If you haven’t seen the Bret Baier interview of President Obama then what are you waiting for? It was one of the best interviews of this narcissistic man by the media in ages. Finally a reporter who isn’t starry eyed nor weak willed. Baier noticed quite early that Obama was attempting to filibuster the interview and wouldn’t have it, while still appearing polite and non-threatening.
It was a model of how not to be cowed by a strong and charismatic leader and a model of a truly independent anchor/reporter. President Obama knew he didn’t have Bret at the very end when his last effort at victimhood was to sarcastically hang his head to the side in response to Bret’s saying he didn’t mean to interrupt, as if Bret were being insincere — which he wasn’t. Anyone who watches the interview can see who was stalling, who was running the clock, who was refusing to answer the questions, and why polite interruption was exactly what was needed. It was a model. If any of the MSM can watch it and conclude anything it is that FNC deserves a) its ratings and b) kudos for being truly independent from the herd of faux independent minds, the likes of which Howell Raines seems to esteem. Bret showed the rest of the press how to do it from now on.
Watch as Obama gets frustrated because the reporter has the audacity to throw him some hard pitches:
Full transcript here.
And in the end Obama came out of the gate with his idealized fantasy land baloney. The classic part is when he tried to explain all the kickbacks he and his cohorts were throwing to those who vote his way.
Even better part? When he gave the most rambling and evasive answer possible to the question of how in the world he could claim that the cuts to Medicare can simultaneously be used to strengthen Medicare and expand cover to tens of millions of new people. (couple minutes into the below video)
Ace:
First, he claims that “nobody’s claiming” that this fixes the 38 trillion unfunded liability gap. But that’s not true at all — he’s claiming that, for one. He continuously says that Medicare is going bankrupt without his supposed reform, but with his reform, it apparently won’t.
Under pointed questioning, he walks his grand claims back to the is that his reform “doesn’t weaken Medicare.” Well! That’s a lot different than claims the reform “strengthens the finances of Medicare,” isn’t it?
He also changes the terms of argument by stating that some of his “Medicare savings” will be used to pay off current seniors by closing the donut hole in drug coverage. But that deliberately misses the point, as that too constitutes new spending, and if we’re plowing these alleged savings into new spending and new entitlements, it also can’t be used to firm up future finances of current obligations. He is claiming that if he spends some of his “savings” on current seniors — but new spending for current seniors — this somehow “counts” as fixing Medicare long-term.
Of course it doesn’t. Of course it doesn’t. But he continues lying about this, claiming his that his “reform” addresses the long-term problem. It doesn’t. It takes a big chunk of money and reassigns it to other spending — most of it is taken from seniors to be spent on other groups — and spends not a dollar to actually fix the financing for Medicare.
Here is a ten minute interview of Bret about the interview:
Bret Baier: What I wasn’t comfortable with Brian was that he went to, you know, talking points about the health care reform bill right away on the first question. And suddenly I looked at the clock I looked at…listening to him say what he had said on the stump just two days earlier in Cleveland and I said I gotta do something otherwise I’m gonna get rolled.
No wonder Obama and his friends are so scared of Fox News!
UPDATE
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews just criticized Fox News’ Bret Baier for interrupting President Obama multiple times in his Wednesday night interview.
Chris Matthews. Criticizing someone else for interrupting an interview subject. Really.
Matthews then had Salon’s Joan Walsh and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker on to discuss the interview, both of whom criticized Fox for being a propaganda outlet. Walsh and Tucker criticizing someone else for spewing propaganda. Really.
Matthews, Walsh, and Tucker, giving a well-rounded view of the political world.
Do these people realize how ignorant and loony they appear?
See author page