It was an OUTSTANDING interview! Great work, Bret. It’s about time someone makes Obama actually answer the tough questions. Well, I should say TRY to answer. It was clear that he doesn’t know what’s in the bill, and doesn’t care either.

Disagree or not, Baier was rude, the President of The United States deserves more respect than some jr member of congress! I guess we know how news part of Fox feels!

Obama could not have been more petulant if he had tried; he’s condescending.

He acts like a child who isn’t getting his way.

Great job, Brett!

BHO does NOT deserve more respect. I bet he was saying to himself, “Man, FOX doesn’t crack-dive me like all the other outlets.

Good for you Bret. You showed he didn’t even know what was in the bill.

Brett Baier demonstrated what a little punk he is. Being grossly rude to the President is exactly what his viewers wanted.

I had this bill gets passed this weekend so we can throw it in the face of these Fox News a-holes.

“I hope” that is

Bret was NOT rude. He tried to get Obama to answer simple questions, but BO just kept filibustering without answering what Bret was asking. Get over it libs, BO go this clock cleaned and I don’t think he did himself any good. Quite the contray actually. You could tell he didn’t was to answer the questions because he knew MOST american’s aren’t buying what he’s shoveling anymore.

S2U, I’m curious if you actually watched the interview or are just spouting the lib line, per usual.

mcf1757, Have you ever seen the pres “interviewed” on MSNBC? Obama came away with a hickey on his toushy!

Wow, I really came away impressed by both and I hope this bill passes this week like Obama says it will.

so let me get this straight…President Obama says to not pay attention to the procedure; just vote “FOR” or “AGAINST”.

FOR – means you’re for Health Care Reform…even though not even the President himself knows the details of what will be in it

AGAINST – means you’re against Health Care Reform…despite the fact that the details for the kind of reform is fuzzy at best; non-existent at worst..

…the last time Americans voted FOR something where the details are fuzzy at best, non-existent at worst…we got President Obama…

so, NO…not again; no more…

” Maybe it won’t matter in six months looking back…”

LOL! Dream on Steve.

The nationalization of the health care industry by the Democratic Party will be THE number one issue in the November elections.

The Democratic leadership has invested too much in their attempt to nationalize health care to back down now. They WILL take over the health care industry. It no longer matters to them if they have to subvert the Constitution with “deem and pass”, or if they simply use more venal methods like bribery to get enough House Democrats to openly vote for the bill. They are “stepped in so far that…returning were as tedious as go o’er.” Besides, the Senate bill was passed amid bribes and threat of “reconciliation”.

Unfortunately for the Democrats there are some “stubborn facts” that they will have to deal with in November. First, the Republicans are standing fast against the bill. This may not appear important now, and it certainly didn’t last year when the Democrats deliberately shut the Republicans out of the process. But come September and October, many Democratic candidates will wish they had at least one Republican to which they could point in order to say the bill had bi-partisan support.

Worse for the Democrats however, is that this nationalization is simply not popular. Today’s Gallup poll shows Pres. Obama’s personal approval at 46% and his disapproval rating at 47%. Gallup also shows Americans who oppose a “healthcare reform bill similar to the one proposed by President Obama” outnumber those in favor by 48% to 45%.

Over the next several months, as more details of this bill become public–the bribes, the special deals, the enormous cost, the lies- -that disapproval number will surely go up. If the press doesn’t expose the underhanded methods used, the inevitable lawsuits will.

Add to this the fact that the unemployment rate is expected to remain above 9% for the rest of the year, and we may see a historic and crushing defeat of the Democrats in November. Hell, this may prompt even Jimmy Carter to say “Miss me yet?”

The “meme” on the interview from the Left is that Bret was being rude to the President. I happen to disagree, but the fact that that is their response says something profound. That is, after all, a “process” objection to the interview (the very kind of objection that Obama says is irrelevant!). If Obama had scored any points, the Left would be talking about his best answers. Instead they are complaining about rudeness in order to divert attention from the fact that, for example, Obama didn’t even know what’s in the bill!

Obama was obviously trying to run out the clock to reduce the number of tough (and absolutely fair) questions being asked of him. Great job, Bret.

Barry continues CAMPAIGING and REFUSES to talk SPECIFICS. He can’t talk SPECIFICS because this BILL is a heaping pile of CRAP (guaranteed to change AMERICA FOREVER), about to be passed through CORRUPTION.
Let me paraphrase/ summarize this WHOLE interview
Bret Baier: How will it change America Mr. President?
Barry: Well I can’t talk about that BUT, you can trust me, I’m a politician.”
Bret Baier: Is this process CORRUPT?
Barry: Yes, but Nancy is doing it and frankly, rules don’t matter

Instead of SPECIFICS, Barry attempted his CLASSIC MANIPULATION (filibuster) tactics but Brett Baier was NOT having it. The best and first interviewer who didn’t MELT, nor kiss the feet of the POTUS, nor ask BARRY to take his shirt off!!! WELL DONE! REMOVE THIS MAN FROM OFFICE! HE’S A DISGRACE

exactly bamman! That’s what I was saying during the whole interview!

Baier is beneath this President. My favorite part was when Bret mentioned the18,000 letters and Obama bitch slapped him with the 40,000 letters her gets each day. Little Jimmy Olson didn’t know who he was talking to. When allowed, the President was able to answer the substance while cutting through the bullshit talking points Bret was reading. While he claimed they were from viewers, each letter had the same talking points regurgitated on fox every day. I thought, he must be kidding? He came off unprofessionally and he knew it. Which is why he apologized. What I love is that the overwhelming comments I’ve seen and read thus far on the blogs have been negative towards Baier and fox. It was just too obvious. He was way too eager to show his interview skills. Epic Fail!

How’s the view in the world you live, Rox? Obama said at one point that he didn’t even know what was in the bill.

“I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate,” 0(zero) said.

Liar.

Baier: C-

A bit too snotty for an interview with our President. Generally prepared. Really caught off guard when he made his tacky remark about the volume of his correspondence.

President Obama: A-

Sometimes a little petulant, but calm, polite, controlled.

Hume: F

He’s realy turned into a cocky creep with little of value to offer. Scratch that. He’s always been a cocky creep even before he gave him us journalism career to go to FOX.

The Interview: C+

Not one for the ages. Not terrible, but Shep or Major would have done a better job.

Olby Sucks says:
March 17, 2010 at 9:14 pm
“I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate,” 0(zero) said.

Liar.

—

Jeff Merrill: F

Gratuitous slur on our Preisdent, but nothing substantive to offer. Ever.

TRRK, If you watched the interview, how come you don’t even know the interviewers name?

So basically people here on the right didn’t think Obama did a good job, Baier did a good. And the people here on the left thought Baier did a bad job and Obama did a good job.

Wow. I would not have predicted that.

In Roxy’s ideal world (which if she has her way should be really soon) all who HATE are NORMAL and those today who are NORMAL should be HATED tomorrow. Up is down and down is up. Oh and Bret Baier did NOT ask specific questions tonight, instead he read GENERAL talking points. Yes, in Roxy’s parallel universe, Barry answered with SPECIFICS tonight NOT general talking points. Please anyone READ any of Roxy’s prior comments and TRY to convince me she’s NOT posting from a mental asylum.

I’d have to give Robert Stephenson an F too. Mostly for his fascination with Jeff Merrill. We all know Robert, he’ Mr. BovineKoldys AND The Real Royal King. Two haters in one.

The Real Royal King says:
March 17, 2010 at 9:22 pm

Baier: C-

President Obama: A-

Hume: F

He’s realy turned into a cocky creep with little of value to offer. Scratch that. He’s always been a cocky creep even before he gave him us journalism career to go to FOX.
—
Thanks TimZank! Robert Stephenson doesn’t have a clue who interviewed the President. Bobby, it wasn’t Brit Hume!

The Real Royal King says:
March 17, 2010 at 9:22 pm

Hume: F

He’s realy turned into a cocky creep with little of value to offer. Scratch that. He’s always been a cocky creep even before he gave him us journalism career to go to FOX.
———————————————————————————-

hahahahaha!

Pat Pomeroy does it again!

Hume got an F? Who was he interviewing?

Hmm…I wonder how Brett Baier interviewed a Republican President, like oh…George W. Bush in 2008?

http://mediamatters.org/research/200812180005

Watch the video. Compare and Contrast that with ANY portion of the Baier/Obama interview. Then let’s discuss.

–Cobra

I thought Baier did the interview, not Hume. It’s almost as if TRRK had his mind made up ahead of time that he didn’t like Fox, making the actual viewing of the interview unnecessary.

It’s almost as if TRRK had his mind made up ahead of time that he didn’t like Fox, making the actual viewing of the interview unnecessary.
———-

It does that all the time, gives detailed reviews of stuff it hasn’t seen, that is.

>It’s about time someone makes Obama actually answer the tough questions.

I really wish this had happened with President Bush during his eight years in office. Didn’t happen a single time. The only time it sorta happened was with an Irish journalist.

So much for the “liberal media”.

The Real Royal King says:
March 17, 2010 at 9:22 pm

Hmmm

“Baier: C-”

I’d say this is a good grade, maybe a ‘C’ he was aggressive and I think he did get close to disrespectful
but that was due to fustration at the talking point answers.

“President Obama: A-”

Way off here. He didn’t answer half the questions and he seemed to be ‘fillibustering’ some of them. the
answers we did get were for the most part the same old same old. He had an golden oppertunity
here to reach independents and some conservative views and he blew it. C+

“The Interview: C+”

I’d say a solid ‘C’. the point of these interviews is to get out and possibly change opinions. If anything
I think this gave conservatives a very slight advantage. The interview proved that a) Obama hasn’t read
the bill, and B)) He doesn’t care how it is done as long as he wins. I honestly think this second point
will come back to bite him in the rear in the future.

Note that this is just on the healthcare part of the interview. The second part was much better and overall
I’d give the whole interview a ‘B+’.

I have reviewed portions of the interview, Fidoohki, and I do tend to think I was a bit generous to our President. I really did like his typically calm, collected demeanor, but he did dance around substance a bit.

Two of the bigger liars from the Koldys’ PHOX Phan Club, Cecelia and Jeff Merrill, have implied I didn’t watch the interview and the post-interview analysis. Liars!

What I said of Hume was:

” Hume: F

He’s realy turned into a cocky creep with little of value to offer. Scratch that. He’s always been a cocky creep even before he gave him us journalism career to go to FOX.”

This was based upon the comments of Hume, post-interview, to which witness the following:

“After the interview, the former Special Report Brit Hume weighed in. ‘He really didn’t answer your question in any satisfactory way,’ he said, sympathizing with Baier’s position of having to interrupt the President of the United States in the nicest way possible.”

I expect neither of you to be gracious enough or big enough people to offer the apology gracious people of character and substance would do. However, I would ask that you please refrain from turning this very good site into the stinking cesspool you have created at your home base.

I thought Baier did the interview, not Hume.

—

Herr Autobahn you obviously did not read my post. Look immediately under the dateline:

The Real Royal King says:
March 17, 2010 at 9:22 pm

Baier: C-

A bit too snotty for an *****interview***** with our President. Generally prepared. Really caught off guard when he made his tacky remark about the volume of his correspondence.

An apology is not required. I have forgiven you already. Certain charter members of the Koldys’ PHOX Fan Klub have made their usual efforts to turn anyplace they may be into a toxic waste dump. Don’t conspire with them. This is too good a site for that.

You did say Baier, I do apologize.

After your Pat Pomeroy fiasco at Johnny Dollar’s Place, it was a cause of great hilarity to me until I saw that I had misread you.

Sorry again.

Thank you, Cecelia.

I see nobody wants to comment on the comparison of the Bush interview by Baier and Obama’s.

That’s not surprising.

What is surprising is some background on Bret Baier and Health care, as his first child Paul, was born with FIVE congenital heart defects.

“Paul’s blood flowed the wrong way, depriving his body of oxygen. He had a hole in his heart and would not live much longer without open-heart surgery.

Within days, surgeons opened Paul’s chest and inserted a minuscule aorta, donated from a baby who had died, to redirect blood in Paul’s tiny heart. The surgeon said it was the most complicated surgery he’d performed. Everything looked good, but Paul was not out of the woods. The donated aorta wouldn’t grow with Paul, so he would face another surgery soon.

Today, after another surgery and three angioplasties, Paul amazes his parents with his resilience, energy and life. He faces future surgeries as his heart continues to grow, but Paul is expected to live a healthy life…”

READ ON:

“According to the March of Dimes, congenital heart defects are the most common birth defect, affecting one in every 100 babies.
“It’s not one out of a million or one out of 5 million. It’s one out of 100. It’s a powerful number that I think needs to be talked about more,” Baier said. ”

…”And though it’s difficult for the parents to talk about it over and over, they do so in the hope that other families going through similar situations will see that their babies can overcome the same defects.”

http://newsok.com/journalist-values-time-with-son/article/3379137

Do you see the health care parable behind this story folks? “OTHER” families facing “similiar situations” with HMO’s, weak plans or God forbid, NO health insurance would probably have an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT outcome than that of Paul Baier, the son of a Fox News millionaire. Review this story in light of conservative attacks on the CHiP program as well.

It’s actually shameful.

–Cobra

You’re welcome, TRFRK, and don’t ever call me a liar again.

Cobra says:
March 17, 2010 at 11:56 pm

Cobra – You are really comparing an interview with Bush, as he was leaving office, to the one with Obama, where he is trying to shove through this major legislation?

Did you even look at the date on the interview with Bush? He had like a week left in office…

Not only that, but Bush actually answered his questions AND he didn’t filibuster. Obama was rude, and cranky, and all he did was try to repeat his same old talking points, and avoid and dance around the questions. He was disrespectful to the American people, and came across as ill informed and untruthful.

(White) Royal, you should be apologizing. Immediately after talking about the interview, you put ‘Hume F’. For someone who just couldn’t understand what I was asking you earlier about Michael Moore, it looks like you need to be a bit clearer in your posts. On second thought, you could just skip posting altogether.

Cobra, what’s highly shameful is the argument that any uninsured person is exhibit A for any govt backed health care plan.

Good to see you, sarainitaly!

Cecelia writes:

“Cobra, what’s highly shameful is the argument that any uninsured person is exhibit A for any govt backed health care plan.”

No. REALITY is that children with congenital heart defects like Paul Baier have lives dependent on how rich their parents are, or how ‘generous” the for-profit health Insurance company is. Those are FACTS.

But Cecelia, I’ll tell you what. I would be delighted if the GOP used your argument in upcoming elections:

“Repeal all government backed health care plans! Abolish Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Administration! Let uninsured or underinsured children with congenital diseases DIE!”

Sign your name to that, Cecelia, and I’ll salute you for intellectual honesty.

Sara writes:

“Cobra – You are really comparing an interview with Bush, as he was leaving office, to the one with Obama, where he is trying to shove through this major legislation?”

As compared to the Bush Adminstration that shoved through $2 trillion in tax cuts for the rich through reconciliation? As compared to the Bush Administration that led us into to Iraq, killing upwards of a million Iraqis, thousands of American servicepeople, and costing, according to economist Stiglitz, $3 Trillion when it’s all said and done?
Are you so partisan, Sara–that you think Bret Baier came anywhere CLOSE to asking questions on THAT with the same intensity as what he did with Obama?

Sara writes:

“Not only that, but Bush actually answered his questions AND he didn’t filibuster. Obama was rude, and cranky, and all he did was try to repeat his same old talking points, and avoid and dance around the questions.”

Are you watching the same video clips that we are? Brett Baier NEVER interrupts Bush ONCE and the FIRST question Baier asks is straight out of Karl Rove talking points:

“BRET BAIER: Today you were talking about keeping America safe. Do you believe that there hasn’t been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in more than seven years because of the policies your administration has implemented?”

Are you kidding me?

Sara writes:

“Obama was rude, and cranky, and all he did was try to repeat his same old talking points, and avoid and dance around the questions.”

Post your examples. The transcript is available online. Back up your argument, and source it. Let’s have it out right here.

–Cobra

Cobra, that is a simplistic argument that is better designed for private charity than sound govt policy making.

The fact that is can be used as bludgeon to pound the heads of opponents does not make it honest or thoughtful.

So what you’re suggesting is that a decent journalist would have interviewed an out-going president from your point of view. That it wasn’t enough for Baier to ask the president about any tarnish Iraq brought to his legacy, he had to ask him the manner that Keith Olbermann might if Kieth Olbermann had the gonads enough to interview anyone who doesn’t think like him.

Great interview by Baier, who shows the other reporters how it’s done. This is the first time anyone has tried to get something from President Obama other than this prepared talking points. I hope the cheerleaders at MSNBC and CNN were paying attention. At least, they now know why Fox is growing its audience.

Re the interview at hand, it was clearly a bit awkward. Bret probably did interrupt too often, but it was also clear that:
– Obama interrupted him to try to cut off or steer the question.
– Obama plain wasn’t going to answer a number of questions, had gone into a “four corner stall” that required the interviewer to pull him back to questions at hand.

Overall, my review:
– Bret clearly had a game plan to keep the President focused on his questions, which an interviewer should
– because of his game plan, he probably did interrupt Obama at inappropriate times on occasion. That is to say, timing of the interruption may be part of the issue.
– Obama had no interest in answering questions, and by taking this approach, clearly endorsed “the ends justified the means” with respect to passing his pet legislation
– NOONE knows what is in the damned bill. Even Obama had to guess…

sarainitaly says:
March 18, 2010 at 10:10 am

Cobra says:
March 17, 2010 at 11:56 pm

Cobra – You are really comparing an interview with Bush, as he was leaving office, to the one with Obama, where he is trying to shove through this major legislation?

Did you even look at the date on the interview with Bush? He had like a week left in office…

Not only that, but Bush actually answered his questions AND he didn’t filibuster. Obama was rude, and cranky, and all he did was try to repeat his same old talking points, and avoid and dance around the questions. He was disrespectful to the American people, and came across as ill informed and untruthful.

—

You are correct about the date of the W interview. Everything else you mention is demonstrably untrue. W, even at this point, was often unforthcoming and snotty, despite being treated like a china doll. By contrast, President Obama was open and available. You deliberately mischaracterize him as “cranky and rude” when, in the face of Baier’s rudeness, President Obama was calm and displayed his usual gravitas. We get it Sara(h) N. Italy. You despise our President. As for the American people, I’m sure the only people offended were the 2-3% of Americans who suffered through yet another FOX “broadcast”. They all enjoy suffering anyway.

Well, that settles it. ;)

Go back to Vatican City liar!

Just a question, TRRK. If you despise Fox that badly and are sure they’re lying about everything they say, why do you watch? It’s not as if there aren’t any left leaning networks to be found.

Herr Autobahn, in the words of General Douglas MacArthur, “Know your enema!” That’s all I’m doing. In addition to helping people understand what FOX is doing. It’s all for others, in my book.

You’re a trooper. But if the Fox audience is actually as small as you’re always claiming, it seems such a waste of your totally unbiased talents.

Cecelia writes:

“Cobra, that is a simplistic argument that is better designed for private charity than sound govt policy making.”

That statement ALONE means that YOU believe that parents of children with congenital heart conditions should ‘BEG” for handouts, (private charity) should they not be millionaires.

“Begging for handouts” is your great conservative solution for the health care crisis in America?

Cecelia writes:

“So what you’re suggesting is that a decent journalist would have interviewed an out-going president from your point of view. That it wasn’t enough for Baier to ask the president about any tarnish Iraq brought to his legacy, he had to ask him the manner that Keith Olbermann might if Kieth Olbermann had the gonads enough to interview anyone who doesn’t think like him.”

What does Keith Olbermann have to do with this? I presented the reporter at the center of this thread, Bret Baier, interviewing another President, George W. Bush, and asked the readers here to compare and contrast.
“MY” political point of view has nothing to do with the obvious DIFFERENCE between the way Baier interviews Bush as compared to Obama.

Baier HIMSELF APOLOGIZES for interrupting President Obama so much at the end of the interview.

“BAIER: I apologize for interrupting you, sir. I tried to get the most for our buck here.”

Cecelia, if you can cull through all of Bret Baier’s interviews with Bush, and find a transcript or video clip where he apologizes for interrupting, I will concede that I was wrong, and apologize to YOU here online.

–Cobra

Cobra,

We would have never gone up against Hitler if we had argued that we could not because someone would be hurt in the process.

You can not set sound govt policy on the basis of a sole emotional appeal.

You MUST evaluate policy to see if it really performs in the way you hope and to look for other unintended consequences.

I believe in the long run more people will be effected negatively by the system that results from Obamacare as opposed to a plan that attempts to instill a consumer driven aspect to the health care system.

THAT question and others need to be considered. no matter how many uninsured people you point out.

As to Baier if you bothered reading, you’d see that I have mentioned the fact that he apologized in several posts. What I reacted to here is the rhetoric that this interview was somehow a uniquely contentious exchange between a journo asking questions of president. It was not. And that it wasn’t is significant to the brouhaha at hand, whether or not you feel Baier harbors more animosity towards Pres. Obama than Bin Laden has for mini-skirts.

The focus on the interruptions and not on whether the president was actually answering the questions has been stunning considering that much of it is coming from people who supposedly have held a dear and vested interest in getting straight answers from politicians.

In the midst of considering yourself someone who suffered under an obfuscating Pres. Bush, you can indeed be aware that there are people so invested in HRC passing that the president could have simply stared down Baier and they would have minimized that.

I’m not asking you to believe that Baier is a great guy or that FNC walks on water, however, you can show some perspective in this incidence. It’s a shooting party with an agenda and you ought show a little perspective before cock your gun on this one.

Now that may be too much to expect from a guy who doesn’t seem to have problems with contentious and partisan interviews as long as he’s writing the questions (ala your spiel on what Brier should have asked Bush), but I’m asking it anyway.

Okay Klucker,

Explain why Brett Baier kissed George Bush’;s ass when he interviewed him. Also your comment on healthcares rings hollow because at no time have Rethuglicans ever shown an interest in reforming healthcare unless it is in conjunction with opposing a Democratic plan.

Maybe it is time for you come out behind your teacups and scones and have a little perspective of your own.

Cecelia writes:

“We would have never gone up against Hitler if we had argued that we could not because someone would be hurt in the process.”

Nonsense. Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/germany-declares.htm

Cecelia writes:

“You can not set sound govt policy on the basis of a sole emotional appeal.”

No. You set it because according to a Harvard Study, 45,000 Americans a year DIE for lack of health insurance, current health insurance costs are poised to double by 2016 (unsustainable) and Health Care Reform, according to the CBO will LOWER THE DEFICIT.
http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012801750.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61O4NV20100319

Now, if you’re FOR 45,000 more DEAD AMERICANS a year, paying twice as much for health care and watching the Debt continuing to explode, then by all means…fight against Health Care Reform. I guess protecting American lives, saving money and cutting the deficit are only “good” things when a Republican is President.

Cecelia writes:

“You MUST evaluate policy to see if it really performs in the way you hope and to look for other unintended consequences.”

Oh…you mean like pre-emptively invading middle eastern countries that never attacked us, with NO exit strategy without PAYING for them? What kind of “unintended consequences” have resulted from the Iraq War, Cecelia?

Cecelia writes:

“What I reacted to here is the rhetoric that this interview was somehow a uniquely contentious exchange between a journo asking questions of president. It was not. ”

You say it wasn’t uniquely contentious, yet you FAIL to provide even ONE instance where Bret Baier used the same level of contension in his interviews with Bush.
NOT…EVEN…ONE. Your excellent sentence composition and writing skill will not win you points on this one, Cecelia. Back your statement up with FACTS, LINKS and/or CONCRETE examples.

Cecelia writes:

“The focus on the interruptions and not on whether the president was actually answering the questions has been stunning considering that much of it is coming from people who supposedly have held a dear and vested interest in getting straight answers from politicians.”

What is the time length allowed to answer a detailed question on congressional voting procedures? In the case of this Baier interview, it is apparently less than 7 seconds, because that’s about all the time he allowed President Obama to answer any of the questions he asked before interrupting him. And did Bret Baier limit President Bush to 7 seconds before interrupting?
You know the answer to that, Cecelia, and if you don’t….the answer is NO.

Cecelia writes:

“I believe in the long run more people will be effected negatively by the system that results from Obamacare as opposed to a plan that attempts to instill a consumer driven aspect to the health care system.

THAT question and others need to be considered. no matter how many uninsured people you point out.”

The GOP HAS ONE PLAN. Their “plan” is to defeat Obama no matter what. If they had a HEALTH CARE REFORM plan, they would’ve unveiled when they controlled both the White House and Congress. They DID NOT. As for you question, I agree. A “consumer driven plan” would be the best measure. It’s called SINGLE PAYER. On this we can wholeheartedly agree, but I doubt you’ll get the GOP or conservative Democrats along for that ride.

–Cobra

It was a splendid interview…-0bama squirmed like a worm in hot ashes.

Be careful what you wish for same2u, you may well get it.

“Howdy” there pryope,

Does that ring a bell?

We don’t take kindly to multiple sockppupets around here. Either man-up with your identity or go back troll hole at TVNewser

“Maybe it is time for you come out behind your teacups and scones and have a little perspective of your own.”

Wow… No reference to “Koldys”? You’ve really taxed your abilities here, haven’t you… This is the pinnacle of debate for you.

(Maybe it’s time for you to get an argument that consists of more than a two sentences of ‘I know you are but what am I’….)

Queen Koldys of the Kluckers,

I never get tired of exposing your hypocrisy with questions you can’t answer.

Now go back to your perch at the Dollar Dump!!!!

Same2u, you don’t explore anything deeper than your own creepiness.

If the question I haven’t answered is why didn’t Baier treat an outgoing president in the same manner that he treated a first term one with pending legislation that will result in a sea change in how this country handles a huge part of GDP then it’s because several people have already attempted to explain that to you.

Too…what part of my saying that it doesn’t matter if Baier is as biased towards the president as Bin Laden is to female sexuality– my interest in the issue is the notion that he was uniquely aggressive for a journo.

I”m not accountable for your inability to comprehend basic sentences.

Queen,

This comment and the other ones today are the REAL you! Carry on,

I”ve taken it for granted that both your lightweight reasoning AND your avatar are the REAL you…

I can’t believe some people (same2u in particular) are talking about respecting the office of the President. Give me a break. Most (not all) of the people talking about show respect for the office didn’t apply that rule to George Bush. They loved it when that reporter in Iraq almost hit Bush with that shoe. The hatred for George Bush was amazing. People say that what the Congressman did during the State of the Union address was low class (it was), but they conveniently forget that Bush was heckled by a large number of Democrats during two of his State of the Union addresses.

It’s about time someone asked Obama if he even knows what the legislation is; He doesn’t. The ends justify the means; this legislation isn’t about healthcare. It’s about establishing a cradle to grave socialist system and ending the free market in this country. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional or is really drinking the Democrat Kool Aid.

Yeah, George Orwell, there is something confusing about the argument that Baier’s interview is both beyond the pale in the manner of how a president should be treated AND better suited for Pres. Bush…

George Orwell writes:

“It’s about time someone asked Obama if he even knows what the legislation is; He doesn’t. The ends justify the means; this legislation isn’t about healthcare. It’s about establishing a cradle to grave socialist system and ending the free market in this country. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional or is really drinking the Democrat Kool Aid.”

Nonsense. American Presidents, since TEDDY FLIPPIN’ ROOSEVELT (Republican, by the way) have tried to address this subject and it’s eluded all of them. This proposal is a CENTRIST one. It’s essentially the SAME program proposed by Republican Sen. Bob Dole as an alternative to the Clinton Health Care Plan of 1993, and a more CONSERVATIVE version of Romneycare in Massachussettes. Mitt Romney is a REPUBLICAN.

For YOU, to sit here and claim that this Legislation is “socialism”, then you’re either regurgitating hate radio or just plain ignorant.

If you think I’m mistaken, please….prove to me that I’m wrong with FACTS, SOURCES, and LINKS.

–Cobra

Checked my passport. Pyrope is the name on it. OK same2u? Now who’s hiding their identity?

You’re on to ‘em Cobra.

This is tremendous of the greatest blogs in the area of teaching. If I don’t came in for a couple of days, there are so many posts that it’ll acquire me a couple of hr just to go through whatever I missed!! Congratulations.

Thanks. wonderful wonderful infos(informations) here keep up Culinary Skills Egg Salad Recipe French Onion Soup Recipe the versatile worked. I cannot actually provide a more constructive comment as i’m abit out of my deph but i will be checking back here for further updates.