Fast forward to 2012: What's more rude, a president disregarding separation of powers or a Daily Caller reporter interrupting the president to ask a legitimate question? What's more important, disrespecting Obama or disrespecting the U.S. Constitution?
As far as the media as the media's reaction of this president doing an end-run around the Constitution, it's generally crickets.
It does seem like that after a terrible week, make that a terrible month, on the economic front, the Obama administration wanted to do something to change the subject in a big way.
Leaving aside the merits of granting quasi-amnesty to illegals, does anyone really believe that this executive order will only involve 800,000 persons? When has a government projection--especially in immigration--ever been correct? And do you think the bureaucracy will be competent enough to root out fraudulent claims under this new program?
As far as governing by executive order, even some leftists don't like it:
The president is using executive power to do things Congress has refused to do, and that does fit a disturbing pattern of expansion of executive power under President Obama,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law scholar at George Washington University Law School, known for his support of progressive causes as well as his ire at Obama for not prosecuting Bush officials in connection with alleged torture of terror suspects. In many ways, President Obama has fulfilled the dream of an imperial presidency that Richard Nixon strived for. On everything from [DOMA] to the gaming laws, this is a president who is now functioning as a super legislator. He is effectively negating parts of the criminal code because he disagrees with them. That does go beyond the pale.”Daily Caller reporter Neil Munro gives his side of Friday's exchange:
FBN's Lou Dobbs (the dude with either a weird rug or a weird dye job) thinks Munro was acting on behalf of the American people:
Charles Krauthammer weighs in: