At a rally in North Carolina this morning, a gentleman named Harry Taylor earned himself a Jon Stewart Hero Award for standing up and questioning President Bush (video here):
TAYLOR: 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. You are –
BUSH: I’m not your favorite guy. Go ahead. (Laughter and applause.) Go on, what’s your question?
Nice work, Harry, and thank you.
What's most amazing about this story, and why it's making the rounds all over the news, is because the audiences at every Bush "rally" are carefully screened to ensure that they are friendly to the President. How Harry got through is unclear.
But what is clear, and as you can see even in the photo above (look at the expressions on the faces of the two women near Harry), is how the audience immediately works to defend Bush. They applaud at Bush's self depracation. They boo Harry, prompting Bush to say, "Let him speak." What a bunch of blowhards.
Now I'm sure that one of the millions of Bush-supporting Important Readers will say, "Well, at least in America, Harry Taylor can stand up to his President. If this were Zimbabwe, he'd be shot!" True, but what good is that right to speak to the President when you have to sign a "loyalty oath" before getting into his public appearances?
It's interesting to see Bush acting a little nervous, actually facing a real American from the vast majority of Americans who disapprove of his policies. Read the full transcript here.
No credit for Bush? The gentlemen abused the privilege of a question and answer session, making accusations against the president, then admitting that he never had a question to ask. Bush had every right to ask Mr. Taylor to sit down and quiet himself for not following the protocol of the event. Instead, Bush allowed the man to continue his rant, and then kindly responded to his statements... even after telling his own supporters to be quiet and to let the man speak.
By the way, you'll need to restate your reasoning for bequeathing so lofty an award on Harry Taylor. The award was given to Taylor for "standing up and questioning President Bush." Taylor didn't ask Bush any questions.
"Abused the privilege of the Q & A"? -Because he made a comment? The ringers who normally get the mic at these things frequently lead off with a comment - usually bashing the "mainstream media" or anyone who isn't still singing Toby Keith songs about the Iraq war.
Unless you mean he abused the privelege by actually voicing dissent. Good luck with that one.
If Bush would've told the guy to sit down and/or shutup, it would've been a much bigger PR disaster: the president and his angry mob ganging up on a guy who (in disapproving of Bush's performance) represents about 60% of the American public.
I give Bush credit for being smart enough not to act like a Stalinist dictator. -And his "I'm not your favorite guy" comment was pretty good.
But most credit goes to Harry Taylor for stating a strong case in a calm and fairly respectful manner (I didn't think Erik gave awards to rational people?), leaving Bush no room to dismiss him.
Points taken, MB, although I still think a public excoriation violates the intent and spirit of a Q and A... especially when you fail to provide the Q. I would have had no problem with him voicing dissent if he'd actually asked a question and waited for a response. Otherwise, there really is no point to the exercise, because a) he's not going to make any claims that others haven't already made and b) Bush isn't going to offer Taylor a response that he hasn't afforded others.
"Otherwise, there really is no point to the exercise..."
So you're saying, by contrast, that there IS a point in giving repeated town-hall meetings for pre-screened, pro-Bush guests to ask pre-screened, pro-Bush questions? -And that these staged events represent the "intent and spirit" of a Q & A?
MB,
The full quote was "Otherwise, there really is no point to the exercise, because a) he's not going to make any claims that others haven't already made and b) Bush isn't going to offer Taylor a response that he hasn't afforded others." I thought it explained itself, but I'll give it another shot.
Personally, I don't think I'd be a fan of the townhall meetings. I've never attended one, and they seem pretty pointless in and of themselves. They tend to turn into partisan gatherings, as you've already mentioned.
But we're not debating whether or not the townhall meetings are a brilliant display. We're not debating the edification of an all but scripted Q and A (and if it were that scripted, he wouldn't have called on Taylor in the first place). We're debating whether or not it's alright to interrupt a Q & A session with a political speech.
Let's forget about the fact that it's the U.S. president. If David Stern held a Q & A session to discuss the state of the NBA, and a fan interrupted it by saying, in essence, "I disagree with everything you've done as league comissioner and all of your policies suck," and never asked a question... that would be unfair.
Q and A's are designed so people can get answers to questions, hence the name. They also allow the individual answering questions to give an account of themselves by allowing them to respond to questions directly. To rip someone and their policies in the middle of a Q and A and then not ask a question defies the spirit of a Q and A, because all you've done is attack without leaving any real opening to defend.
Further, I think Erik is really reaching with this award. I can't believe Taylor had nothing better to do than show up and wait to diss the president face to face. Honestly, I think the only reason this is newsworthy is because he interrupted the Q and A. It's not like there's any shortage of criticism for this president, and that criticism has been voiced in more appropriate settings by more prominent people.
Ian
Ian, I think your real point is that you don't like what Harry Taylor said about Bush, and that's not very surprising.
But you seem to be trying to argue that Taylor's comments were inherently wrong (regardless of their content) because he "violated the spirit of the Q & A" by "excoriating" Bush and not asking a question.
Yet other attendees frequently lavish praise on Bush without asking a question. The only difference between their behavior and Harry Taylor's is the message: pro-Bush vs anti-Bush. -So the point is still that you just don't like what Harry Taylor said. It has nothing to do with whether he "followed the protocol of the event."
MB, are you going to make assumptions about what I'm REALLY thinking or are you going to debate the arguments? I appreciate that you're psychic, but let's try to stick to the points that are argued. ;)
Honestly, if the other attendees indeed lavished praise upon the president, then I disagree with that as well.
If Taylor had said, "Mr. President, I think the situation in Iraq was mishandled because of A, B and C. What can you do to fix it?" or "How might you have handled it better?", I'd take no umbrage.
When Bush supporters sit there and ask, "Mr. President, are you a saint or a superhero?" I'm similarly offended. I think a Q and A should accomplish something.