WaPo's John Solomon Pushes White House Line On Rove, Miers Testimony
April 18, 2007 -- 3:25 PM EST // //
TPM Reader LG emails:
"The Washington Post’s “Post Politics” chats sometimes reveal a treasure trove of information about how WaPo reporters actually think and reason."
He's right. Case in point: Today's reader chat with Post reporter John Solomon. It's not to be missed.
As you all know, Solomon gives us plenty of fodder here at TPM, and in today's chat, he doesn't disappoint. In it, he actually says outright that he thinks the Bush administration's offers to allow Harriet Miers and Karl Rove to testify with no transcripts represents some kind of middle-ground compromise between the White House position and that of Dems -- precisely the false characterization the White House wants us to adopt.
Solomon was asked by a reader if the Bush administration wouldn't be better served if it stonewalled every request made by Dems. From Solomon's answer:
John Solomon: The Bush administration folks I've talked with say they want to pick their battles carefully. They need to cooperate with Congress where they can in hopes of achieving some legislation accomplishments in its final two years. All-out stonewalling would run contrary to that goal. I expect the administration will continue to propose solutions somewhere in the middle -- like the one they offered to allow Congress to interview Karl Rove and Harriett Miers in private with no transcripts.
Solomon's opinion that the no-transcript offer is "somewhere in the middle" between Bush and Congress -- that is, that it represents some kind of compromise, rather than further stonewalling -- is precisely the view of things being pushed by the White House. Here's how White House counsel Fred Fielding characterized the offer:
"The proposal reflects a series of balanced coompromises designed to respect and accommodate your interests in obtaining information while also protecting the institution of the Presidency."
Indeed, even GOP Senator Arlen Specter -- who was initially floating the White House's line but now opposes the no-transcript idea -- says that the White House's no-transcript position isn't "in the middle" at all, but rather is, well, the White House's position. Here's Specter on Larry King (via Nexis):
I think the president is wrong when he does not want to have a transcript made of what Karl Rove has to say...Look here, Larry, what I think we've got to do is stop the bickering and come to terms and find a way to accommodate the various concerns, the president's executive privilege with the Congressional need to know and get to the facts.
How could anyone covering this stuff closely possibly characterize the White House's offer as "somewhere in the middle"?
To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.