June 15, 2012

"It is in no way surprising that a Daily Caller reporter would act like a tremendous, disrespectful asshole..."

"... as 'act like an asshole' is essentially the Caller’s mission statement. Presidents shouldn’t be afforded god-like respect by the press or the citizenry, but 'don’t interrupt people while they’re talking to angrily shout disagreeable things at them' is just sort of basic politeness, really. (Of course, in a movie written by a liberal screenwriter — *cough cough* Aaron Sorkin *cough cough* — Munro would be a hero. And in a movie written by a liberal screenwriter, he also wouldn’t be an obnoxious right-wing Irish-accented twit, and also his question would not be paradoxically nativist nonsense.)"

Writes Alex Pareene.

285 comments:

1 – 200 of 285   Newer›   Newest»
Jay said...

When GW Bush was heckled at the NAACP Convention, this guy was outraged, correct?

When GW Bush had a shoe thrown at his head, this guy was outraged, correct?

avwh said...

It was OK when Donaldson & Rather were less than courteous to Republican POTUSes. But now, when the incumbent rarely takes questions, it's too rude??

Michael K said...

Sounds like Munro is channeling Sam Donaldson.

Maguro said...

Well, this was terrible. But Colbert being a dick to George Bush was, like, totally awesome. He spoke truth to power, man.

The Drill SGT said...

Isn;t the Creed of the Left to "speak truth to power?

what does that mean if not challenging the POTUS on a position that the POTUS took precisely for it's decisive political advantages.

Quayle said...

So much for speaking truth to power.

So much for reporters yelling questions at Reagen when he was walking to a car (which we never see with this bunch.)

Munro apparently doesn't give a damn about whether he gets invited to the next White House BBQ, which the other bowing and scraping reporters do.

CWJ said...

Like I was trying to say on the "Mr. Romney" thread, the outrage (explanation) seems very convenient.

Roger J. said...

Mr Obama is one thin skinned, arrogant and stupid son a bitch. A worthless piece of shit that daily demeans the office of the President of the United States. November cannot come soon enough.

Andy R. said...

The new rule that conservatives are proposing is that reporters should interrupt the President when he is giving a speech by shouting questions at him?

That seems unworkable.

Palladian said...

I like that Ana Marie "Buttfucking" Cox's replacement at Wonkette, and one-time Gawker writer, has his pussy in a knot about someone being "disrespectful".

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aridog said...

Alex Pareene ... everyone's go-to guy on politics.

wonder if he's been one of the $3.00 meet& greet winners?

Q said...

The new rule that conservatives are proposing is that reporters should interrupt the President when he is giving a speech by shouting questions at him?


The "new rule" I propose is that presidents should take questions from the press.

Radical stuff, I know.

Emperor Prissypants was "interrupted" because he did not deign to take questions.

rhhardin said...

Fairness dictates that everybody get a chance to talk.

edutcher said...

The question was perfectly germane and is being asked all over the Rightosphere. And any good reporter (including Sam Donaldson or Dan Blather) would have asked it.

The real story is that Little Zero is having to face questions about his ability for the first time in his life and he doesn't think he should be forced to do so.

Get ready to say buh-bye to his likability and whatever favorability rating he really has.

He's going to see a whole lot more of this from not only Conservative reporters, but the ones in Willie's corner, too.

Andy R. said...

The new rule that conservatives are proposing is that reporters should interrupt the President when he is giving a speech by shouting questions at him?

Grow up, sweet cheeks. That's the way it works in this country when we're not "ruled" by "sort of God".

PS Love the headline, "Angry Daily Caller person"; sounds like something you'd hear from Hatman.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Q said...

And when I say that the president should take questions from the press, I mean REAL questions. Not "questions" the WH Press Secretary has per-arranged with his hand-picked reporters.

Q said...

You guys have a child-like understanding of right and wrong. "I behave badly because you MAKE me."


What is "child-like" about expecting the President of the United States to take some question from the press?

chickelit said...

Andy R is correct in this instance. Shouting at speaker is uncivilized.

What POTUS was saying should be addressed by revoking his right to govern in November. We can call back all of his directives in one fell swoop.

Roger J. said...

The interesting language eg, yahoo, in the tank for urkel, used the term heckled--actually he was asked questions which, in my judgment is not the same as heckled. But, as always, YMMV

MisterBuddwing said...

When GW Bush was heckled at the NAACP Convention, this guy was outraged, correct?
When GW Bush had a shoe thrown at his head, this guy was outraged, correct?


Never mind "this guy." What do YOU think? And would you have felt equally strongly if the same things happened to President Obama? And if not, does that not imply the double standard that you're denouncing?

Ann Althouse said...

If you're going to link to a picture of Alex Pareene, why not link to the one I took at the CNN election night party in 2006?

Amartel said...

Drudgetaposition:
EDITOR: 'a reporter's job is to ask questions' ...
WH press corp 'startled' ...

Paddy O said...

What do you do that deserves respect?

What an entirely disingenuous question.

Etiquette, like governing, is not based on you getting to violate all you want then asserting rules for others.

It's tiresome. Not because etiquette is tiresome, but because you have so low of a conception of it and honor that you can use these words as political weapons.

Shame. Shame.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Q said...

Andy R is correct in this instance. Shouting at speaker is uncivilized.


You either don't know what "civilized" means, or you're just making what you think is an emotionally satisfying gesture.

chickelit said...

Wonkette is Pareene? She's a he?

Why should anyone take seriously an man impersonating a woman.

chickelit said...

@Q: The video I watched wasn't a press conference, was it?

chickelit said...

Anyways. I hope this hurts Obama's poll numbers.

Methadras said...

Andy R. said...

The new rule that conservatives are proposing is that reporters should interrupt the President when he is giving a speech by shouting questions at him?

That seems unworkable.


How do you know he's a conservative? Moreover, poofta, how is it that Urkel can give a speech and not be asked questions on that speech or the policy it contains? Is he above reproach? Granted, I would have asked after his transparent hunt for votes by backdooring amnesty, but still he should have justified himself on why he's doing an end run around congress. Maybe you can readjust your twink hat for a better response?

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paddy O said...

"Don't you know how to think?"

Yes, you just don't recognize it when you see it. Because you don't care about thinking. You don't care about etiquette. You don't care about honor or respect. You use words as weapons.

It's tiresome and it's shameful.

Roger J. said...

Do some of you live in caves? Presidents have had questions shouted at them for 200 years--Reagan deflected them by cupping his ear and walking away. Nothing new in Washington politics, but some of the folks are catching the vapors, clutching their perals, and collapsing on their fainting couch. Get a grip folks.

Palladian said...

As satisfying as it is to see Obama irritated by a perfectly germane question, this incident reeks of a careerist and publicity-driven stunt by the lame Daily Caller website.

Amartel said...

Also funny that Pareene isn't very good at pretending to be even-handed.

Disrespectful Dailly Caller asshole is being rude and shouty (although there is precedent) but what an nativist asshole. How dare he point out that Americans might be hurt by the President's unconstitutional transparently political self-contradictory power grab.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Palladian said...

"Wonkette is Pareene? She's a he?

Why should anyone take seriously an man impersonating a woman."

Wonkette isn't Pareene anymore, nor vice-versa.

And Pareene is a man impersonating a man, not a woman.

chickelit said...

@Roger J.: Candidate Romney deftly handled a heckler just the other week. It was even done humorously.

Obama has no sense of humor and people don't like that about him. Practically everything Obama does lately makes people like Romney even more. The Left hasn't caught on to that yet.

Paddy O said...

"That's exactly what this group of brainiacs are advocating - violating the rules all they want because the President isn't following the rules they assert."

That's not what they are advocating. They are modeling the behavior that Democrats have shown is the expected political response in our day and age.

The Do unto others train rolled a long while ago, and now it is being done unto you, not because it is good etiquette, but because Democrats do not care about etiquette. They are shame-filled. They established a new etiquette and this etiquette is now the established model.

All because you do not care about etiquette or honor or civility except as it benefits you.

McCain had honor and etiquette. Palin was shown what that meant to his opponents.

The rules that you set are the rules you now play by. Your attempts to make charges of hypocrisy or other standards are merely yet more rhetorical tactics being used to shut your opponents up--one of the arsenal of weapons that is used to stifle debate and Constitutional government.

It is shameful and you should be ashamed of playing this game of false and disingenuous outrage.

BarryD said...

"Careerist and publicity-driven stunt" describes, say, Woodward and Bernstein in the 1970s. So what?

That's how the market operates, and it's a good thing. News outlets make money if people are interested. Reporters are happy to get fame at the expense of politicians. That's fine with me, since putting politicians in their places is what keeps a democratic system from becoming an autocracy.

Palladian said...

You're such a tiresome gasbag, phx. Would that someone could interrupt you.

chickelit said...

@Palladian: I was referring to Althouse's link and thought it was present info.

Paddy O said...

Palladian is also, of course, right.

Roger J. said...

no actually, PHX--I am not at all ashamed of my so called hypocracy--so tell me, my friend, how have I been hypocritical? I didnt mind when sam donaldson and dan rather peppered questions with questions, nor do I mind when some minor blogger questions the president--just what is the hypocracy in that pray tell--

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maguro said...

You know if Romney gets elected, being a dick to the President will go back to "brave and courageous speaking truth to power". So, lefties, if you want me to give a shit about this little kerfuffle, sorry. Don't care.

Q said...

you think shouting at the President in this manner is the same thing as expecting the President to take questions.



You're stupid, and your attempts to read my mind are wrong.

Shouting (a question) at the Presidents in NOT the same thing as expecting the President to take questions. Nothing I said could have been construed as claiming the two different things are the same.

Now, if the President refuses to take question, it is entirely appropriate for members of the press, or members of Congress, or members of the public, to ask him questions. Whether they "shout" or not will depend on several factors - the size of the venue, their distance to the President, the ambient sound level etc.



Don't you know how to think?


Ha. Ha. Ha.

Go reattach your sucker-like lips to Obama's ass and let those of us with brains worry about thinking.

Jo said...

This: “If Munro shows up at every Obama event from now til November Obama will cruise into reelection.”

and this: “Neil Munro gave Obama his first sympathetic moment in many many months.”

As tweeted by Commentary’s Abe Greenwald.

edutcher said...

If he hadn't spoken up, none of the drones would have asked.

Anyone who's read "The Wizard Of Id" knows that Emperor Hussein is supposed to make pronunciamentos like this from the castle battlements.

Except the White House is no castle and has no battlements.

chickelit said...

Anyways. I hope this hurts Obama's poll numbers.

Watch carefully. This is a loser even with Hispanics, much less everyone else.

And then there's the next few U3s, U5s, and U6s. Watch him try to blame this on Dubya.

PS Love the little trolls whining about etiquette.

They tossed etiquette out the window when they went after LBJ and have used it with relish ever since.

Get ready for payback.

Roger J. said...

Oh--and for the word police, hipocricy with an i and not an a--spellling was never my strong suit.

Fen said...

Fen's Law.

Paddy O said...

No, it's not "he made me do it."

It's "these are the new expectations."

And you should read the rest, because it would be helpful to you and your soul, to admit the hypocrisy that you share, the misuse of words like honor and etiquette that have long debased the conversation.

Republicans are not made to do this, by any means. They are participating in the culture that has been created, a culture that you continue to, shamefully, promote by your present, feigned outrage.

It's not going to work anymore. To use words like shame or to utilize moral judgment is to assume a more advance state of being.

You have been shown to be as craven as it needs to be. So. you have no place for accusations or judgments, you only have the shame that you wallow in everyday as a participant in it.

Which is, honestly, very sad and more to be pitied than anything else. Because it is all you have left. You have no more hope. You have no more change. You burned the bridges of bipartisanship and etiquette.

You have only your miserable rhetoric and a hovel of ideas desperate to be promoted through disingenuous language.

Fen said...

“Neil Munro gave Obama his first sympathetic moment in many many months.”

Uh-huh.... Back in the Real World, Obama came across as a petulant little Chavez-wanna-be.

Q said...

Right, it's business as usual to shout questions at Presidents *while* they are in the middle of their statement.


When should questions be asked of the President? In the Q and A period following his speech?

That would be a great idea - if Emperor Prissypants would consent to have a Q and A.

You'd be so much happier in a banana dictatorship where the Big Man speaks and everybody salutes and says "Yes, Sir!"

Roger J. said...

The issue of shouted questions is a hallmark of the british question hour. Prime ministers are required to all manner of shouted questions--see, for example, the wonderful answers of Dame Thatcher to such questions. Mr Obama would be laughed off the floor of parliament.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MisterBuddwing said...

First off, I think it's standard custom for the press to wait until the President - any President - finishes his statement before they start peppering him with questions.

Secondly, I think it's obvious President Obama had no intention of taking questions - he was just going to walk off while reporters called out to him.

So in a crazy kind of way, this reporter got what he wanted: A response.

But I did think he was out of line. YMMV.

Paddy O said...

And I agree this is a loser topic for Romney. Romney is being baited.

He needs to stay the course.

Roger J. said...

phx: please sir--to whom do you refer? certainly not me

And I asked you a simple question: wherein is my hipocricy? You have not given me the courtesy of an answer

Michael Haz said...

Remember when liberals thought it was cool how Helen Thomas heckled and hectored GWB?

But interrupt another of The One's pronouncements from on high and all hell breaks loose.

LarsPorsena said...

Boorish citizens journalists act rudely to public officials...anything like this happen during the last year in WI?
Loutish interruption of the state's chief executive during a speech?

N'est pas?

Paddy O said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paddy O said...

phx, you bear your own evidence.

If I'm wrong, I apologize. But, I'm not.

It's not my job to judge, just to point out issues of concern.

Your rhetoric here is the proof that I see. Your feigned outrage and disingenuous comments that utterly dismiss the political climate as it has developed over the last decade--looking only to blame Republicans.

President Obama is not a king to whom we must avert our eyes and curtsy before. He answer to the people and he should answer when people talk. As should any president.

That he, in the same day, gives the finger to congress while expecting deference to his own person is all the more reason to disabuse him of his assumed status.

He answers to We the People, we do not answer to We the King.

And this is true for all Presidents, who should give forums for regular questions, who should explain the reasons for extraordinary behavior.

To suggest otherwise is shameful and craven, especially when one excuses those who share one's own political goals.

MisterBuddwing said...

The issue of shouted questions is a hallmark of the british question hour. Prime ministers are required to all manner of shouted questions--see, for example, the wonderful answers of Dame Thatcher to such questions. Mr Obama would be laughed off the floor of parliament.

And yet, the charming quirk of Question Time is that the questions aren't directly addressed to the prime minister or opposition leader - they're all being directed to the chair, or speaker.

Would my right honourable friend agree with me? And would my right honourable friend agree to stipulate that the rules for Question Time and a presidential statement in the Rose Garden are as different as apples and oranges?

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MisterBuddwing said...

Remember when liberals thought it was cool how Helen Thomas heckled and hectored GWB?

You sure you're not confusing Helen Thomas with Sarah McClendon? (Helen Thomas was positively staid by comparison.)

Roger J. said...

My honorable friend Mr Buddwing is correct on the format of question hour--I do, however, take issue on the questions of "apples and oranges." Now being from eastern washington I prefer apples, but that said, an apple in eastern washington is the same as an orange in florida, and thus the questions have the same import, horticultural issues nothwithstanding.
(well done my honorable friend, but off the mark I fear)

Aridog said...

Ann Althouse said...

... why not link to the one I took at the CNN election night party in 2006?

1. Truth: I wasn't aware of it, wasn't around here in 2006.

2. Hindsight: In the photo you took he looks like he's scared the CNN interviewer would bite him ... so yeah, it's even mo' betta.

fivewheels said...

"paradoxically nativist nonsense"

As always, the left is completely baffled at why a legal immigrant could possibly have anything against illegal immigration. They literally cannot imagine why.

LarsPorsena said...

"...And yet, the charming quirk of Question Time is that the questions aren't directly addressed to the prime minister or opposition leader - they're all being directed to the chair, or speaker..."

A polite fiction that is not entertained by the dullest East End chav.

Larry J said...

Obama is a teleprompter cripple. If he isn't using a teleprompter, he stammers, ummms and ahs enough to make W sound articulate.

Asking him a question means he has to give up his crutch and speak for himself. That's something he does poorly.

Obama 2012 - Because 4 years of failure isn't enough!

Roger J. said...

BTW my honorable friend Mr Buddwing--I appreciate your courtesies involving political speech in the right honorable house of parliament. Those do much to blunt the sharp spears of anger. Well done sir

n.n said...

Is it true that Obama avoids answering the press's questions? If so, then a preemptive strike was not only required but necessary for a journalist to gain audience with our leader.

In any case, if decorum was the issue of merit, then Obama would stop denigrating the dignity and lives of the American people he serves. While he should be afforded reasonable respect, he has certainly not earned it through either the merit of his actions or words.

Synova said...

"Do some of you live in caves? Presidents have had questions shouted at them for 200 years--"

And a guy who threw a shoe was a HERO.

I do try to be aware that I may interpret events differently depending if it involves "my guy" or not. But I really DO NOT recall any particular respect for previous presidents.

What I do recall a deal of fuss that people who throw things at presidents might be a security threat, because it might not be just a shoe. I don't recall being particularly upset by the lack of *respect* the action showed. I DO recall quite clearly that the shoe thrower was an utter hero to the left.

And I recall the absolute about-face when Obama was elected. Suddenly it was all about respecting the office and so much as the merest twist of facial expression and whisper to the fellow sitting adjacent, or a single word was an OUTRAGE! Yes, an all-caps violation of the understood rules of civility.

I had *thought* that reporters, at least, were supposed to be assholes. That it was their job description to be assholes. Was I lied to all these years? If there was outrage at reporters during the Bush admin from the left it was that one of them failed to be an asshole. Failure to be an asshole was the same thing as "softball" questions.

What happened to the noble calling? The daring? The speaking truth to power?

At what point did the assholes, proud of their professional assholery, start valuing ass powdering instead?

Andy R. said...

Some of you don't seem to understand the difference between shouting questions at the President while he is not giving a speech and shouting questions at the President while he is giving a speech.

Fen said...

The little brownshirts over at Salon want the reporter deported.

Coketown said...

I don't mind Munro's antics any more than I mind Code Pink/Occupy/every other left-wing group interrupting conservative politicians during their speeches. I do mind the left's feigned indignation over this. Republican speeches are routinely interrupted by progressives--with nary a word of condemnation from the left.

I think interrupting politicians is healthy for our democracy. It obliterates the pomp and prestige most elected officials feel they're entitled to. "Please, call me senator. I worked very hard for that title." Etc. Dumb cunt.

Anyway, it was another boring speech by Obama, and without Munro nobody would have noticed it. Nobody would have noticed that Obama is attempting to circumvent Congress to give unpopular amnesty to a crucial voting bloc. Thanks, Munro.

garage mahal said...

B Bu Bu But But what about _______________________!!?????

So predictable.

Aridog said...

@ andy r ... it's pretty hard to ask questions of a guy who stops speaking and scampers away like a skittering crab. Past evasive behavior no doubt informed current rudeness.

Aridog said...

@ garage ... ah, so the "they hit back first" meme only applies to Democratic critics? IOW ...it's Bush's fault.

Matthew Sablan said...

On the upside, unlike when reporters were trying to find out who Obama's donors were at an event, no one was arrested for doing journalism today.

I think it is amazing the amount of power the left is willing to cede to the current president, and how much they are willing to kneecap the press for the current president.

fivewheels said...

Munro is claiming he "mistimed" his question, i.e. he thought Obama was done speaking and he was doing the thing where you shout the quetstion while he walks away.

I haven't seen the tape, is this a credible explanation? I would tend to excuse it if so, otherwise I think he should have actually waited for the end of the remarks.

Matthew Sablan said...

Between the willingness to sell out the press, the aggressive amount of attacks on leakers, the willful disregard and politicization of inspector generals, I have to wonder:

Did the left ever really believe in a free press, free speech and good government? Or, was that all just sweet whispers to get into power?

Matthew Sablan said...

Who is the other voice shouting besides Munro? Why is that woman (the voice sounds like a woman's voice) not being called out as a hate-filled asshole?

Fen said...

Tucker Carlson: “I don’t remember Diane Sawyer scolding her colleague Sam Donaldson for heckling President Reagan. And she shouldn’t have. A reporter’s job is to ask questions and get answers. Our job is to find out what the federal government is up to. Politicians often don’t want to tell us. A good reporter gets the story. We’re proud of Neil Munro.”

LarsPorsena said...

Blogger Andy R. said...

Some of you don't seem to understand the difference between shouting questions at the President while he is not giving a speech and shouting questions at the President while he is giving a speech.
__________________________________

Google "Bush speech interrupted" and look at the results. Ya think you might have a double standard of conduct?

chickelit said...

At what point did the assholes, proud of their professional assholery, start valuing ass powdering instead?

I think it coincided with the rise of the internet and the paucity of paid reporting jobs. Amateurs and attention seeking hacks filled the ranks. Meanwhile, I suspect that money and an unwillingness to rock the boat has corrupted others.

MisterBuddwing said...

BTW my honorable friend Mr Buddwing--I appreciate your courtesies involving political speech in the right honorable house of parliament. Those do much to blunt the sharp spears of anger. Well done sir


Aw, go suck an egg!

(I keed! I keed!)

Jay said...

phx said...

Right, it's business as usual to shout questions at Presidents *while* they are in the middle of their statement.


Hi moral scold/silly hypocrite.

You might bother yourself to read the statement by the reporter.

The one where he says he thought the President was finishing his remarks.

But you're above it all while of course the number of denunciations to leftists for this sort of thing from you remains at zero.

Andy R. said...

Google "Bush speech interrupted" and look at the results.

I glanced through two pages and didn't see any examples of reporters interrupting a speech by Bush?

Can you provide us with an example?

Michael K said...

"The new rule that conservatives are proposing is that reporters should interrupt the President when he is giving a speech by shouting questions at him?
"

Sure. Why not ? After all, Obama's speeches need some livening up. Dullsville. Not mention that he is violating his oath of office.

Synova said...

"Some of you don't seem to understand the difference between shouting questions at the President while he is not giving a speech and shouting questions at the President while he is giving a speech."

I have a couple of questions, just for clarity. If, instead of abandoning the rules, we're going to uniformly follow them, the rules have to be clear.

Do you think that *reporters* have a special duty to not shout questions, or challenges, to the President during a speech? Presidents give lots of speeches and talks. There are often disruptive hecklers at those speeches. Do you intend to silence everyone during any prepared speech by the President or only silence reporters?

To what extent is a "prepared speech" different from an informal speech? If the President starts to speak, and often speeches are given off-the-cuff, is everyone (or just reporters) required not to interrupt? Or is it just for speech "events" where interruptions are not allowed? If the SOTU is sacred, and an announced policy speech to reporters is also sacred, at what point of informality does the rule change?

Third clarification. Does the President (forgot to capitalize that and had to fix it) have a special right to non-interrupted speech giving? In other words, does this right to give a non-interrupted speech only exist for the PotUS? Do other politicians and office holders deserve similar respect? Governors would be an obvious extention, as they are the top executive of their states. And is it just the executive branch that is so respect worthy? What of the majority leader of either house? What of the Justices? (Or is that only if they're wearing their robes?)

Interruptions of prepared speeches are obnoxious and rude and ubiquitous. A general social rule that someone giving a prepared or formal speech at a venue they've arranged for be allowed to speak without interruption would be a lovely thing, actually. Interrupting and heckling is disrespectful of the other *people* who want to hear the speech.

But heckling or yelling rude questions is ubiquitous and often presented as a noble undertaking. I would like to know who is enough more important than other citizens or foreign visitors to get this special respectful treatment.

We can't have a rule without clarity. Is it just the President? Is it Governors, majority leaders, and perhaps Presidential candidates?

Oh, and if the President is *also* a Presidential candidate, there will be some odd parsing that needs to happen if other candidates do not require the exact same respectful treatment.

"The new rule that conservatives are proposing is that reporters should interrupt the President when he is giving a speech by shouting questions at him?

That seems unworkable.
"

The alternative is a clear rule that would muzzle reporters for the eight years of Romney's Presidency.

Does that seem workable to you?

MisterBuddwing said...

Right, right, right. Conservatives in their moral consistency get every bit as indignant over disrespect for President Obama as they did for President Bush.

Oh no, they don't. They can't - because liberals didn't show the same indignation over disrespect for President Bush as they do for President Obama.

Oh my aching back.

LarsPorsena said...

Andy R. said...

Google "Bush speech interrupted" and look at the results.

I glanced through two pages and didn't see any examples of reporters interrupting a speech by Bush?
_____________________________

Oh! You just didn't see an example of a 'reporter' did it not that it hasn't happended. I see! It's different when a reporter does it? Why is that?

Matthew Sablan said...

Ah. I get it. Andy doesn't want it to be reporters; he'd rather organized protestors or the opposition shout down the president.

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

Some of you don't seem to understand the difference between shouting questions at the President while he is not giving a speech and shouting questions at the President while he is giving a speech.


Once, when Reagan was greeting a school group in the Rose Garden, Bill Plante and Sam Donalson screamed questions at him while he was speaking. When one of the teachers objected, Plante yelled at him that he was interfering with the "public's right to know".

Quit crying.

Choom got the same treatment. Only the public has not right to know when the Messiah speaks, apparently.

garage mahal said...

@ garage ... ah, so the "they hit back first" meme only applies to Democratic critics? IOW ...it's Bush's fault.

You can't evoke Bush's name for anything, remember? "I Blame Booooosh!" except when you can "But what about Bush!?"

It just sounds so fucking retarded and childish. That's how your children argue, isn't it? And sure enough, Jay proves it on the very first comment.

Andy R. said...

You might bother yourself to read the statement by the reporter.

The one where he says he thought the President was finishing his remarks.


This follows a pattern that has happened before.

1) An idiot does something idiotic.

2) Liberals note that it is idiotic and conservatives defend the idiot. For example, I said reporters should not interrupt the President while he is giving a speech and a bunch of the commenters here jumped in to defend the reporter and say it was fine what he did.

3) The original idiot comes forward and apologizes and said he made a mistake.

At this point, all the people defending him should admit they were wrong. No, reporters should not interrupt the President when he is giving a speech by shouting questions at him.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Do you intend to silence everyone during any prepared speech by the President or only silence reporters?"

-- Matters. Is the president Bush or Obama? You've got to clarify these things.

Matthew Sablan said...

Andy: Why aren't you tracking down the other person who shouted? If this is such an outrageous outrage, why have they not been forced to apologize?

Or, is this just another attack on hostile press?

Jay said...


3) The original idiot comes forward and apologizes and said he made a mistake.



That's funny.

Like I said, go read the statement.

More likely, you'll wallow in ignorance.

Jay said...

No, reporters should not interrupt the President when he is giving a speech by shouting questions at him.

Notice you never once uttered those words when GW Bush was President.

Why do you think that is?

LarsPorsena said...

'No, reporters should not interrupt the President when he is giving a speech by shouting questions at him.'

How about ordinary citizens? Are they allowed to yell during a Presidential speech? Is it just reporters who should remain properly deferential?

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

You can't evoke Bush's name for anything, remember? "I Blame Booooosh!" except when you can "But what about Bush!?"

It just sounds so fucking retarded and childish.


Coming from the person who is going to vote for the President who blames the bad economy on Bush.

Coming from the person who he himself blames the bad economy on Bush.

As I said earlier, you are an effing idiot. And I mean that in the most basic sense as you can't read and comprehend basic sentences.

Andy R. said...

Notice you never once uttered those words when GW Bush was President.

Can you provide an example of this happening?

Jay said...

Andy R. said...

Can you provide an example of this happening?


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

That's right Andy, it never happened!

Andy R. said...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Then it should be easy for you to provide one example.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Can you provide an example of this happening?"

You do know the guy who threw the shoes was a journalist... right?

Jay said...

I found this interesting:


In a televised report carried on local affiliate WFAA News 8, President Obama faced tough questioning over his appeal in Texas and at the end of the interview told the reporter not to interrupt him again in any future interviews.


How dare you!!!

Matthew Sablan said...

And, if we're holding reporters to that standard, what do you have to say to the constant shouting down of conservative speakers? If journalists should be ashamed of asking questions out of turn, what should we say about people who shout, pound on walls and make an area so unsafe that speakers have to be cancelled?

Or, again, is it only because it was the Daily Caller? The other speaker still hasn't been identified. You've showered her with no rage.

Just admit it. This is a dirty hit to de-legitimize a section of the press that isn't friendly enough.

Andy R. said...

I ran this google search "reporter interrupt bush speech -obama" and looked through the first three pages of results.

I couldn't find a single example of a reporter interrupting Bush by asking a question when he was giving a speech.

If people want to claim that American reporters should interrupt the President when he is giving a speech by asking him questions because of that one time that an Iraqi threw a show at Bush, they are welcome to make that argument.

Blue@9 said...

I'll say straight up that Munro was an ass and shouldn't have interrupted the President's speech.

That being said, it's FUCKING LAUGHABLE that liberals are feigning outrage. Do they ever apply this standard when their goons interrupt speakers on college campuses or other public forums? For fuck's sake, did any of them express such concern when Bush had a shoe thrown at him?

Matthew Sablan said...

No: We're saying what looks like a mistake probably was a mistake. Presidents get questions shouted at them often. Your outrage is targeted solely at this guy because of where he works. Just admit it, you want to squash his speech.

Revenant said...

Did anyone notice the link, at the bottom of the article, to Pareene's book? Kind of an ironic title.

garage mahal said...

Coming from the person who he himself blames the bad economy on Bush.

You're a pathetic child. You argue like a child. And you're not even funny or creative. "When GW Bush was" "When GW Bush had". Granted, you don't have a lot to work with, but exactly who is supposed to be impressed with that crap?

LarsPorsena said...

Andy R. said...

I ran this google search "reporter interrupt bush speech -obama" and looked through the first three pages of results.

I couldn't find a single example of a reporter interrupting Bush by asking a question when he was giving a ...

____________________________

Not honest ..the google was "Bush speech interrupted" there are several pages plus videos of multiple instance of Bush being interrupted (and not just 'Mr. Shoes'). You are still not confronting the issue as to why a 'reporter' interrupting BO is more onerous. Basically you're being a worm on this question. wiggle

Andy R. said...

Do they ever apply this standard when their goons interrupt speakers on college campuses or other public forums?

I don't like it when people do this. There have been efforts to go "mic check" politicians when they came to Atlanta to give a speech and I did not participate.

I fully support less obnoxious ways to protest a politician's speech, such as by standing up with your back to a speaker while they are speaking, or the minimal disturbance caused by a mass walk-out when a speaker says something that you want to protest. (I wouldn't say this is an absolute rule, as I can imagine some exceptions. But in general, I don't like the "I'm going to yell really loud so people can't hear you speak" approach to people that one disagrees with.)

Synova said...

"I couldn't find a single example of a reporter interrupting Bush by asking a question when he was giving a speech."

Why would it have made the news?

You can't google-search something that no one bothered to report.

Revenant said...

I couldn't find a single example of a reporter interrupting Bush by asking a question when he was giving a speech.

It's the third link, hat guy. Bonus parallel to this -- it was an Irish reporter then, too.

Then again that's not surprising. The Irish press, like the British press, doesn't have that whole "its a politician, we must kiss his ass" thing that our domestic speaking-of-truth-to-power industry does. :)

Andy R. said...

It's the third link, hat guy. Bonus parallel to this -- it was an Irish reporter then, too.

That was an interview. There is a big difference. Reporters are fully encouraged to be aggressive when interviewing politicians, and that can include butting in if the politicians is refusing to answer the question that was asked or filibustering so the reporter can't ask another question.

Edward Reiss said...

Andy,

"If people want to claim that American reporters should interrupt the President when he is giving a speech by asking him questions because of that one time that an Iraqi threw a show at Bush, they are welcome to make that argument."

You changed your argument from questioning whether journalists or reporters have ever interrupted a president making a statement to American reporters interrupting a president making a statement. Since you requested an example of a reporter interrupting a president and one was supplied, I think intellectual integrity would require that you address the face that something worse actually happened to George Bush and there was not a hue and cry from the left. The fact that you moved the goal posts without admitting the simple fact that an example, which you requested, was supplied and changed your argument without acknowledging that lends credence to Paddy O's point that this is just manufactured outrage and that you don't really care if a president is interrupted while making a statement; as long as he is a president you don't like.

So, will you admit that a president before Obama was interrupted while making a statement, and that this invalidates your argument as originally stated by you?

Andy R. said...

The new rule that conservatives are proposing is that reporters should interrupt the President when he is giving a speech by shouting questions at him?

That seems unworkable.


Does this mean we are all in agreement that no one can provide any evidence that a reporter ever interrupted Bush by asking a question while he was giving a speech?

Synova said...

"2) Liberals note that it is idiotic and conservatives defend the idiot. For example, I said reporters should not interrupt the President while he is giving a speech and a bunch of the commenters here jumped in to defend the reporter and say it was fine what he did."

"Idiotic" is a idiotic way to describe the Liberal outrage at the disrespect (which is why the interruption is *wrong*, the POTUS deserves respect) shown the President.

"It was fine" is an idiotic way to summarize objections that HISTORICALLY the complainers had no problem whatsoever with disrespect toward the POTUS, and "it was fine" is also an idiotic way to summarize an argument asking what has changed that reporters aren't supposed to be assholes.

chickelit said...

Did anyone notice the link, at the bottom of the article, to Pareene's book? Kind of an ironic title.

I did. But it's pretty standard fare these days for reporters and journalists on both sides to publish works with inflammatory titles, so you can't really score political points on that topic.

Revenant said...

That was an interview.

She interrupted his prepared remarks.

You're being awfully precise about when it is or isn't rude to interrupt a President, by the way. Is there a written guideline for when it is ok to talk over the President? Also, was it written before this afternoon? :)

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

It's the third link, hat guy. Bonus parallel to this -- it was an Irish reporter then, too.

That was an interview.


Big whoop.

It was done time and again. It's how it happens.

Quit being such a whining little wuss like your Messiah and grow a pair.

If you can.

chickelit said...

Advice to Andy R: You be better off if you just said you didn't like anybody shouting at any President while speaking, regardless of their stated profession. That would at least be consistent.

Jay said...

arage mahal said...



You're a pathetic child. You argue like a child.


You're projecting again, simpleton.

Note that everything I said was true.

Or are you disputing that Obama blames Bush for the bad economy?

Or are you disputing that you blame Bush for the bad economy?

PS: I actually cite facts, like I did in response to your idiotic Act 21 drivel.

Why you continue to make an ass of yourself here is unclear.

Carry on, idiot.

Aridog said...

@ garage m ... Perhaps a graphic will let you better understand the They hit back first meme and just who is childish in all this Jabberwocky.

Andy R. said...

You changed your argument from questioning whether journalists or reporters have ever interrupted a president making a statement to American reporters interrupting a president making a statement.

This my first comment in the thread: "The new rule that conservatives are proposing is that reporters should interrupt the President when he is giving a speech by shouting questions at him?"

This is my second comment in the thread: "Some of you don't seem to understand the difference between shouting questions at the President while he is not giving a speech and shouting questions at the President while he is giving a speech."

[Emphasis added.] So yeah, there was that one Iraqi guy that threw his shoes, but I don't think that is a great parallel to what happened here, and what I was talking about.

Are we all in agreement that reporters should not interrupt a speech that the President is giving by shouting questions at him, or is that still up for debate?

Jay said...

Does this mean we are all in agreement that no one can provide any evidence that a reporter ever interrupted Bush by asking a question while he was giving a speech?

No.

But after 8 years of:
"Selected not elected"
"WMD Lies"
"Not my president"
"Knew about 9-11 and let it happen"
"WTC 7!"
A movie wishing assassination
"The Chimp"!

We'll take your concerns really, really seriously.

Edward Reiss said...

Chikelit,

"You be better off if you just said you didn't like anybody shouting at any President while speaking, regardless of their stated profession. That would at least be consistent."

Yes, he would. But for whatever the reason, it was very important to make this particular incident unprecedented, and then make very specific circumstances where it is wrong to interrupt a president while making a statement. And this is from a guy who tries to take an intellectually superior attitude.

Revenant said...

So if the President is making claims without responding to questions -- i.e., giving a speech -- it is unthinkably rude to shout questions at him while he's talking.

If he has agreed to answer questions, and is in fact doing so, and you shout over him while he's trying to answer, that's not rude. That's just "aggressive reporting".

Interesting mindset behind that.

Synova said...

"Does this mean we are all in agreement that no one can provide any evidence that a reporter ever interrupted Bush by asking a question while he was giving a speech?"

I'm still waiting for you to define terms.

Such as: speech.

Andy R. said...

She interrupted his prepared remarks.

Why do you think this is what happened? The video I'm watching leads off with a question from her. At what point are his "prepared" remarks"

Edward Reiss said...

Andy,

"The new rule that conservatives are proposing is that reporters should interrupt the President when he is giving a speech by shouting questions at him?"

This is my second comment in the thread: "Some of you don't seem to understand the difference between shouting questions at the President while he is not giving a speech and shouting questions at the President while he is giving a speech."

[Emphasis added.] So yeah, there was that one Iraqi guy that threw his shoes, but I don't think that is a great parallel to what happened here, and what I was talking about."

It is a great parallel, because throwing something is worse than interrupting, correct? Would you be less outraged if the American reporter had thrown something at Obama? I think not.

Added to that the fact you changed your argument from the generic "reporter" to an American reporter, and I think this is good evidence that you simply changed your argument. And BTW, it is OK to change your argument, you should just admit you do so--or give a reason as to why it foreign reporters should be exempt. So far, you are just restating your dis-proven argument--a reporter did interrupt a president while he was making a statement despite your claim to the contrary.

Revenant said...

So yeah, there was that one Iraqi guy that threw his shoes, but I don't think that is a great parallel to what happened here, and what I was talking about.

You're correct that it doesn't really work as a parallel. For example, when the Iraqi reporter threw a shoe at Bush, the American news media's primary response was to discuss how it showed how unpopular Bush was. :)

Jay said...

it was very important to make this particular incident unprecedented, and then make very specific circumstances where it is wrong to interrupt a president while making a statement.

Of course. That way he gets to pretend he isn't an utter hypocrite.

Andy R. said...

Me: No, reporters should not interrupt the President when he is giving a speech by shouting questions at him.

Jay: Notice you never once uttered those words when GW Bush was President.

Me: Can you provide an example of this happening?

And then Jay pops up and says "PS: I actually cite facts,". Which is funny because he can't cite a fact of a reporter interrupting a speech by Bush by shouting a question.

Jay said...

Which is funny because he can't cite a fact of a reporter interrupting a speech by Bush by shouting a question.

You mean other than the Iraqi journalist throwing the shoe, right?

Synova said...

"Are we all in agreement that reporters should not interrupt a speech that the President is giving by shouting questions at him, or is that still up for debate?"

(Why are you still insisting on limiting this to reporters?)

How about: No one at all should ever interrupt a speech that the President is giving by shouting questions at him.

But we probably ought to define "should" as well. Are we "debating" the question of "is this rude behavior" or are we debating a question of enforcement?

That would make a pretty huge difference about the "is this still up for debate" question.

Jay said...

Which is funny because he can't cite a fact of a reporter interrupting a speech by Bush by shouting a question.

This is high brow comedy.

I think you should go on pretending Bush was never interrupted.

Really. It suits you.

chickelit said...

Edward Reiss wrote:

But for whatever the reason, it was very important to make this particular incident unprecedented, and then make very specific circumstances where it is wrong to interrupt a president while making a statement.

One reason could be to discredit particular types of journalist, i.e., upstart "Breitbart Media" types. You, the types who aren't associated with the staid and laided back MSM.

It will become very important--nay--crucial to distinguish and discredit media outlets in this upcoming election. This is just the beginning I predict.

In any case, Obama can run from questions about this in the future but he can't hide.

Did you see that botched attempt to "get" Romney on Mormonism? It happened in Wisconsin.

Jay said...

Are we all in agreement that reporters should not interrupt a speech that the President is giving by shouting questions at him, or is that still up for debate?"

No.

Why shouldn't they? What principle are they violating?

chickelit said...

Synova wrote:
(Why are you still insisting on limiting this to reporters?)

See my answer to Edward Reiss above for one possible reason.

Andy R. said...

Jay: An Iraqi throwing a shoe is not "a reporter interrupting a speech by Bush by shouting a question."

Are you reading the words that I am typing?

Here is the video of the Irish interview if anyone wants to check it out. It does not appear to be an example of a speech by Bush being interrupted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fze2J2Ve9is

Revenant said...

An Iraqi throwing a shoe is not "a reporter interrupting a speech by Bush by shouting a question."

Ah, so Munro's real offense was that he asked questions instead of throwing his shoes. Got it.

Man, these rules are tricky to follow. :)

roesch/voltaire said...

PLease show me one clip where Sam Donaldson interrupted a presidential speech-- damn right he asked hard questions afterwards!

Chip Ahoy said...

Speaking of growing a pair, tomorrow it Pride Fest, it's a big dealio around here and it all ends up at a park two blocks down the street. Last year I noticed colored feathers floating around all over the surrounding blocks, drifting into the garage. What does this have to do with growing a pair? Nothing. That was a poorly thought out segue.

garage mahal said...

Are we all in agreement that reporters should not interrupt a speech that the President is giving by shouting questions at him, or is that still up for debate?"

*******

No.

Why shouldn't they? What principle are they violating?


You just spent this entire fucking thread explaining to us how these principles were violated against Bush! You have no principles, and I don't think you even realize it. You have to be the biggest hack on the internet. At least top 5?

Jay said...

PLease show me one clip where Sam Donaldson interrupted a presidential speech-

I love this.

Now the rule is you can't interrupt a "speech" (whatever that is).

I wonder if you people even believe deep down inside you have any credibility.

edutcher said...

First, it wasn't a "speech". Zero was announcing a change in policy in a prepared statement. Such things have always been fair game for questions.

When we've had a real President.

Second, the Lefties made the rules a long time ago.

Now, they're crying because what they did all the time is happening to them.

Makes you wonder why it took so long to get the better of them.

Andy R. said...

Now the rule is you can't interrupt a "speech" (whatever that is).

What else is there to interrupt?

Jay said...

You have to be the biggest hack on the internet. At least top 5?

Wittle garagie projecting again!

Hey stupid, why don't you tell us how Act 21 allows the Governor to unilaterally implement rules, even though that statute says he can not.

Really, it will be fun, idiot.

Jay said...

What else is there to interrupt?

Hysterical.

Mind you, from the author of:

It does not appear to be an example of a speech by Bush being interrupted:

I know logic is hard, but do try to keep up.

Jay said...


You just spent this entire fucking thread explaining to us how these principles were violated against Bush!


Notice you didn't answer the question.

Why do you think that is?

Andy R. said...

Jay: Are you trying to argue that because a reporter interrupted Bush during a interview, which happens all the time, that therefore it is ok to interrupt Obama with a question when he is giving a speech, which happens basically never and no one can provide any evidence of a reporter ever interrupting Bush with questions during a speech?

Synova said...

Why limit this to reporters:

"One reason could be to discredit particular types of journalist, i.e., upstart "Breitbart Media" types. You, the types who aren't associated with the staid and laided back MSM.

It will become very important--nay--crucial to distinguish and discredit media outlets in this upcoming election. This is just the beginning I predict.
"

But...

When Bush was president it was all about discrediting the "reporter" who WASN'T rude and aggressive. I'm trying to remember the guy's name... he'd done gay porn movies or something. Me? I figure that being a reporter is a job and anyone could do it, and if someone asks less than hostile questions, that's probably what their readers want. (True now, too.) The tearing and gnashing of teeth because someone wasn't constantly and entirely antagonistic toward the President was befuddling to me. Apparently it made him Not A Real Reporter. (The logic of why the administration planting a "fake" reporter would chose a former gay porn star isn't something I'm smart enough to understand, but apparently that made sense to the left.)

Synova said...

"Jay: Are you trying to argue that because a reporter interrupted Bush during a interview, which happens all the time, that therefore it is ok to interrupt Obama with a question when he is giving a speech, which happens basically never and no one can provide any evidence of a reporter ever interrupting Bush with questions during a speech?"

How often did Bush give a speech TO REPORTERS without answering questions at the end?

I think this is important, Andy. Do you know if he tended to do that? If everyone there KNEW that they'd get to ask questions at the end (and interrupt his answers to their heart's content) maybe it has nothing at all to do with the *reporters* having good manners and everything to do with *Bush* not being an asshole.

chickelit said...

It would be highly amusing (but uncivil) if this provoked a spate of Obama hecklers in the future. I would count it as a failed opportunity on the part of the left to grow up and disavow heckling regardless of the heckler's profession. But there's obviously a reason why they won't do this.

yashu said...

I give Pareene credit for snarkily noting the double standard here: Of course, in a movie written by a liberal screenwriter — *cough cough* Aaron Sorkin *cough cough* — Munro would be a hero.

So Pareene is criticizing Munro, but not all "shocked, shocked" about it. And admitting that if it was a liberal doing this to a Republican POTUS, it would be seen by liberals as heroic. That's more intellectual integrity than I usually see from liberals like Pareene, so kudos to him for that, at least.

Synova said...

"I would count it as a failed opportunity on the part of the left to grow up and disavow heckling regardless of the heckler's profession."

I could get on that bandwagon.

Occupy would sh*t it's diaper, though.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...

Jay: Are you trying to argue that because a reporter interrupted Bush during a interview,


I'm asking you:
What principle is being violated here?
Why shouldn't a reporter shout questions at the President when he is talking?

Bonus question: what makes something a "speech" and what makes something merely a "statement"?

Note: Yahoo news reported as follows: interrupted President Barack Obama mid-sentence while making a statement,

Revenant said...

Please show me one clip where Sam Donaldson interrupted a presidential speech-- damn right he asked hard questions afterwards!

I'd like to see a clip of a reporter asking Obama a hard question.

garage mahal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

I'm sure someone beat me too it, but I assume that the reporter was just making the logical assumption that Obama didn't have anything more to say since about...oh early 2009, and he was simply saving us some time. That's just good reporting, and respectful use of bandwidth.

Revenant said...

Are you trying to argue that because a reporter interrupted Bush during a interview, which happens all the time

And as we know, rude behavior becomes *less* rude if you do it all the time.

garage mahal said...

Why shouldn't a reporter shout questions at the President when he is talking?

You asked in the very first comment "When GW Bush was heckled at the NAACP Convention, this guy was outraged, correct?"

Why should anyone be outraged at Bush being heckled then, if you think it's fine to heckle Obama now, hack?

MisterBuddwing said...

From the For Whatever It's Worth Department:

Chris Wallace of FOX News, interviewed on a local Washington DC all-newser, WTOP, said that Munro was "way out of line" by interrupting the president's statement. Wallace feels he himself never did that sort of thing (along with Sam Donaldson).

NotquiteunBuckley said...

How dare you. How dare you.

Aw shut up.

Synova said...

"What principle is being violated here?"

I can think of a few.

First possibility: The office of the President of the United States requires respect.

The problem with that possibility: Respect isn't defined by activity or location. Thus, the heroic shoe thrower violates the principle of respect. As do nasty political cartoons.

Second possibility: The location or activity, *not* the office or person of the President deserves respect.

I think this argument could be made, but want to know which locations and which activities require a gag-order on attendees. The SOTU? Possibly. Some other required, official, event? Possibly. A policy statement prepared for reporters? Maybe not so much, though waiting for the question period at the end seems like common courtesy. (Oh, wait...)

Third possibility: Interrupting the President impedes his ability to do his job and serve the people.

The problem with this possibility: It is probably quite true that there is something fundamentally and morally wrong with impeding the President from clearly communicating *what he wants to communicate*. But that applies to *all* of his speech, not simply the prepared parts. Interrupting any answer the President is giving, impedes his clear communication. For the third possibility to hold as a principle that is being violated, it has to apply to all Presidential speech.

Hagar said...

I believe the reporter, Mr. Munro, has said he did not intend to interrupt the president, but that he intended to ask his question at the end of the speech and before the president could turn away and leave without taking questions, as indeed he also did on this occasion. Th at is, the incident resulted from the president's style of speaking with the pregnant pauses, and Mr. Munro thought he was done when he wasn't.

Jay said...


First possibility: The office of the President of the United States requires respect


Fair point.
But when you're on the side that spent 8 years saying Bush was a Chimp and stole an election, you don't get to make the case that the President deserves respect when he happens to be a Dem.

For the third possibility to hold as a principle that is being violated, it has to apply to all Presidential speech.

Ding, ding, ding, ding!

Which is why they're hypocrites.

I liked your post, Synova.

Revenant said...

On a side note, there is something quaint about Pareene expressing surprise at the so-called "nativist" sentiment of the Irish-American in question.

Sometimes I wonder if illegal immigration's defenders actually know any LEGAL immigrants. Because believe me when I tell you that you haven't heard someone hate on illegal immigrants until you've talked to a legal immigrant about it.

And why shouldn't they be furious? They obeyed the law. They went through a hugely obnoxious, often-abusive and soul-draining bureaucratic experience for the right to live here. And then Obama laughs and says "Suckers! you should have just waded across the Rio Grande as a kid! Then you could stay forever with no questions asked."

And people are surprised legal immigrants are pissed? Heh.

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

Jay: Are you trying to argue that because a reporter interrupted Bush during a interview, which happens all the time, that therefore it is ok to interrupt Obama with a question when he is giving a speech

It wasn't a speech, sweetie.

Jay said...

Why should anyone be outraged at Bush being heckled then, if you think it's fine to heckle Obama now, hack?

Watching your little brain trying to fire synapses is hysterical.

Note you didn't answer the question.

Synova said...

"Why should anyone be outraged at Bush being heckled then, if you think it's fine to heckle Obama now, hack?"

If one event is going to be used as a precedent to allow the other event, it has to actually have preceded the other event. That's more or less required by the word "precedent".

Thus, behavior toward Obama CAN NOT justify behavior toward Bush.

No time travel allowed, garage.

Only behavior preceding Bush's presidency can be used as a precedence to allow the disrespect shown to Bush.

I suggest Clinton.

Revenant said...

First possibility: The office of the President of the United States requires respect

I've lived through Nixon, Carter, both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama.

What's your next guess? :)

Synova said...

What's your next guess? :)

I was trying to be helpful. ;)

Marshal said...

"Why should anyone be outraged at Bush being heckled then, if you think it's fine to heckle Obama now, hack?"

It seems this fool doesn't understand time moves forward.

So the left establishes decorum has no place in politics, then explodes in faux outrage at this. But this idiot concludes those pointing out the hypocrisy are the hypocrites?

I once thought leftists couldn't prove themselves more worthless, but I was mistaken.

Revenant said...

For the record, I think the reporter was rude. I just don't care. They're politicians, for pity's sake. Being rude to a politician is like being rude to a telemarketer.

The real sin here, to me, is that Munro took the actual story, i.e. "President decides he can enact legislation without Congress", and turned it into yet another boring "OMG someone did something partisan" snoozefest.

Andy R. said...

It wasn't a speech, sweetie.


Why wasn't it a speech? You do realize that Munro referred to it as a speech in his statement afterward?

Fen said...

I find it hysterical that Andy the Bigot thinks he can lecture about civility and be taken seriously

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I don't even have to read the rest. "He MADE me do it!'

Lol, that's right. Also known as "The Incredible Hulk Defense". Don't make me angry, or you are responsible for how I react.

Terrorist groups love this line of phony "reasoning".

It's phunny how unoriginal conservatives are. They're basically saying that they can't come up with an idea for a proper way to conduct themselves. Their paranoid minds constantly strive to identify enemies and threats all around, only so they can then attempt to transform themselves into similar versions of those "threats."

I guess it's what passes for flattery to them. Simple mimicry of the threat. It is only proper to admire it in return, because the perception of danger is the only thing they respect.

Caricatures 'R Us is what it is. Soundbites as thoughts. But it's the best they usually can do. The Special Olympics of Political Theater.

Pity them and give them an encouraging, if awkward, smile. Tell them how good they are! And give them a cookie, too! (Incentives matter to them, but only a simple/physical level). ;-)

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Attention to all non-abusers of the English language:

"Treated disrespectfully" = "Didn't care much for" in the Bizarro Republican World of ad hoc and opportunistic definitions.

Just wanted to let you know.

/end Public Service Announcement.

Fen said...

Andy: Are you trying to argue that because a reporter interrupted Bush-

Thats President Bush. If you want to argue for civility, please try to be consistent.

BTW Barack - its Governor Romney, not Mr Romney. You want to be treated respectfully, try setting the example.

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

It wasn't a speech, sweetie.

Why wasn't it a speech? You do realize that Munro referred to it as a speech in his statement afterward?


What Munro said is his stupid fault.

This was an announcement of a policy change to the press. As I said earlier, this sort of thing is always fair game for questions - most of them shouted out.

A speech is the State of the Union or that joke he gave in OH yesterday.

Synova said...

"Why wasn't it a speech?"

Heck if I know. You refuse to define your terms.

The SOTU is a *speech*. Maybe we can start there.

At some point prepared statements must become "prepared statements."

At some point, standing up in front of people and talking leaves "speech" and enters "pep talk" territory, or "campaign stop" territory.

If you're going to claim special no-speech-for-anyone-not-Obama zones, you should at least define when those occur.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

BTW Barack - its Governor Romney, not Mr Romney. You want to be treated respectfully, try setting the example.

Lol. As if Romney (Governor, Chief Executive Outsourcer, Mr., Whatever you call him) appreciates having people reminded of his dismal record while leading Massachusetts in every breath that mentions his name. Obama (I don't care about the "honorific" while not addressing them. The are, actually, not here, you know?) is probably doing the guy a favor.

Fen said...

See? Even Ritmo out himself with his "civility for thee but not for me" hypocrisy.

Its been a fun thread, watching the libtards clutch their pearls because.. on noes!.. their Diversity Hire was disrespected.

Our Dear Leader must not face questions. Its Racist!!

O Ritmo Segundo said...

It's good to know that Republicans can be distracted from the economy that they claim to care so much about, by dispensing 100+ comments defending to the death a reporter's supposed right to heckle and interrupt.

Synova said...

What is a speech and what is a press conference? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the venue as well. It sounds like nothing more portentous than a press conference sans the opportunity for questions.

Slap me down, why don't you. When was the LAST time Obama took questions?

Someone on the internet must be anal enough to have gathered and compared rates on press conferences held and questions allowed.

Craig said...

Where's that 'reporter' who had a website advertising his sexual services and the privilege of tossing out the first question at those Bush pressers that didn't have room for real journalists? I'll bet he understood decorum.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Our Dear Leader must not face questions. Its Racist!!

It's called waiting your turn, dumbass. But please keep the copycat pejoratives coming. They rather prove how bereft you are of actual, uh, ideas.

Also, only someone who grew up in a forest with wolves confuses heckling and interrupting with a right to ask a question. How many years did it take for you to evolve from eating with your hands to using utensils, BTW? Or have you still not "grasped" that skill?

The idea that Fen has manners, let alone that he exemplifies them, is utterly laughable.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

When was the LAST time Obama took questions?

When was the last time you listened to his answers?

Refusing to listen to someone is like the closest substitute concept some of you have for inquisitiveness. Shutting others out is not the same thing as curiosity.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Listening to what Obama has to say before heckling him might make our minds less closed.

And for a conservative, that's a scary thought. SCARY!

It really fucks up this whole imperative of defining him as our enemy. What else can motivate a conservative if not defining someone else as his enemy?

It's hopeless.

Patrick said...

Weekly question time would settle this.

Synova said...

"It's good to know that Republicans can be distracted from the economy that they claim to care so much about, by dispensing 100+ comments defending to the death a reporter's supposed right to heckle and interrupt."

LOL! Because freedom of the press is so very trivial. I know! I know!

But let us PLEASE dispense with the entirely frivolous and RUDE right to interrupt the President. Reporters should not, quite clearly, have a right to interrupt the president!

Romney with THANK YOU, darling!

And don't pretend that you didn't intend to actually speak to the issue of free speech, and how this is mockingly trivial. Or why allude to THE quote on the principle of free speech?

'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,'

(Not Voltair, but a description of his philosophy.)

I disapprove of being an asshole and disrupting the president's speech, but certainly anyone who is a citizen and not a subject has the RIGHT!

The right to speak, and certainly the right to be rude, IS more important than the economy.

Geez louise! I do know that wasn't what you were talking about, BTW. But dear dawg in heaven I get tired of people who use the word "right" without any self-awareness or even the merest concept of the meaning of the word.

Fen said...

Ritmo: It's called waiting your turn, dumbass.

There was no turn to wait for, dumbass.

Synova said...

"Refusing to listen to someone is like the closest substitute concept some of you have for inquisitiveness."

And this is why Every Last Effing bleed-from-my-eyeballs literary Dystopia has TELEVISIONS THAT CAN NOT BE TURNED OFF.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 285   Newer› Newest»