If there were a Nobel Prize for Gaffetastic-ity…
Ed Morrissey has done a terrific job at Hot Air chronicling President Obama’s malapropisms, blunders, fantasy math, and history-flubbing with his “Obamateurisms” series. It’s a gaffe-a-minute with the supposedly silver-tongued emir of eloquence.
If there were a Nobel Prize for Gaffetastic-ity, Obama would be a deserving recipient (for once).
Now comes this bizarro statement from tonight’s interview with FNC’s Bret Baier — a hands-down winner for tomorrow’s Obamateurism of the Day:
Transcript:
BAIER: Do you know which specific deals are in or out, as of today?
OBAMA: I am certain that we’ve made sure, for example, that any burdens on states are alleviated, when it comes to what they’re going to have to chip in to make sure that we’re giving subsidies to small businesses, and subsidies to individuals, for example.
BAIER: So the Connecticut deal is still in?
OBAMA: So that’s not — that’s not going to be something that is going to be in this final package. I think the same is true on all of these provisions. I’ll give you some exceptions though.
Something that was called a special deal was for Louisiana. It was said that there were billions — millions of dollars going to Louisiana, this was a special deal. Well, in fact, that provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe, that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help. Louisiana, obviously, went through Katrina, and they’re still trying to deal with the enormous challenges that were faced because of that.
(CROSS TALK)
OBAMA: That also — I’m giving you an example of one that I consider important. It also affects Hawaii, which went through an earthquake. So that’s not just a Louisiana provision. That is a provision that affects every state that is going through a natural catastrophe.
Now I have said that there are certain provisions, like this Nebraska one, that don’t make sense. And they needed to be out. And we have removed those. So, at the end of the day, what people are going to be able to say is that this legislation is going to be providing help to small businesses and individuals, across the board, in an even handed way, and providing people relief from a status quo that’s just not working.
Cassy Fiano and Allahpundit intrepidly attempt to decipher:
Apparently, there was a devastating earthquake in Hawaii that we all somehow missed.
Oh, wait, no. That’s right. There was no earthquake, and Obama is just totally clueless, as usual. In fact, the last earthquake in Hawaii to cause any deaths at all was in 1975, and two people died.
In any case, why is he using this argument, anyways? He’s turned this health care bill into a one-size-fits-all solution for everything. Not only will it fix our health care, but it will apparently create jobs and give disaster relief around the country!
…Update (AP): …My guess is Obama meant to say that Hawaii went through a tsunami caused by the quake in Chile and got distracted in his irritation at Baier. But who knows what goes on in his mind at this point? This is a guy who thinks universal health care is going to reduce the deficit.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Choosing Life and Beating the Odds
February 11, 2012 11:50 AM by Doug Powers
29 CommentsObama’s fraudulent abortion mandate “accommodation” Updated: Prez condemns “cynical” opposition
February 10, 2012 10:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
244 Comments‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
February 10, 2012 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
150 CommentsFormer Democrat Rep. Regrets Vote for Obamacare Due to Contraceptive Coverage
February 7, 2012 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
How to Make a Liberal Politician Stand Up Against Intrusive Government
February 6, 2012 04:28 PM by Doug Powers
95 Comments
Your Friday IRS regulation dump: Obamacare’s job-killing medical device tax
February 3, 2012 04:21 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
The SIGA scandal: Calls for investigation mount
January 27, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
So long, farewell, DLTDHYOTWO: Ben Nelson retires
December 27, 2011 02:05 PM by Michelle Malkin
96 Comments
Categories: Health care
Patterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooksPundit & Pundette
» King Barack vs. the NonconformistsJustOneMinute
» Cat Blogging In A Harsh New LightNRO
» The Church of Obama
Brett Baier can do what he wants. Frankly I would not have. It is his job to end the Obama filibustering.
I was responding to your assertion,
Just web search “contentious Bush interview” or “contentious Clinton interview.” Lots there.
Frost-Nixon ring a bell? Ever see a Dan rather interview of Reagan or either President Bush? In 1988 Rather got into a shouting match during an interview with then VP George HW Bush.
Again, my contention is had Obama been properly vetted by a dispationate press and not a group of cheerleading enablers he would have never even been nominated, much less elected.
Given Obama’s past, if you redacted his name and gave personal information over to the FBI, based on their findings he would be denied a security clearance.
Bret was spot on!!! Bho took lying to a fine science. He has to lie, deceive and spin because the public would reject his true agenda. Bho made a huge mistake going on FOX, especially after his administration publicly slammed the network for so long. He just can’t snow the FOX viewers the way he can snow his base. The interview demonstrated just how little integrity he has. He is a traitor to the essence of our republic and to the Constitution, to which he swore. When can he be impeached?
FlyOverMan, you are correct:
My feelings exactly.
something tells me ole zig would be quite happy living in a tyranny. He does not understand the role of the press in a free society.
zyzzyg, but you really know why … that saying … something like ..
“Better to ask for forgiveness than permission.” And respect for the office even if it is 2ndary to informing us of the President’s beliefs.
And possibly, down the road an African American who has shown his/her commitment to the constitution and love of this country (regardless of party) would have been elected. BHO has not done any favors to the African American community.
Hey, just because you missed it doesn’t mean we aren’t devasted. Where’s my billion dollars?
Yeah – he couldn’t even spell Syracuse correctly when they photographed him signing the March Madness basketball pick sheet! What an odumbo! These are same guys who literally crucified Bush for “spelling”. Gag me.
Which you used incorrectly.
A fair point. Thank you for taking my post seriously.
Yes, there is substance and it can be achieved with a variety of styles. I am thinking longer term. Bret entered the interveiw in an adversarial manner. The proof of that were his closing words.
I am thinking that I would have liked to have had future interveiws and what chance is that ever happening again? My hope is that it does despite, how this one went.
Bret could have been tough and not humble, persistent without interrupting. The substance of the conversation will certainly be dissected. Yet, it is the style that allows the White House to now say, ‘see, I told you so. Fox has an agenda.’
Yes, have an agenda (everyone pretty much has one). Your approach can be confrontational or it can be more subtle.
Absolutely, take Pres Obama to task. Challenge his policies. Get to the substance, but style matters, as well.
Bret’s style was off, and that is why he apologized.
Sometimes I’m tough in meetings – that doesn’t mean that I do anything wrong – even if sometimes I apologize for being tough to make the person feel better.
Bret’s style was great. There was no need for him to apologize.
Yes, I don’t recall Pres Obama saying those words in the interview with Bret.
Is zyzzyg trying to plough us under? Will we soon see his/her true colours? Is he/she endeavouring to create discord where once there was harmony (or should that be harmouny?)?
I disagree. Pres Obama has been taken to task by both the left and the right in the media. And yes, even on the issue of healthcare.
Did someone in the media really say that Pres Obama ‘tore Fox to shreds’? Or, are you speculating and exagerrating for effect?
Much more by the latter and very little by the former.
Whatever, DuhOne was taken to the woodshed by Bret last night and it apparently got your thong in a wad!
Personally, I was glad to see someone stand up to his dissembling and deception. He didn’t answer the question and merely kept going back to his
talkingcampaigning points and you don’t like it when someone does what needs to be done to EVERY politician (left and right) who doesn’t answer the d@mn question!I hope someone does throw a shoe at him during a press conference, it would take him down a notch or two (not in his eyes, of course).
No doubt the Secret Service makes all reporters remove their shoes before they go into the WH Press Room.
I refuse to watch Olberwoman, SeeBS, or Chris “the Tingler” Matthews, so you would have to inform me what they might say. However, given their collective infatuation with DuhOne, I can only imagine what they thought of the Bret’s interview.
Thank you, but our incomes have been reduced 3000%! We did save millions of jobs though. Please send billions of dollars so the swine flu pandemic won’t kill 10,000 like the tornado did in Kansas. I’m postponing my trip to my old homeland until the kids are on vacation again – I mean, until a more appropriate time in light of the devastation here.
Nope. The precise questions are not prescreened, however specific reporters are called upon for various reasons, typically because they will ask about a specific topic the WH wants to address. Yeah, it is very near Kabuki Theater.
Yes, go ahead and ask the questions, but don’t interrupt. Ask the question again. Be persistent and be respectful.
You may not have noticed, but I have not insulted anyone, called anyone names, launched a rant or slung an epiteth, but I have repeatedly asked, in one form or another, ‘Why did Bret apoligize if he was not wrong’?
Would it be fair to say that Bret and I have something in common? That we would like our questions answered? Heck, everyone would like their questions answered. The difference is our style.
Will you answer the question?
Did Bret apologize because he knew that he was wrong, disrespectful, and continually interrupted the President of the United States?
The liberal media, all media for that matter, does what it does. Go figure.
Asking the questions or interrupting was long overdue?
And, it was a fail for Fox. It allows the WH to advance their theory that Fox is not fair and balanced, but has an agenda.
zyzzyg said:
I will answer your observations with something I was able to read, this part of his record was clear.
“He associated with bigots, racists, terrorists, America-haters and others, which citizens of the greatest country in the history of the world would almost automatically avoid. He had a record of radical leftism and liberalism and one of the most highly partisan records. He broke key campaign promises even before the campaign was over, such as his promise to take public funding for his campaign. He showed a propensity to prevaricate, as when he claimed to have never really heard the radical views of his pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright, who was also his close associate. His record revealed no substantial accomplishments, but an opportunist who merely used his positions as jumping off to the next occupational advancement. He arrived in the Senate, and almost immediately started running for the presidency, leaving behind a legacy of virtually no accomplishment. He had a record of saying what voters wanted to hear, despite his record, his associates, and his real values and views. During the campaign and during his presidency, he has lied on almost every important occasion. He knows his friends in the mainstream media won’t blow the whistle on him.”
Well this time at least one media outlet did what needed to be done.
zyzzyg: FIFY
BTW, if at first you don’t succeed and the one being interviewed still doesn’t answer the question and tries to repeat the same, tired answer by running down the same old rabbit trail, you have to cut him off and redirect him — or else you are wasting everyone’s time (including the one being interviewed).
If he truly wants to communicate with the people, DuhOne needs to get out of the campaign mode and talk real-world talk, not rhetoric.
Go on, nail49–get with the programme…
It’s a bloody, buggery cock-up of global proportions!
spaceycakes: I love it when you talk dirty!
Incorrect.
Throwing a shoe and/or bellegerantly interrupting are wrong anytime.
Bret Baier’s interview was classic: a textbook example of what journalism is supposed to be all about – asking our leaders the tough questions and pressing for answers!
FNC has not only scored an interview that everyone is talking about (garnering them a truckload of free publicity) but has proven why it is cable’s news leader. Even FNC’s critics in the MSM are lauding both Fox and Baier for practicing real, probing journalism in conducting the interview.
And as both a Southerner and former football player, Baier’s “no-hard-feelings” words at the end of the interview were to be expected and amounted to little more than an obligatory courtesy.
Kudos to Baier, FNC and Roger Ailes!
True. Any interveiwer can do what they want. How they come off and whether they apologize afterwards is an indication of how well the interview went.
My statement is based on my memory. My memory. If I do not remember something. I do not remember it. Another poster mentioned the shoe throwing at Pres Bush. Yep, I remember that and it wasn’t a one on one interveiw.
Ummmm, OK. Though I disagree. To me it was less about his being interviewed than it was about the Iraq War (and, Sen Clinton’s support of it).
A bit of a tangent. And I disagree with your assertion. No doubt Rep Massa, as a military officer, had a clearance eventhough he was touchy feely. Yep, even I have a security clearance eventhough in college I did some silly things. Few of us are far from perfect and we each have our flaws. Sometimes it is not what about what you did, but what you do with it afterwards.
You ought stop listening to ‘something’. The role of the press is not to be disrespectful. It isn’t necessary when the press is tough and not humble, persistent and not duplicitous.
The press is a good thing when they do good. And, interrupting is not a good thing. That is why Bret apologized. He realized he did not do a good thing.
Very well. Bret needs forgiveness because he did something wrong.
The President’s beliefs can be determined without interruption. Give him enough rope, the viewing public will know when he is done.
It seems as if “zyzzyg” keeps going on
about the style of the interview while
others keep commenting on the content.
Didn’t we already make that mistake last election?
I thought the interview was conducted with great politeness – in spite of Obama’s provocative refusal, time after time, to answer straight questions.
Baier was entirely correct to interrupt at several points when the President was so clearly evading the question, deliberately waffling to lose time. Baier’s “apology” for interrupting was a gracenote – he had every reason to interrupt.
If Obama ever had to face a full-on press conference instead of the usual lapdogs, he would be torn apart. Politely.
And if he had to face anything like the UK PM’s Question Time – he would be laughed out of the Chamber.
Meanwhile, my heart bleeds for all the poor sufferers of the Hawaii earthquake.
No, Ziggy, being ‘disrespectful’ is precisely the role of a free press.
Disrespect is in the eye of the beholder. Adoring followers always consider serious grilling of their leaders to be ‘disrespectful.’
You argue like you’re Chinese.
Well, how does that work unless he or his staff know what the question is going to be? Or are the reporters restricted to some degree of narrowness in their questions? Either way, Obama was working from talking points rather than a command of the subjects. Unless obfuscation and filibustering are considered command of the subject.
Part of persistence is getting the questions answered, which Baier was determined to do, and Obama was determined not to do. As for respect, it goes both ways, and it was equally disrespectful of Obama not to answer the questions of Baier and inform the viewers.
Well, not having seen said apology, or having any inkling of Baier’s reasoning for doing so, on the basis of the interview, I would say the apology was unwarranted. Getting answers is his job, and Obama, since he works for us, is necessarily obligated to provide those answers.
See above. I might go for mildly disrespectful, but wrong? No. Obama would have bloviated for the entire interview if Baier had not taken command. Obama could have gained respect by having actual knowledge of the proposed bill and its consequences. His sidestepping showed that this was not the case.
The leftward bias of the so called mainstream media created the need for Fox. The results (viewership) prove that. Reporters, as well as scientists, are obligated to be completely objective. That is the real failure in what is called journalism today.
Asking the questions. The interrupting came about out of the necessity for getting actual answers to the questions. Any good reporter does that.
As you say, the media does what it does. As I say, their subjectivity demanded the creation of a balancing force, Fox News. Fair and balanced may be in the eye of the beholder, but simply being critical of the White House, which all reporters should instinctively do until satisfied that the information coming out of the WH is complete and accurate. The real “fail” of the media is not to be critical (and this can be both positive and negative) of any politician, source, or witness they are interviewing.
Bret came off awesome!
Apologies are no indications of how well the interview went – that’s a silly comment.
Right! Baier was being graceful – something southerners have a reputation for exhibiting, and something with which Democrats have little knowledge.