I didn’t watch the whole thing, but reportedly, Bret Baier showed the rest of his colleagues how to interview a president tonight. Or at least this president. All it takes is a real journalist who doesn’t get a tingle up his leg to be in the presence of The One. Even A. B. Stoddard said that he was on the defensive. And it was nice to see someone call him out on his ongoing Medicare legerdemain. You can reduce Medicare costs, or you can reduce the new entitlement costs, but you can’t do both with the same dollars. And Baier was kind enough not to ask him about the “3000% decrease in employers’ costs for health insurance.”
[Thursday morning update]
Roger Simon: Obama must be desperate.
It does seem to me that despite the brave front being put out by her Highness and Hoyer (and Reid) and the White House, that they still can’t wrangle the votes, even for the Slaughterhouse Rules. There’s an excellent chance that this atrocity can be defeated, and it’s no time to give up. But the waverers in the House have to hang together, and not let themselves get picked off separately.
He was too kind.
I had to dig up the link to the video:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4113350/fox-news-exclusive-president-obama
Of course it won’t work for people with mental firewalls set to block “Faux News.”
Baier wasted the first half of the interview trying to get Obama to criticize inside-baseball procedural decisions being made by Pelosi, decisions that will be forgotten in a month, and then explains his repeated interruptions by saying he was trying to get “bang for the buck.” That’s posturing, not journalism.
O’Reilly gave Bret a slight dressing down saying he missed opportunities. Bret did a good job and B.O. was a moron… both B.Os.
So how come this is acceptable as a way to interview when it’s Obama and not when it’s Palin?
Frankly, compared to Jeremy Paxman, the BBCs hack man for political interviews I thought he was pretty dull. Talking over the president doesn’t substitute for skewering somebody on the hardstuff and he didn’t actually do enough of the later, although goodness knows there really is enough material to do so.
Interestingly, even Chris Hayes from The Nation said it was actually the way political interviews should be done.
So how come this is acceptable as a way to interview when it’s Obama and not when it’s Palin?
Who said it isn’t. Sarah has admitted that she let some interviewers get under her skin and she shouldn’t have. It’s amazing that people ignore the fact that in the Charlie Gibson interview, when you review her answers you find she was absolutely correct with regard to international law. Gibson was clueless while he looked down his nose over his glasses. She stumbled in the Couric interview because she just didn’t trust her; which given the editing of the interview shows she had good instincts. She’s not a wonk. That’s a good thing.
Who said it isn’t.
Well, people here for one, not to mention a slew of Fox News anchors and others.
So she let’s people get under her skin? Katie f’ing Couric? If that thing had been any softer it would have been a liquid! And that’s ignoring that somebody who is running for the office of Vice President ought to have a thicker skin than that.
She’s not a wonk. That’s a good thing.
I believe that you believe that.
The ‘inside baseball’ tricks will not be forgotten within a month as they are going to be in court for years.
The part where he gets Obama to admit he’ll flout the constitution to sign the bill was the best part.
Oh, I think the lawsuits which will block the execution of the bill will not soon be forgotten. They’ll be steaming for years over that one.
Dave, the criticisms were about the disparity in treatment. Obama got the royal treatment and softballs. The press didn’t even bother with Biden. Even today, the comparisons are Obama/Palin.
Jeez, Al. Super-ninja tonight…
Does anyone know WTF Obama was talking about when he mentioned the “Hawaii Earthquake”?
here is the link, btw. http://www.breitbart.tv/puzzling-statement-obama-says-louisiana-purchase-will-help-with-the-earthquake-in-hawaii/
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, a magnitude 6.7 earthquake hit Hawaii on October 15, 2006. On October 16, 2006, Bush stated:
A major disaster exists in the State of Hawaii and ordered Federal aid to supplement State and local recovery efforts in the area struck by an earthquake that occurred on October 15, 2006, and related aftershocks.
Federal funding is available to State and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis in the counties of Hawaii, Honolulu, Kauai, and Maui and the City of Honolulu for debris removal and emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance.
Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures statewide.
Sorry, that was from http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003170072 among the many other websites easily available to any of you by going to google and searching on Hawaii Earthquake Obama. The link makes it clear that this was the earthquake Obama was referring to.
Thanx Bob. That was a bit confusing.
It’s a bit hard to form an opinion about how good a journalist he is from the 2 minute segments available on youtube. Here’s the full interview:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4113350/fox-news-exclusive-president-obama
First question, Obama jumps on the soapbox, Baier tries to jump in and lets himself be talked over.. After some more babbling, Baier says “so you support the deem and pass law?” and Obama says “no, what I’m saying is..” and Baier should then have said “so you *dont* support the deem and pass law?” and if Obama still started babbling said “just yes or no”. Eventually he gives up and moves onto another question.
His second question is about the special deals, specifically, which ones are still in. Obama doesn’t answer in list format but he kinda answers the question with some justification for the ones that are in. Baier moves on.
His third question is, uhhh, almost a question. I’d paraphrase it as: please talk about process. And Obama basically just says the process is the process. Baier stops asking questions and just starts throwing in jabs. The 1/6th of the economy jab. The can you guarantee people will be able to keep their doctor jab. Then he goes back to jabbing at special deals.
His fourth question is, uhhh, pointing out a contradiction in a statement that says spending is going to two places that he thinks are mutually exclusive.. followed by “which is it?” Obama explains why they’re not mutually exclusive. And to followup that Baier quotes another apparently contradictory statement. Obama explains why its not contradictory.
Then we’re back to process.. Baier is saying how Obama said he was going to “change Washington”, cuts Obama off in mid-sentence.. so far I think this is the only “rude” cutoff. Obama says that just because he hasn’t reformed Washington yet, that’s no reason not to vote for the bill.
Last question: If your healthcare bill doesn’t pass, can you claim to be a transformative president? Obama takes credit for the bounceback of the economy. Braier asks if Obama thinks the healthcare bill is going to pass. Obama says he thinks it will.
Braier apologizes for interrupting “just trying to get the best for our buck here”.
Overall, good interview.. I think Braier was actually more tolerant than I would have been, but hey, I don’t have to interview politicians.
Has anyone else noticed that after every Obama gaff, or awkward interview, or silly sound bite the press immediately moves on to the latest and seemingly endless parade of Biden screw-ups. If Uncle Joe didn’t have a long history of doing this on his own you would think it was planned. It is as if no matter how bad B.O. gets there is a story of J.B. doing something far worse to deflect attention.
I believe that you believe that.
Based on empirical evidence, yes. People have a really screwed up idea of what leadership is. I’ll give you a clue; being the smartest person in the room doesn’t make you the best leader. Being a wonk doesn’t make you a good leader, just the opposite, it means you are expending resources poorly. Motivating people and listening to them makes a good leader and Sarah has that in abundance. My choice would have been Sarah for VP under ‘no fire in the belly’ Fred Thompson who stands miles above most other presidential candidates I’ve seen in the last several elections. Why did the press go after Fred for no belly fire? Because it was the best lame attack they could come up with… and it worked. The fact is we want candidates that don’t covet the office. It’s a service to the people, not a reward for a messiah.
Dave, the criticisms were about the disparity in treatment. Obama got the royal treatment and softballs
Two things. In principle, I completely agree – Obama should get rough treatment, at least in terms of being forced on issues.
But… only in some bizzaro universe were the Palin interviews anything but softballs. Her inability to cope, or to get flustered by somebody as damp as Couric is just another indication that she wasn’t ready for the role.
The ‘inside baseball’ tricks will not be forgotten within a month as they are going to be in court for years.
Nancy Pelosi took the GOP to court over deem-and-pass when the Dems were in the minority, and was shot down. I never heard about it, and I suspect that when the courts uphold deem-and-pass yet again it won’t exactly be front page news.
Fox and the GOP are making noise about process because they have no arguments on substance.
Fox and the GOP are making noise about process because they have no arguments on substance.
What a monumentally stupid comment, even for you. They are “making noise” about the whole disastrous thing. It’s a shame that the rest of the media remains in the tank for collectivism.
Being a wonk doesn’t make you a good leader, just the opposite, it means you are expending resources poorly.
Only if you assume that everyone has the same “resources” to start with, and that those resources are fungible. They don’t, and they aren’t.
They are “making noise” about the whole disastrous thing.
The interview with Obama was fixed in length, and Baier choose to spend his time on process questions. Airtime in general is finite, and every minute Fox spends on “deem-and-pass” is a minute they don’t spend on questions of policy. The reason they are spending so much time on process at the expense of substance is that they think those are the best arguments they have — and they’re right.
It’s a shame that the rest of the media remains in the tank for collectivism.
Fox seems pretty worked up about Medicare cuts; are you sure they aren’t even more in the tank for collectivism?
The interview with Obama was fixed in length, and Baier choose to spend his time on process questions. Airtime in general is finite, and every minute Fox spends on “deem-and-pass” is a minute they don’t spend on questions of policy.
Bret Baier is not Fox. There has been plenty of discussion on the substance of the policy, and how atrocious it is.
Fox seems pretty worked up about Medicare cuts
No, they’re worked up about lies about them by the president.
Hawaii is not eligible since not all counties were declared as a disaster area after the 2006 quake. Click on my name, and note the area in the middle of the north coast of Maui that has no designation.
Jim: Only if you assume that everyone has the same “resources” to start with
Wrong. Regardless of what a person has, spending time on minutia, which is what a wonk is, takes away from leadership, which is motivating people.
Daveon: to get flustered by somebody as damp as Couric is just another indication that she wasn’t ready for the role.
You’re right. She wasn’t ready to be president. That’s why the position of VP exists; in part, to get them ready. She’s not my first choice for president. She’s just above most other choices even with her rough edges.
A journalist has a responsibility and Couric didn’t meet it. Anybody can be edited to look a fool. I’d prefer someone else for president, but given the choices we’ve had, I’d pick Sarah in a heartbeat.
The interview with Obama was fixed in length
That was a choice they made to run it unedited (probably because the opposition would never think of such a thing; it makes it hard to be biased.) I’d prefer they just kept taping and did edit it down to the essential points. That way, Obama could filibuster all he wanted and Fox wouldn’t have to air it. Bret wouldn’t have needed to ‘interupt’; instead, he could have waited him out and repeated his question as many times as it took to get Obama to actually answer it.
“The reason they are spending so much time on process at the expense of substance is that they think those are the best arguments they have…”
It’s kind of hard to criticize a bill that’s not posted for everyone to read. The
dealsbribes for votes were still being made when the interview took place too so the final, final bill has yet to appear. Even a Obama sycophant should be upset at theliesbroken promises about PROCESS made by this President.She wasn’t ready to be president. That’s why the position of VP exists; in part, to get them ready.
Yeah sure. She wasn’t ready to be VP either. I’m not entirely convinced she was up to the job of being a governor for that matter…
She’ll make a good TV pundit, and probably a decent anchor at some point, perhaps the next Springer or similar for “political” shock kind of show. But VP? No. Especially to a 74 year old multiple cancer survivor.
A journalist has a responsibility and Couric didn’t meet it. Anybody can be edited to look a fool.
She certainly didn’t ask the hard questions nor go for the jugular when she should have done. But don’t blame the editing for Palin’s incompetence, there’s practically no way those interviews could have made her look good.
If anybody is to blame it’s her political handlers who should have been on top of the situation. The fact they weren’t and they didn’t speaks volumes about the ineptitude of the McCain/Palin campaign.
I’d prefer someone else for president, but given the choices we’ve had, I’d pick Sarah in a heartbeat.
Sure. I can’t see her making it through a proper primary contest at this point, let alone carrying a general election – certainly not the next one. She *might* get through as VP candidate again for 2012 but I wouldn’t want to put money on that.
That was a choice they made to run it unedited
Not the point — they had a fixed amount of Obama’s time, and chose to spend it on trivia.
No, Jim, the fawning softball interview you wished it was would have been trivial.
She wasn’t ready to be VP either.
As governor of a state she was more than ready. Even senators with no management experience can be VP. She might stumble a bit, but compared to Obama she’d be a stellar president. I could give you ten chances and you wouldn’t be able to come up with someone better (she understands natural law which our constitution and much of international law is based.) That by itself puts her way ahead of many others.