Another Write-wing Conspirator

Commentary, observations, musing, and ranting from the middle of the road (or just to the right of center. Usually.) featuring The Curmudgeon

  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 42 other followers

  • Recent Posts

  • Top Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Welcome to The Curmudgeon’s lair

    Welcome to my curmudgeondom. As you’ll soon learn, your reactions to my missives here are likely to range from fear to loathing to tears to outright rage—and I just might even evoke from you an occasional sober nod or two.

    If you see a posting you like and wish to share it with others, by all means feel free to do so. I'd prefer that you send the link to your friends, but you're also welcome to reproduce anything here—as long as you retain my identity on the document. If you have a web site of your own and wish to post a link to this blog (or to a specific post), again, feel free to do so.

    The purpose of this blog is simple: to provide me a vehicle for sounding-off on whatever topic suits me at the moment. While there’s sure to be no shortage of politically-oriented palaver here, it is by no means all (nor necessarily even most) of what will be proffered to your discerning mind. You’ll also find that my personal politics, ethics, morals, and standards are pretty much “all over the map” (according to my mother-in-law)—so, don’t be surprised to see rants regarding, say, the interference of churches in politics, politically-correct anything, “nanny” laws, taxes, the United Nations, Congress, the Commissioner of Baseball, the State of Ohio’s speed limits, steroids, Jesse Jackson, the “mainstream” media, ultra-liberals, ultra-conservatives, the price of cigarettes, Obamarxism, regulating sales of alcohol, gasoline price manipulation, Muslim foot baths, illegal immigration, laws banning the sale of adult sex toys, cell phones, heavy-handed cops, meddlesome politicians, Hillary, Billary, our all-but-self-proclaimed uncrowned Queen Nancy, “W”, eminent domain, freedom of speech, and the designated hitter all in succession. It is, as I said, my curmudgeondom — and I have the credentials and bona fides to lay claim to the title of The Curmudgeon. So, there.

    Some of the postings you'll encounter may seem familiar—especially to those who know me personally. By way of explanation… I once had an ongoing relationship with a local newspaper, and had a number of published opinion pieces—some of which may be posted here. My arrangement was for a feature entitled An Opposing View; given that the editorial staff had a generally liberal, left-of-center view, it stands to reason that my "opposing" view would generally be perceived as coming from the right (in more ways than one, in my own humble opinion). These posts will be annotated as having been previously published.

    Comments, of course, are always welcome. You may agree or disagree with me. Doesn’t matter. Of course, I reserve the right to completely ignore you — but, feel free to let your feelings be known, anyway. And if you don't want to comment directly here, my e-mail address is: jimseeber@gmail.com .

    Oh, and…yes, I can spell. That "Write-wing" is only a play on words. So, there. Again.

    Welcome, once again. Strap in and hang on.

  • Twitter

  • About this “curmudgeon” guy…

    Armchair philosopher, politically-incorrect political commentator, raconteur, retired air traffic controller, dilettante truck driver, US Army veteran, recluse, sometime-writer, redneck convert neè Buckeye, ne'er-do-well, bon vivant, unrepentant libertine, unapologetic libertarian, and (of course) curmudgeon…

    Anything else you wanna know—just ask.

  • Blog Stats

    • 12,703 hits

Barry vs. Baierheart

Posted by The Curmudgeon on March 18, 2010

Would someone please explain to Obama the meaning of “interview”?

In watching the Bret Baier interview (well…it was supposed to have been an interview) with Barry Barack Obama, I was repeatedly reminded of a scene from the film Braveheart when Stephen’s character appears momentarily to be communicating telepathically with God, then relays the divine demand: “The Almighty says, ‘Don’t change the subject; just answer the f– – –ing question!'”

If only. (If only Baier could actually have said that—and if only Obama would actually have done so.)

One could almost excuse Obama for being so evasive; it could be charitably argued, in fact, that he’s become so accustomed to fielding softballs from the left-leaning “mainstream media” that he doesn’t recognize a real question when it’s posed—if not for the striking resemblance of his reactions to those of Joe Biden when similarly challenged during the campaign.

The simple truth, however, is that he clearly never had any intention of answering any questions—and his actions were typical of what seems to be adherence to the Democrats’ play-book:

 

* Rule One: Upon fielding a question, ignore the question and take off on your predetermined tangent—and never, never, ever pause long enough to permit the interviewer to regain control of the interview.

* Rule Two: If you screw up and let the interviewer speak, immediately regain the initiative by interrupting him/her before he/she can turn the encounter into a real interview—and resume your diatribe forthwith.

* Rule Three: Any attempt by the interviewer to steer you back to the topic at hand should be immediately attacked with protesting, complaining, whining, and demands that the interviewer stop interrupting you and let you finish making your point (which, of course, isn’t even remotely related to the interviewer’s question).

 

Obama’s problem is simple: he doesn’t (yet) have the votes he needs to ram-though his health care reform/power play scheme—and he’s now so desperate that he’ll do anything to get them. (Does anyone believe that he would show up — finally — on the despised Fox News network if he didn’t have to?) Appearing on Fox for an interview (using the term loosely) was a last-gasp measure, a prospect only marginally less mortifying than a molten-lava enema.

It didn’t work.

Baier tactfully characterized the session as “contentious”; viewers probably wondered whether Saddam Hussein’s promised “Mother of All Battles” had at long last arrived. Obama was combative from the start, doggedly avoiding Baier’s questions and rudely launching on one soliloquy after another—and repeatedly betraying his annoyance at Baier’s refusal to be stonewalled. He showed himself in the worst light since before launching his campaign for the White House, revealing a petulant, arrogant autocrat who lashes out at anyone with the audacity to question him on anything. Throughout the session, he seemed obsessed with dominating and controlling the discourse, talking around every question put to him and answering nothing.

In the end, Obama told us nothing—and he achieved nothing. Once again avoiding being pinned-down on specifics, the entirety of his performance could be summed up with: “Trust me.”

Ri-iiiii-ight.

________

Advertisements

9 Responses to “Barry vs. Baierheart”

  1. Laura S said

    It’s all just sooooo nauseating. I don’t think He should have been allowed on Fox at all. He has done nothing but shun them and say they aren’t a news channel all along. Until he needed them. They shouldn’t have let him have the time of day.

    • Wonderful point to bring up the fact that only a few months ago the White House spent a considerable amount of time trying to damage FOX News. Obama, Axelrod, Emmanuel, and Gibbs all declared FOX an “illegitimate news organization” and encouraged other news outlets to treat FOX that way. The White House then took the unheard of step of trying to kick Fox’s White House correspondent, Major Garrett, out of the Press Pool. The attempt failed when the other news organization declared if FOX was pushed out, they’d leave. (They don’t necessarily deserve credit for acting on principle. All the news groups in the pool pay the costs, and FOX is a major contributor to the pool. Losing FOX would put a deep dent in the other news outlets’ finances.)

      Allowing Obama to be interviewed by Baier demonstrated:
      a) The White House was lying when they claimed FOX news was illegitimate and now was forced to eat crow.
      b) FOX News has professional journalists capable of putting aside personal attacks on them and do their jobs.
      c) The president is desperate. It was his goal from the start to use FOX because it has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. Obama had no intention of answering questions. He used FOX as a last ditch platform to try to gin up support for his health care reform bill.

  2. Lynne Z said

    Swanfox said it all.

  3. Denise said

    I just caught a few moments of the interview on a replay and I couldn’t believe Bret talked to him the way he did. I’ve never seen anyone treat a president that way. I really had a feeling it was race – I hate to say that because I know everyone hates to hear that but that is what I was thinking. I’ve never seen anyone treat a democratic president that way. I know I shouldn’t respond to this post since I didn’t see the whole interview – but that bothered me – so – well – there it is.

    • Laura S said

      I don’t think there was a bit of racism involved. And…everyone seems to forget (including the man himself), the man is half white. He used that to his advantage early in life and now doesn’t recall that he is half white and that the people that raised him were white.
      Bret had to do what he did (I would have been even more persistent and less diplomatic than he was). Obama wouldn’t answer ONE question directly. He used the same spin that the dims had been using everyday. It wasn’t an interview and was never intended to be an interview by Obama…it was intended to be a last ditch effort to get his rhetoric out to the largest news audience in the States.
      Just like Pelosi, who made all sorts of legal accusations against the CIA and then when she gets called on it she states “we’re done talking about that”.
      The arrogance of this administration is outrageous. Even some of the most qualified psychologists say that Obama is a narcissist. I doubt he’s alone. And, to even it out, I’m pretty sure that Bill O’Reilly falls into that same niche.
      I seem to recall George W. Bush being chewed up and spit out (and upon) almost nightly on the main news networks.
      I guess you must have missed all of those mainline news anchors talking to President Bush the way they did (Katie Couric comes immediately to mind).
      I’ve never seen a more arrogant president.
      He’s a malignant narcissist.

    • Denise:

      Unlike you, I did see the entire interview—all of it twice, and parts of it more than twice. No offense, but…I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could perceive a racial angle to this. What was it that led you to that conclusion?

      As a matter of fact, I have seen presidents treated in such a manner—and much worse. Go all the way back at least as far as the Nixon administration; Sam Donaldson made a living off his outrageous behavior (well…it was outrageous for the times—though the civility of the discourse has eroded considerably in the interim). I find it interesting, though, that you say that “I’ve never seen anyone treat a democratic president that way.” I’m inclined to agree; the press is typically much more gentle with Democrats than with Republicans—and it was refreshing to see the playing field leveled. For the most part, past “interviews” with Obama have been fawning sessions conducted by sympathetic “interviewers” who lack the skills and/or the objectivity to do the job properly—or it was their intent merely to act as enabler.

      I maintain that Obama never actually gave an interview. An interview is basically a two-step process: the interviewer asks a question…and the interviewee answers the question (think back to a job interview you’ve had). Pretty simple stuff. From the start, though, Obama immediately attempted to transform the session into what he wanted it to be: a springboard from which to speechify about what he wanted to talk about. Baier acted appropriately in trying to return him to the topic when he dodged the question asked—as any capable interviewer should.

      Jim

    • Dick Norcross said

      Ignorance is bliss, isn’t it.

  4. Larry Z said

    Barry O exhalted One !! “Those who humble themselves shall be exhalted, those who exhalt themselves shall be abased”.
    LCZ

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: