Everybody's talking about DogeFest.

pic.twitter.com/WvcbbXGYTd

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 28, 2025

ADDED: Listen to the clear succinct — almost robotic — voice of OPM Senior Advisor Anthony Armstrong (at 17:35):

"President Trump has been very clear: Scalpel and not hatchet. That's the way it's getting done, once those decisions are made. There's a very heavy focus on being generous, being caring, being compassionate, and treating everyone with dignity and respect."

Getting testy.

“Testy” is this week’s “sharp as a tack” https://t.co/DoQgTOxKRN

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 17, 2024

 

Why "testy"? Of course, I don't believe these writers independently arrived at the same word. I presume they got the same message. But still, the message-writer chose that word, so the word is important, albeit not as important as it would have been if these characters had all determined on their own that "testy" was the mot juste.

"Testy" might make you think of testicle, but the etymology is a word for head — "teste." Think "headstrong." An obsolete meaning — I'm reading the OED — is "Of headstrong courage; impetuous; precipitate, rash." But the current meaning is: "Prone to be irritated by small checks and annoyances; impatient of being thwarted; resentful of contradiction or opposition; irascible, short-tempered, peevish, tetchy, 'crusty.'"

That's not very presidential! 

Not everyone decided she was testy.

"Kamala Harris repeatedly pivots to Trump when grilled on immigration record in Fox News interview."

I'm linking to the Fox News report on the interview.

It was horrible to attempt to watch. I got about halfway through. I've been waiting for Harris to do a tough, challenging interview, and it was painful to watch the deflection and evasion. The main defense seemed to be to make Bret Baier look bad because he interrupted. Terrible.

"Vice President Kamala Harris has gone 86 days as the presumptive, and now, official Democratic nominee for president without holding an official press conference."

Says Fox News, just Fox News, but isn't it true?

It seems impossible. I'm reading about this and that podcast, and an occasional interview with a mainstream newsperson, such as Fox's Bret Baier coming up, but never a news conference. How is it possible to rise to the presidency without one attempt at handling a press conference?

"Candidates repeatedly disregarded the debate rules, with little in the way of an attempt to keep the proceedings on track."

"When candidates talked over moderators Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum as they tried to move on, the moderators often just relented and gave them the stage. But the problems were most evident in the moderators’ handling of hand-raising questions — a good and helpful entry at any debate. The first time they requested such responses, DeSantis objected to the format, and they let him do it, declining to make the request again. Later, they asked whether the candidates would support Trump in the general election if he is convicted. Only Christie and Hutchinson declined, but both DeSantis and Pence were slow to raise their hands. And for some reason, there was no follow-up with them."

 
In "The winners and losers from the first Republican debate" (WaPo), Aaron Blake counts Fox News among the losers.

In contrast to the loud chaos of the debate, there was the gentle fireside conversation between 2 calm men:

Ep. 19 Debate Night with Donald J Trump pic.twitter.com/ayPfII48CO

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) August 24, 2023

Journalism question: What does it mean to "confirm" a story?

She's a class act, but did she "confirm" the substance of the story, or did she simply hear the same allegation from the same sources for the Atlantic? If the latter, then it's not confirmation, it's repetition.

— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) September 5, 2020

Does Joe Biden ever take questions?

I wondered... and did this Google search:



I was amused — in a dark, scary way — by the first headline that came up — "Trump needs to stop making fun of Joe Biden’s mental lapses" in The Washington Post. I want Joe Biden's brain tested by questioning him in front of us, the people, so we can judge for ourselves. But the WaPo piece — a column by Marc A. Thiessen — looks like another example of what, for me, is making much of the news unfit for human consumption. Whatever happens is turned into a way to say Trump is bad.

Thiessen's argument is twofold: 1. Trump is hurting his own cause by lowering expectations for Biden (because now Biden can be perceived as doing well if he does nothing more than "string together a few coherent sentences"), and 2. It's "offensive to seniors." Thiessen advises Trump to shut up about the problem and just "let Biden continue to show" his deficiencies. Well, that would be better, but the press is protecting Biden! They're not putting him to the test.

The other link I clicked on from my search was: "Chris Wallace on Trump interview: He took all the questions, Biden hasn't faced the same scrutiny" (Fox News):

“The fact is, the president is out there. He's out there in this broiling heat with me for an hour, he took all the questions. You can like his answers or dislike them but he had answers and Joe Biden hasn’t faced that kind of scrutiny, hasn’t faced that kind of exposure,” Wallace told Fox News’ Bret Baier on Monday.

“You’ve got to feel at some point he’s going to come out from the basement ... he’s gonna have to be more exposed and take questions just as tough as the ones I asked this president,” Wallace said. “He’s gonna have to do it with a bunch of people and, of course, he’s going to have those three debates with the president and you know that the president can handle himself in these debates... I think there is an open question there, can Joe Biden do the same?”

Then Baier asked a question that tracks what Thiessen said in his column:

“Just from a political analysis standpoint, is there a danger here, going down this road?" Baier asked. “In other words, all Biden has to do is show up and the bar is very low for him to have a success.”

Wallace reveals this is the conventional opinion among Republicans:

Wallace responded, “That’s what a lot of Republican strategists are worrying about. If you set that bar, and the expectation so low for Biden... three presidential debates, if he shows up and doesn’t drool his supporters can say, ‘Well he had a good debate.’”

I'm suspicious of this line of reasoning, because Trump shutting up on this topic — his opponent's mental weakness — is also consistent with the massive collusion to protect Joe Biden. If Trump doesn't keep this subject going, it might allow the people to become complacent about the topic. Oh, Joe Biden, he's just, you know, the thing, you know the thing, the guy, the guy, you know, the guy that's not... you know... not Trump!

Trump's tweets this morning — upbeat and circumspect.

The morning, so far (click to enlarge and clarify):



He retweets his 2 tweets from yesterday morning, putting the delightful "Good Morning, Have A Great Day!" at the top. The other one is, "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN."

He retweets his short and sweet reaction to Barr's letter, "No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!"

Then there's a quote from Brett Baier: "'No matter your ideologies or your loyalties, this is a good day for America. No American conspired to cooperate with Russia in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 election, according to Robert Mueller, and that is good.' @BretBaier @FoxNews"

A headline from MSNBC: "Breaking News: Mueller Report Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy."

And the key line from Barr's letter: "The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump Campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump Campaign."

He's not gloating, he's not accusing, he's not angry, he's not running off at the mouth like that imaginary Trump of media fever dreams. He's upbeat and succinct, making America happy again.

And shame on you if it doesn't make you happy that the President of the United States isn't a Putin puppet!

Bret Baier confronts Comey.

Here's the whole thing:



Here's Baier summarizing the encounter:



This wasn't in Baier's summary, but it's something that interests me:

BAIER: "All right in the infamous Oval Office meeting with President Trump when he asked you to stay behind one-on-one. You write in the book that you felt awkward. You didn’t like it."

COMEY: "Correct."

BAIER: "You had been one-on-one with president Obama in the Oval Office?"

COMEY: "Correct."

BAIER: "But this was different."

COMEY: "Yeah. Because he booted out the attorney general of the United States who was lingering trying to stay."

BAIER: "As opposed to the presidential photographer who President Obama boots out?

COMEY: "Sure."

BAIER: "You say you didn’t push back when he said he hoped you could see your way clear of letting Flynn go that he was a good guy. Hoped you could let it go. You say you didn’t push back and he should have known that he couldn’t do that. All right. So let’s assume that’s true that he should have known. That is it possible there was another reason why you didn’t push back and that is that you wanted to keep your job?"

COMEY: "It’s possible but it’s not the case. At least I don’t remember thinking about that at the time."

On the Sunday morning shows, a lot of people who don't like Trump were offering Trump advice.

I can't believe any of it was good advice — unless it was good advice offered on the theory that Trump wouldn't trust them to give him good advice, so he might do the opposite. Everyone, it seemed, was telling Trump that he needs to stop defending himself against all the mud slung his way. He should stick to the real issues, you see, and not get distracted. So: Let everyone hit him and not fight back?

I'll just give one example. I watch all the shows, and it was getting to the point where we were laughing at the repetition of the don't-get-distracted advice from people who were obviously not Trump proponents. This one was on "Fox News Sunday," with Bret Baier questioning the Democratic strategist Joe Trippi.

BAIER:  You know, Joe, you saw Mike Pence.  He's been answering these questions about the allegations. 

Earlier on the show, Baier had interviewed Pence and referred to "the accusations" and "nine women with these allegations." He never said the word "sex" or "sexual assault" or "groping." We were supposed to know what he was talking about and (I guess) appreciate that he wasn't so crass as to mention sex.

I didn't go down the road too far, but, I mean, you have to think he's wincing on some of these answers or some of this campaigning about the accusers. 

JOE TRIPPI, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR:  Well, he has to be because part of the whole problem, the difference in the polling numbers, is women. And they've moved away from Trump, even groups that tend to be Republican with women. Moderate Republican women are moving away. And so, this isn't how you get them back. They're gettable because they've been voting Republican all these years. So, and they’ve got arguments. But the argument isn't to go after the accusers.  So, I think this is a -- that's what I think is going to be interesting about this debate.  Is that the Donald Trump that shows up that goes after the accusers and keeps giving Clinton this advantage or does he try to reach out to them?  That's what I think is going to be the key.

Trippi is just one example of that. It's like a memo went out: If Trump wants to win he needs to leave those accusers alone. Don't respond. But Trippi doesn't want Trump to win. 

ADDED: Trippi seems to assume that the only way for Trump to defend himself is to "go after" the women. Even though Trump's opponent has a record of attacking women who made sexual allegations against her husband, Trump could stress the unfairness of dropping these stories so late in the process. And there might be a way to connect this to the Rolling Stone trial that's starting tomorrow. Allegations can be false and the process can be unfair. That could inspire some empathy for the pugnacious billionaire. Who knows?

How will Clinton and Trump and their proxies talk about the Orlando shooting/terrorism?

We saw how the different political candidates talked about the San Bernardino massacre, which happened last December. As I remember it, roughly, Clinton and Obama centered on guns and lectured us about the need for gun control, and Republicans talked about immigration policy and Islamic extremism.

Now, closer to the election, what framework will be imposed? Something was learned from the politics around San Bernardino and the primary season is over, so I suspect that Democrats will not choose to emphasize gun control (unless this turns out to have been a lone mentally ill person). The Democrats may try to use the idea of an attack on a gay club to criticize Donald Trump for creating a divisive atmosphere of hate, even though none of his alleged hate-mongering has been about gay people. As for what Trump and his proxies will say, it depends on who the murderer turns out to be.

I'm going to watch all the Sunday morning talk shows, and I will update this post as I hear various statements. The previous post is for comments about the terrible incident itself. Forgive me for being so brutal as to go immediately to the effect on presidential politics, but please keep the comments here to this topic, which I think is important because — like the San Bernardino massacre (and even more than it) — this event is a skewing point in electoral politics, and everyone speaking for the campaigns knows it. Sympathy will be expressed, along with warnings to wait to hear the facts, but the politics are underway, and I'm going to tell you about what everyone does on the TV shows this morning.

1. "State of the Union" with Jake Tapper devoted nearly the entire show to news coverage of the event. In the final 5-minute segment. Tapper displayed the tweets from Donald Trump — "Really bad shooting in Orlando. Police investigating possible terrorism. Many people dead and wounded." — and Hillary Clinton — "Woke up to hear the devastating news from FL. As we wait for more information, my thoughts are with those affected by this horrific act. -H" Tapper noted that the "H" at the end of a tweet on Hillary Clinton's account indicates that "she herself wrote that tweet." After that the guest is the Republican Congressman Peter King, who knows the name of the shooter but won't say it and knows of indications of "Islamist leanings," but the discussion was focused on the facts of the incident.

2. "Fox News Sunday" with Bret Baier went straight to politics, with Senator Jeff Sessions as the Trump proxy and Senator Amy Klobuchar as the Clinton proxy. Sessions, asked about the Orlando incident, said it "certainly looks like... Islamic extremism" and stressed the need to "openly and directly" confront the extremist element within Islam, including restricting immigration. Baier prompted him to connect the incident to guns and to Clinton's support for gun control, and Sessions slotted in his talking point about the Supreme Court and the supposed precariousness of the Second Amendment individual right to bear arms. Klobuchar emphasized waiting for more information and the importance of not seeming to accuse all Muslims (and she credited Sessions for having said the same thing). She brought up guns only when Baier asked her, and then only to blandly reference common-sense limits that wouldn't infringe the gun rights that she assured us Clinton believes in.

3. "Meet the Press" began with news and news analysis, and that analysis went heavily into the subject of guns, how much damage one person could do in a crowded place with the kind of guns this murderer had. The name is now being said, Omar Mateen, and there are repeated references to the man's father saying that his son was recently enraged when he saw 2 men kissing. I get the sense that the show would like to forefront hatred of gay people and minimize the significance of his religion, which is Muslim. The show switches over to Chuck Todd with the this set up: "Obviously, there are many elements to the story, we don't want to play the politics too much... but obviously, this will play into the presidential elections." That's not in the official show transcript (here). I guess the show got re-edited. Todd credits Trump and Clinton with being low key, but complains about the excessively political tweets of other, unnamed, politicians and homes in on gun control.

4. The "Face the Nation" time slot was straight news, no political spinning.

5. "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos had by far the most coverage of the presidential campaign, with a pre-recorded interview from Paul Ryan (that's worth discussing, but didn't cover the incident) and interviews with Trump's man Manafort and with Bernie Sanders. But there was a panel in the end — transcript —that eventually touched on the incident in the way that the second paragraph of this post anticipated. Katrina Vanden Heuvel was attacking Donald Trump for his "fear mongering and exploiting racial anxieties and bigotry" and, bringing up the Orlando incident, she said:

Donald Trump's idea of a counterterrorism program is banning all Muslims, bombing all families in the Middle East, essentially [sic] -- ISIS families, and torturing -- I think the, you know, grief and anger today. But we can't lose sight of senseless gun violence and the gun epidemic in this country. 66 people killed in Chicago in May. Hillary Clinton has a very strong gun control program. Trump, he's tethered to the NRA. I think that has to be...

When I heard that I said out loud, "That does not help Hillary." Then Donna Brazile followed on with generic references to "mass shootings" (and not terrorism), and I was saying "This isn't what Hillary wants to hear." That set up Bill Kristol, who prefaced his remark with "Look, I am anti-Trump" and proceeded with what I consider absolutely apt political analysis:

[I]f this was an act of Islamic terrorism, whether a lone wolf, or perhaps a lot of lone wolves turn out to have connection abroad one way or the other.... But if he was motivated by Islamist jihadist ideology, these talking points are not going to work, it's going to -- Donald Trump, the best moment, I say this with regret, the moment that helped Trump win the nomination was the San Bernardino massacre and his calling for a ban of all Muslims, which is an insane -- bad public policy, undoable, and we shouldn't do it. Having said that, it helped him. And I think we shouldn't kid ourselves. And, frankly, if these are the Democratic talking points here, senseless gun violence, it's not senseless.

It's not senseless. That's right. It's the sense of some people who have a specific ideology of hate and violence. Blaming the guns was the Democrats' instinctive move last December after the San Bernardino massacre, and it was the wrong choice politically. Hillary needs to set herself up as a resolute fighter against terrorism, and I think she will. Obviously, Trump will. It would be stupid to cede that ground to him. But real left-wingers like Katrina Vanden Heuvel — not helping Hillary —  head directly to the their anti-gun safe space.

ADDED: As noted above, what showed on "Meet the Press" for me wasn't the same as the transcript. I'm reading that now. There was a panel with Tom Brokaw, Hugh Hewitt, Amy Walter, and Joy Reid. Tom Brokaw went first and said it didn't matter whether the facts end up showing that the shooting was "connected to some kind of an international group," because, for him, the problem is guns. Hewitt focused on ISIS, but Walter and Reid stuck with the gun theme. When Hewitt said, "ISIS would do this to a hundred million Americans if they could," Reid rejoined: "But so would white nationalists."

"I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities."

Said Donald Trump today, in a striking turnaround from last night's debate.

I'm glad to see that quick response to what I'd called "the most alarming thing in last night's GOP debate," in a post this morning. I said:

I have been seeing [these opinions from Trump before] all along, but the effect was heightened by the way Bret Baier framed it — in terms of the point of view of military personnel who are trained to resist illegal orders — and Trump's very severe tone when he said "They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me." That is, there may be law and there may be extensive training about law, but there's something special about Trump, or so he thinks. They’re not going to refuse me. In his mind, Trump trumps law.

I was disturbed by how many commenters on that post blithely embraced the notion that President Trump should boldly operate outside of the law in the war on terror. I guess there are quite a few people who are ready to jump to support Trump whatever he says, but now that Trump has backed off — and so quickly — what will you say? He left you hung out to dry. But if he was your man before, I'm going to bet he still is. One of Trump's many extraordinary powers is the power to change his positions without looking (to his admirers) weak or flipfloppy.

This was, for me — by far — the most alarming thing in last night's GOP debate.

From the transcript:

BAIER: Mr. Trump, just yesterday, almost 100 foreign policy experts signed on to an open letter refusing to support you, saying your embracing expansive use of torture is inexcusable. General Michael Hayden, former CIA director, NSA director, and other experts have said that when you asked the U.S. military to carry out some of your campaign promises, specifically targeting terrorists’ families, and also the use of interrogation methods more extreme than waterboarding, the military will refuse because they’ve been trained to turn down and refuse illegal orders. So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?

TRUMP: They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.

Fox News begins each of the 2 debates with a dramatic statement of a non-fact.

From the early debate (AKA the one with Carly Fiorina), Fox News's Bill Hemmer: "One year from now, a Republican nominee will be standing on this stage in this very same arena. That person is in Cleveland today."

From the main-event debate, Bret Baier: "Less than a year from now, in this very arena, one of these 10 candidates or one of the seven on the previous debate tonight will accept the Republican party's nomination."

It may be quite likely that the GOP nominee will be one of the individuals that stood last night on the glaring, makeshift stage of (the ridiculously named) Quicken Loans Arena. But it's not a fact. No one know what events will occur in the next year, changing the issues and the needs of the nation and the health and life of the candidates. And the largeness of the number 17 does not ensure that there will not be 18 or 20 or 30.

I know there's that other Fox show, "American Idol," where they bring out a bunch of pop singers and (try to) excite us with the announcement that one of them will be the next American Idol. There, it's true. The rules of the contest preclude new entrants. There can be no substitutions. This is your choice, America.

But the presidential election doesn't work that way. We had a whole bunch of characters — in 2 batches — on the stage last night. But you can have a large number of options and still not like any of them enough to keep you from wanting to go looking elsewhere.

At the Gridiron Dinner — a congregation of elite journalists and politicians — "Chris Cristie’s recent 'Bridge-gate' scandal got laughs."

WaPo reports:

Sung to the tune of Simon and Garfunkel’s “Feelin’ Groovy,” they lyrics, “Hello, Fort Lee/ How’s it flowing? /I’ve come to watch your gridlock growing,” were made particularly funny by use of sight gags — new Gridiron members Bret Baier of Fox News and NBC News Washington bureau chief Ken Strickland appeared onstage sporting an elaborate getup as the George Washington Bridge.

Also, John Kerry made the joke about Charlie Crist: "we Vietnam vets just call you ‘Agent Orange.’” Get it? It might be because he's from Florida, and oranges are one thing you associate with Florida, but WaPo informs us that orange must refer to his perennial tan. As for "Agent Orange" and the connection to Vietnam vets, WaPo says nothing, so here, I found this on Vietnam:

Bret Baier can't get Barack Obama to take a position on the "deem and pass."

Let's read the transcript:

BAIER: You have said at least four times in the past two weeks: "the United States Congress owes the American people a final up or down vote on health care." So do you support the use of this Slaughter rule? The deem and pass rule, so that Democrats avoid a straight up or down vote on the Senate bill?

OBAMA: Here's what I think is going to happen and what should happen. You now have a proposal from me that will be in legislation, that has the toughest insurance reforms in history, makes sure that people are able to get insurance even if they've got preexisting conditions, makes sure that we are reducing costs for families and small businesses, by allowing them to buy into a pool, the same kind of pool that members of Congress have.

So far, nothing but nonresponsive filler.

We know that this is going to reduce the deficit by over a trillion dollars. So you've got a good package, in terms of substance. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.

I don't care how much time he spends on it or whether the time he spends is spent worrying (or dithering or fretting or musing or calmly analyzing). The question is: Does he support it? If he means to say I have no position on the proposed procedural moves, then that's the answer. Say it!

(CROSS TALK)

OBAMA: What I can tell you is that the vote that's taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform. And if people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to be a vote for health care reform. And I don't think we should pretend otherwise.

(CROSS TALK)

OBAMA: Bret, let me finish. 

Let you finish obfuscating? This is all very Anne Elk ("Well, you may well ask what is my theory... you may well ask what it is, this theory of mine, well, this theory, that I have, that is to say, which is mine,... is mine.") So there will be a vote, but what kind of vote? Obama falls back on assertions that the bill will pass. Based on the current whip count, it looks like it won't, but he boldly characterizes those who are predicting failure as the pretenders. (He is The Great Pretender.)

If they don't, if they vote against, then they're going to be voting against health care reform and they're going to be voting in favor of the status quo. So Washington gets very concerned about these procedural issues in Congress. This is always an issue that's — whether Republicans are in charge or Democrats in charge — when Republicans are in charge, Democrats constantly complain that the majority was not giving them an opportunity, et cetera.

Yeah. Et cetera, indeed. As if procedure is a frivolous sidetrack that only trivial or devious people care about. Barack Obama was a constitutional law professor. Much of constitutional law is about procedural rights and structural safeguards that check power. Justice Felix Frankfurter famously wrote: "The history of American freedom is, in no small measure, the history of procedure." Law professors are seriously engaging with the constitutionality of the "deem and pass," and our erstwhile law professor Barack Obama would imperiously wave procedure aside as a distraction not worthy of his time. Let's concentrate on the end and pay no attention to the means. When the most powerful man in the world says that, we should feel revulsion and alarm.

BAIER: Let me insert this. We asked our viewers to e-mail in suggested questions. More than 18,000 people took time to e-mail us questions. These are regular people from all over the country. Lee Johnson, from Spring Valley, California: "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?"

Sandy Moody in Chesterfield, Missouri: "If the health care bill is so wonderful, why do you have to bribe Congress to pass it?"

OBAMA: Bret, I get 40,000 letters or e-mails a day.

Ha! He won't answer the people's questions, because there are just so darned many people, and the questions they ask are so annoying. And Bret got 18,000 emails but Obama got 40,000 pieces of mail a day, so Obama's male mail is bigger than Bret's.

BAIER: I know.

OBAMA: I could read the exact same e-mail —

BAIER: These are people. It's not just Washington punditry.

Good short jab by Baier.

OBAMA: I've got the exact same e-mails, that I could show you, that talk about why haven't we done something to make sure that I, a small business person, am getting as good a deal as members of Congress are getting, and don't have my insurance rates jacked up 40 percent? Why is it that I, a mother with a child with a preexisting condition, still can't get insurance?

So the issue that I'm concerned about is whether not we're fixing a broken system.

BAIER: OK, back to the original question.

Yes, the question is the procedural device (and why you need it if the bill is as good as you say).

OBAMA: The key is to make sure that we vote — we have a vote on whether or not we're going to maintain the status quo, or whether we're going to reform the system.

Why not a straight vote — a normal vote — a transparent vote — a vote people can understand? Why make it seem that you are pulling a fast one? And right now, in this interview, you seem to be pulling a fast one about pulling a fast one.

BAIER: So you support the deem and pass rule?

OBAMA: I am not —

BAIER: You're saying that's that vote.

OBAMA: 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. That's what matters. That's what ultimately people are going to judge this on.

And so Bret Baier never gets an answer to that question. Barack Obama — who acted like he didn't want to waste his time on the deem and pass — wasted our time evading the questions about the deem and pass. His aim is to put us to sleep. We may be asking questions about the procedure now, but eventually we'll let it go and ultimately we will look at the substance what we got and decide whether we like it. So quiet down and wait, the most powerful man in the world tells us. He knows what's good for us. Don't look while he prepares the medicine that will make you very very happy.