Dan Froomkin
White House Briefing Columnist
Wednesday, November 3, 2004; 1:00 PM
What's going on inside the White House? Ask Dan Froomkin, who writes the White House Briefing column for washingtonpost.com. He'll answer your questions, take your comments and links, and point you to coverage around the Web.
Dan is also deputy editor of Niemanwatchdog.org. You can e-mail him at froomkin@washingtonpost.com.
The transcript follows. _____________
Dan Froomkin: Welcome everyone. John Kerry is scheduled to give his concession speech at this hour; President Bush is to make a brief victory statement at 3 p.m. ET.
_______________________
Fort Worth, Tex.:
I'm deeply troubled by the media reports that people's voting based on "moral values" led them to vote Bush/Cheney. Is this not really a euphemism for judgmental, far-right social policy such as anti-choice and anti-homosexual, and aggression in foreign policy? And personally, both Bush and Cheney have highly immoral business practices in their background, as well as substance abuse on the part of our moral leader. Unless I'm missing something, I'm appalled by what passes for morality in our national conscience.
Dan Froomkin: That's quite a question.
_______________________
Poughkeepsie, N.Y.:
Will the media ever change? Will they ever go back to truth? Is giving both sides equal spin without calling it for what it is "fair journalism?" Is it fair to the American people/the world? Do you think anyone will learn any lessons here, or are we really just this stupid and this damned?
Dan Froomkin: My "media critic" side says the next four years are going to be an incredibly fertile time for media criticism. Interestingly, both sides think we screwed up really bad.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Gerald Seib's suggestions for how Bush might try reaching across the aisle are sweet but seems widely at variance with the record of the past four years. From your perusal of White House reporting, do any Bush aides suggest that the president has any intention of doing anything along those lines? It seems as though having been vindicated by a base-driven strategy Bush has even less incentive than he did in 2000 to try reaching out to moderates.
Dan Froomkin: That is one way of looking at it. The other is that he is now in a perfect position to be generous, and that healing the breach would reflect well on his legacy.
_______________________
Blue State, USA:
Now that a second Bush term is a reality, can you
point to one of the left's doomsday scenarios that
you think will actually come to pass? (Clarence
Thomas as Chief Justice?) Which pessimistic
prediction is absolutely not going to come to
fruition?
Dan Froomkin: Excellent question, but I eschew prognostication.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.:
Hi, I think the thing most Dems are scratching their heads about is: How can we be so out of touch with the American people? Sure New Yorkers tend to be left, but how can we live in a country that has become so deeply right? Can it be true that the moral minority has become the moral majority?
Dan Froomkin: Scratch away. Let me know what you come up with.
_______________________
Dumfries, Va.:
Aren't we becoming a theocracy, the same as the Arab countries run by radical religious zealots?
I see that we're becoming what we've been condemning in the Middle East.
Your thoughts?
Dan Froomkin: So we're spreading the gospel of democracy among theocracies, while our democracy is turning us into a theocracy?
_______________________
Hartford, Conn.:
The Gerald Seib piece you cited represents a 180-degree turn from the way Bush has done business in his first term. He seems more like the "if it ain't broke don't fix it type" than the "hmmm, maybe he's right" type. Why should we expect he'll do things differently?
Dan Froomkin: Thanks for your comment.
_______________________
San Diego, Calif.:
As you've indicated, perhaps there are already some suggestions floating around as to how to bridge the deep divide in this country on a political level, but what can we do on a personal level? We can't even talk to each other anymore. Bush has won, fair and square, but he scraped by with the skin of his teeth, and half of the country doesn't want him there as fervently as the other half does. How can the average American work to heal this country?
Dan Froomkin: A fine question. Now back atcha: Who should be providing you guidance for how to do that? And why aren't they?
_______________________
Carmel, N.Y.:
Are re-inagurations different from a new inauguration?
Dan Froomkin: Well, I don't know. I would imagine they're bigger -- you need to invite everyone from last time, plus a whole bunch of new people. Right? Plus there's less suspense about what the first couple looks like on the dance floor.
_______________________
Ashland, Mo.:
Your discussion of the electorate seems to assume that Bush, who won an absolute majority, was not inclusive enough. He was certainly more inclusive than Kerry or Clinton or Gore or any predecessor as he received more votes than any other president. Isn't this discussion simply another example of the political analyists' inability to recognize that they are the minority who should be reaching out to the majority, rather than the other way around?
Dan Froomkin: A lot of good questions about the divide, and whose fault it is.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
You ought to ehadline this chat "Democrats in Denial"
Who honestly believes that we live in a theocracy? A country where peopel are free to attend chruch, mosque and synagogue; or NOT to, and where some people speak freely of values when polled exiting the voting precinct, is properly called a tolerant "democracy." Kerry, in fact, pandered much more degradingly to the churches and religous community than Bush ever did in his campaign.
Denial is only the first stage, Democrats... you will achieve a state of acceptance... relax and enjoy!
Dan Froomkin: I don't think the reader was seriously suggesting that we are a theocracy (yet) -- and I certainly wasn't!
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
The exit poll sampling seems horribly skewed, which may explain in part why the numbers that leaked over the course of Election Day turned out so poorly for John Kerry. For example, how could Kerry have won a majority of women, who made up the majority of voters, and lost the popular vote by 3 million? How could he have won every region but the South and still lost it by that much? And beat Bush among independents by 8 points, while there were more Democrats than Republicans who voted nationwide, and again have lost by 3 million? Etc....
Dan Froomkin: You have not heard the last of the exit polls.
_______________________
St Louis, Mo.:
Don't you think that all this talk about reaching across the isle and working with the democratic party a little wishful thinking? Bush tried that his first year in office. He worked with Ted Kennedy on education reform. Look what that got him.
Dan Froomkin: Well, arguably it got him No Child Left Behind.
_______________________
In a Red State with the Blue-State Blues:
How, how, how...? How could Kerry run intellectual circles around Bush in the first debate and lose? How could Kerry continue to look and act presidential in the second and third debates and lose? How could such a commanding knowledge of the issues by Kerry turn into an election day victory for Bush? If only I could get out of Texas and back to my home state of California or up to the elitist Northeast!;
Help me understand how the majority of voters thought when they were in their respective polling places yesterday... I'm doing such a deep headscratch this morning!;
Dan Froomkin: More scratching.
_______________________
Lorton, Va.:
I love your column Dan! I look forward to it everyday.
My question is this. Do you believe that Bush will look at the percentages of the popular vote and understand that while he did win, the country is still divided? Do you think he will do anything to try and unite the nation or will he just go on, as he has, thinking everything is okay and the nation is fine?
Dan Froomkin: Of course he will see a nation divided. The question is what will he do about it.
_______________________
Rosslyn, Va.:
If Bush holds on, should we expect the press corp to get smaller? Not that Bush holds press conferences anyways. Will we see a second term more secretive?
Dan Froomkin: I think that the secrecy issue is well worth watching. I think it will be indicative of whether Bush will try to make his second term more or less divisive than his first. Reaching across the divide requires communication.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Now that the election is over, can you share your thoughts on its outcome? I'd imagine reporters are quite upset, seeing as how Bush doesn't like to talk to the media.
Dan Froomkin: I assure you that we have not given up on getting him to talk to us!
_______________________
Appleton, Wis.:
There were a lot of issues raised during the race that should not be forgotten. Increased funding for alternative fuels, tax incentives for keeping well paying jobs at home, and funding early education, should all stay on the front burner of public attention. The question is, what can we do to keep our pet issues afloat?
Dan Froomkin: That's a fine question.
_______________________
Edmonton, Canada:
While I am disappointed with the result, I am not surprised. Is there any prospect that with re-election out of the way he, unlike post-2000, he will reach across and nominate Democrats to key and visible posts in his second administration to try and heal the rift in the American body politic?
Also, and on a much lighter note, could you help me with a trivial question on the Red-Blue divide. Almost everywhere else in the world "red" is the color of the progressive, even socialist, left and "blue" is the color of the conservative right. When did the Republican and Democratic color assignments take place -- does it go back to Lincoln?
Dan Froomkin: Your first question is one that lots of people are asking already, and that will be even more true once the endgame is over.
_______________________
Baltimore, Md.:
Has ANYTHING happened in this country over the last four years? Only three small states changed their electoral votes from 2000 to 2004, and they were each approximately 50-50. It's as if people are voting without any regard whatsoever to events. Can we just call the 2008 election right now?
Dan Froomkin: Isn't that kind of amazing?
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.:
Is this election a vote of confidence for Bush? If so, just barely. We know that he didn't do much to unite the country in the past four years, as he said he would. Kerry made much of the public question Bush's decisions on Iraq, etc. Bush will need to win back the public trust before he can be assured of a positive legacy. But as a simple guy from Texas, it may just be that he likes being the President.
Dan Froomkin: I guess this qualifies as denial.
_______________________
Stepford, Conn.:
Do you have any idea about who will not accept a second term in the W2 adminstration? Colin Powell appears frustrated after years of dealing with the UN and Euro-crats.
Dan Froomkin: We'll be watching this very closely in the coming weeks.
_______________________
Monterey, Calif.:
Now that this has been decided, are you going to be staying with your White House assignment or are you thinking about moving on?
BTW, thank you for your observations and insights over the past year. At times they have been helpful in clearing up the confusion.
Dan Froomkin: Thanks so much for the kind words.
_______________________
Re: origin of red state/blue state color assignments:
The Post had an article by Paul Farhi yesterday explaining
how Democratic states came to be considered "blue" and
how Republican states became "red". Apparently the
colors were the other way around until 2000 when Tim
Russert and David Letterman defined Republican states as
"red" states. It's interesting how quickly new symbols can
seem to have been with us forever ...
washingtonpost.com: Elephants Are Red, Donkeys Are Blue (Post, Nov. 2)
Dan Froomkin: Well, there you go. Thanks. Can't believe I missed that!
_______________________
Red vs. Blue:
My theory is that it is a media conspiracy. Red is a color that signified conflict, anger, and is "bad", hence, the media assigned it to Republicans.
Blue, on the other hand, is cool, soothing and calming and thus got assigned to Democrats.
Dan Froomkin: Wrong! But thanks for posting.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
The day Bush follows all of Seib's suggestions, you are welcome to my house for drinks while we watch pigs fly through the trees in my backyard.
Dan Froomkin: You're on your honor to get in touch if and when.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Is it reading too much into the geographical layout to think that the liberal far west and north east, and the rest of the country, are really separate places now? Did the Democrats miscalculate, or is this an indication of a platform that is just too liberal to win anywhere outside strongly blue states?
Dan Froomkin: Well, that's one way of looking at it.
_______________________
Odenton, Md.:
I can't believe that someone actually had the audacity to say that Democrats should "relax and enjoy." I'm sorry, but I will never relax and enjoy reading about deaths in Iraq, escalating healthcare costs, or the increase in the deficit.
But I digress, my question is do you think Collin Powell will stay in the Cabinet? Will he leave or will he be pushed?
Dan Froomkin: I think the pushing and the fleeing will be approximately of the same magnitude, resulting in a frictionless departure.
_______________________
Outside the beltway:
Now the Bush doesn't have to worry about reelection, do you think he'll be more available to the press? Or does he prefer to stay hidden behind his staff?
Dan Froomkin: Well, I sure hope he will. And as I said earlier, I think it is a key to bridging the divide.
_______________________
College Park, Md.:
Just a comment!
Dan Froomkin: You're welcome.
_______________________
Wayne, N.J.:
All this talk like Bush might compromise and reach across the aisle makes me laugh bitterly. Remember Cheney's "We won the mid-terms, it's our due"? This is going to be a scorched earth, right-wing march to the sea (or, more likely, over the cliff). It's nice for you journalists to speculate, but mark my words, it's going to be all GOP agenda all the time and the country will pay, literally, in the long run.
Dan Froomkin: Thanks for your comment.
_______________________
St Paul, Minn.:
All the emphasis is on the Democratic party problems, but I think the Republican party also could have some long-term stability problems. Probabaly nothing likely to change in the short term, but do you have a feeling for how Republican fiscal conservatives and Republican social moderates are feeling about the increasing power of the conservatives in the party?
Dan Froomkin: Bittersweetly.
_______________________
My column today looks at the various theories about how Bush and his campaign won over so many voters. And I look at what's next: Will Bush see the vote as a mandate? Will he try to heal the breach?
I suspect most of us are operating without enough sleep, but I'd like to encourage you to share your thoughts about lessons learned.
I'd also like to ask you how likely you think it is that Bush will follow the advice from the Wall Street Journal's Gerald Seib today about how to govern in a divided country. Seib's suggestions:
• "Pick some cabinet members from the other party. . . .
• "Establish personal relationships with the leaders of Congress from the other party. . . .
• "Identify and cultivate a band of sympathetic lawmakers from the other party. . . .
• "Have genuine back-and-forth with the press."
Bring it on!
But I think you're right that with "morality" suddenly appearing as the number one issue in the presidential election (if you believe the exit polls, more on that later) then we as a nation are obliged to openly and fully address what the heck "morality" means.
I'm guessing that this morning, there are a lot of Democrats who would like to reclaim the term.
I think one very potent aspect of the criticism will be examining the gulf between the "reality-based" and "non-reality-based" communities.
I've already seen some mighty powerful recriminations -- and that was before the election!
That said, the question is what does he want as his legacy.
There is a potent argument to be made that he intends his legacy to be as one of the most assertive, transformative, maybe even radical presidents of the 20th century.
In which case, yeah no.
What do you guys think?
That would be ironic.
I think the divide is at least in part a function of how the candidates and political parties behave, rather than simply an objective phenomenon.
There are some political scholars, Stanford Professor Morris P. Fiorina, for example, who believe that most Americans stand in the middle of the political landscape, and that polarized America is a myth.
I was struck by this, from David S. Broder and Richard Morin's piece in today's paper:
"A pronounced shift came among moderates. In this polarized political climate, their share of the electorate dropped from about 50 percent in 2000 to about 45 percent this year, but the margin for the Democratic nominee increased from eight percentage points then to about 15 points now. Political independents also moved to the Democrats, with Kerry winning a slight majority whereas Gore had lost by a similarly small margin, according to surveys."
I think you are going to see a LOT of exploration in the coming weeks and months about the role of the evangelical vote, however. Fascinating stuff.
Right now, they are being widely disparaged as the big "losers" of election night -- even more than the Democrats.
And there's more. Read Washington Post Associate Managing Editor Robert Kaiser's Live Online from earlier today. He suggests that the exit polls are "broken." He gives examples of how "Essentially, the problem is that the exit poll's number don't add up."
Post Managing Editor Steve Coll, in his Live Online, adds: "The exit poll numbers we have paid for and been provided simply do not add up. They are internally inconsistent in important ways. They also are out of whack with voting results in ways that are difficult to explain."
Coll also says he sse "no possibility that the exit polls were right and the vote count was wrong."
That said, there are people out there, with access to blogs and e-mail, who suspect that there was some hanky-panky with the voting machines, particularly of the electronic variety.
I'm sure there will be digging around on that count, as well.
And Democrats were united behind the president after 9/11.
Who brushed who off after that I guess is in the eye of the beholder. But I believe it had something to do with the rush to war under what turned out to be false pretenses.
So I think it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable for Bush to try reaching out again. What's he got to lose? He's in the catbird seat!
What you are seeing is that there are a lot of voters who simply don't value the same things you apparently value.
Like many of the questions today, the answer will depend on the effectiveness of the opposition party.
And I have heard persuasive arguments either way. It will be fascinating to watch. And you can be assured, I will be keeping a close eye on things!
As for your second question, I don't know -- maybe a reader does. Readers?
It's been historic times -- and yet electorally, it's like nothing's happened.
I don't get it either.
He won more than 50 percent of the vote!
How many will leave to make their fortune on K street?
I cannot for the life of me imagine Colin Powell or John Ashcroft sticking around for much longer.
Beyond that, stay tuned.
I'm not going anywhere. I actually am happy the campaign is over. It did weird things to my column.
Now I get to go back to writing about what's going on inside the White House, rather than the campaign!
No matter who's there, it's the most fascinating place on earth.
But remember: If Kerry had won Ohio, he'd be president.
That said, the Senate results might tend to support your hypothesis.
That said, he will still be facing a press corps that has a lot of tough questions for him that he and his administration have not answered. Perhaps I will write a column about those someday.
I'm an African-American female who is a registered democrat. I voted for George Bush, because I am also a believer in the Word of God. Although I don't agreed with a lot of decisions he made over the last four years, as a Christian his belief in God and open confession of his beliefs persuaded me to vote for him. I think you will find a lot of people voted because of morale values versus party affiliation. I think we are better off with a president who has a biblical foundation and is not a shame to admit he hears from God. With the help of God we can get through anything. Kerry didn't offer me the same assurance. Thank you for allowing me to speak.
Would you be a theoDemocrat then?
