Flashback: When Baier sat down with Bush
March 18, 2010 6:09 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
It's like it was a completely different Fox News correspondent. It's weird.
The glaring double standard Baier used to interview President Obama this week for a contentious battle, as opposed to how Baier interviewed President Bush in late 2008 for a softball fest, is just remarkable.
As Think Progress noted:
Baier’s tenacity, however, seems reserved only for Democratic presidents. His interviews with President Bush were far friendlier, with questions like, “What are you reading now?” and “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?”
MSNBC's Countdown provided the interruption highlights from the Obama interview:
I counted 19 separate interruptions, although your total may differ slightly.
But back to the Baier/Bush summit, from December, 2008. Interruptions? Hard-pressing follow-ups? Please. Unlike this week's combative, in-your-face showdown, Baier's sit-down with Bush was silky smooth, as the interviewer deftly guided the president towards mostly feel-good, RNC pastures and allowed Bush to pontificate at will.
It's true that the circumstances for the POTUS interviews were different. Obama stands at a pivotal political moment of his first term and is trying to push his signature legislative effort past the finish line, while Bush was literally a lame duck, with just over four weeks left on his Oval Office watch. So yes, I understand that in theory the interviews might be different in substance.
Then again, Bush at the time was retiring as the most unpopular president in modern American history (like, since the invention of polling), and Baier could have really pressed Bush to explain what had gone so horribly -- and historically -- wrong during his time in office. He could have asked how was it that Bush had managed to lose 70 points off his approval ratings while serving as president.
But Baier did no such thing. Based on the transcripts, I can't find a single time Baier clearly, or rudely, interrupted Bush.
And the questions! Oh my. Some highlights from Baier's Bush tour de force:
Do you worry at all that the incoming administration will undo some of the things that you say have kept America safe?
And:
What's the thing you're most looking forward to post-White House?
And:
Do you think that you have governed as a conservative?
And
You think you're a Reagan conservative or a Barry Goldwater conservative?
It's almost like Fox News treats Democrats and Republicans differently. It's weird.
UPDATED: According to Baier, it was all Obama's fault. He was stalling and "running out the clock" with his answers. (i.e. He wasn't giving the answers Baier wanted.)
That defense though, is absurd considering it was a nearly 20-minute interview with Obama and Baier started interrupting Obama right from the outset. Meaning, Baier began interrupting Obama before the president even had a chance to (theoretically) stall.
Mr. News
This site has a great video showing the contrast between how Bret Baier interviewed President Bush & President Obama.
Mr. News
But the disreputable way that FoxNew's Baier treated President Obama was horrific and shameful.
Thanks for contrasting them.
This is the final outrage.
Baier reports the white house cut down the interview time from 25 minutes to 20 minutes, and then down to 15 minutes right before they started recording. Is that fair?
By the way, that was sarcasm just in case some people didn't catch it. How about answering my question, what are you supposed to do when someone refuses to answer your question right from the start (you just let them get away with it and talk you out of time)?
Yes, you are. What I noticed was that President Obama only was able to answer one or two questions. Baier interrupted the President before he could answer the other questions.
The President does not vote on bills, nor can he prevent a vote from occurring. He can veto a vote, but he cannot introduce or vote on legislation.
Yes, it is fair. There couldn't be any circumstances that might make the PRESiDENT OF THE UNITED STATES have to cut short a cable news interview. [snark]
That question changes the focus from Baier's rudeness towards the President. Whether or not the White House trimmed 10 minutes off of the interview or not, it does not excuse the disrespectful way Baier treated the President of the United States.
And Obama is not in charge of how Congress manages their business, you know!
And Baier was interrupting before he knew anything about how Obama was going to respond fully!
There is no reason you need to describe unrelated portions of the healthcare bill to answer a question about the "up-or-down" vote that Obama himself said, he is clearly interested and invested in the process. Healthcare as a whole may be complex, there are lots of things that are complex, but the questions that were asked were pretty specific (the up-or-down vote, the budget, special deals). If a longer answer was necessary for some reason, there are ways you could answer the question that would signal you are arriving at a point (start by addressing and interpreting the question), but Obama (with the exception of the special deals) only reverted to talking points that we have all heard before. I believe the White House seriously thought they had a chance at making this a venue for reaching out their talking points to new listeners, but that's not what reporting is for.
Baier was making an attempt, as far as I could tell, at keeping the answers on topic and trying to move through as many questions as could be clearly answered, and a few were, some weren't going anywhere. I was certainly glad he tried to get real answers instead of unrelated non-answers, personally, it was rather aggravating hearing the same talking points. I don't care about it, I just want to know what you think about the vote (since you have demonstrated ho invested you are in the process)!
It's a tough position to be in for sure: Do you press for faster answers or let him talk through the entire (not very lengthy, it was supposed to be 25 minutes) interview and get in maybe two questions?
Obama was not trying to craft soundbites - he was trying to debunk some of the false talking points about this HCR bill and inform the few people who watch FoxNews who have open minds and can be convinced by evidence that the nonsense they've been hearing from FoxNews is just that, nonsense!
But, troll that you are, you try to turn THIS around to a bogus personal attack on Obama because you can't defend the rude and disrespectful way that Baier behaved.
And there sure IS a very good reason to do EXACTLY what Obama did when confronted with loaded, disingenuous questions. Those questions were process-oriented, since FoxNews knows that many of their listeners mistrust the ways Washington works, and so they have harping on those things. Why? Because they can't win if they were try to actually argue against HCR on the merits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So, when the FoxNews interviewer tried to propagandize, Obama, justifiably, fought back with substance instead of process arguments.
Obama NEVER reverted to BOGUS talking points, which are the kind YOUR side uses. It turns out that there are FACTUAL points that should be made about the bill. Saying THOSE is NOT using 'talking points'. You're a dishonest hack. They weren't "talking points", but that's what YOUR ears heard. Well, that's the fault of YOUR ears, and the stuff that's inbetween them, NOT Obama's fault, you doofus.
And there IS going to be an up or down vote. It's a BOGUS TALKING POINT that there's NOT going to be a vote.
The self-executing rule makes ONE vote count for both the core bill AND the revisions that are in an amendment to that bill.
So, given that the "no up or down vote" thing is a FALSE TALKING POINT, why would you want Obama to address it? Why would ANY legit news organization's interviewer raise a bogus talking point? Huh?
And, HAD the jerkoff Baier NOT interrupted Obama so many times (I counted 20), a lot more questions COULD have been asked.
Again, this poster is CLEARLY not interested in participating in a rational, fair debate on the topic. Please don't feed the troll.
Translation: do as I say, not as I do.
Don't feed the trolls! Dolly already has a full banquet laid out for them!
It must be very lonely for you, Dolly, being the only one capable of identifying and responding to the trolls. How on earth do you cope with that tremendously burdensome responsibility?
He did revert to bogus talking points, right from the very first question! Sorry Mr. President, but touting the benefits of your proposal is NOT an adequate answer to "are you avoiding a straight up-or-down vote on the senate bill?" You have explained what your bill does literally hundreds of times the problem, I can assure you, is not that people fail to understand what it is going to do. You don't need to explain what the bill does to respond to a question about voting, the contents has nothing to do with it! Surely the president would understand if you have 15 minutes, you need to stay on topic? The only way I can explain the answers the way he did is (1) he seriously thinks that the American people don't understand the bill, or (2) he was trying to run Bret Baier out of time. Or both.
Bret Baier knew beforehand that the President gives lengthy answers...what more did you expect from a college professor? So in that case, when you're out and about, if you ask a question and they don't answer it in the first sentence, cut them off repeatedly, that's how it's done apparently. That's the most unprofessional interview I've ever seen with any President...that he even went on Fox News surprised me and for 15 minutes at that, only to still be interrupted and the right wingers will cheer it on "Get em Bret" "Grill 'em" so on and so forth speaks a lot to their mentality.
I suspect some vile wizard was responsible for this transformation!
David Cross on "literally."
That is completely racist first of all. Even today, I cannot believe the number of people who voted for Mr. Obama with the mentality, "Oh, why not, he'll be the first black president!" For future reference, in the interest of making the wisest decisions possible, it is VERY important not to think with your feelings, but instead with your logic. Furthermore, sir or madam, it is truly upsetting seeing people so desperate to be politically correct. He's not completely African, and anyhow, most of us paid absolutely no attention to his race, but rather focused on his policies, whether we liked them or not.
Secondly, Mr. Baier did NOT treat him as less than an American. It is important to understand that the political world is a cutthroat place, where people lie all the time. The objective of Fox News is to get to the bottom of things, and to give news fair and balanced. Baier's actions were appropriate considering the fact that Mr. Obama has, in the past, promised us transparency, but today has nothing to show for his promises. After all, the President had, during his campaign, promised that all of his bills would be posted online, and that dealings of Congress would be on C-SPAN (where they are not). Bret Baier's interview at least revealed that Mr. Obama himself doesn't know the complete content of the bill, but nonetheless intends to pass it now, and read it later.
Surely the point of such a sit down, one on one interview is that it allows for a less hectic dynamic and, thus, for a more expansive discourse. Talking over the response is not only discourteous, it renders the interview purposeless