Don Lemon Agrees With Sam Donaldson About Conservatives Opposing Obama Simply Because He's Black
As NewsBusters previously reported, former White House correspondent Sam Donaldson said Saturday, "Many on the political right believe this president [Barack Obama] ought not to be there – they oppose him not for his policies and political view but for who he is, an African American!”
On CNN Newsroom Sunday, Don Lemon agreed with Donaldson's indefensible observation (video follows with transcript and commentary):
DON LEMON: There’s a huge difference between Sam Donaldson and Neil Munro. For starters, who the hell is Neil Munro? Mr. Donaldson’s very dignified response reads like this. “Never once did I interrupt a president in any way while he was making a formal statement.”
Donaldson says what Munro did was “something new, to me wrong and unusual.” He also said, “Let’s face it: Many on the political right believe this president ought not to be there – they oppose him not for his policies and political view but for who he is, an African American!”
Finally, the elephant in the Rose Garden. Thank you, Sam Donaldson – enough said there.
Very dignified response? Hardly. As I wrote Saturday:
There's nothing different about what the Right said about former President Bill Clinton than what they're currently saying about Obama...And no matter what we've seen from conservative talkers and the Tea Party with regard to Obama, it doesn't come close to the virulence we witnessed aimed at George W. Bush from the Left.
I don't recall conservatives saying liberal attacks on Bush were racist. Do you, Don?
So now besides the shills at MSNBC and Politico, we've got a CNN anchor claiming a journalist interrupting a president in the middle of a press conference is because said president is black.
As I asked Lemon on Twitter, is everything with Obama about race? Can anyone in the media criticize this president without it being about the color of his skin?
Sadly, Lemon didn't like my question, and retreated.
But the point is important.
Regardless of what anyone thinks about Munro's behavior in the Rose Garden Friday, claiming it had anything to do with the president being black is offensive and demeaning.
For well over two hundred years, journalists have been able to criticize the White House resident without being accused of racism.
Does that have to be different for the first black president?
When Obama first threw his candidate hat into the ring in February 2007, many on the right worried that it would be difficult covering him because all critiques would be met with accusations of racism.
Over five years later, this is still the case.
Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said Saturday in response to Donaldson's remarks, "The President's ideas are what I oppose, not his skin color, which I couldn't care less about. He's the President of the United States and his race does not inoculate or immunize him from substantive critique."
But that's not really true, is it?
For over five years, media members like Lemon have been throwing the race card at every conservative having the gall to criticize Obama.
Much as the president three and a half years into his first term still blames all of the problems in the world on his predecessor, the press castigate every conservative with a less than favorable view of the White House resident as racist.
Will this man and his record ever be allowed to be judged exclusively for what they are irrespective of the color of his skin?
Or is that asking too much?
To receive my articles hot off the presses follow me on Twitter ow.ly/btalc and Facebook ow.ly/btald.
— Noel Sheppard (@NoelSheppard) June 9, 2012
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Lemon's response
Submitted by Kevin Groenhagen on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 12:19am.
"@NoelSheppard noel, you're reaching. maybe you, like munro, should do some honest questioning of ur motives. i'm done. g'nite."
What a cowardly, little man.
As I've posted elsewhere on NB . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 9:52am.
. . . I met Neil Munro when he and I were guest lecturers at a course on Information and Government at National Defense University in 1999. His class was on Media - Military Relations, and was very informative on how stories are shaped and published/broadcast. He caveated each lesson by informing the class that he is a liberal, but he is obligated to provide information to his readers even if it contradicts what he thinks is happening.
He once gave me a lift from NDU to the nearest Metro station, so we got to talk for about 5 minutes.
I asked him why news bureaus so often get military-related stories wrong when all they have to do is run them by former military members for a smell test.
"It's because the editor doesn't want you to tell him he's wrong," Neil replied. "Once he is believes he knows what the storyline is -- and that storyline conforms with his worldview -- he doesn't want subject matter experts telling him that he's drawn an incorrect conclusion, or that he needs more information, or offering him contradictory data. He doesn't want to hear from guys like you."
Years later, as we've all become familiar with lines like Rather's "We know the Truth," it's become even more evident that Neil was spot on.
Not cowardly....
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 12:13pm.
He had to go...... Barrack called him to the white house to reward him for his ONE MILLION race cards the has thrown out on his behalf. His reward is he gets to move to the front of the line for that Recycled Kool-Aide! Don had to grab his spring loaded neckbrace and triple thick kneepads before he had go.................. If barry is feeling generous maybe he will let him have a couple of full deep drinks right from the font itself.
This is why they so
Submitted by GreenTea on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 12:21am.
This is why they so disparately wanted him as president and pushed Herman Cain out of the way..so they could call us racist and remain in power just so they can push their demonic agendas
Hey Sam, you're a terminally
Submitted by rbosque on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 12:22am.
Hey Sam, you're a terminally stupid rat,
Once again, its reflexive.
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 12:44am.
Donaldson goes so far as to say that many on the right aren't in opposition relative to policy when being on the right makes you inherently against his policy. But because people like Donaldson and Lemon can't comprehend a policy that eminates from the right, they can only reconcile opposition as some form of descriminatory act. And since they prefer to identify people by some outward and obvious characteristic, and Obama is outwardly black, then it must be racism. There is no other explanation.
The sad thing is, they cheapen real racism in their reflexive overuse of the term.
Good point.
Submitted by BoilerFan on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 7:57am.
While I agree with your entire post, I especially agree with your final sentence.
I've been saying for several years that the worst part about constantly throwing out the "racist"/"racism" charge is that the word has slowly lost its meaning and impact. It's the "boy that cried 'Wolf!'" syndrome. People become numb to the charge: Yawn, sigh, shrug the shoulders and mumble "There they go again." If libs want the word to have any meaningful impact, they'd be wise to save the charge of "racism" for REAL acts of racism. Of course, liberals are rarely wise, and when it comes to debating conservatives, it's a heckuva lot easier to engage in race-baiting than it is to debate us on the merits of the issue(s) being discussed.
Meanwhile...
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 8:57am.
Meanwhile as more and more people get numbed by the racist claims that are non-existent, the real racist acts perpetuated by the race baiters and more and more blacks are saying and doing rude things against whites.
In short, trying to deliberately incite a race war.
-Jon
Of course ... it works both ways, doesn't it?
Submitted by KC Mulville on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 1:00am.
Let's face it ... lately, pundits preface their remarks with "let's face it" simply to say something without having to back it up with facts or evidence.
So, let's face it ... when a president gets 95% of the African American vote, there's reason to believe that there are some among those 95% who support Obama ... simply ... because ... he's ... African American.
True, KC...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 2:01am.
Arguably around 5% since the Democratic presidential candidate has been garnering around 90% of the black vote for the past several decades. [Ironically, Bill Clinton counter trended--the low 80's.]
Jer
5%?
Submitted by KC Mulville on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 8:42am.
Very likely.
Sam Donaldson used the catch-all "some on the Right" weasel clause to spread blame from a few to the whole. But we could do the same, and say that "some on the Left" are American-hating communists. I mean, statistically, some probably are.
That just shows the banality of arguments like Donaldson's, and how silly Lemon was to embrace them.
Obama Is African American?
Submitted by zeestephen on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 1:00am.
After 4 years I still don't get it.
Obama's mother is white.
Why do we allow him to claim he is Black?
Why is this claim not racist and sexist?
Why not allow it?
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 2:23am.
For generations those of similar heritage were in one form or another told--regardless of how they self-identified--"don't even think about it, boy...you're black, you've always been black, and you will always be black."
Eventually, they not only accepted their "blackness" but took pride in it and became comfortable with claiming it.
But now we're supposed to not allow it? That doesn't seem fair.
Jer
There is a distinct difference, Jer, between ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 5:53am.
being comfortable with claiming and being proud of one's ethnicity and/or background; and using it as an excuse or as a weapon to assail those who are not of that group - which would be bigotry.
So blacks eventually became proud of their lineage as a way to recover from the mean things done to them by the white race, eh?
Sounds a tad patronizing to me.
Or is that just some of that white guilt I hear about, leaking out?
MD
In an interview with, I
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 7:48am.
In an interview with, I believe it was one of the Boston newspapers in '08, Obama's sister said of this: "He is black because that is how he has named himself."
No one ever asks Obama how he feels about sort of "un-claiming" his white half, or if his mother or grandmother are upset by that. That would be indelicate.
If a white Republican was, say, ignoring half his ethnicity, don't you think the media would be all over that?
Halle Berry is another one who, in spite of being raised by her white mother, alone, identifies only with her black father, who BTW, was also AWOL.
Obama, for all his talk of bringing the races together, has the perfect opportunity to do so by proudly proclaiming that he "belongs" to both. But he eschews this, preferring the divisive tactics of the racialist black community.
Apparently "post-racial" means the ascent of blackness.
No respect
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 9:08am.
I remember the clip of Halle Berry when she won some award and she gave accolades to her father or something along those lines, but as you mentioned, identifying only with her father.
This in spite of the fact that her father was an abusive alcoholic who beat up her mother. She would mention the turmoil of watching it happen, but oddly enough, nothing much to her mother's defense. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot??
Once I heard that, there was no respect she was going to get from me as a person and actress. If I didn't like the majority of the other actors in the X-Men movies, I would have dumped those movies because of her, that's how little I think of her.
This kind of attitude is prevalent among many black actors, such as Morgan Freeman, Avery Brooks(of Star Trek DS9, almost turned me off of that show because of his pushing the black thing in more than one episode which tells me he's constantly living in the past in real life, not just his character), Wesley Snipes(he had called his white co-stars crackers in various movies), Whoopi Goldberg(that stupid comment about worried about being a slave again), and so forth.
-Jon
No "self" respect.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 9:34am.
I think there exists a mentality that mixed race individuals, by identifying with the 'more' minor (since we all seem to be minorities now), can utilize the institutionalized racism, like affirmative action, and the fact that there are lower expectations from their minority half to their advantage.
Example: Joe Biden's statement about Obamugabe that "He's clean and articulate."
Add to that, for example, the black community's open hostilty towards other blacks who " act white" (read, leave the thug life).
There is a certain "cachet"
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 11:40am.
There is a certain "cachet" attached to being the first "black" anything, which is lacking of one talks about being "bi-racial."
Obama being the first "bi-racial" president just doesn't have that "zing."
I hope you are wrong, Almost*
Submitted by NOLAgirl on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 11:45am.
as the mom of 2 bi-racial boys I hope they never take on the attitude that they can "get by" utilizing institutionalized racism. That's NOT how they are being raised.
No worried, NOLA!
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 12:10pm.
If that's not how they're being raised, they won't.
I can understand, MB*
Submitted by NOLAgirl on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 12:32pm.
why people believe that racism is used by some to get ahead. I have seen people do it myself. Thankfully my boys father is not one of those types to rest on that. The emphasis is on good grades, good study habits and doing your best in whatever you choose to do.
Rosario Dawson did the exact same thing.
Submitted by IdahoJim on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 4:06pm.
Proud of her black heritage even though her black father abandoned them.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 12:35am.
I don't know exactly what you consider patronizing or who you suggest is patronizing whom. Nor do I understand how you are connecting it to possible white guilt.
So, you'll need to clarify your point before I can substantively address it.
Thanks.
Jer
I got the impression, Jer, that ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 1:49am.
you were being patronizing - towards Blacks by suggesting that they had to be forced by white oppression to search for a reason to be proud of their ethnic heritage.
Clarification:
Who = you
Whom = Blacks
Regarding connecting patronization to white guilt; have you really missed, Jer, the myriad allusions here at NBs reference the one directional plantation mentality exhibited by white liberals towards Blacks who have voted 95% Democrat, for forever?
As a lefty, I'm sure you will consider the totality of those allusions to be an illusion, a mirage, a surreal image found only in the mind of a conservative, or a joke; but then, speaking of jokes - you mentioned addressing something 'substantively'.
As a lefty Democrat, I don't know that you can address anything as real rather than apparent; after all, the majority of your posts indicate that you think the SCOAMF PLRBFSOBPOS grifter in the Oval Office is an ok guy.
And, if I'm not mistaken, you believe Joe Scarborough to be a conservative. :o)
You're welcome.
MD
Good lord...
Submitted by poseA on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 1:31am.
Good lord these people are stupid.
For starters, who the hell is
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 1:38am.
For starters, who the hell is Don Lemon??? Just some queer black racist guy on a TV channel that nobody watches??? The only thing this tilley seems to talk about is his sexuality, his race, and his lib viewpoint.............I guess those are three good enough reasons for me to oppose him.
As for the other guy.................who is black and white and RED all over?? Boy Barry Baraka Hussein Obama. Pick a color, any color................... I oppose ALL of them - because of the agenda being disguised behind some color scheme.
Noel....This is why "backing and filling." is rarely effective
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 2:02am.
with a Liberal. Especially a Black Liberal who is covered in racism, real or imagined. Whether you are invited back on CNN or not, I contend that Liberals, such as Lemon, are not satisfied unless you agree with them, or 'compromise' by making a concession, as you did in your last appearance with Lemon to mollify his annoyance with you. But you already know that.
As a NewsBusters poster for over four years, who has enjoyed reading your informative work, I say this with respect to you. You deserve better. I look forward to the day you appear on Fox News or another more conservative venue, where "backing and filling", and making unnecessary concessions, will be the furthest thing from your mind.
with warmest regards,
Rush Fan
As a biologist who has taken many genetics courses...
Submitted by BBallleaper on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 2:01am.
allow me to settle this. Barry Hussein Soetoro Barack Obama Davis X is a MULATTO! His mother was a white teenage skank who loved to hump black communists or any other street trash she could seduce. So Barry's DNA, assuming it's undamaged from untold years of cocaine, heroin and weed addiction, makes him 50% white. Now assuming that whoever donated this malignant sperm spray that knocked her up might also have a 'trace' amount of WHITE blood (and I think we know how that happened!) Batty Barry is probably more than 50% white and so I suggest to you that he is Vanilla Ice with less brains. See how easy that was!
BB.......As a human being who was raised properly
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 2:42am.
by my parents, calling Barack Obama's mother a sk..k and other disparaging comments is disrespectful, and I believe inappropriate at NewsBusters.
Please keep in mind that readers of all ages visit this website. In summary, with your education and grasp of the English language, I believe you could make most of your points respectfully and without using words that most often are used disparagingly by the Left.
By the way, "Vanilla Ice with less brains" is a great line. If I decide to use it, I'll make sure that I credit you.
Regards
RF
Considering the subjects you were covering, BBallleaper, ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 11:43am.
... and the subject matter, I think that your post covered it very tastefully and accurately.
Of course, my saying so ain't gonna help your case much, since I've twisted quite a few tails lately.
BB and Newsbubba......I realize that I should have been more
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 3:51pm.
specific in my comments. I believe that calling anyone's mother a sk..k is disrespectful. I can't imagine that you would be content with someone calling your mother that same disgusting word, or imply that she was a prostitute. I was raised in a tough part of Ohio, and worked in the steel mills in that area. Those are definitely fighting words where I come from. Also it's Obama, not his mother, who is enacting these unilateral Socialist policies and destroying this country.
Now that said, calling President Barack 'Hugo Chavez' Obama that word or any disparaging word, with the exception of unfit profanity, is fine with me. I regularly use words to describe Obama, Democrats, and Leftist that cannot be written here without being banned.
How about this?
Submitted by Order270 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 3:06am.
I don't think Obama is black enough. In fact, I wish he would get this country in the black because he has us drowning in a sea of red ink.
Sam Donaldson
Submitted by Eagle101 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 3:22am.
Never trust a man that wears a wig.
I don't like Lemon or Obama for the same reason
Submitted by syvyn11 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 3:47am.
Cause both of them are MAJOR JERKS! It has nothing to do with color. I hate Sam Donaldson for the same reason.
As a by-product of all this...
Submitted by Anon150 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 5:27am.
... Political discourse on even the most casual level has all but vanished among my peers.
Fear of being labeled 'racist', of being attacked verbally for even breathing a question about Obama's failures and idiocies is not worth the risk.
In the quiet of the polling place, I shall speak, and will predict another surprise for the MSM that makes their 7-point error in the Walker recall look puny.
Sam Donaldson
Submitted by rcbcal on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 7:51am.
“In news commentary, stupidity is not a handicap.” ― (my apologies to)Napoleon Bonaparte
Michelle has "white" blood too!
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 7:56am.
A family history discovered
The white men and women buried here are the forebears of Mrs. Tribble, a retired bookkeeper who delights in her two grandchildren and her Sunday church mornings. They are also ancestors of Michelle Obama, the first lady.
So, the First Lady has white ancestors too. What a perfect opportunity for both of them to lay claim to both, and denounce division between the races.
Does anyone think they will do it? does anyone think the race hustlers like Sharpton and Lemon would allow them to?
Nah, me neither.
Never
Submitted by John21 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 8:03am.
Never expect an honest conversation from a liberal or the propaganda media (Yes, I know that they are the same)
Donaldson is way past his prime and has little credibility except with the left and Lemon is a no talent journelist trying desparately to make a name for himself. Neither are reality based.
OMG!
Submitted by gobnait06 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 8:19am.
Don Lemon thinks something is racist?!! This is my shocked face :O
Don Lemon
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 8:19am.
Another sourpuss 'African-American' racist heard from.
Racist in America
Submitted by PeterStone on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 9:11am.
Sam is right and wrong.
There are 40,000,000 racists in the USA that believe that Obama should be President BECAUSE he is Black - well sort of Black.
CNN Host
Submitted by FrankR on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 9:43am.
And, how bout all the nearly 100% of BLACK NEWS anchors support obama's positions just because he's BLACK?!!! their 'OWN' simply cannot do any wrong, is NEVER wrong on policy and they really do seem to think obama walks on water!!! ALMOST without exception!!! obama is president precisely because he's black and for the sake of our nation & people, i for one do in fact pray to God he is defeated this November!!! He has a good chance of being reelected because he does have SATAN on his side.
Donaldson, Lemon -- who cares?
Submitted by stratosaurus on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 10:07am.
Sam Donaldson is, and always has been, a smarmy, self-important, walking sphincter with an overblown sense of self-worth. Apparently, so is Don Lemon -- I've never seen the latter, since I no longer subscribe to cable or satellite service, nor watch network TV. CNN, Headline News, PBS, NPR and PMSLSD have been off my "favorites" list for years. Even Fox News has become entirely too cozy with the libturds.
Donaldson's categorization as a "trusted news source" must be self-described. I was not in favor of Donaldson, Rather or whichever clown NBC offered as a political commentator during the 70s and 80s. It becomes very difficult to watch or hear "spin" broadcast as factual news, no matter who is doing the spewing. I think the "conservative" faction has its share of loons, as well -- the Michael Savages and Alex Jones type of broadcaster is as crazed as those mentioned above.
Personally, I do NOT "hate" the current resident of the white outhouse. The very word "hate" conjures up thoughts of an emotional bond, however negative, in which I do not wish to invest. I think he has done irreparable harm to the office he currently infests. His grandiose schemes for "hope and change" have been recognized for what they truly are -- the first syllable of "hopelessness", and "change for the worse".
I wish no ill on our illustrious emir. I just want him to go away. NOW. And PLEASE take that insane clown posse you call "czars" with you.
Lemon Drop and "Hairy" Donaldson should ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 11:54am.
... listen to one of their famous, favorite leaders of the modern Democrat party; a shining example of the sort of mental geniuses that shape their magnificent liberal/progressive/whatever thoughts.
Straight from the dragon's mouth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FIBJt-c2o0
50/50
Submitted by CJohnson on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 11:58am.
Half African and half American means noncitizen. I am calling out any black who ever again uses the term 'African-American' (are you only half American?). I am sick of the word games which allowed a Kenyan to become my American President.
ditto that
Submitted by CJohnson on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 12:00pm.
cause I accidentally hit reply again.
How come?
Submitted by Cyclopps on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 1:19pm.
If what they say is true, then the very same people who disparaged Bush were racists too. By golly, glad someone pointed that one out to me.
So from now on, anyone who disagrees with you on any point is a racist.
GREAT!!
Now I know what to call all those who disagree with me.
btw....Donaldson looks like a perfect caricature of Alfred E. Neuman.
So easy
Submitted by TXTRUTH on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 2:50pm.
It is so easy being a liberal. You don't have to have an intellegent idea or debate the merits of your idea. You just state them and if questioned call the other person a name, racist, nazi, birther, bagger, homophobe. Debate over.
OK, let's say that all conservatives are racist.
Submitted by johnsonl on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 3:06pm.
So, let's put Allen West and Marco Rubio in the White House. Or, how about a Sarah Palin/Condoleeza Rice ticket?
Not a bad wish list. However, even though Condoleezza Rice
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 8:59pm.
has endorsed Romney, I believe she will continue to vote for Obama, because "as an African-American woman, I'm especially proud"...
Just One More Leftwing Double Standard
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 5:15pm.
One has just as much right to oppose a person because of their color as the person who supports a person solely because of their color. Color blindness is not a one-way objective.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Daily Caller's Neil Munro is a JERK for interrupting Obama.
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 10:35pm.
Moreover, Munro should be FIRED!
So said misguided Bernie Goldberg to Bill O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Factor today. Also Goldberg did not understand why some Conservatives were defending Munro. O'Reilly was somewhat kinder, and believed that Munro and the Daily Caller just wanted attention. VIDEO (those comments start at 4:15)
Neither one mentioned that Neil Munro's question related to what King Obama had just pronounced at the podium: To heck with the current laws on immigration, I'm not going to obey them! I can create my own laws!
If Obama ever held press conferences
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 10:52pm.
then Munro would be wrong, but BO doesn't. The press doesn't get a chance to ask him questions very often. And it seems the few times he does speak to the press it's to the hand picked softball press. So when else would Munro get a chance to ask Bo this question? Me, I'm still waiting for answer. With such high unemployment why is obama creating more workers to compete with Americans who are already citizens?
Radical....The short answer is King obama is not focused on jobs
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 10:59pm.
or unemployment. It's strictly VOTES!
By the way, Fox News Lefties Shep Smith and Chris Wallace
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 11:51pm.
thought it was outrageous VIDEO, that a reporter would interrupt the
KingPresidentRadical...Munro was wrong, PERIOD!
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 12:01am.
The scarcity of presidential news conferences has been a recurring theme and complaint of the media regarding just about every administration over the past half century. Accordingly, members of the WH press corps should and do shout questions at every opportunity and keep the heat on the president in order to make him at the very least feel uncomfortable avoiding queries; and pundits and commentators should and do skewer him in print and on the air for shirking his obligations to the American public to provide information and explanations concerning policies, politics, personnel, controversies, etc.
But what you DON'T do--and what has NEVER been done (at least in my lifetime)--is to interrupt and taunt the President of the United States in the middle of an address being delivered in the Rose Garden of the White House.
Galvanic notes that Munro purports to be a liberal journalist--a fact which is utterly irrelevant.
Jer
Jer.....Let's look at the larger picture for a minute. As I
Submitted by Rush Fan on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 1:24am.
mentioned above, Obama had just pronounced at the podium that he was going to ignore the current laws on immigration. Not only was he planning on not enforcing current immigration laws, but he made the decision to unilaterally change them by executive order.
Was his actions constitutional? Obama certainly didn't believe so in this March 2011 Video.
Moreover Obama, after making this unprecedented Constitutionally-challenged pronouncement, had NO intention of answering ANY questions.
As for your criticism of Neil Munro, Munro explained what happened in the Rose Garden on the Sean Hannity Show.
Rush Fan, I appreciate the additional info, but...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 4:29am.
leave it to Hannity to excise the introductory portion of the President's address and consequently leave a gaping hole in the contextual backdrop to the Obama/Munro brouhaha. The more I see of and hear from that smarmy little liberal wiseass Munro, the more I'm convinced he is an utterly wretched journalist without a lick of common sense, defiantly resistant to the most rudimentary notions of deference and common courtesy, and laughably but disturbingly disingenuous. I have absolutely no problem with aggressive reporting and questioning. But this unapologetic, impertinent worm was simply hectoring.
I'll respond to the several other points you have raised. But it's very late. Please bear with me until tomorrow evening. In the meantime, below is a transcript of Obama's remarks, including Munro's disgraceful interjections:
THE PRESIDENT:
Effective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people. Over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.
Now, let’s be clear – this is not amnesty, this is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people. It is –
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: – the right thing to do.
Q – foreigners over American workers.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, sir. It’s not time for questions, sir.
Q No, you have to take questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Not while I’m speaking.
Precisely because this is temporary, Congress needs to act. There is still time for Congress to pass the DREAM Act this year, because these kids deserve to plan their lives in more than two-year increments. And we still need to pass comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our 21st century economic and security needs – reform that gives our farmers and ranchers certainty about the workers that they’ll have. Reform that gives our science and technology sectors certainty that the young people who come here to earn their PhDs won’t be forced to leave and start new businesses in other countries. Reform that continues to improve our border security, and lives up to our heritage as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.
Just six years ago, the unlikely trio of John McCain, Ted Kennedy and President Bush came together to champion this kind of reform. And I was proud to join 23 Republicans in voting for it. So there’s no reason that we can’t come together and get this done.
And as long as I’m President, I will not give up on this issue, not only because it’s the right thing to do for our economy – and CEOs agree with me – not just because it’s the right thing to do for our security, but because it’s the right thing to do, period. And I believe that, eventually, enough Republicans in Congress will come around to that view as well.
And I believe that it’s the right thing to do because I’ve been with groups of young people who work so hard and speak with so much heart about what’s best in America, even though I knew some of them must have lived under the fear of deportation. I know some have come forward, at great risks to themselves and their futures, in hopes it would spur the rest of us to live up to our own most cherished values. And I’ve seen the stories of Americans in schools and churches and communities across the country who stood up for them and rallied behind them, and pushed us to give them a better path and freedom from fear –because we are a better nation than one that expels innocent young kids.
And the answer to your question, sir – and the next time I’d prefer you let me finish my statements before you ask that question – is this is the right thing to do for the American people –
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: I didn’t ask for an argument. I’m answering your question.
Q I’d like to –
THE PRESIDENT: It is the right thing to do –
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: – for the American people. And here’s why –
Q – unemployment –
THE PRESIDENT: Here’s the reason: because these young people are going to make extraordinary contributions, and are already making contributions to our society.
I’ve got a young person who is serving in our military, protecting us and our freedom. The notion that in some ways we would treat them as expendable makes no sense. If there is a young person here who has grown up here and wants to contribute to this society, wants to maybe start a business that will create jobs for other folks who are looking for work, that’s the right thing to do. Giving certainty to our farmers and our ranchers; making sure that in addition to border security, we’re creating a comprehensive framework for legal immigration – these are all the right things to do.
We have always drawn strength from being a nation of immigrants, as well as a nation of laws, and that’s going to continue. And my hope is that Congress recognizes that and gets behind this effort.
All right. Thank you very much.
Q What about American workers who are unemployed while you import foreigners?
[Did you catch that? Munro: NO, YOU HAVE TO TAKE QUESTIONS!!! Un-freakin'-believable]
More later,
Jer
Rush Fan...I'm lagging behind.
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 4:26am.
Copying and pasting below my earlier response to the Vet which I believe is also relevant to issues you've raised:
Thanks, Vet...
But that's the same video I watched last night after Rush Fan linked it.
Apparently the American Spectator had to rummage through a quarter of a century of material to dredge up even one incident which is even remotely analogous to Munro's behavior. And I emphasize the word "remotely" because the two cases are barely in the same ballpark. One was a policy address delivered by Obama in the Rose Garden--a customary venue for such events. The other was an introductory comment by Reagan inside the press room of the White House.
Munro interrupted Obama when he was less than a third of the way through his speech and began hectoring him, taunting him, and, incredulously, after being reminded "Excuse me, sir. It's not the time for questions, sir"...fired back "No, you have to take questions". Amazing effrontery. The snotty little bully-boy should have been ushered off the premises right then and there.
On the other hand, the Gipper, God love 'im, completed his statement while the press corps dutifully remained silent, and it wasn't until Reagan was introducing and bringing Meese to the podium that the execrable Helen Thomas spoke up--Donaldson actually raised his hand before beginning his question. Reagan uttered a one word reply ["No"] and immediately announced he wasn't taking any more questions. Yet Munro had the gall to insist to Hannity that Reagan in the exchange had been (I'm paraphrasing) a model of openess--or words to that effect. Munro is not only breathtakingly rude, but also either a shameless dissembler or a blithering idiot.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2012/06/19/geraldo-daily-calle...
I'll try again tomorrow.
Jer
Jer......What I don't underrstand is why your PRIMARY focus
Submitted by Rush Fan on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 4:51pm.
is on a reporter who interrupted the President, rather than President Obama's very probable unconstitutional unilateral actions. As I pointed out previously, even he believed last year that he didn't have the Constitutional authority to implement this.
Your focus seems to me to be blurred. It's as if you had cut off you finger with a new electric saw, and your focus is on the blood staining your new saw!
Rush Fan...It is my primary focus simply because it
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 12:03am.
has been by far the more prominent issue raised in and addressed by several NB blogs over the past few days. True, it may be a sideshow to the more substantive and overarching constitutional questions relating to presidential prerogative versus congressional authority, but that is a dialog for another time [and a debate, by the way, which has been raging for decades and will continue for the foreseeable future.]
However, I will note the following:
--Presidents have been issuing Executive Orders since the founding of the republic
--George W. Bush was especially prolific, signing over 250 EOs. It drove the Democrats nuts.
--They can be overturned with the stroke of a pen by the president's successor. Interestingly, Romney has repeatedly declined to indicate a willingness to do so if he is elected.
--This is a directive involving prosecutorial discretion and it makes a lot of sense. It is temporary, limited, and strictly defined. Agreed, the DREAM Act would have been the preferred vehicle for enacting a comprehensive legislative solution to this and related immigration issues. A majority of senators favored it. Unfortunately [but unsurprisingly] the Republican minority filibustered it.
--One would be hard-pressed to make the case this president has been soft on enforcement of immigration law. Deportations have been carried out at record or near-record levels.
Jer
PS...I believe the so-called admission by Obama you reference is from yet another doctored Hannity video. Do you remember George "The Iceman" Gervin? Well, meet Sean "The Spliceman" Hannity.
The link you are referring to is not from Hannity, but from a
Submitted by Rush Fan on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 12:37am.
Univision-hosted town hall forum.
You are right, Rush Fan. I apologize.
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 1:25am.
And I had read the Washington Times article last night after you linked it, and intended to ask you if it was a news or opinion piece considering the wording employed by the "reporter" such as the following:
"...This announcement is contradictory to the president's remarks over a year ago, which make Obama's actions look desperately political in the face of a rough re-election cycle and falling poll numbers...."
There was an item earlier today at HuffPo regarding Jon Stewart's take on a recent Hannity video of Obama speaking about the same issue in September, 2011.
I confused it with the one contained in the article you cited.
My bad.
Jer
No problem Jer. There is a video at the top of the
Submitted by Rush Fan on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 1:40am.
Washington Times page that contains the applicable portion of Obama's March 2011 remarks.
Oh jeez Jer, get real!!! Do
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 1:48am.
Oh jeez Jer, get real!!! Do you actually THINK that Boy Baraka has EARNED any respect whatsoever??? All this poser has done is DISRESPECT every foundation and basis of American culture, history, lifestyle, thought process, and accomplishments!!! And all the while, taking advantage of EVERYTHING that America has to offer, while he sneers and disdains and refutes the whole thing!!! He has used the Constitution as toilet paper, or shoe polish................and I've never believed - not for one New York minute - that this worthless piece of steaming Kenyan Kow Krap was a 'constitutional scholar'...............I have read and heard his opinions of the Constitution.
He's lucky I haven't met him..............because he is about as credible to me as the centipede that I stomped on earlier today.
There is NOTHING that would come out of his big, stupid, purple lips that could convince me that he is anything but what I allready know he is.
killa ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 2:10am.
Ol' Jer cain't hep hisself.
Heeza lefty whut luz him some Democrat Obama.
Gonna defend ol' purple-lips worthless hide no matta whut go down.
MD
You speak TROOF,
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 2:19am.
You speak TROOF, MD..............and I can't seem to figure out why ol' Jer - who DOES have an IQ and some class (as opposed to most of the lib loony-tunes who show up here on NB) - keeps on defendin' (Obamaspeak) the indefensible!!! How could ANY ONE with ANY shred of intelligence, common sense, or awareness ...........give ONE NEW YORK SECOND to defendin' Boy Baraka???? Name me ONE thing that this worthless piece of KOMMIE KOW KRAP has done to make things better for REAL Americans??? Just ONE..............please!!!
Rush Limbaugh commenting today on the many Lefties blaming
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 11:52pm.
the fact that Obama is Black for Neil Munro's "racist" question: "Besides everyone knows that Munro was heckling Obama's white half! Everyone knows that."
It is nice to know at least one White House reporter is...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 12:55am.
willing to do his job. The others should be called stenographers because they don't seem to be interested or curious about what Obama says in his speeches.
Where did all the old reporters go? Obviously not to the White House.