WhatFinger


Pathetic.

Obama to O'Reilly: People only think stuff is wrong because 'your channel' keeps telling them that



I wondered why Obama agreed to do an interview with O'Reilly. It's not his usual M.O, which would be to pick a friendly propagandist to toss him softballs. Question answered: He decided he needed to pick a fight with someone so he could get his left-wing admirers cheering.

And specifically, he decided he needed to take the opportunity to blame Fox News for every problem he's having: Now that it's established, watch to see if Obama and crew repeat the no-one-would-have-a-problem-with-me-if-not-for-Fox-News narrative in the days ahead (to be quickly followed by sycophants at Slate, Salon, New Republic, etc.). Establishing a political narrative is the most Obamaesque rationale for sitting down with O'Reilly in the first place. You can tell by the look on his face that Obama is itching for a fight.

Support Canada Free Press


I did think it was interesting that, when O'Reilly asked why Obama didn't fire Sebelius, he didn't respond with any sort of defense of her performance - only saying he's focused on fixing it and not on meting out consequences for people's failures. That's a dodge, since Obama never fires anyone for performance if he can possibly avoid it, but if he really thought Sebelius was doing a bang-up job you'd think he would say so. All told, this interview didn't shed much light on anything. O'Reilly did a good job of not letting Obama off the hook when he claimed HealthCare.gov is now working great, which Fox News further reports today that it clearly isn't. There wasn't time to get into all the other problems with ObamaCare, although Obama should have been pinned down on people's soaring premiums. As for Obama's denial of Benghazi lies and IRS corruption ("not a smidgeon of corruption," Obama claimed), Obama absurdly claims that because "there have been multiple hearings" that somehow means no one did anything wrong. What the hearings have demonstrated is that members of his administration have utter disdain for the effort to get at the truth. There's really not much you can do in a 10-minute interview, which of course is one of the limitations of anything you can get the White House to agree to. The problems with ObamaCare alone could fill two hours, and Obama would never subject himself to really intense, prosecutorial-style questioning by an interviewer who had the freedom to doggedly demand the facts on such an issue. And that's before you get into persistently slow GDP growth, mounting debt, falling labor force participation, record food stamp dependency, continued foot-dragging on the Keystone XL pipeline. Honestly, the only time I've ever seen Obama really forced to answer in this way was the first debate with Romney, and as we saw, the media rallied behind him and pulled him out of the fire. I suppose O'Reilly did as good a job as anyone can do given the constraints of the format. A lot of people didn't care for O'Reilly's declaration at the end, "I think you have your heart in the right place." I think the statement is defensible only in this sense: Obama is so totally steeped in left-wing, big-government ideology that he truly believes every defense of this ideology - including lies that are told to defend the administration's political interests - somehow accrues to the benefit of the people, since in the mind of the committed left-winger a critic of the state is the true enemy and must be defeated by any means necessary. That also explains why the IRS is operating as it is as the moment, and why Obama thinks this represents not even a smidgeon of corruption. That's a pretty twisted way of having one's heart "in the right place," but that's what I think O'Reilly probably meant


View Comments

Dan Calabrese -- Bio and Archives

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain

Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.


Sponsored