Posted on 02/10/2014 10:09:47 AM PST by Kaslin
Much has been reported recently concerning Fox News anchor Bill OReilly and his pre-Super Bowl interview of President Barack Obama. Many of the Obama cheering section are stating that this action showed Obamas courage in the sense that he was willing to consent to an interview with a supposedly hostile reporter from an anti-administration television network. Conservative viewers, on the other hand, saw this as an exercise in frustration since the President answered no questions, and spent his time lobbing thinly disguised barbs at the interviewer, and the interviewers employer. So, few minds were really changed by this supposedly courageous decision by the President to sit down for a chat with Bill OReilly. Still, a few days later we had the spectacle of Dana Milbank, the Washington Post propagandist spinning this as a disgraceful effort by Fox to smear the President by turning a rabid dog loose on him, and encouraging the mongrel to attack. Milbank took his Obama hagiography to a new low, simply ignoring the Presidents own attacks on OReilly and conservative media, and openly slanting this incident as a case of an ill-mannered television reporter showing insufficient reverence for our dear national leader.
A quick perusal of the interview transcript, and Milbanks commentary on the face-off ignored Obamas evasive responses to questions and his combative attitude when he continually chided OReilly for spreading misinformation, and Fox for providing him a soapbox. When OReilly questioned President Obama about the Benghazi attack of September 2012, he asked about the Administrations reluctance to label this as a terrorist attack. He might well have asked if the President would shrug off an attack on American territory in the future as a non-story. In any event, President Obama blamed the tempest on Fox News, saying that they (the public) believe it because folks like you are telling them that. Dana Milbank ignored the issue altogether and attacked OReilly for trying to elicit an answer from a slippery customer.
When the interview turned to the Obamacare follies, Mr. OReilly suggested that Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius should have been fired for the trainwreck. It has been widely reported, of course, that the Secretary had three-and-one-half years to plan for and to implement Obamacare, from the passage of the Affordable Care Act in March of 2010, to the rollout date of October 1, 2013. The fact of the matter is that the planning time was actually a month longer than it took American troops to finish the Germans off in World War II. (This is a fact, as anyone wanting to run the numbers can easily determine. The Administration had a full month longer to get Obamacare right than the amount of time that elapsed from Pearl Harbor to VE Day.) The President ignored OReilly on this matter by simply dismissing criticism and saying we expected glitches and insisting that his Administration demanded and received full accountability, in all cases. Dana Milbank, for his part, cried foul when OReilly asked, in a roundabout fashion, if the infamous Obama declaration If you like your current health care plan, you can keep it, had been the biggest mistake of his Presidency.
Finally, the interview segued into the IRS corruption scandal. The President said last summer that the IRS targeting conservative groups was outrageous, and that he would get to the bottom of the mess. In the interview, the President sang a different tune. He insists that a careful study of the matter would turn up not a smidgen of corruption. He has no investigative summary or evidence to back up that statement, but simply changed the subject and claimed that the whole matter was a creation of Fox News. The petulant President stated These kinds of things keep on surfacing, in part, because you and your TV station will promote them. Dana Milbank avoided addressing the Presidents evasive responses, but gave him high marks for his casual dress, and for the fact that he occasionally smiled while bashing Fox News.
OReilly scored something of a split decision when he compelled the President to backtrack somewhat on his 2008 vow to fundamentally transform America. In response to a written question from a viewer, OReilly asked the President why he would want to fundamentally transform a nation that had given him so much. Obama answered that a fundamental transformation was unnecessary; but that the country needed to even out the disparities between the haves and the have-nots, never mind that the disparities between the wealthy and the poor have increased faster under Obama than they have increased at any time since the mid-1960s. Dana Milbanks slant on this subtheme was that the fact that OReilly and Fox News still existed proved that Obama did not attempt to fundamentally transform the nation. Yes, sending ones media critics off to the gulag would be a transformation that would leave many Americans quite uncomfortable.
Mr. Milbank spends the great majority of his column space deriding conservatives for, as he puts it, descending down the road to Obama hysteria. In this instance Milbank is channeling his inner Charles Krauthammer, recalling, no doubt, that the redoubtable Mr. Krauthammer diagnosed what he called Bush Derangement Syndrome back in 2005. This nervous condition caused liberals to change from Dr. Henry Jekyll to Mr. Edward J. Hyde, at the mere mention of George W. Bush. Milbank is stealing a page from the Krauthammer playbook. In any event, Milbank lectures OReilly for being disrespectful to the President. One does not remember the Washington Post columnists expressing any unease at the disrespect journalists showed for George W. Bush. Katie Couric chided and corrected the President openly on CBS News during her face-to-face interview with Bush in 2006. Those readers of a certain vintage might remember the glee that members of the fourth estate displayed when Sam Donaldson showed open disrespect toward President Reagan. Dana Milbank, for his own part, shows nothing but disrespect for all Republicans, including recently referring to the GOP as The Stupid Party,again lifting someone elses idea, in this case John Stuart Mills description of the nineteenth century British Tories.
What we have here is a classic case of the liberals circling the wagons because one of their icons is coming under fire, and they dont know what else to do. This has happened before when the liberal flavor of the month turns out to leave a bad taste. Back in 1984 the Left told the American people that the Democratic Partys woefully unqualified Vice-Presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferarro, was a rough diamond who could capably step-in for the President in case of a national emergency. In 1992 we were told that Bill Clinton was the answer to all our national ills, with columnist Mary McGrory actually comparing the Clintons to the Holy Family, in a December, 1992 column. After the sheen wore off of Bill Clinton the media changed focus and told us that Hillary Clinton was the smartest woman in history, a veritable Joan of Arkansas, and the next great hope for America. This refrain is being sung once again by the groupies who forgot their heroine back in 2008, but are now forgiven their earlier transgressions and are back in the fold.
We have seen the same treatment meted out to Barack Obama since his appearance on the national stage in 2004. He has been the beneficiary of good press bordering on adoration. A fawning media protect and actually front for him as a favored son. They willfully misrepresent his extremist ideology; they ignore his unsavory associates, and have never questioned his meager qualifications for the most demanding office in the world. They will also continue to fabricate favorable outcomes to every Obama initiative, no matter how ghastly the actual result. This media hagiography has now reached a new low with Dana Milbank and the Washington Post attacking Fox News for daring to ask the President straight questions, and defending Mr. Obamas refusal to answer. The only question still open is in the court of public opinion. Are the American people still buying this media fantasy?
To put an even finer point on it, I’m sure 0bama would rather go up against a self-promoting blowhard like 0’Reilly than a serious reporter like Brett Baier or James Rosen. Nothing about this interview had anything to do with “courage.”
Obama picks(no one forced him) one of the hardest jobs in the world and is a bucket load of fail ,well D’oh
In Britain, prime ministers get grilled routinely by parliament. They are expected to engage in political combat. Its just part of the job.
I do my best to disrespect the illegal alien squatting in the white hut every time that i can!
Milbank, another ignorant liberal who is not interested in truth.
Now that’s Funny!
As a patriotic American, I can only pray that our POTUS did not suffer infected gluteal abrasions from the intense osculatory efforts of BORe, whom I suspect carries a rosary with Obama at the end.
No need for such reticence FRiend.
You are among other patriots and truth seekers here at FR.
The next time feel free to just open up and tell us how you really feel.
It was never a problem when “our Pravda media” disrespected RR, Bush 1 and GWB. Obama deserves no respect.
“disrespecting is not properer English”
????duh, hey professor what word is “properer”.
During the G. W. Bush Presidency, Dana Milbank was probably the most extreme of the mainstream media reporters in his open disrespect for President Bush.
We need to keep this straight ....Bush is Bad / Obama is good
I wonder/s how Milbank felt about Reagan’s treatment at the hands of Sam Donaldson.
Where are all of the concern from Milbank and company for the death threats and vicious posts about a sitting president, e.g. Bush?
Their poor leader in chief was asked a couple of real questions and the leftist earth moves under them!
How funny to watch!
Still trying to track down "properer" though.
I’m sorry, tell me again what these whiners were and have been doing to GWB before and since he took the oath of office? I had to walk away, because I didn’t want to be accused of elder abuse, from a leftist hag at the dog park because she was still ranting about GWB five years after he left office, but nobama can do no wrong , it’s all the Republicans fault.
:-)
Imagine what the media would have said if Bush had complained about not getting fair coverage.....
That is correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.