June 15, 2012

Didn't Obama Kinda Heckle Himself?

Justin Katz

The Big News on Friday is that Daily Caller reporter Neil Munro "interrupted" President Obama's statement on granting a sort of limited work-visa amnesty for young illegal immigrants. (The official transcript admirably captures what words from the reporter's questions were possible to hear.)

Mr. Munro explains himself thus:

I always go to the White House prepared with questions for our president. I timed the question believing the president was closing his remarks, because naturally I have no intention of interrupting the President of the United States. I know he rarely takes questions before walking away from the podium. When I asked the question as he finished his speech, he turned his back on the many reporters, and walked away while I and at least one other reporter asked questions.

And indeed, the transcript shows that the president did not take any further questions. That leads to what I see as the more relevant observation: It was Barack Obama, the President of the United States, who made an issue of the interaction.

In the immediate case, he did so by his reaction to Munro's audacity in disturbing the ambient peace of the President's press event. As the videos and the transcript show, had Obama not stumbled over his recitation in order to scold the journalist, nobody would have been any the wiser. It displays a characteristic peevishness that the nation's top executive was so disturbed by the nearly inaudible interruption that he could not ignore it in the course of finishing his remarks.

More importantly, the President brought the interruption on himself by giving members of the press corps the sense that he considers their role to be stenographers of his statements, without opportunity for questions. If Munro had reasonable expectation of an opportunity for some Q&A, he wouldn't have tried to slip a bit of Q at what he thought to be the President's closing.

By way of comparison, take a look at this video of President George W. Bush's indulgence as David Gregory, first, deals with the technical difficulty of his microphone wire and, then, offers a long-winded, ideologically charged question. Or better yet, consider a tweet that Prof. Jacobson highlighted from Jim Treacher:

If you cheered when a reporter threw a shoe at Bush, but you booed when a reporter threw a question at @BarackObama, #YouMightBeALiberal.

Chuckles aside, revisit the video. President Bush's reaction? "So what if the guy threw a shoe at me?"

When the missile is a question that's sure to be on the minds of many Americans (likely a majority), President Obama's reaction is, "I didn’t ask for an argument."

In a democracy, the relevant factor isn't what the President "asks for" or allows, but what the people request and demand.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

The USA has become an Obamacracy. Using Hitlerian tactics Hussein seeks to rule by autocratic decree.....dare not question him. Hussein has come to transform the country in his image...a false god. The "change " Hussein speaks of is destruction.

Posted by: ANTHONY at June 15, 2012 5:44 PM

Hi Anthony,
What you assert without providing argument I deny without argument. You said (in quotes) and I reply (in italics):

"The USA has become an Obamacracy." No it hasn't.

"Using Hitlerian tactics Hussein seeks to rule by autocratic decree.....dare not question him." No he doesn't, and you seem to be questioning him.

"Hussein has come to transform the country in his image...a false god." Not so.

"The 'change ' Hussein speaks of is destruction. No it isn't.

Get the point- you are engaging in unsupported blather and present no reasoned argument. What you freely assert, I just as freely deny.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at June 15, 2012 7:18 PM

I am no Obama-lover . . .but this reporter was downright rude, and it looked to me as if he interrupted during the President's prepared remarks.

Even Sam Donaldson at his worst never did that to Pres. Reagan.

It's disrespectful to the office of President, and -- Obama's woeful performance notwithstanding -- I'm not endorsing that kind of behavior.

Posted by: brassband at June 15, 2012 7:22 PM

I will never forget, the GOP presidential primary debate, when Captain Stephen Hill, who was putting his life on the line in Iraq, asked a question (on video) was booed by the right-wing-idiots in the audience.Mr Scissorhands Romney-care and the rest of the spineless, gutless chicken-hawk manikins on the stage said nothing.

The outrage expressed on Captain Hill's behalf by, soldiers and veterans , and his commander in chief. spoke volumes to the haters on the Right

Posted by: Sammy in Arizona at June 15, 2012 7:35 PM

We can certainly criticize media hounds and conservative bogeymen, but I'd suggest that we ought to be far more concerned with the behavior of the President of the United States. One needn't endorse behavior of lesser figures to observe the inadequacies and character flaws evident in Obama's response.

And boy, Sammy, it must burn to realize that W. was so much better endowed with class and self composure than Obama the Cool.

Posted by: Justin Katz at June 15, 2012 8:11 PM

Ok, let's separate the two issues here. Just for the sake of no argument, let's say the reporter was being rude and should have waited until the President was finished and should have respected the office and not spoken back. Let's go with that for now.

That being said, why does the President not take questions? Did he go to the Anthony Gemma school of press conferences? If there are no questions, why not just issue a written release? Why not let the President do a one-way video conference? Why waste the reporters' time showing up when they can just get the email or fax and write their story from there?

Posted by: Patrick at June 15, 2012 9:00 PM

Patrick --

I wouldn't defend Pres. Obama's practice of reading a statement and taking no questions on an issue like this (I think it could be defended in some circumstances, e.g., statements announcing military actions or diplomatic matters).

But Pres. Obama's deficiencies (which are legion) do not justify the kind of disrespect for the office that is displayed by interrupting him mid-statement.

Shout out questions as the Pres. slinks away, and then verbally beat up Jay Carney during his briefing, report on the President's unwillingness to answer, etc.

Don't sink to the level of the Occupods.

Posted by: brassband at June 15, 2012 9:20 PM

"Get the point- you are engaging in unsupported blather"

Passe Southpaw thank you for your drone reply. It was very enlightening to read nothing. Hussein has an empty suit that will fit you well.

Posted by: ANTHONY at June 16, 2012 1:33 AM

All according to plan. Divide and pit American vs. American in social dogfights while he spends the country into oblivian. Pure Chavez from an Indonesian.

Just imagine the damage when the Choom Gang member gets thrown out. His gang of radicals will make America "pay" dearly for not knowing what is good for themselves.

They, the Senate, destroyed the economy to get him in and will have no problem doing the same on the way out.

Posted by: dave at June 16, 2012 8:38 AM

Hi Anthony
No he doesn't.
You still don't get it.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at June 16, 2012 8:41 AM

I regard the incident as minor in comparison to the content of the speech. I am quite disappointed at the lack of media thoughtfulness. I am sure that everyone is aware of the benefit of the "anchor baby". As the courts do not like to see themselves as "breaking up families", do you doubt that the illegal parents of a "resident alien" will not gain a preference? They cetainly will when that child becomes a citizen.

Posted by: Warrington Faust at June 16, 2012 9:06 AM

Anchor babies are a relatively minor problem compared with the precedent this action will set. Obama is choosing not to enforce a law because he disagrees with it on policy grounds. Suppose Romney were to win the next election and follow Obama's example. He could direct the IRS not to enforce certain tax laws or the Interior Department to ignore oil drilling on federal lands. The possibilities are endless. He could ignore Dodd-Frank or the National Labor Relations Act. The Constitution requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Faithfully means something more than technically or grudgingly. Once again our constitutional law professor in chief is demonstrating how little he understands and respects the law he swore to uphold.

Posted by: David P at June 16, 2012 11:23 AM

It is among the enumerated powers of congress: To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,... Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4. Perhaps that is why Barry stopped short of naturalization. Cutting it a little close, I think.

Posted by David P
"our constitutional law professor in chief". "Instructor", not "Professor".

Posted by: Warrington Faust at June 16, 2012 2:51 PM

For the "Passe Southpaw".
The Ignorant Plantation President: Sue Arizona,sue Florida,send guns to Mexican gangs, ignore Black Panther voting poll intimidation,ignore Syrian rebels and allow massacre,support Egyptian and Libyan rebels, send taxpayer billions to "green" energy supporters and witness Solyndra,et al, as he fiddles (fund raises) while Rome burns. Emperor Hussein has no clothes.


Posted by: ANTHONY at June 16, 2012 6:07 PM

I can just imagine the sloppy procedures that will be used to "insure"that national security and public safety aren't affected.There's a history of this slapdash approach going back to the 1986 amnesty.Will applicants be fingerprinted?Name checks are useless.How about the tired old "family unification"crap?It's been used before to piggyback illegal aliens onto one family member eligible for some form of relief.Just watch how this turns into a disaster.Of course,many leftists won't consider extra people and/or the unqualified a problem at all.
Besides the above,it's a bad idea being implemented for votes.period.

Posted by: joe bernstein at June 16, 2012 11:13 PM

The fraud that is radical leftist liberalism as exemplified by Hussein the Plantation President.


Posted by: ANTHONY at June 17, 2012 3:45 AM

It didn't take long-the dog turd Congressman from Illinois,Luis Gutierrez,already was on the Sunday morning shows barking for "amnestia"for all the 11 million or so illegal aliens-he sees this as the first step-of course.The President can lie all he wants.It's easy to see through his BS.
Apparently the Hispanic"leadership"thinks immigration is a Latino issue,end of story.They are driving a dangerous wedge based on this one issue and the results may be very destructive.
Watching Chris Hayes practically give the guy a blow job on air was instructive.

Posted by: joe bernstein at June 17, 2012 10:48 AM

A factoid for perspective. In approximaely 1920, Charles Ponzi (he of the original "Ponzi Scheme")was arrested for escortng 4 illegal Italians in to the U.S. from Canada. He "copped a plea" and received 2 years at hard labor and a $500 fine. The maximum possible was 10 years and a $5,000 fine.

ALthough those laws are probably still "on the books", now we put out food and water for those "yearning to breathe free". Why not a real fence, think of what we wqould save in food and water!

Posted by: Warrington Faust at June 17, 2012 4:47 PM

now we put out food and water for those "yearning to breathe free".
Posted by Warrington Faust at June 17, 2012 4:47 PM

Food and water my ass. Try free apartments, food, education- now including college, babysitting, medical. Plus the advocacy of the always useful idiot groups.
The only revenge is that the tens of millions of illegals and anchor babies ensure the "carbon footprint" of the USA will go up and up and up...
Suck on THAT one Lefty Losers.

Posted by: Tommy Cranston at June 17, 2012 7:49 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.