Union-Tribune politics reporter John Marelius answered questions from readers during a Tuesday morning chat session at
uniontrib.com/chat.
johnmarelius(P) Good morning. I hope everybody had a nice Thanksgiving. Lots going on this week. The presidential primary calendar is finally set; it's going to be a wild ride, maybe a very short one. Another round of Middle East peace talks. Trent Lott resigns. Rep. Bob Filner enters plea over airport altercation. So let's get started.
sd72(Q) What was behind the resignation of Trent Lott? That came as a surprise.
johnmarelius(A) If this were toward the end of his term, it might make more sense. But he was just re-elected last year. He says he's in good health, is frustrated with the difficulty in getting things done and just wants to do something else. The prevailing suspicion is that it has to do with the new ethics rules that are taking effect. Currently, a senator has to wait one year after leaving office to lobby his former colleagues. It goes up to two years at the beginning of next year. Lott acknowledged this entered into his decision, but said it didn't play a "big role", or something like that.
Chupacabra(C) John Marelius, what kinds of chat do you like to have? Should we ask you about the primaries? What about local politics, what are the big issues right now? What do you think of the FISA legislation? What's going on in Pakistan? What's up with the Palestine peace process -- will it even get off the ground? What's up with the shrinking dollar? What's up with China blowing up satellites? How much in debt is the U.S.? Why did Trent Lott resign suddenly? What are the pressures of being an objective political correspondent? Do you wear boxers or briefs?
johnmarelius(P) Looks like Chupacabra is already gone. I could take the entire hour answering all of his questions, so I will simply address the first one. I cover national and state politics, but am conversant with most local issues. If you hit me with something I'm not up to speed on, I will certainly let you know.
sd72(Q) Am I missing something ... but why aren't high gas prices a bigger political issue during this presidential cycle?
johnmarelius(A) The economy, which has been a surprisingly dormant issue most of the year, has come roaring back with a vengeance and now leads most polls about voters' top concerns -- even ahead of Iraq. Gas prices figures into this, of course, along with the mortgage and credit crisis. A number of factors have created a very high level of economic anxiety in recent months.
johnmarelius(P) A quick follow on sd72's question. The polling situation is a little more mixed than I suggested. The latest NBC-Wall Street Journal poll shows Iraq to be the top concern at 26% followed by health care, 16%, and economy, 14%. But the latest Newsweek poll has ecnoomy, 22%; Iraq, 19%; health care, 17%.
KenC1313(Q) If you were laying odds, what would you guess are the chances we have two de facto nominees by the time of the California primary?
johnmarelius(A) I think there's a good chance the Democratic race could be over in a matter of days if Hillary Clinton wins Iowa and New Hampshire. Barack Obama will have the resources to be a major player on Feb. 5 when California and 21 other states vote. But if he hasn't won somewhere before then, it's hard to see how he breaks out of second place. The Republican race is much more likely to still be going strong when California votes.
ChulaFrank(Q) Hi I would like to know how negative are the attacks going to get leading up to the Iowa caucus? in your opinion
johnmarelius(A) Two points on negative campaigning. I get a little tired of hearing candidates whining about negative attacks (are there any positive attacks?) when their opponents are simply raising legitimate contrasts on issues. But however negative you consider things to be now, it will only become more so as actual voting approaches. This is not without risk, especially in Iowa. Who wants to be interrupted by robocalls in the middle of Christmas dinner?
bigfatdog11(Q) If Rudy becomes the republican nominee, is there any way he could take New York from Hillary? If so, it makes voting for Rudy a whole lot more appealing.
johnmarelius(A) That is a potential dynamic that the Giuliani campaign is aggressively spinning to Republican voters -- that he could put Democratic states such as New York, California and New Jersey in play. He might not win them, but Democrats would have to invest considerable resources there that they did not have to do in the last several election cycles.
ChulaFrank(Q) Also are Biden and Dodd effectlively running vice presidential campaigns?
johnmarelius(A) I doubt it. I would guess that at their age and after long Senate careers, the vice presidency would not hold much appeal. But who knows? There has been a history of senators with distinguished careers running for president and going nowhere. Of the Democrats, I think Bill Richardson would be the most likely vice presidential candidate. He says he's not interested, but they all do.
sd72(Q) This is a followup to KenC1313's question: Hasn't Obama pulled ahead of Clinton in Iowa? The last I read, she was in second place in the Hawkeye State.
johnmarelius(A) The most recent ABC-Washington Post Poll shows Obama, 30%; Clinton, 26%; Edwards, 22%. This is about a week old. Nobody reputable tries to poll over Thanksgiving weekend, so we might get some fresher numbers by the end of the week.
KenC1313(Q) Right now, it seems someone like Richardson would be a logical choice for Clinton as a VP, but do you think party unity pressures may make Obama or Edwards an eventual choice she accepts?
johnmarelius(A) Richardson is a logical choice for several obvious reasons -- geographic balance, experience, ethnicity. Sometimes, there is pressure from party activists to put the second-place candidate on the ticket. There certainly was for Edwards in 2004.
moderator(P) Welcome GrumpyOne ... Is there anything you would like to discuss?
ChulaFrank(Q) with more repuclican seats up for grabs in the senate do you feel a major shift is in the next election?
johnmarelius(A) I think it's not a matter of whether the Republicans will lose seats, but how many they will lose. It doesn't look good for them because of the number of retirements -- John Warner, Chuck Hagel, Pete Domenici, Wayne Allard and now Lott. They should be able to hold Mississippi, but the other four could be problematic depending upon who runs. There is also just the luck of the draw -- or for Republicans, bad luck. Of the 33 Senate seats up for re-election in 2008, 22 are held by Republicans. So that's a lot of defense to play under the best of conditions.
ChulaFrank(Q) How significant do you feel environmental issues will be next november?
johnmarelius(A) The environment is always an issue, especially in good economic times. It tends to recede somewhat when people are focused on economic anxieties. Still, if you look at polls of voters' concerns, while the environment ranks behind the economy, Iraq, health care, terrorism and immigration, it ranks well ahead of abortion and gay marriage which seem to get more attention.
GrumpyOne(Q) thanks for the welcome... I came here to lurk (observe the dialogue)... but off the top of my head why is Bush suddenly interested in the Annapolis (?) negotiations? Players on all sides are the same and I don't know if things are all that different from what they were several months ago... ?
johnmarelius(A) Welcome aboard. You don't seem that grumpy. Bush wants to leave a positive legacy. And while things seem to be improving in Iraq, I doubt if he wants that to be his entire legacy. However, as you point out, things don't seem to be any riper for a breakthrough in the Middle Ease than they have been in recent years. Considering how week all of the major players are at home, they may be less so. But, if nothing else, talking is better than shooting.
sd72(Q) Who do you think is in the running take over Sen. Lott's position as minority whip?
johnmarelius(A) Most of the reports indicate that John Kyl of Arizona is the most likely to move up.
EJ(C) Why is the press ignoring Frank Gravel?
EJ(Q) I meant Mike Gravel. ::wink
johnmarelius(A) I think you just answered your own question. There's really no campaign there to speak of. Gravel gets into as many candidate forums as he can get invited to. Although he's been left out of the last several. But other than that, he makes very few public appearances around the country because he probably doesn't have enough money for the plane fare. Dennis Kucinich, on the other hand, may end up being nothing more than a niche candidate, but he has a very active campaign schedule around the country.
ChulaFrank(Q) followe up to grumpy: In terms of peace conferences this one seemed last minute and basically without a purpose. Do you feel this was more to deflect critis later that he did nothing for the Israeli-Palestine issue?
johnmarelius(A) I think it was more just part of the theatre that goes on at these events. World leaders go off into a room for several hours and then come out and say they had a frank and productive discussion. And then nothing much happens.
ChulaFrank(Q) How about the Ron Paul candidacy? surprising yes, will he make a difference after the primaries are over?
johnmarelius(A) Paul has a chance to surprise people in New Hampshire. He's raised a respectable amount of money and is spending much of it in New Hampshire where television time is relatively inexpensive. He could finish in the top three, as Mike Huckabee may well do in Iowa. That has consequences for the other candidates in terms of what happens to whoever didn't finish in the top three. As to after the primaries, who knows? He has rather eclectic support that would make an independent candidacy interesting. Although I believe he has said he has no plans to leave the Republican Party and go back to being a member of the Libertarian Party.
EJ(Q) Sorry, I should have asked a better question. Clearly, listening to Gravel speak, he has a lot of ideas for how to change the corrupt culture of Washington. Saying he doesn't get much press because he doesn't have much money is kind of a circular argument. How can he raise money if he doesn't have more visibility in the media? Why is the US media so impressed with celebrity candidates like Clinton and Obama?
johnmarelius(A) It's hardly just celebrity. Running for president is a mammoth undertaking. It involves a huge number of people, both paid and volunteer, especially for candidates who aren't already well known as Clinton and Obama. But we have talked about Paul, Kucinich and Huckabee in previous questions. All three are examples of candidates who started out being little known to the general public and little by little put together credible campaigns which should at least make them a factor in the early primaries and perhaps set them up for a future run.
ChulaFrank(Q) Very sad this conference in my opinion, wasted opportunity.
johnmarelius(A) Are you reading this, Mr. President?
ChulaFrank(Q) Does the republican tough talk on immigration hurt or help them more?
johnmarelius(A) It does both. The hard-core base of the Republican Party obviously likes tough talk on illegal immigration -- often the more strident the better. But the harsh tone of the debate alienates many Latino voters, even if the policies being debated don't.
ChulaFrank(Q) Which candidate has the best foreign policy resume?
johnmarelius(A) That's for voters to judge, but a number of them have credible -- and very different -- foreign policy resumes. Bill Richardson has been a diplomat. Joe Biden has established himself as a foreign policy expert in the Senate. So has John McCain who is also a third-generation Navy officer and, of course, former POW.
ChulaFrank(Q) Does this Filner fine hurt him significantly in being re-elected?
johnmarelius(A) Filner's is district is too heavily Democratic for a Republican to have a chance except under extraordinary circumstances. This story is great fun, for everybody but Filner, but it's not serious enough to take a politician down. Plus, he's survived strong Democratic primary challenges twice.
GrumpyOne(Q) How does the mood of the electorate compare to that of the Vietnam era? The parallels are striking - inflation is a problem, we're stuck in an unpopular war, government spending is running through the roof, etc.
johnmarelius(A) It's hard to compare different eras, but as you point out there are some similarities. It seems to me the mood of the country was much more negative then, but it's been awhile. I have fond recollections of the Vietnam era: UCLA won the NCAA championship every year, the music was a lot better, and nobody had ever heard of lite beer.
johnmarelius(P) It looks like we're into overtime now. But thanks for all of the great questions. Either I or Michael Smolens will be back next Tuesday at 10:00.
moderator(P) Thank you for participating in today's chat. If you enjoyed talking with John Marelius, then you just may enjoy our next chat on Thursday: the Entertainment Guide producers. They are hip and full of sass. And they will be here at 3 p.m. to discuss the weekend's hottest events from TJ to Oceanside. If you don't have time to join a chat, just use the link on the chat page (www.signonsandiego.com/chat) to e-mail a question to the moderator. Then, when you have time, return to this page (www.signonsandiego.com/chat) to read the transcript. We can't answer every question, but we will do our best. See you Thursday.
