Daily Caller Vs. President Obama at Immigration Briefing


Daily Caller White House Correspondent Neil Munro attempts to question President Barack Obama over the announcement today that the administration will relax deporation rules for young illegal immigrants who were brought into the country as children and have lived here for at least five years. Munroe's question clearly gets under Obama's skin. The Associated Press provides raw video:

The question, for those who can't hear it, was "Why do you favor foreigners over American workers?" Not exactly an unweighted question, and The Daily Caller is clearly in the "This is amnesty!" camp. Munro's story is here. The Daily Caller's response to Obama's lecturing is here.

NEXT: Michigan Anti-Abortion Law Sparks Sex Boycott, Vagina Fear

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Scott, you need to check with Ed.

    Apparently, that's not "Daily Caller White House Correspondent Neil Munroe [sic]". Its "heckler Neil Munro".

    1. Gah, I spelled a name wrong. Between that and my mistake yesterday all my former reporters must be having a good laugh.

    2. He can be both. If he's heckling he's a heckler.

      1. Is asking an inconvenient question "heckling"?

        1. That isn't an "inconvenient question", it's nativist trolling. It's only "favoring" foreigners if you assume jobs are a zero-sum game, and that by holding one, a foreigner is automatically denying that position to a ready and willing American worker. But to assume that, one would have to be economically uneducated.

          1. That's not even right. It's only "favoring" if you give a preference to foreigners over native workers.

            1. Munro is Irish, Gojira. If he were being "nativist", he'd be asking that question on his home soil.

              1. Even if he isn't a citizen, the point remains that it wasn't an intrepid reporter asking a hard-hitting question seeking after truth: it was trolling with an economically ignorant question.

            2. You're correct of course, Brandybuck. I believe to our resident nativists, "allowing to stay" = "favoring".

              1. I'm still glad he did it. Obama deserves all the heckling he can get.

                1. I'm not, because it makes those of us who oppose everything Obama does look like dumbasses. I don't want the anti-Obama news headline to be "De took our jerbs!"

                  1. It's either that, or go along with Obama's reasoning, thus bolstering his obvious sop to the Latino* voting bloc.

                    *Though - as sensible people know - not EVERY illegal is of Latino extraction. But try telling liberals that.

                    1. What galls me is, how blatant the pandering is... he's not doing this because he caaaaares - it's just to get votes.

                      That's worse than any "nativist" heckling.

                    2. Don't fall into the liberal trap of acting like only intentions matter. I think it's doing (partially) the right thing for the wrong reason.

                      To use an extreme example, if he were to end the WoD, but was doing just to pander, and didn't really deep-down care, would you be against his doing it, or consider it "worse" than being heckled for it?

                    3. Ending the WoD wouldn't guarantee Barry another term, Gojira.

                      This... probably will.

                    4. Which, as I said earlier, is the ONLY reason Barry did what he did.

                      He doesn't give half a shit about the plight of illegals... he did this to raise a new crop of Team Blue voters.

                    5. A politician with political motives... wow.

                      Obama should definitely refuse to advocate any policy he favors if it gives him a political advantage, just to keep you fainting from shock.

                    6. I'd just like a fucking *smidgen* of altruism. Hell, I'd begrudgingly congratulate ANY politician if they did something for a reason other than getting elected/re-elected.

                      Nice to see where you stand, though we knew that already.

                    7. BTW, Tony... are you joining in on the Michigan vagina boycott?

            3. It's only "favoring" if you give a preference to foreigners over native workers.

              It's illegal to employ a native worker for a low wage, while it's de facto legal to employ an illegal immigrant for $2/hr.

          2. Not really arguing, Goj.

            I am kind of wondering how many questions asked of the Preshizzle (especially past Preshizzles, given the kid gloves and lack of press conferences this one has enjoyed) and/or his mouthpiece would also go beyond "inconvenient" to "trolling".

            1. I'm sure GW got his fair share from the lib press as well, no doubt.

          3. Well, given the economy, it's less than a zero sum game, atm.

            1. At this rate, even the illegals Barry just gave the Lincoln treatment to, won't be able to get jobs.

          4. The assumptions of the questioner do not define "heckling." Otherwise, every question a Democrat-leaning reporter asked Bush, or a Republican-leaning reporter asked Obama, would be heckling.

            While I don't have those same assumptions, from all polling that I've seen, the majority (usually overwhelming majority) of the American population, left, right and center, has similar assumptions about illegal immigration and the job market.

            "Anything not libertarian" isn't the definition of "trolling" either.

          5. Maybe Obama should have said that in response then.

            A question with faulty premises is not a heckle.

    3. Shackford is an actual honest journalist, RC. So his report of events is probably not going to line up with the report of the likes of Krayewski.

  2. Obama. What a fuckstick.

    I do love his thin skin...

    1. Nah, that reporter was being a total chode.

      1. It was worth watching Barry get pissed off. I hope he totally loses it on live TV some day soon.

      2. So?

        1. I think every reporter should be allowed to use the cuss-word of his/her choice, but in the interest of decorum it should be couched in an intro like:

          "Excuse me, Senator Sheepfucker, I'd like to know what you think about the farm bill?"

          Or some variation thereof.

          1. That would be a lot like what the Brits do. Insults wrapped in tongue-in-cheek decorum.

            Whatever's wrong with the UK's political system, this isn't the source of the problem.

            1. I loves me some British Parliament footage. Hell, I drink and watch that on C-SPAN now and then.

              I'd love to see that here, instead of this "My good friend from the great state of [insert state home of person who really isn't the good friend of whoever said it]" fake-courtesy bullshit.

              1. I'd like to see a senator go all hip hop, and, instead of yielding back to the chair, just dropping the mic and flipping double birds as they walk away.

  3. The Internet has redefined what constitutes investigative journalism and news reporting. Even so, reporters investigate and report the news story -- they don't try to become the focal point of the news story.

    If political bloggers do not regard themselves as true reporters, then they should not expect to be issued a press pass.

    If they want to create the news by injecting themselves into the story, ... well then they should apply for a job with News Corp.

    1. Or go work for Ed Schultz, labman.

    2. Reporters don't try to become the focal point of the news story?

      Where have YOU been for the last 40 years?

      1. More like sixty or seventy; or maybe two hundred.

    3. Were it not for Obama's temper tantrum response, this wouldn't be a news story.

  4. OK wow that dude seems to know what is going on man, WOw.


  5. Was this really a good move for these folks? Instead of working on a permanent solution that would give impacted folks the right to stay permanently Obama has instead set it up so that they're okay today but may not be tomorrow. Seems like not much change from today.

    Maybe I missed it but I didn't see anybody report how many people in this category were deported last year and other historical years. If we're sending lots of these folks home each year than Obama's decision might have real world, but temporary, impacts i.e. they still have a problem but the INS isn't going to show up today.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.