One Question to the President in Charlotte Has an Impact.

"You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that. But while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food. If I were a woman, you'd like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice and decision about whether I can abort a pregnancy on my own behalf...

Okay, I don't have a question. What I wanted to say to you is that I -- in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency, by the Senate, and...I would hope -- I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration, and I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself inside yourself. And I also want to say I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak what I'm saying to you right now. That is part of what this country is about."

It is interesting, and a little sad, that Taylor is seen as a hero simply because of a statement that perhaps resonated with far too many people than it should have.

As for Taylor's statement, there clearly was a reason that it resonated. The first line of the April 7 Washington Post article on the President's open forum read: "Harry Taylor got the chance Thursday to do what frustrated liberals across the country have wanted to do for along time: He stood up and told off the president." But it's not just liberal dissatisfaction.

First off, while that is his job, the President is to be commended for graciously responding. The real problem here is that there has been very little check upon the massive changes to our laws and government processes (in most cases expanding the government's power) under the current presidential administration. In large part this has been as a result of the democrats' ineffectiveness in conveying their message, or laying out clearly to the American people what policies and processes they believe are in error, and why. As a result of this, frustration, and in many cases, name calling have ensued, rather than effective strategies for communication. Taylor tapped into this frustration, because simple points have not effectively been made mainstream.

That these points have not been made mainstream is not the President's fault. Pressthenews is not a liberal site, nor a conservative site, and in fact, leaves political labels far behind. But it is likely that liberals will tend to read this, and immediately get annoyed. But it is precisely this attitude that has caused liberals to be frustrated; because they have not typically focused on the heart of the problem, on what needs to be communicated, and how to effectively communicate it to the majority of America. It is far easier to blame somebody else, in this case, one's political opponents. As a result, true liberals have been marginalized (and whether their views are right or wrong, serve the necessary function of acting as a check upon the right wing of the republican party, which, could be argued, in certain respects has moved past true conservatism), and, as noted elsewhere, moderate democrats and independents are often erroneously lumped in with, or otherwise categorized as "liberal."

This entire website was created based upon the single belief that not just information, but mainstream information, by definition, drives democracy, which, ultimately, rests upon the one vote one person principle. Much of the focus herein, for that reason, is on issues that for various reasons, explored elsewhere, are not given adequate coverage or analysis in the news. With good information, people make better decisions. Democracy works better. If liberals believe that the current administration's policies have moved our Nation in the wrong direction, it is only as a result of voting decisions, which are based upon the information that the majority of the country receives and processes (and not the information that people might glean from self selecting websites, no matter how popular, that simply affirm their preheld beliefs and perspectives).

The problem is, by being ineffective, moderates, democrats (and true liberals, even though almost anybody today is immediately categorized as such by both much of the media and the currently dominate right wing of the republican party for expressing almost anything that does not agree with current policy or processes) have not served as an effective check upon the right wing of the republican party, including the current earnest, but perhaps in some people's eyes, misguided administration in Washington. They only have themselves to blame. But expressing this message to the democratic party is very unpopular. Why blame yourself when you can blame others?

Perhaps Taylor was trying to simply reach the President in a different way when he stated, "And I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself inside yourself." But the comment seems misplaced, and, even if not meant this way by Taylor specifically, is perhaps reflective of the greater lack of understanding of the current Administration, and of the current right wing Congress, by their political opponents. It is reflective of the fact that democrats, independents, liberals, and to some extent moderate republicans, have been dominated by the right wing of the republican party -- when, at the same time, democrats, independents, liberal, and to some extent moderate republicans, they argue, have most of the facts on their side. Yet democrats, and liberals, in particular, will look at those same facts as affirmation, when they are actually further indicia that they have been fundamentally doing or communicating something ineffectively.

For those who look at Taylor as a hero, instead of somebody simply speaking his mind, they need to ask themselves this question; If this administration is as poor as they seem to think that it is, if such a basic, and, to some degree, harsh comment as Taylor's created this much of a stir among the "political base," -- then how is it that this administration, with an equally right wing republican Congress, has been in power for more than four years? (following one of the more successful administration's in history, no less). Democrats and liberals will continue to fool themselves as to the source of the problem -- again, blaming the Bush administration, or Karl Rove, or the right wing of the republican party -- while congratulating themselves on the fact that in 2006 and perhaps in 2008 there is likely to be some backlash, given the apparent lack of success of the right wing of the republican party's policy choices (let alone the far more important processes choices), and thereby once again missing the bigger picture.

Why was their message was so effectively misconstrued, if that is the case? And, more importantly, if the current administration is so poor, why were they not able to effectively convey that message, either? If the answer, as is commonly given, is because the other side "mischaracterizes," why were they not able to convey that, either? They may argue that they have been able to. But the facts suggest otherwise. Of course, this difficult inquiry is avoided by simply, once again, blaming others, whether it be voters (who will always act upon the information that they receive), their own candidates (which is even worse to blame) the media (and to the extent true, whose fault is that?), or, as in the present case, the President himself, for doing what he was elected to do.

What does this mean, "for doing what he was elected to do"? The first four years of the present administration was clear. If in fact that record was so poor as to adequately support Taylor's theme, then the point was there to be made in 2004. But it wasn't effectively made. Why?

Most liberals, and many democrats, will read the precise response of the President to Mr. Taylor's statements, and see it as further evidence of, in the words of one commentator (at a site where some of the reaction to the President was predictably, and unfortunately, almost nasty ) of "mendaciousness."

"I'm going to start off with what you first said, if you don’t mind, you said that I tap your phones — I think that’s what you said. You tapped your phone — I tapped your phones. Yes. No, that’s right. Yes, no, let me finish.

I’d like to describe that decision I made about protecting this country. You can come to whatever conclusion you want. The conclusion is I’m not going to apologize for what I did on the terrorist surveillance program, and I’ll tell you why. We were accused in Washington, D.C. of not connecting the dots, that we didn’t do everything we could to protect you or others from the attack. And so I called in the people responsible for helping to protect the American people and the homeland. I said, is there anything more we could do.

And there — out of this national — NSA came the recommendation that it would make sense for us to listen to a call outside the country, inside the country from al Qaeda or suspected al Qaeda in order to have real-time information from which to possibly prevent an attack. I thought that made sense, so long as it was constitutional. Now, you may not agree with the constitutional assessment given to me by lawyers — and we’ve got plenty of them in Washington — but they made this assessment that it was constitutional for me to make that decision.

I then, sir, took that decision to members of the United States Congress from both political parties and briefed them on the decision that was made in order to protect the American people. And so members of both parties, both chambers, were fully aware of a program intended to know whether or not al Qaeda was calling in or calling out of the country. It seems like — to make sense, if we’re at war, we ought to be using tools necessary within the Constitution, on a very limited basis, a program that’s reviewed constantly to protect us.

Now, you and I have a different — of agreement on what is needed to be protected. But you said, would I apologize for that? The answer — answer is, absolutely not. (Applause.)"

This reaction (of mendaciousness) is very odd. Even before these words were uttered, it seemed that this is precisely what the President would have thought. Perhaps what is being missed is, (1) what happened before September 11 (the issue was largely ignored, in the face of clear data of a mounting and severe threat), (2) the responsibility that comes with being President during such a time and on such a horrible occasion (particularly with respect to one that could have potentially been prevented), and (3) the current administration's pattern of response since. If the response since, in order to make up for the lapse beforehand and the ongoing grave threat, has nevertheless not been adequate or appropriate, where were the democrats to make this case? Where are they now, as the Senate Judiciary Committee, back in March, voted to drop the inquiry (along party lines) into the NSA wiretap authorization by the current administration?

It's an interesting reflection of the fact that voters get the representatives that they vote for. Aside from the issues as to why a FISA warrant could not simply be obtained after any such covert spying (as FISA specifically provides), or why a handful of Congressional representatives under a cloak of secrecy -- rather than simply having Congress change the law if the President nevertheless found it ineffective, as the Constitution would warrant one to do -- The President, as noted immediately above, stated:

"I thought that made sense, so long as it was constitutional. Now, you may not agree with the constitutional assessment given to me by lawyers — and we’ve got plenty of them in Washington — but they made this assessment that it was constitutional for me to make that decision."

The President is correct -- love them or hate them -- who better to assess the legal questions and constitutional aspects than lawyers? But to lawyers, the issue is not ambiguous, the issue is not hazy, the issue is not "nuanced," the issue is not subject to various interpretations. Outside of the sphere of the direct representatives of the Bush administration, and extreme right wing blind loyalists to the administration, the answers are all clear, and unambiguous.

So Harry Taylor stands up and asks a few questions, and the Judiciary Committe drops the inquiry into an action that clearly usurped the sole authority of Congress by violating an express Congressional Prohibition that was passed before, and amended to accomodate, the present "war time" situation," and which, by doing so, clearly violated the most basic clauses of our Constitution. No wonder Harry Taylor was disillusioned. But maybe his disillusionment should not have been directed at the President, but at Congress, and the media, as well.