WASHINGTON, 8:24 p.m. EDT July 27, 2001 -- It's time for a
              full-fledged news conference, Mr. President.  Three White House
              news conferences in six months is not enough to keep the American
              people informed about your policies and actions. The presidential news
              conference is indispensable because it is the only forum in our society
              where you can be questioned on a regular basis and held accountable.

              It's true you have shared the press conference platform with your
              foreign hosts on the last two summit trips to Europe. But
              American reporters at those sessions were limited to three or
              four questions. That restriction simply doesn't allow us to explore
              issues that are long overdue for examination.

              White House press secretary Ari Fleischer is a faithful and skilled
              spokesman who takes the heat every day for you. But nothing can
              replace hearing your views directly from you, at a forum where we can
              ask follow-up questions if needed.

              There are many questions hanging out there that only you can answer.
              Here are some of them.

              First, referring to your drive to privatize the social Security system
              -- that is, allow individuals to invest their retirement funds in the stock
              market: How do you reassure senior citizens who depend on
              those monthly checks and who remember the Great Depression to
              gamble on a shaky Wall Street?

              Why is there a steady chant from your administration that the sky is
              falling on Social Security? That theme has very thin credibility,
              especially since former Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan, co-chairman of your
              commission, acknowledges that the Social Security trust fund will be
              solvent until 2038. That's pretty reassuring news, and it knocks the
              stuffings out of the argument that the system is in a crisis and needs
              emergency treatment.

              Then there is your zealous single-minded goal to walk away from the
              Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty so that the United States can proceed to develop
              an anti-missile shield, assuming that one can be built. What do you say to critics
              who assert that this could be the most destabilizing move between the United
              States and Russia since the end of the Cold War?

              Questions also need to be asked about the United States' rejection of the
              Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, which 180 nations have signed on to.

              And then there are questions about why your administration has shunned a new
              germ warfare provision of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. It was
              negotiated over seven years with U.S. participation and would provide some
              means to monitor bio-defense industries, making cheating tougher.

              Your administration also has turned thumbs down on a treaty to halt trafficking
              in small arms.

              Why are you bowing out of so many international agreements that were
              designed to enhance global security and the environment?

              Furthermore, reporters haven't had a chance to question you about what you
              meant when you said the United States would do anything it takes to defend
              Taiwan. Does that mean the United States would go to war with China to
              prevent the takeover of an island we acknowledge belongs to China?

              And what about your abandonment of the United States customary
              peacemaking role in the Middle East, where relations between the Palestinians
              and Israelis are steadily deteriorating?

              When we ask your press secretary these questions, Fleischer tells reporters that
              you are introducing "a new way of thinking" to the nation. What does that mean?

              President Lyndon B. Johnson used to say that he wanted the American people
              to be in "on the takeoffs as well as the landings" when major national decisions
              are made. He should have followed that advice with more straight talk during
              the Vietnam War. But that's another story.

              The point is that every president should be probed on his thinking on key issues
              that affect everyone in the country. And they should be open to public debate.
              No president likes to hold news conferences. That's understandable. They are a
              chore and take a lot of preparation.

              Mr. President, you can get in the groove by holding regular news conferences
              -- then they wouldn't become such a burden because you would always be up
              to speed on the issues that dominate the news.

              President Harry Truman used to say that he learned a lot from reporters'
              questions. He realized that presidents, in their imperial trappings, are often
              sheltered from the daily life of the average American in the real world.

              So those give and take sessions with reporters are a two-way street. You will
              learn from the questions and the people will be better informed by your answers.