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

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:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 285 of 285

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: And in NINE short paragraphs, Synova goes ahead and confuses a right to speak with a demand that the person speaking be listened to.

But only if they're a reporter, and not a president, right?

Man, has your attempt at reasoning gotten downright awful this evening.; 6/15/12, 10:08 PM
Kirby Olson said...: This reporter had better check the sky for drones. When Obama wants to drone on, he means it.; 6/15/12, 10:08 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: And this is why Every Last Effing bleed-from-my-eyeballs literary Dystopia has TELEVISIONS THAT CAN NOT BE TURNED OFF.

The equivalent to this, in the situation at hand, is the heckler could turn around, leave, not listen to the president, and publish his own questions regardless of whether anyone's around to read or listen to them.

Or as FOX News calls it, "regular programming".

Being listened to is not the same as the right to speak. I daresay those assembled were there to listen to The President, not some dipshit heckler.; 6/15/12, 10:11 PM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: Roger J.,

Nothing new in Washington politics, but some of the folks are catching the vapors, clutching their perals [sic], and collapsing on their fainting couch.

You know, I wish we could just put this particular suite of metaphors to bed.

That said, The US could use something on the order of "Question Time." It involves skills that aren't all that common among recent Presidents. I think Obama and GWB would both have serious trouble. Clinton, though, would totally be in his element.

wv: 69 epingsa. That might also put Clinton totally in his element.; 6/15/12, 10:11 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: So tonite's conservatives are in agreement, then? A right to speak is the same as a DEMAND that you be listened to, right? Is that the ripsnorting brainfart tactic of the weekend's news cycle? Is that the talking point of the day?

That would explain their support for the Citizen's United ruling.; 6/15/12, 10:14 PM
Revenant said...: Listening to what Obama has to say before heckling him might make our minds less closed

Ritmo's got a point. What if this was the one time Obama had something original to say and you missed it? Wouldn't you feel silly missing a once in a lifetime opportunity like that?; 6/15/12, 10:23 PM
Synova said...: Points:

1 - when is the last time Obama allowed questions of any sort.

2 - when is the last time you listened to his answers.

3 - in order for #2 to be responsive #2 MUST imply - the Real Problem is not listening to Obama.

4 - I assume that #2 is responsive.

5 - twice insisting that listening to Obama is a fundamental requirement of *thinking*.

6 - I assume that #5 is responsive.

7 - assuming that #5 is responsive, and the Real Problem is refusing to listen to Obama, that Real Problem can be solved by listening to Obama.

7 - In dystopias, it is usual for this Real Problem to be addressed by televisions that can not be powered off.

I can't help that you are entirely blind to the implications of your own arguments, Ritmo.; 6/15/12, 10:26 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I am not blind to the fact that the number that comes after seven is eight.

Which sensory deficit got in the way of you knowing how to count?; 6/15/12, 10:33 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Anyway, you temper tantrum-throwing windbags have gotten tiresome.

This is much more entertaining.; 6/15/12, 10:34 PM
chickelit said...: MDT wrote: That said, The US could use something on the order of "Question Time."

Romney seems pretty good at this off-the-cuff question and answer.

Can't wait for Romney/Obama debates. I wonder how many impromptu debates His Travesity will deign to allow.; 6/15/12, 10:34 PM
Big Mike said...: @Synova, please don't feed the trolls. Ritmo's elevator stops well short of the top floor, which something he can't help so please don't encourage him to demonstrate his single-digit IQ.

Did you ever finish your short story?; 6/15/12, 10:41 PM
Aaron said...: I suspect the reporter went through legal immigration procedures, which are not cheap or fun,and thus is peeved that some other people will get special treatment.; 6/15/12, 10:44 PM
Anonymous said...: LMAO, Ritmo. "Nothing gets past you, especially carbohydrates". Now that was funny, the best thing in this entire thread.; 6/15/12, 10:45 PM
Synova said...: "Being listened to is not the same as the right to speak. I daresay those assembled were there to listen to The President, not some dipshit heckler."

And Ritmo suggests my "possible principle violated" #3 (a different #3 than the list above.)

To paraphrase my previous suggested premise: Obstructing the President from communicating is wrong. As I pointed out, I have a lot of sympathy for this idea, but it must then logically apply all the time, including other sorts of interruptions whenever the President is saying something.

Also, someone probably wanted to hear the answer.

Now, the implied "gotcha" that I'm going to be maneuvered into declaring myself on the side of the Occupy movement and the anti-Walkerites, that the right to *speak* is the right to obstruct someone else's speech, besides requiring Ritmo to earnestly advocate the opposite... those restrictions would also apply any other time the President is saying something, if we assume a splurted word during the SOTU or a couple of questions injected in a no-question-period press conference qualifies as shutting down the speech of the President.

Still... lets go with it, why don't we? Make the other side live up to their opportunistically claimed principles.

From this moment forward we acknowledge that disrupting a speech, any speech by any person (and we can even say, so long as they secured the use of the podium according to accepted rules for doing so) is a violation of that person's Constitutional right to free speech.

If this applies to the reporter who was rude, it's the first time in History, but like I said, let's GO with that, since it's the principle Ritmo wants to trap us into, or double-sneaky-by-the-back-way trap himself into... whatever.

Nope... won't work. Not only have those who wish the left had some manners and let those speak who are invited or make their own arrangements without shutting them down with vevuselas or shouting or standing in front of handicapped kids or throwing pies, suggested that it's a violation of Constitutional rights, the left just Luvs the obnoxious twits that do that stuff.

Unless it involves Obama.

At which point the term "right" gets thrown about. As in, don't have one.; 6/15/12, 10:47 PM
Anonymous said...: It's a matter of respect, if you can't respect the man, respect the office, no matter the President.; 6/15/12, 10:51 PM
garage mahal said...: 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".

I could care less if an elected politician has to answer tough questions. Even the president. Who cares! Fuck. There has plenty of times I screamed at the tv screen wishing a reporter would call bullshit on Scott Walker or Paul Ryan. There is no way I could legitimately demand accountability from one side and not the other.

Of course lost in all this is the complete idiotic question asked, paraphrased "why are you importing illegals to take American jobs". So dumb. There is no counterweight to that sort of stupid on the Democratic side, and I don't know how Democrats fight that kind of stupid, I really don't. It seems to be the Romney campaign strategy though - hide Romney and heckle Obama events.; 6/15/12, 10:53 PM
LakeLevel said...: What about what he actually asked? All you leftys are ignoring the fact that this will take jobs away from African Americans, legal hispanics and other poor sections of the American workforce. Talk about that you feckless twits. That is really why you people are angry: it wrecked Obama's political message. Sod off swampy.; 6/15/12, 10:56 PM
CWJ said...: Sorry, but I simply can't believe that Paddy O and Andy R could so quickly go from the Mr. Romney post in the afternoon to become the upholders of proper etiquette in the evening. Do you two really believe that no one notices?

BTW Andy, I'm still waiting for that answer to my question on the Mr Romney thread.; 6/15/12, 10:58 PM
Henry said...: For some reason, I found this funny:

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt."; 6/15/12, 11:00 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: O Ritmo Segundo, your dear precious leader just announced a policy targeting a minority once again cynically for political purposes, cynicism is what we've come to expect, and now outside the constitution and against the will of Congress and once again against the clearly expressed will of the majority of the citizens. What a silly ass douchebag to even be talking about decorum extended toward such a vicious asshole. Your president is a criminal and acts with criminal intent. The sooner that he and all you vest wearing flying moneys are stopped, the better.; 6/15/12, 11:09 PM
Beta Rube said...: Too bad there weren't a few Special Olympians around. Cuz then, pretty much anything goes.; 6/15/12, 11:11 PM
garage mahal said...: What about what he actually asked? All you leftys are ignoring the fact that this will take jobs away from African Americans, legal hispanics and other poor sections of the American workforce.

They're already here, and presumably already working, taking away jobs, and driving down wages by working undocumented. If anything, by being documented and exercising their workplace rights, it should drive wage earnings up for them, and anyone else who is that job market. How could it drag wages down?; 6/15/12, 11:14 PM
JAL said...: edutcher: 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.

Spot on.

someone (?) Neil Munro gave Obama his first sympathetic moment in many many months.

But Munro's question remains. Fall 2011 BHO said he could not do exactly what he did today because there were laws he personally could not just do away with.

What about the thousands of people who wait patiently for years and follow the rules to emigrate legally? Horse poop on you guys. Teh One has ruled.

(Forget Munro -- Is there something impeachable about what BHO did today?); 6/15/12, 11:18 PM
Anonymous said...: How did the children break the rules?; 6/15/12, 11:20 PM
Beta Rube said...: I think they chanted "shame" while the Governor was speaking.

Unless it was blue fist union goons doing it. I don't remember.; 6/15/12, 11:23 PM
Michael Duff said...: I was trying to search online and find evidence of Alex Pareene's hypocrisy on this point, but then I realized in order to do it properly I would have to read a lot of Alex Pareene.

And I just don't have it in me. Sorry.; 6/15/12, 11:25 PM
Henry said...: How could it drag wages down?

I know that the private sector is doing fine, but have you noticed the unemployment rate recently?

Garage, I'm curious -- did you support NAFTA? Or, like the paradoxically nativist nonsense we're discussing, did you oppose it?; 6/15/12, 11:29 PM
Synova said...: ABC that hard right-wing network had this to say:

(...)
"The rest of the press corps waited, as Obama asked. When he was done, the reporters shouted their questions. Obama turned his back, and walked inside the White House.
That’s par for the course for Obama, who rarely takes questions from the press pool that follows him almost futilely to his staged events.
Even when he intends to take questions, he does so sparingly. At his last “press conference” at the White House, Obama called on just three reporters."

Oh, dear.

"as Obama asked"
"turned his back"
"par for the course"
"follows him futilely"
"staged events"
""press conference"" actually presented in "scare quotes"

But whatever... ABC... right of FOX News so what would one expect?; 6/15/12, 11:30 PM
Tim said...: AllieOop said...

"It's a matter of respect, if you can't respect the man, respect the office, no matter the President."

I will respect the office when the holder of the office respects his oath: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

No where in that oath does Obama get the right to choose not to enforce, "to the best of his ability," the laws he is required to "faithfully execute."

I can't respect a president who, seemingly, believes in a "living" oath of office, nor would I expect anyone to respect such a president.; 6/15/12, 11:36 PM
Tim said...: AllieOop said...

"How did the children break the rules?"

?!

If you *really* don't know the answer to this, you are far too dumb with which to ever have any sort of meaningful discussion.; 6/15/12, 11:40 PM
Synova said...: "How did the children break the rules?"

One can feel sorry for the children of parents who break the rules, while still understanding that this does not make abandoning the rules a good idea.

I tend to favor open borders, at least in theory.

I don't favor the certain results of announcing that breaking the rules will work for you in the long run, so it's very worth the risk to try.

Obama saying "this isn't amnesty" is pretty much lying out his butt.

The affect will be the same as it has been every other time someone "felt bad" for the innocent parties and instead of completely revising how we approach immigration, has simply perverted them with forgiveness and exceptions.

Change the rules. Make it fair if it's not fair. Make it fair for all the people in the world who aren't from Mexico.

But holding on to restricted immigration on the one hand and then simply deciding, rather capriciously actually, to ignore what is inconvenient is HORRIBLE governing.

No matter how innocent the children are.; 6/15/12, 11:41 PM
Synova said...: ... my pronouns are ambiguous...

"...has simply perverted them with forgiveness and exceptions."

Them = the rules.; 6/15/12, 11:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Tim, the children didn't break the rules, they didn't grab their parents by the hand and drag them over the border. If you can't understand this then you are woefully lacking, in a more than a few ways.; 6/15/12, 11:47 PM
el polacko said...: so now every time obama opens his yap it's a "speech" (and an historic one at that, no doubt)?
if, after dropping a bomb like blowing off congress to seize presidential power was "not the time for questions", when was that time to be...considering that there was no plan to take questions at all? i'm glad that, at least, SOMEbody spoke up.; 6/15/12, 11:54 PM
Tim said...: Synova,

Sure, but the point remains: either their presence here comports with the law, or it does not.

If it does not, they are breaking the rules. It is that simple.

There are no exceptions in the law, that the president swore to uphold to the best of his ability, for people whose presence does not comport with the law. It is that simple.

There are, undoubtedly, nearly countless stories behind the numbers of illegal alien children currently residing in the US, and no doubt many of those stories are heart-wrenching, but the facts remain: their presence does not comport with the law, nor does the president have the authority to waive off the law.

He is not King.; 6/16/12, 12:02 AM
Synova said...: "Press Conference"

Obama turned his back
of course we follow
futilely to staged events.; 6/16/12, 12:04 AM
Synova said...: Tim, I agree.

My opinions of what probably ought to be done to make immigration a less abusive process, a fair process, and my general feeling that we should have just stuck with "give us your tired, your huddled masses" etc., are entirely separate from what I *know* is going to be the results of keeping the mess of our immigration laws, but officially pretending that ignoring the consequences won't break it *worse*.

Also, of course, it is also (not tangentially, but as a Primary issue all it's own) very important that the President just decided that the Congress and Senate are irrelevant to his life or his office.

But hey, he's a "direct democracy" sort of guy. The limits on his power, if he has the people, are mere irritations.

(Sort of like Zelaya and that entirely pointless Honduran constitution. And if you (whoever you are) don't think that Obama's support of Zelaya was *revealing* and *predictive* of his "the majority trumps all rules" ethos, you're a blind fool.); 6/16/12, 12:18 AM
Anonymous said...: AllieOop,

Your argument amounts to never punishing any parent. After all, if you take away a child's father or mother, you are punishing them too.; 6/16/12, 12:26 AM
Gary Rosen said...: " An Iraqi throwing a shoe is not "a reporter interrupting a speech by Bush by shouting a question.""

Well, at least we can say that John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald did not interrupt a speech by a President by shouting a question.; 6/16/12, 12:39 AM
Anonymous said...: So, Chip's of 11:09 joins my list of favorite comments on this blog. I'm beginning to get you Chip.; 6/16/12, 12:48 AM
Anonymous said...: wyo sis = wyogranny. I'm in the middle of some kind of issue with Blogger.; 6/16/12, 12:55 AM
leslyn said...: Geez, Synova (10:26 pm ), stop after 1. and 2. and then answer your questions. All the rest just showed that you had nothing to say.; 6/16/12, 1:05 AM
leslyn said...: The headline said it all.

Nothing more to see here, people. Move on.; 6/16/12, 1:07 AM
leslyn said...: "Well, at least we can say that John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald did not interrupt a speech by a President by shouting a question."

WTF is your point,Rosen?; 6/16/12, 1:11 AM
kimsch said...: You know, if he doesn't want questions at these Rose Garden or South Lawn speeches maybe nobody should even show up. Just have the pool camera recording. He kept the reporters waiting an hour before he deigned to come out to speak in the first place.; 6/16/12, 1:14 AM
leslyn said...: "Well, at least we can say that John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald did not interrupt a speech by a President by shouting a question."

WTF is your point, Rosen?; 6/16/12, 1:17 AM
Alex said...: Don't click on any Salon link, they've been hacked.; 6/16/12, 2:59 AM
Alex said...: Did Ritmo and his fellow travelers ever show one ounce of respect to Dubya?; 6/16/12, 3:05 AM
edutcher said...: AllieOop said...

It's a matter of respect, if you can't respect the man, respect the office, no matter the President.

We're all positive Oop said the same thing when Dubya was POTUS.

Or Reagan.

Or Nixon.

Or LBJ.; 6/16/12, 3:59 AM
leslyn said...: "LBJ"??; 6/16/12, 4:19 AM
Michael said...: LBJ?

Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today. That LBJ.

The one the press shouted out questions; 6/16/12, 7:26 AM
Anonymous said...: LBJ? Just how old do you think I am? I was a mere child in elementary school when he was made President. Bubble gum stuck on the underside of my desk was more annoying.

His last year in office I was a teenager, in high school, concerned with war in Vietnam because my brother was there.

There's no need to even have the Press at such an event. Reporters need to understand that a modicum of decency is required and to at least wait before shouting questions until after the President is done speaking.; 6/16/12, 7:35 AM
Michael said...: Allie oop. The president's last speech before the interrupted speech lasted 54 minutes. Younwould think the entire world would thank someone for interrupting his next one.

And, by the way, when the president asked him to wait until he was finished the reporter did so. Not such a huge deal really except for the as kissing of Obama by the rest of the press.; 6/16/12, 7:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Michael, at big events like his last speech, which did drone on too long, it's not unusual for people in the audience to call out, but a press corps briefing in the Rose Garden? Breaks protocol, is rude, plain and simple. Like him or dislike him, he's still the President.

Wait your turn to shout questions until the end like all the other reporters do. He just wanted to jump the gun for his own personal gain.

A foriegner asking about jobs in this country, a bit ironic. Was he a citizen, I wonder.; 6/16/12, 7:56 AM
Michael said...: I agree he should not haVe been interrupted. I agree it was rude and improper. The reporter did say he thought the president had finished. With his long dramatic pauses you never know.

In any event it is not s big deal, or shouldnt be and a President more comfortable with himself would have made light of it instead we have a peevish and thinskinned man who is in a bad mood because people are beginning to get that which he knows about himself.; 6/16/12, 8:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Michael, come on now. I don't think any President wouldn't have been angry. It shows lack of respect for the event and the Office, which is worse than showing lack of respect for the man.; 6/16/12, 8:04 AM
Brian Brown said...: Oh yeah, Ritty the Retard showed up to remind us that she never once said it was wrong to interrupt a speech when GW Bush was in office!

How sweet of you Ritty!

Dumbass.; 6/16/12, 8:12 AM
Brian Brown said...: leslyn said...
The headline said it all.

You're an idiot, that says it all.; 6/16/12, 8:13 AM
Brian Brown said...: O Ritmo Segundo said...

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

LOL!

As opposed to the stellar record of President Obama leading and economy where the median household saw almost 39 percent of its wealth evaporate, and real income fell 7.7 percent.

Inherited!

Dumbass.; 6/16/12, 8:16 AM
Paddy O said...: CWJ, I'm confused. Did you read what I wrote here? Of course I didn't think that someone would notice that I'm doing something that I'm not doing.; 6/16/12, 8:38 AM
chickelit said...: AllieOop said...
LBJ? Just how old do you think I am?

Hmmm, I was about 8 or 9 when LBJ left office. I think you said once that you were 60. I'm 52. I reckon you must been a budding teen of 16 or 17 when LBJ left office.

Am I right?; 6/16/12, 8:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Yep, Chickelit you would be right. I'm exactly one year younger than Althouse, almost to the day.; 6/16/12, 9:14 AM
Carnifex said...: Wow! Lot of name calling and fingerpointing on this thread. I think, and I am as anti-Zero as anybody on here that it was rude of the reporter to shout during Zero's statement. But though it was rude, it could have been an error in timing as the reporter suggests. Lord knows Zero has total disdain for answering questions FROM the press. And why not? They have been his biggest supporters and crew of sycophants since before he ran for any office. I know I hold this current crop of reporters in total contempt.

Rude or not, this guy knew that Zero doesn't answer questions, especially anything concerning his lack of a moral compass, so he took his shot. Didn't work but the first dog in the pack has barked, more will follow, that's how dogs act.

As far as lefty outrage over showing disrespect to Zero, just look at how George Bush or Sarah Palin or Ronald Reagan etc has been treated by the media, let alone the guttersnipes on the internet, apologize(sincerely), then we can have a discussion. Otherwise, sit down, and STFU. If Zero can't take a tough question from the press, and prior history shows he can't, then what is th pantywaist gonna do in an emertgency? Oh that's right, lead from the rear.(take orders from Soros and Jarret) Brave noble Zero, crucified by the people he was sent to save.(that's sarcasm, for you lefties); 6/16/12, 9:37 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Well, I guess when all else failed, we had the armchair vigilante squad show up, with their armchair arrest warrants, and their armchair law degrees and legal exegeses. To demand that armchair police action be taken against the president. All the way through the morning.

And they wonder why they aren't taken seriously.; 6/16/12, 9:41 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: In any event it is not s big deal, or shouldnt be and a President more comfortable with himself would have made light of it instead we have a peevish and thinskinned man who is in a bad mood because people are beginning to get that which he knows about himself.

Yeah and he would have and should have were it not for the fact that making a continuous loop of a soundbite out of it shows how persistently rude, unreasoned and impulsive the right wing is. The comments here confusedly defending a "right" to crash a press conference as a right to speak attest to that. And then there are the ignorantly unhinged comments about arrest warrants and such.

Oh well. At least they're progressing, in a way. Remember the nineteen-nineties, when they were going on the White House lawn and actually taking shots at Clinton? Now, despite their animus toward what they regard as the usurper-black president, they only want the right to be rude and quash his right to speak. Freely. They want the right to shut down his speech.

Small potatoes.

And it shows how stupidly they can misinterpret the first amendment.

And how small they are.

Win-win.

No matter how petty you think the president is, the pettiness in these comments defending the mythical "Right to Heckle" show that the wingers aren't going to let the President win that battle! Hell no! You think they'd let him get away with being pettier than they are?!?! Seriously?; 6/16/12, 9:49 AM
Steve Koch said...: I'm not a fan of heckling anybody. Having said that, there needs to be a mechanism for the opposition to ask questions of the prez and other political leaders on a regular basis (preferably weekly). The opposition picks the questions to be answered, not the prez.

The current system, with a primarily lefty media that has completely abdicated journalism to become dem hacktivists, is a threat to our democracy. The solution is for non lefties to not watch the lefty media and get their news from the web or WSJ or Fox or ... This will give them a more balanced news input and will financially punish the traditional lefty news media (forcing them to change or wither).

Having journalists who are non partisan, professional, and competent and competent was probably always the impossible dream (though large numbers of independents were/are probably unaware of how biased American "journalism" is/was). Better to have open advocates for both left and right than the previous situation where lefty hacktivists pretended to be unbiased journalists. Maybe we should accept that there is no such thing as journalism in the USA and treat it as an archaic word.; 6/16/12, 9:56 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Although it's good to see that Tim realizes that enforcing laws takes money and resources (and discretion in using them) that he's not prepared to allow the government to have.

It gets in the way of those fancy tax breaks that his reps would deny to the middle class.; 6/16/12, 9:58 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: A presidential system is a bit more authoritarian and less democratic than a parliamentary system, Steve. Bush's guys pushed that "advantage" as far as nearly anyone could take it. Although Obama's been a pussycat by comparison when it comes to flouting the democratic process, it does go against the spirit of what he asked John Roberts during his nomination hearings regarding executive privilege.

The best resolution would be to allow the states to have more democratic/more parliamentary systems. The smaller or more basic units of government should be the most democratic and participatory, and leave all the pompous procedural do-nothing gridlock to the national branch.; 6/16/12, 10:04 AM
Steve Koch said...: O Ritmo Segundo said...
"A presidential system is a bit more authoritarian and less democratic than a parliamentary system, Steve. Bush's guys pushed that "advantage" as far as nearly anyone could take it. Although Obama's been a pussycat by comparison when it comes to flouting the democratic process, it does go against the spirit of what he asked John Roberts during his nomination hearings regarding executive privilege.

The best resolution would be to allow the states to have more democratic/more parliamentary systems. The smaller or more basic units of government should be the most democratic and participatory, and leave all the pompous procedural do-nothing gridlock to the national branch."

The imperial presidency is a huge problem and Bush was a big fan of the imperial presidency.

Power should be moved from the feds back to the states in every area possible. Let each state decide what they want to do. If Cali wants to legalize dope and gay marriage and encourage porn production, let them go for it. If Texas wants to outlaw abortion, let them do it.

Federalism is the solution to so many of our problems.; 6/16/12, 10:17 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Thanks, Steve. I was trying to be more specific.; 6/16/12, 10:38 AM
Steve Koch said...: ORS said,
"The smaller or more basic units of government should be the most democratic and participatory"

I completely agree with this statement. In addition, by moving as much political power as possible to the states and even to the counties and cities, you displease fewer voters. For example, in Wisconsin there are a couple of lefty cities, Madison and Milwaukee but the rest of the state is not lefty. By letting Madison and Milwaukee do their lefty thing and the rest of the state do their non lefty thing, most people will be happier than if a slim state wide political majority forces their laws down the throats of the minority.

This approach also makes it easier for people to move to a location with salubrious laws and political climate, possibly as easy as moving from the city out to the suburbs of that same city.; 6/16/12, 10:56 AM
Brian Brown said...: Although Obama's been a pussycat by comparison when it comes to flouting the democratic process,

Yeah.

Bush like totally ignored existing law by Executive Order.

Really, he did!

Idiot.; 6/16/12, 11:03 AM
Brian Brown said...: O Ritmo Segundo said...

And they wonder why they aren't taken seriously.

Says the un-self-aware idiot descending into self parody with every post.; 6/16/12, 11:04 AM
damikesc 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's happened to Republican Presidents for years. Donaldson and Thomas made their career off of that.

"If the President doesn't do what *I* want and expect, then we get to behave however we want."

We ARE his boss, you realize.

What do you do that deserves respect?

I didn't blow well over $5T in less than 4 yrs and decide I have the power to unilaterally murder Americans.

So there's that.

What's child-like about this is that you think shouting at the President in this manner is the same thing as expecting the President to take questions.

So if he decides to take questions, his employers are supposed to just accept it?

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?

Have you followed the goings-on in colleges in last 30 years?

Nobody likes free speech less than Progressives.

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

Not necessarily. Obama is showing that the President can do basically whatever he wants, whenever he wants.

Conservatives can simply say "All the bullshit social crap over the last 50 years? Gone, effective now" and it'd stick.

Progressives behave as if they will never be the ones who do not wield the power. When Romney decides the Senate is in recess and appoints lots of people, I will laugh HEARTILY.

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

At this point, DOES it matter? If the media was owned by the gov't wholesale --- would there be a tiny difference in coverage?

The press is useless. Screw the press.; 6/16/12, 11:06 AM
Brian Brown said...: I just love watching the crowd that railed against Bush using signing statements pretend what Obama did yesterday is like no big deal.

Why, it is almost as if you have to be a self deluded moron to believe that, or something.; 6/16/12, 11:06 AM
Brian Brown said...: O Ritmo Segundo said...
Bush's guys pushed that "advantage" as far as nearly anyone could take it. Although Obama's been a pussycat by comparison when it comes to flouting the democratic process

What kind of abject idiot says such things?

Obama asked for and signed the NDAA.
Bush did not.

Obama has asserted: "that while the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch"

Bush did not

Obama has preserved three major policies — rendition, military commissions and indefinite detention - that started under Bush.

You are a beclowning yourself past the garage mahal level.

But remember, it isn't a lie if you believe it!; 6/16/12, 11:16 AM
damikesc said...: Steve. Bush's guys pushed that "advantage" as far as nearly anyone could take it. Although Obama's been a pussycat by comparison when it comes to flouting the democratic process, it does go against the spirit of what he asked John Roberts during his nomination hearings regarding executive privilege.

Bush decided he could unilaterally murder Americans with no input from others?

He unilaterally decided that immigration laws can be ignored?

I don't remember either of those happening.; 6/16/12, 11:33 AM
Brian Brown said...: By the way, when President Romney issues an executive order instructing the IRS not to collect capital gains taxes, because well, the law is what the President says it is, I look forward to all the "let the President speak!" decorum from the left during the speech.

Really. I do.; 6/16/12, 11:50 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Bush decided he could unilaterally murder Americans with no input from others?

He unilaterally decided that immigration laws can be ignored?

I don't remember either of those happening.

Think harder, then. The first one was signed on Bush's watch (as long as they were first labelled a "terrorist") and prosecutorial discretion is a simple fact of life. I know the internet inflates the sense of self-righteousness and know-it-all "wisdom" that some feel entitled to, but in the real world, every police department and proscutor's office, all the way up to the DOJ, decides which of the thousands of laws (i.e. "regulations", I know you love 'em) are most important to pursue. The decision to not prioritize is a luxury given only to police states like North Korea, and as fantasies in the minds of American conservatives, who obviously admire such approaches to enforcing law and order.

Or you could just lower the tax break you'd like to give to Romney and redirect it back to the, you know, BUDGET.; 6/16/12, 1:36 PM
Revenant said...: They're already here, and presumably already working, taking away jobs, and driving down wages by working undocumented.

So deport them?

Actually, that's a potential upside to Obama's policy. Since it doesn't actually have a legal basis, a later President will be able to override it without going through Congress.

And he'll have a convenient list of illegal immigrants who have signed up for the program -- names, addresses, etc.; 6/16/12, 2:07 PM
SukieTawdry said...: What is the purpose of having the press in the room if you're not going to take questions? Is the press corps a presidential prop? Seems to me the reporters' continued silent assent to this arrangement renders them superfluous and irrelevant, a press corpse if you will.; 6/16/12, 2:08 PM
hombre said...: The interrupter was out of line and ought not to be defended!; 6/16/12, 3:22 PM
harrogate said...: What a sad thread. The contortions that commenters are making here, to avoid a conclusion that any third grader would instantly draw, really does stand out. Ann ought to be embarrassed but probably finds it all very "interesting."

Except for the gradually building effort to bring in the Iraqi shoe thrower as a point of argument. That gives the thread comic flavor, though admittedly of a stale variety.; 6/16/12, 8:52 PM
Brian Brown said...: O Ritmo Segundo said...
The first one was signed on Bush's watch (as long as they were first labelled a "terrorist")

Complete and utter bullshit.

But remember, it isn't a lie if you believe it.; 6/16/12, 9:08 PM
Xmas said...: You know, this "It never happened to Bush" commentary just reminds me that Bush was never stupid enough to make a controversial policy announcements in front of the WH Press Pool.

I mean, it is the Press Pool not the "captive audience to use a a prop in my announcement" pool.; 6/17/12, 7:22 AM