President Obama was interrupted as he delivered a speech announcing the relaxation of immigration laws on Friday at the Rose Garden. The new immigration policy apparently is in place without congressional approval, although it has elements from the "DREAM Act," which has repeatedly failed in Congress. It gives some illegal immigrants under 30 years of age a reprieve from possible deportation.
During the speech, a reporter, Neil Munro, from the Daily Caller challenged the president about how unemployed Americans could be affected by the new policy. The president was clearly irritated by the interruption and stated, "It's not time for questions, not while I'm speaking," as reported by US News. Sadly, Mr. Munro certainly was out of line, as the president should not be interrupted during a press conference. However, it would also be helpful if the president himself would stick around to answer questions from reporters when he decides to make impactful policy decisions, particularly without approval from Congress.
The president continued his speech and rebuked Munro, by saying, "And the answer to your question, sir, and the next time I prefer you let me finish my statements before you ask that question, is this is the right thing to do for the American people." The reporter dared to question Obama at that point, when Obama continued, with his finger in the air, "I didn't ask for an argument, I'm answering your question." He continued to say that the illegal immigrants are already making contributions to our society. He said that they should not be treated as "expendable." The president has repeatedly found ways around those pesky checks and balances.
Whether or not one agrees with amnesty for illegal immigrants, the issue at stake here is clearly President Obama's willingness to exploit his presidential authority by enacting a policy that has not been passed through the proper constitutional channels.
Mr. Munro stated that he thought the speech was over and thought that he may have the opportunity to squeeze in a question at the end. He made the case for his interruption by saying that Obama usually turns away quickly after making a speech at the Rose Garden and does not allow questions from reporters, which he did in this case, as well, even after two reporters called out questions. It seems that Mr. Obama would prefer to use his bully pulpit than to collaborate with those who have been elected to represent the will of the people.
Watch Neil Munro discuss his perspective:
Watch Neil Munro's exchange with the president:
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 78
"Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. And believe me, right now dealing with Congress Believe me -- believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how -- that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written."
President Obama
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/remarks-president-national-council-la-raza
I have a whole list of similar statements here, if you are interested.
The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the states, and too much liberty with the Constitution. —Ronald Reagan
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf. —Barack Obama
Translation, the constitution does not say what the government can do to you. Yes, and that was by design.
"The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness.... This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector."
In 2005, Democrats howled, hissed and shouted "No!" when Bush pushed for Social Security reform in the State of the Union address: "Foreshadowing the contentiousness of the coming debate, Democrats broke decorum and booed twice," according to the National Journal. At the time, CNN's Bill Schneider remarked, "It was unusual. I had never heard it at least at that level before. The Democrats clearly were booing, heckling, saying no when the president talked about the crisis in Social Security."
President Reagan was hounded by reporters, Christopher Connell wrote a piece for the Associated Press in 1987 that stated, "Grown men and women are shouting at President Reagan at the top of their lungs," he said. "They do it for a living." He justified the behavior by quoting a professor, George E. Reedy, who stated, "I will definitely put blame on the White House." He noted that the press corps acts the way it does because "all the regular channels of access to the president have been cut off."
Even after the moans during Bush's state of the Union, everyone applauded. Everyone on one side of the room.
Republicans think it is OK to sit, not applaud AND yell out insults to the President as he's speaking! You don't see the difference? One man yelled something inappropriately, versus a roomful of people booing. Yes, I see the difference.
The media can and has always said things about sitting Presidents, but not to their face. Lora, in all honesty, has Obama been excoriated in the press like Bush was. Honestly?
It's not just in politics. Society as a whole is more disrespectful.
I actually think it stems from parents not being able to spank their children. Kids grow up disrespecting their parents. They continue disrespecting everybody into their adulthood...all the way up to the office of the Presidency. It's ridiculous. That, I can agree with ;-)
When they do that, it's too stupid to give attention. "My daddy is stronger than your daddy." Either get some verifiable stats or shut up.
"I am just sick to death of those that comment like this bozo, 'Opinion Nate' and have nothing valid to say -- they just troll around and throw out insults to make their pitiful existence seem better. Get a life, man."
"Maybe between the three of you, you could figure out how to change a light bulb?"
Oh, and I say it wouldn't be half bad if you could at least show some originality instead of repeating idiotic, hackneyed insults common to 8 year-olds.
She chooses not to appeal to mine.
And she/he continues with no compunction to do the same thing while blaming it on me because I can remember 8 year-olds doing what she/he continues to do.
Forgive me, Lora; I'd appreciate your "valid point" if it were valid: that is the point.
I still don't really know your point.
I agree; nor do I.
If your point is that the president should not be disrespected, I agree.
I do as well. However, the respect that I'd show would more appropriately be for The Office.
If your point is that Obama is disrespected because he is African American, I disagree.
As do I...STRONGLY. Race is IRRELEVANT TO ME...therefore, he is not "African-American." He's a Black American, and was borne in Honolulu. Yes?
If your point is that Obama is disrespected more than president Bush, I think you may have a short memory.
Incredibly (Bush was relentlessly abused...and no, I don't hold his performance in high esteem). That (short memory) might well be one explanation...however, I can think of another that would be far more accurate...
But that's not the only statement you made. With your initial statement in this sub-thread included this: "Don't Conservatives have any brains at all? What is wrong with you people?"
That opened up the defense that you started. Renee then felt the need to point out that there are also Liberals who've done the same. Then you came back with the infantile, "my daddy is better than your daddy routine," showing examples of disrespect from the right, but you didn't end with that. You continued to take the one example of a racist statement from one of them, and make two further comments to talk about racism. What else woud anyone expect, though?
You haven't made any point that anyone would not expect you to make. So you want to claim what the reporter did was disrespectful while you make disrespectful comments and expect no one is going to respond in kind. You want to talk about brainless? I can see how the interruption might have been considered disrespectful, but I wasn't there and neither were you. I saw what the reporter himself said. He thought the President was finished speaking, and since he knew Obama was not going to take questions, he got that in. So the flip what? Do you have nothing better to make an issue of? You can't even say anything that will give me a better idea of what is and isn't in your head than what you choose to make issues of. Go to an entertainment thread and gossip about celebrities.
...Sexist
...Islamophobic
...Xenophobic
...Homophobic
...Intolerant
...Racist
...Bigoted...
...The names that Leftists call Conservatives in an attempt to end the debate, if you disagree with the Left.
dp
Simple.
You can see it
URL in case link doesn't work:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/06/15/155117900/neil-munro-of-daily-caller-interrupts-president-during-rose-garden-address
Yes, you're welcome, Renee. I think it does justice to the discussion, at least.
"President Obama is wielding several security powers that have been historically controversial among Democrats, from indefinitely detaining Guantánamo prisoners to shutting down torture lawsuits as “state secrets†that cannot be addressed in court. There has not been a major Democratic backlash, but all the recent attention on Obama’s “kill listâ€â€”a set of targets that has included American citizens as young as 16 years old—seemed like an opening for a new chapter in challenging the administration’s security policies."
From the book: Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency Some good points are made here....
No, this word with the italics disappearing happens occasionally. They probably are due for another downtime maintenance. The half comment is something new, though that might have happened on other time too.
I don't spend as much time here as I use to but it looks like things haven't changed, some different players, but still spewing the word "racist" to try to shut people down. (yawn) So boring.
All that because I argued against illegal immigration. I mean, this guy was having a hissy fit. And I learned later that he has something to do with the judicial system here in my area!
Let me clarify something, Renee, I couldn't stand to listen to Dubya toward the end of his presidency, either. Just want to straighten that out in case one of the liberals want to say that I can't listen to the tape of Obama because I'm a racist. Although I don't know why I try because they're going to say it anyway.
I couldn't stand to listen to Dubya toward the end of his presidency, either. Same ;-)
Don't you worry about being called names, it is a strategy of the weak. I think the best thing to do is to keep pounding away at the search for truth! All the rest is background noise.
Indeed, Sue. It is a French saying..."plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose..."
... and usually attributed to Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr.
How many time did the democrats boo Bush and Reagan during speeches?
But, Nate, Lora already responded, "Reagan and Bush were actual criminals committing crimes against humanity abroad. They deserved more than a few moans and groans during their speeches. They both needed to be impeached and tried for treason."
See? ;-) They don't deserve respect because they are war criminals, sure, they may not have used drones as much as Obama or had kill lists, but they are criminals nonetheless...