Shared publicly  - 
 
Reporter who interrupted Obama says he mistimed his question:
The Daily Caller's Neil Munro, who interrupted President Obama at the White House today twice, said he "timed the question" poorly: “I always go to the White House prepared with questions for our pres...
3
Steven Slatkin (WebservicesbyDesign)'s profile photoJake Lawson's profile photoLaird Popkin's profile photoJames Barrow's profile photo
23 comments
 
Yeah, he's like a hundred years too late !
 
Oh yeah, sure, you betcha. Hope he has insurance that'll cover treatment of his premature speaking disorder.  
 
Munro is the guy you don't want at a surprise birthday party.
 
This excuse that he thought that Obama was "closing his remarks" isn't an excuse at all, because interrupting the President's closing reports is still inexcusable. What's more, he interrupted the President of the United States repeatedly throughout the speech. But someone who's enough of a jerk to use a temporary press pass to interrupt the President of the United States is probably self-obsessed and hyper-politicized enough to think that he can get away with lying about it.

And how does his employer justify immediately tweeting "We are very proud of,@NeilMunroDC for doing his job"? Even if his excuse were valid, I don't see how they have any excuse for being proud of his unprofessional behavior.
 
Fantastic post Laird Popkin! Munro is clearly a tool, stay classy Daily Caller...
 
"OH NO! THEY'RE GONNA TEACH THEM TO READ AND WRITE...IN ENGLISH! SAVE US RONALD REAGAN!" --The expected reaction the Daily Caller wants.
Bette T
 
If he dosen't get the bum's rush off the Carlson show, his career is done as far as having credibility...bright future at Faux News
 
+James Barrow Sure, return to the glory days of turning a budget surplus into a massive deficit and losing 700k jobs a month! :-)
 
+Laird Popkin And national security leaks, gun running murders, executive fiat, high unemployment, anemic jobs growth, massive deficit increases, and attacks on small business is better.
 
+James Barrow Sadly, you've just done a great job demonstrating the lack of choice we have in November. We're going to get all of the above with either party. It's seriously disheartening.
 
+James Barrow Your recollection of the Bush years is pretty accurate. While Obama hasn't been perfect, he (1) has been aggressive in pursuing leaks, stopped the gun running program that started under Bush, reduced unemployment, is growing instead of losing jobs, and has been helping small businesses (by cutting taxes and reducing medical costs by giving small businesses better negotiating leverage).
 
+Laird Popkin You're high as a kite.  The reason that the security leaks is in the news is because someone who was in the room with Obama leaked sensitive information. Hard to claim that he's aggressive on pursuing leaks when they're coming out of HIS White House.  And the gun running claim is laughable!  Most of your party has been trying to deflect blame away from Obama by saying that Fast & Furious is an extension of the Bush gun running operation - pick a side first, then stick to it. And Obama hasn't reduced employment since the numbers don't accurately reflect the number of people who have simply given up looking for work.

When those “not in the labor force” are added to those “Unemployed,” then those who are not working is growing: 99.5 million in April 2011, 100.3 million in February 2012, 100.5 million in March 2012, and 100.9 million in April 2012. When counting both those “Not in the labor force” and “Unemployed” as a single group, then those who are not working, but are in the age group in which Americans normally work, has remained steady and high: 41.6 percent in April 2011, 41.5 percent in February 2012, 41.5 percent in March 2012, and 41.6 percent in April 2012.

According to the Department of Labor prior to the financial meltdown, 76% of small businesses received traditional funding from banks and other institutions. With the financial meltdown over 8 million jobs were lost. Traditional financing has virtually disappeared. Obama's security laws were written to address abuse of large corporations. These laws require a small start-up to raise $50,000 to jump through the same hoops as a large corporation seeking to raise millions of dollars.

The next time you decide to post, at least make an effort, instead of trying to blow smoke up someone's a$$.
 
TL/DR version: Most of what's broken started under Bush and worsened under Obama. No need to pick a side-they're both bad news.
 
+Jake Lawson It's very, very rare to find people who don't easily slip into ideologue mode (not you, just a comment in general.)  And I see this on both sides.  I spent most of the Bush Administration asking the same question of people on the far-Right:  "Um...does Bush have an exit strategy out of Iraq?"  So it's hilarious to see people on TPM cling so closely to the "Hopey Changey" Obama, as if a herd of rainbow-colored unicorns started dancing in the streets farting gold dubloons on January 20, 2009.
 
+James Barrow You're responding to things that I didn't say. I said that the gun running tactic started under Bush and was ended under Obama. Which it did. I said that Obama has been aggressive in pursuing leaks. That's not the same as saying that leaks don't happen, just that he's been very aggressive in pursuing and prosecuting leaks. I didn't say that Obama had reduced unemployment, I said that he'd increased employment - as is well documented, the US was losing 700K jobs a month under Bush, and Obama turned that around such that jobs are growing. That doesn't magically undo the damage that Bush did to the economy, but creating jobs is better than losing jobs, certainly. Yes, bank lending to small businesses has nearly stopped - that happened under Bush, as did TARP (which was supposed to get banks lending again, but didn't).

I've started several companies. The security laws don't affect small businesses at all, because most small businesses don't issue publicly traded stocks. Most small businesses don't have stock at all, and are reported as individual income, so the only impact that Obama has had on them is that (1) their taxes went down, and (2) the cost for providing medical coverage to employees went down.

Your last line is good advice though - "The next time you decide to post, at least make an effort, instead of trying to blow smoke up someone's a$$."
 
+Laird Popkin You're conflating your facts.  Fast & Furious was not an extension of Operation Wide Receiver.  It was similar, but wholly Obama's project.

You missed the point about the national security leaks. Obama can claim that he's aggressive on them, but now that they're leaking from his White House, he's not that aggressive, or outraged for that matter.  Makes you wonder.

Obama increased government jobs, not private sector jobs. March, 2012, was the third month in which the overall number of jobs lost during the Obama administration is lower than the number lost during the Bush administration. That said, the unemployment rate is still 0.9 percentage points worse today than it was during President Bush’s last full month in office. In other words, the unemployment rate in all 41 months of Obama’s presidency has been higher than that of any single month in President Bush’s 8 years in office.

As for your assessment of how Obama's regulations affect small business, you're simply out of touch with reality. The current administration's policies do not encourage capital formation. The Obama Administration has failed to make permanent key tax relief measures and reforms to outdated Security and Exchange Commission laws that are preventing investment in small businesses.
Add a comment...