the findings of our poll more accurately reflect public opinion than do your and your friends' reactions. Did you expect a dead heat in the 2000 election? Our poll did.

Bowie, Md.: With all the promises that Bush lumped on top of an "at any cost" military buildup, do you think we can say hello again to 1980s deficits? And in that case, how long do you think Bush and the Republicans can pin that problem on the "big spending" Democrats?

Robert G. Kaiser: We have a long way to go to get back to deficits the size of those Reagan and Congress gave us inthe '80s, but there's no question we're headed right back into the red. Personally, I would expect that if a second Republican administration presides over the creation of mammoth budget deficits, this will ultimately be very bad for the GOP--not right away, but over time. Just a hunch.

Philadelphia, Pa.: The president mentioned fighting evil. Isn't that a bit vague? I mean evil is everywhere, not just outside this country. Was he vague on purpose?

Robert G. Kaiser: Yes I think he was vague on purpose. The easiest part of the war on terrorism is over; from here on out it gets much trickier. Whom do we attack? With what rationale? Based on what evidence? None of these questions will be easily answered.

Geneva, Switzerland: During 1940, FDR took the provocative steps necessary so that Japan committed the first open act of aggression against the U.S. Due to the tripartite agreement between the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, Japan), FDR could then convince the U.S. Congress to engage in World War II.

Is President Bush not trying to perform the same dubious exercise with Iran and Iraq? The prize: to get rid of future threats against the unlawful israeli settlements for good.

Robert G. Kaiser: Was what FDR did really a "dubious exercise"? I don't think so.

What Bush has in mind for Iraq, Iran and NOrth Korea we don't yet know. I suspect he doesn't yet know himself. But your suggestion that the purpose of what he does it to "get rid of future threats against the unlawful Israeli settlements" makes no sense to me.

Washington, D.C.: I find it funny that he would say the state of our union is strong. Clinton could say that because at the time it was true, however it is not. We have record unemployment, deficit's on the the way, big government spending (something the republicans accused the democrats of, but now were trying to stop it), and a president who intent on writing a check when there is no money in the bank (stupid tax cuts). So I say to this president, no sir, the state of our union is not strong.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for your comment. I'd point out that we have nothing like "record unemployment," though we have somewhat higher unemployment than a year ago.

Annapolis, Md.: The president did a good job presenting his outline for the continuing war on terrorism and a fair job setting the tone for the government's response to the economic recession.

Let's face it: America is entering virgin territory, what with ferocious enemies simply determined to kill as many of us as possible, and as we are suffering the fallout of the so-called New Economy of the late '90s.

It's not business-as-usual anymore and we can't afford to have an autopilot presidency that we have been accustomed to the last few terms.

Now that we need national unity and cooperation among Americans on oh so many levels, I guess my question would be: What efforts can the Washington Post take to undermine this new spirit of unity and what more can its staff (i.e., Mary "I never met a Republican I didn't hate" McGrory) do to present biased, agenda-laden, America bashing?

Both with the ambitious (and, uh, necessary) war on terrorism and the recovery from our heretofore runaway economy, we Americans face a long uphill struggle. Can we count on The Washington Post to backbite us every step of the way?

Robert G. Kaiser: Comments like this one make me wonder about what some of our fellow citizens think the freedom of the press is for? Does this questioner really believe that the First Amendment is meant to encourage cheerleading for the government of the day? No. Our job is to try to hold powerful people, including presidents, accountable fo rthe way they use their power. Because we can do that, America is a better country. BEcause we don't do it as well as we should, America could be a still better country than it is.

And you're wrong about Mary. She is soft on John McCain.

Reston, Va.: I appreciate that the president made a very successful and well received emotional appeal. "Good vs. Evil," "us vs. them" and so forth. Slogans and cliches are great for making everyone "feel better." And, to his credit, he named names. Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Well, this is great as far as it goes. His domestic agenda was, as usual, a long wish list of vastly increased spending, no halt to his tax cuts, and no specifics about how to pay for any of it. Where is the "analysis" of his lack of leadership in managing his priorities in a way that makes some fiscal sense? Please comment.

Robert G. Kaiser: We've published lots of analysis of the fiscal consequences of Bush proposals, and will publish much more in the months ahead. As indicated earlier, I think this is potentially an Achilles heel for the Republicans.

Geneva, N.Y.: Could you explain why it appears that Americans' opinions of Mr. Bush's performance on issues such as the environment and the economy seem to rise along with overall performance and his war leadership, even though his policies have not changed at all from when they were unpopular?

Robert G. Kaiser: What a good question! It reminds me of a wonderful quip once made by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), responding to criticisms of politicians. Frank pointed out that "the public is no bargain either, you know." That's a paraphrase, but close to what he said.

And it's hard to disagree with him. Washingtonpost.com readers are not, as a rule, part of the phenomenon you have noted, I suspect, but we all know lots of Americans who just don't make the effort to try to figure out what is going on in the world around them.

Of course this isn't easy. I spend hours every day reading journalism of many kinds, and I know how uninformed I can be about many subjects. But there are a lot of know-nothings among us. I hasten to add that one of the glories of America is that you are allowed to be a know-nothing; freedom covers that too. But I've always thought we'd be better off with FEWER know-nothings.

Alexandria, Va.: I think the comment that "none of these questions will be easily answered" is applicable to a large part of the situation our country stands in now. I mean, we've had thousands of our citizens killed in attacks by a ghost of an enemy. Our fragile economy was dealt a hammer blow by the aftereffects of the attacks. The threat's still out there, but no one knows for sure how large or how close it is. We're not even six months past the attacks, and it's unreasonable to expect all the answers and problems to be solved. By the time Roosevelt's plan for the post-World War II era was enunciated, the war was how far along? It seems like the era of instant gratification has some negative side effects after all.

Robert G. Kaiser: thanks fora thoughtful comment.

Chicago, Ill.: Mr. Kaiser,

I am actually not surprised that Mr. Bush has become a polarizing figure. He came to Washington under very controversial circumstances, and wasn ot supported by a majority of the electoral. Then instead of uniting the country, as he promised to do, he immediately appeased the right wing of his party by overturning environmental reforms, cutting taxes primarily for the wealthy, and attempting to combine church and state. And despite his high approval ratings, which are mainly because of the war, he still refuses to unite the people, and again is bowing to the right wing of the Republican party.

Robert G. Kaiser: That's a good reply to my original comment. Of course the way Bush came to office was polarizing. I guess I was thinking more about his easy-going personality than about the points you raise. And I agree with you that intepreting his "mandate" as a justification for embracing a series of staunchly conservative policies was bound to provoke a lot of controversy.

Charlotte, N.C.: Mr. Kaiser:

I politely beg to disagree with the ABC/WP polls. The 2000 election did not end in a "dead heat" which you claim the ABC/WP poll projected; one of the candidates had over 500,000-vote margin. This is not a "dead heat" by anyone's definition. This maybe why people are always questioning polls.

Why did President Bush's address avoid any mention of homeland terrorists (anthrax, bombings, etc.)?

Robert G. Kaiser: Well, it is a dead heat by the standards of polls, which, at their very best, have a "margin of error" of plus or minus three percent. We have never argued that polls are perfect, only that they are much better than less scientific means of evaluating public opinion.

Detroit, Mich.: Did Enron attempt to influence the voting in the last presidential election by manipulating the price of gasoline? Were administration officials involved in setting the timing for the price fluctuations?

Prices were high during the election and fell dramatically after.

Robert G. Kaiser: Prices were high in the summer, as I recall, and were already falling in the fall before the election. I have seen nothing that would suggest Enron had the capability to controlthe retail price of gasoline in the U.S. Saudi Arabia can do that, but I don't think Enron could.

Arlington, Va.: Afternoon Bob,

Took the time to read through all the comments/questions posted to this discussion and tally unofficial results Pro/Con. The results were 47 favorable, 72 unfavorable. How do you reconcile those numbers with the results of every poll that has been taken since Sept. 11? Are polls wrong? Are the folks posting to this discussion (washingtonpost.com readers?) completely out of step with the rest of the nation? Or perhaps was there a concerted attempt by folks hostile to Bush, the Bush administration or Republicans in general to skew the results to color the debate and influence The Post?

Many of the unfavorable posting had a certain similarity as if they were writing off a "talking points" sheet perhaps prepared by Hill Democrats? Any chance many of the incoming posts are identified as coming from whiner-democrats.senate.gov?

washingtonpost.com: State of the Union, Reader Reaction

Robert G. Kaiser: This s a good contribution to the discussion of polls. ANY survey of self-selected respondents, like washingtonpost.com's reader comment bulletin board of last night, will fail to capture public opinion Writ Large. Each comment can be totally legitimate (and I have no idea if there was an organized anti-Bush effort last night), but still, because the only people we're hearing from are those who decided to be heard from, it's a misleading sample.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks to all for participating in this lively chat. See you next time...

Robert G. Kaiser:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay tuned to Live Online:

Inside the FBI: Recruitment at 1 p.m. EST
Clifford D. May on Terrorism at 2 p.m. EST

Live Online Special Coverage: America At War

Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live Online transcripts.

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.

| |



	<img SRC="washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/redesign/adv_discusssion.htm" width=125 height=110 border=0>


	Our Regular Hosts: • Carolyn Hax: Smart, tough-love advice on relationships, family and work. • Tony Kornheiser & Michael Wilbon: These sports experts hold nothing back. • Bob Levey: Talk to newsmakers and reporters. • Howard Kurtz: The news and what makes the media tick. • Tom Sietsema: The latest on dining in D.C. The complete Live Online show list