I was out-of-pocket for Bret Baier’s interview with President Obama last night and just viewed it.
obama bret baier.jpgAs usual, my physical reaction to having to watch Obama was a set jaw, pounding heart, and increased blood pressure. Ironic, considering the topic at hand, that Obama is bad for my health.
But thank goodness for Baier, who finally won me over after months of my pining for Brit Hume at 5p every night, who Baier replaced as anchor of Fox News Special Report after the November election….

Big Journalism is right. What a contrast between O’Reilly’s milk toast interview with Obama and Baier’s, who tried to force Obama to just answer the questions and not spew talking points.
What a great laugh line, Baier speaking: “Sir, I know you don’t like to filibuster, but – ” Haha. Here was a another good one:

Baier: Monday in Ohio, you called for courage in the health care debate. At the same time, House Speaker Pelosi was saying this to reporters about the deem and pass rule: “I like it, this scenario, because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.” Is that the kind of courage that you’re talking about?

An Obama untruth: “What I’m saying is whatever they end up voting on – and I hope it’s going to be sometime this week – that it is going to be a vote for or against my health care proposal.”
bret baier, obama.jpgNo, it’s going to be a vote on the Senate healthcare proposal, vastly different than Obama’s. Whether it could be fixed to resemble Obama’s… or there is even a desire to… or how complicated that would be since Dems have determined to pass this via the reconciliation route… is anyone’s guess. And Mitch McConnell just made a great point in a press conference. If a fix ever makes it to the House, it would merely mean its members voted for the various kickback schemes before voting against them.
One final point. Baier kept asking Obama about the “ugly process,” reading a reader letter capsulizing it: “If the bill is so good for all of us, why all the intimidation, arm twisting, seedy deals, and parliamentary trickery necessary to pass a bill, when you have an overwhelming majority in both houses and the presidency?”
Obama’s response in various forms, “So the issue that I’m concerned about is whether not we’re fixing a broken system.”
In other words, the ends justify the means.
I thought Baier did a great job except for the apology at the end, which was unnecessary.

Here’s the transcript.
[Top photo via the Associated Press; bottom photo via Mediaite.com]

Commenting Rules


  • “Criticize ideas, not people.”
  • Create one original moniker and stick with it.
  • Please use a unique name.
  • Be civil and considerate.
  • Read fully and consider carefully before responding.

Do Not's

  • Blasphemy will not be tolerated.
  • No swearing or slandering of others.
  • No deliberate inflammatory comments.
  • Do not violate another’s privacy.
  • Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.
  • No personal, racial, ethnic or gender-based insults/slurs.
  • Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)

Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.

Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.

Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.

Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.

8 Responses to “Bret Baier’s interview with Barack Obama”

  1. Jennifer says:

    That was infuriating to watch. Obama is a professional dodge ball player. So weaselly and dishonest. Bret did a terrific job. More direct and gutsy than anyone else has been thus far in talking with the Weasel-in-Chief. I agree with you that no apology was necessary, but Bret was just being a polite gentleman.

  2. Colleen says:

    Way to go Bret. He did a great job interviewing AND No apology was necessary.

  3. Farsider says:

    Obama on Fox News = Obama win.
    Thanks to Baier, there is no question who emerged as the winner. And most of it was due to the horse’s ass asking the questions and interrupting the President 16 times by one count. Smarmy, creepy and unprofessional. The President tried to talk policy, underlined the rudeness of his host and gutted out a big win. Great job!

  4. Elisabeth says:

    Wow… whatever koolaid you drank, Farsider, I don’t want any. It definitely impairs cognitive function.

  5. Jim says:

    you’re all racist, conservative idiots

  6. Pen says:

    Your take away from that interview was that Baier did a good Job, and the President came off poorly?
    Just out of curiosity, what color was the President’s tie? I think it is quite possible that we weren’t watching the same interview…
    When is it OK to interrupt the President of the United States? I remember Baier’s interviews with Bush, and his treatment of that POTUS was far more respectful.
    It seems that we have forgotten that the office deserves some respect.

  7. Chris says:

    Bret did a nice job nailing Obama down. That said, I’m left wondering if the Junior Senator actually did that job – he doesn’t seem to understand either the process or procedures used in a democracy…
    I’m curious if the people giving BO approval points actually have any idea how the process in Washington works? Clearly, Obama can’t figure it out – he seems to think the bill should pass before we know whats in it!

  8. Chris says:

    Bret did a nice job nailing him down & BO was decidely evasive. That said, I’m left wondering if the Junior Senator actually did the Jr. Senator job – he doesn’t seem to understand either the process or procedures used in a democracy…
    I’m curious if the people giving BO approval points actually have any idea how the process in Washington works? Clearly, Obama can’t figure it out – he seems to think the bill should pass before we know whats in it!


Who Is Jill Stanek?

Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.

Read Jill's full bio »
What the Media says »

by Kelli

Father Pavone poses with young family following news conference in Washington on RU-486 reversal protocol

The “reversals” also show that the ingestion of medication abortion drugs is never a sure thing when it comes to terminating a pregnancy. While anti-abortion activists tout the alleged “high complication rates” of the process, what they conveniently leave out is that the most common complication is that the patient remains pregnant, and that the protocol needs to be followed up with D&C or vacuum aspiration abortion in order to end the pregnancy….

Why is the “reversal” apparently so successful then? Primarily it is because those who are trying to continue the pregnancy are already in the midst of a failed medication abortion to start with….

“There’s no evidence of any demonstrable effect of the ‘treatment’ these anti-abortion centers are marketing,” Dr. Cheryl Chastine, a provider at South Wind Women’s Center in Wichita, Kansas, said. “The medical literature is quite clear that mifepristone on its own is only about 50 percent effective at ending a pregnancy. That means that even if these doctors were to offer a large dose of purple Skittles, they’d appear to have ‘worked’ to ‘save’ the pregnancy about half the time. Those numbers are consistent with what these people are reporting.”

Dr. Chastine isn’t alone in her assessment. Dr. Dan Grossman, vice president for research at Ibis Reproductive Health [and pro-abortion author at RH Reality Check], told Iowa Public Radio that the “treatment” was unlikely to be doing anything at all.

“[The abortion pill] binds much more tightly to the progesterone receptor, to block it than progesterone itself does…. So there really is not much evidence to indicate, I’m really not aware of anything, that by increasing the amount of progesterone you’re gonna somehow block the effect of this drug….

I think this is really outside of standard of care to just begin doing this kind of treatment, without collecting more rigorous studies about its effectiveness.”

~ Robin Marty, questioning whether attempting to save babies like Gabriel Caicedo (pictured above with his parents and Fr. Frank Pavone) is worth it, Talking Points Memo, March 2

Note: The function of mifepristone is to block progesterone receptors (which is why, in an abortion pill reversal, an extra injection of progesterone is given to counteract these effects). Mifepristone “directly causes endometrial decidual degeneration, cervical softening and dilatation, release of endogenous prostaglandins, and an increase in the sensitivity of the myometrium to the contractile effects of prostaglandins. Mifepristone-induced decidual breakdown indirectly leads to trophoblast detachment, resulting in decreased syncytiotrophoblast production of hCG, which in turn causes decreased production of progesterone by the corpus luteum (pregnancy is dependent on progesterone production by the corpus luteum through the first 9 weeks of gestation—until placental progesterone production has increased enough to take the place of corpus luteum progesterone production).”

[Photo via CatholicPhilly.com]

Comments (6)
Stanek Top 20
Weekly Poll