Bill O’Reilly: Hating the Rich

Photo courtesy of Laurenco Parente

My late father was a man of strong opinion. He despised phonies, cowards and liars. He named names — sometimes in very close proximity to those being singled out. A veteran of World War II, he recognized a weasel when he saw one.

But my dad never denigrated rich people in general.

We lived in Levittown, N.Y., where everybody had pretty much the same — that is, not much. We ate tuna casserole, hot dogs and Hamburger Helper. My parents never owned a new car.

Ten miles away, my dentist, a college classmate of my father’s, lived in Garden City. Lovely place, filled with rich people. My father often drove us through there and never said a disparaging word about the fine lawns and shiny foreign cars. America was the land of opportunity, and Garden City proved it.

But that was then.

Today, many Democrats believe the wealthy are bad to the bone. A new Gallup poll asks: “Do you think the U.S. benefits from having a class of rich people or not?”

An amazing 46 percent of self-described Democrats answered “or not.”

When I asked two left-leaning pundits about this, they said it is all about “income inequality.” They asked me whether my father would approve of that. I said he most likely would reject the entire concept of “income inequality” by giving the pundits the same advice he gave me: “If you don’t like what they’re paying you, work someplace else.”

And I followed that advice, moving 10 times in 15 years on my way up the television news ladder. It wasn’t easy, but if I thought my employer was hosing me, I began looking around.

That’s how capitalism is supposed to work. America is mandated to provide “equal opportunity,” not equal outcomes. The boss man can pay what he wants. It’s our choice whether to take it or leave it.

President Obama doesn’t seem to get that. He often puts forth that wealthy Americans are not paying their “fair share,” that somehow the fix is in, and the rich folk are gaming the system at the expense of working people. But for two years, Obama had an adoring Democratic Congress that did absolutely nothing to further the concept of “income equality.” The reason? It’s unconstitutional. The feds cannot dictate salaries and benefits in the private marketplace. Obamacare is an attempt to breach that constitutional wall. We’ll soon see what the Supreme Court says.

Capitalism is no beach day. The strong and sometimes ruthless prosper. The poorly educated and unfocused often fail. For many Americans, failure is unfair and unacceptable in a “just” society. But my dad knew and accepted the truth of capitalism: Some will win big, some will lose big, but most will live comfortable lives in the middle. Just as he did.

Veteran TV news anchor Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor” and author of the book “Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama.” To find out more about Bill O’Reilly, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. This column originates on the website www.billoreilly.com.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bill O’Reilly: Still Making Waves

Still Making WavesQuick question: What is the most enduring American pop group of all time? Has to be The Beach Boys, right? They are currently on their 50th anniversary tour across the country, if you can believe it.

I saw the boys the other night, and they can still bring it. Lead singer Mike Love is 71, musical genius Brian Wilson is nearly 70, as is keyboardist Bruce Johnston.

The audience was primarily aging baby boomers who were not only singing along to the surf tracks; they were memorializing their youth. In 1962, back when The Beach Boys were just getting started, America was a kinder, sweeter place where long summer days defined many young lives.

John F. Kennedy was president, and Camelot was in full flower that year. “Where were you in ’62?” later became the ad campaign for a film called “American Graffiti.” But many senior citizens well remember where they were: watching the No. 1 rated TV program, “Wagon Train,” listening to Elvis sing “Return to Sender,” maybe going to the movies to see the blockbuster “Lawrence of Arabia.”

Johnny Carson debuted on “The Tonight Show” in 1962. The unemployment rate was 5.2 percent. Average family income was $6,000, which didn’t leave much cash left over for recreational drugs.

I was 12 years old and loved The Beach Boys. “Surfer Girl” and “Little Deuce Coupe” were my favorite songs. I lived on Long Island and, like the boys, had access to an ocean. I used it frequently, catching waves, feeling the warmth of the sun. It was a happy time. The girls were pretty, my parents clueless, and all things seemed possible.

But life has a way of intruding on happiness. Two of the original Beach Boys, Carl and Dennis Wilson, are dead. And their brother Brian is one of the walking wounded, a poster boy for the downside of drug abuse. The picture The Beach Boys continue to paint with their upbeat lyrics is idyllic, but their lives, generally speaking, have included much turbulent water.

Don't Worry Baby

Don't Worry Baby (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In that, they are just like most of us. So when we get a chance to revisit the past in a positive way, we should take it. I actually embarrassed myself at the concert by singing “In My Room.” I didn’t care. I remember my small, un-air-conditioned room in Levittown. I could go there to soothe my troubles. I did a lot of dreaming in that space.

So right on to The Beach Boys, even though they are now ancient mariners. The waves today are far more intense than they were back in ’62. In the face of the incoming tide, sometimes we need some relief, some positive perspective about our lives.

God only knows just how much the baby-boom generation has experienced.

Veteran TV news anchor Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor” and author of the book “Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama.” To find out more about Bill O’Reilly, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. This column originates on the website www.billoreilly.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 BillOReilly.com

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bill O’Reilly: Leadership

This time next year, we could have the two presidential candidates in play. Only God knows who the Republicans will decide upon, but President Obama is a lock on the Democratic side. The big issues that will most likely decide the election of 2012 are the economy and leadership. And now there’s new data on the leadership front.

According to a Gallup poll released this week, Obama has fallen more than 20 points in the leadership category in less than two years. Right now, 52 percent of Americans believe he is a strong and decisive leader, while 47 percent say he is not. Bad news for the prez.

Truthfully, much of the leadership issue these days is driven by style. The last strong leader America had was President Reagan, who came across as tough but not belligerent. Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, thereby busting the union, demanded that the Soviets tear down the wall in East Germany, and generally governed with a good-natured confidence. His acting experience helped him project authority and benevolence at the same time — not an easy thing to do.

President Bush the Elder came across rather fatherly, even when waging war against Saddam Hussein. Bill Clinton had little authority because of his controversies. And Bush the Younger‘s battlefield setbacks eroded his leadership image.

Obama is a deliberative leader, a man who seeks consensus before acting. He took months before committing more troops to Afghanistan, did not alter the Bush strategy in Iraq even after criticizing it, and seemed to be indecisive about Libya. French President Nicolas Sarkozy was the guy who drove the military action, with Obama hitching a ride on the Frenchman’s passion.

In turbulent times, people naturally look for leaders who can bring them comfort and reassurance. At this point, Obama is having trouble doing that, and the Gallup poll reflects that reality. Obama’s style is cool and sometimes distant. When waging war or trying to prevent economic disaster, detachment can be detrimental. Rallying the troops usually wins the day.

President Lincoln was the nation’s strongest leader, with George Washington second and Franklin Roosevelt third. All three had huge problems to solve and did so with courage and bold decision making. Lincoln, in particular, was constantly under siege. If the Confederates had won the Battle of Gettysburg, the union might have been shattered forever. Lincoln knew that. Yet, he remained strong and in control and did what he had to do to hold the country together — even suspending habeas corpus.

Obama is a big admirer of Lincoln, as is George W. Bush. Both men understand that true leadership requires stone-cold courage and brilliant decision-making capability. Most human beings fall short in both categories, which is why true leadership is rarely on display.

But if it is in 2012, the person who shows it will be president.

Veteran TV news anchor Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor” and author of the book “Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama.” To find out more about Bill O’Reilly, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. This column originates on the website www.billoreilly.com.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bill O’Reilly: The Triumph of Evil

The opposition to military action in Libya is fascinating. President Obama is taking incoming fire from both the left and the right as various agendas collide against neutralizing Moammar Gadhafi. The dissent is all over the place, so let’s try to simplify the situation.

We begin with a quote from Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

That’s true. We have seen it time and again throughout history. When evil is not confronted, it can win, often with devastating results.

There is no question that Gadhafi was on the verge of slaughtering his opposition. His mercenaries and highly paid military were closing in on rebel strongholds, and amnesty would not be forthcoming, as the colonel himself publicly proclaimed.

Finally, the U.N. acted, and a no-fly zone was approved. After waffling for weeks, Obama swung into action, ordering U.S. planes and missiles into the skies. Then he went to Brazil.

Immediately, the far left erupted. Ralph Nader is calling for impeachment. Michael Moore has suggested that Obama give back the Nobel Peace Prize. Congressman Dennis Kucinich wants to cut off funding for any military action against Libya.

On the right, Pat Buchanan banged the isolationist drum: “Why is the United States, all the way across the ocean, got to go in and stop Arabs from killing Arabs? … Why are we in there?”

To prevent a massacre? I believe that’s the reason, Mr. Buchanan.

Congressman Ron Paul was equally blunt: “What are we doing? We are in this crisis, and they decide to spend all this money. It makes no sense at all.”

Here’s my question for Paul: Would you be comfortable, congressman, watching thousands of human beings being slaughtered by a terrorist dictator when you know that your country had the power to prevent it?

In fact, the no-fly zone was up and running in hours, and Gadhafi’s forces have been seriously damaged. Now the rebels have a chance to eventually overthrow the dictator, and mass murder has been avoided at least for the time being.

This is not a complicated issue. If America is indeed a noble country, it should act to save lives when it can. That doesn’t mean getting bogged down in quagmires like Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. But when quick, decisive action can defeat evil, it should be taken.

I believe in the basic nobility of America. I also believe few other nations have the motivation and power to confront evil that this country does. If it’s all about us, if all we think about is our own sacrifice, then American exceptionalism disappears.

We did the right thing in Libya.

Veteran TV news anchor Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor” and author of the book “Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama.” To find out more about Bill O’Reilly, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. This column originates on the website www.billoreilly.com.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Getting Gaddafi

President Obama is a dispassionate guy, a man who likes to analyze problems without emotion. He also likes to take his time while making important decisions. To some, this is an effective way to govern. To others, it is dithering. But one thing is certainly true: Being indecisive while people die is no virtue.

A couple of weeks ago, Libyan tyrant and terrorist Muammar Gaddafi seemed to be on the ropes. Rebels were advancing on the capital city of Tripoli, and it looked like Gaddafi would join Hosni Mubarak in the house-arrest zone. Those of us who believe Gaddafi is responsible for killing the 189 Americans who were aboard a Pan Am flight when it was blown out of the sky by a bomb on December 21,1988, were clamoring for a terror trial.

Realizing there was nowhere to hide, Gaddafi stood and fought. His largely African mercenary corps and hardened Arab military fanatics, all well paid by the dictator, have now regained momentum in the battle. Air power has made it difficult for the rebels to advance. There are few trees in Libya, and the vast open spaces make bombing easy.

Thus, there was an early call for a no-fly zone like the one imposed on Saddam Hussein in Iraq. NATO forces could easily destroy Gaddafi’s air power, allowing the rebels a fighting chance to defeat the dictator. The Arab League even endorsed a no-fly strategy, giving Obama cover should he lead the effort. But no such leadership has emerged.

On March 15, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney faced CBS News correspondent Chip Reid:

Reid: On the no-fly zone, what is the administration’s position before the (UN) Security Council?

Carney: Our position remains that we are evaluating a number of options, military options…

Reid: But a decision has to be made now.

Carney: We feel that it is important that any action like that that might be taken should be done in concert with our international partners.

In other words, we are going to fiddle while the greatest procrastinating organization in history, the United Nations, screws around. Meantime, the anti- Gaddafi forces are losing.

The central question is about leadership. What kind of leader does Obama want to be? At this point, it seems he wants to be the “talk not action” guy. When anti-government riots broke out in Iran, the president issued a statement saying the U.S. would not interfere in Iranian affairs. When American generals requested more troops in Afghanistan, the president took months to decide. And now he continues to “deliberate” about Libya while Gaddafi destroys his opposition.

Again, some believe this kind of cautious calculation serves America well. But if we are indeed a nation that values freedom and fights against worldwide terror, why are we not making life hard for Gaddafi?

I hope the president deliberates on that question forthwith.

Veteran TV news anchor Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor” and author of the book “Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama.” To find out more about Bill O’Reilly, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. This column originates on the website www.billoreilly.com.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Look For The Union Label

In order to form a more perfect union, many of my ancestors joined one. My maternal grandfather was a train conductor; my paternal grandfather, a New York City police officer; my uncle, a fire captain in the Big Apple. Around my dinner table as a kid, working people were revered and evil corporate bosses were vilified. Unions were big in Levittown, N.Y.

I am a union guy, as well. AFTRA (the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) has represented me for more than 30 years. And they’ve been good. When King World Productions tried to dodge pension payments for “Inside Edition” employees (of which I was one) in the early 1990s, AFTRA took them on and won a settlement. Without the union, we would have been hosed.

But now things are different in America. Over the years, some powerful unions, representing both public and private workers, have succeeded in gaining so many benefits that the entire U.S. economy has been damaged. Many states cannot pay health and pension benefits because the tax revenue is not nearly enough to cover expenses. Also, millions of jobs formerly held by Americans are now done by Chinese and Indian people because labor is so much cheaper in those countries.

Thus, we have economic warfare between the cost-cutters and the union folks who want to protect what they have.

While I am absolutely sympathetic to hardworking union folks, I truly understand the danger of the United States government not being able to pay its bills. Chinese investors currently own more than a trillion dollars of U.S. debt, and our nation is more than $14 trillion in the red. President Obama recently put forth a budget for 2012 that would add another trillion dollars to that total.

That, of course, is insane.

If Chinese investors were to unload their U.S. investments, our economy would collapse. That is not a good place to be. In order for America to continue to drive the world’s economy, we must return to a responsible spending spreadsheet, and that means union givebacks. It also means a decline in union negotiating power, especially in the public arena.

Many liberal Americans continue to scream about raising taxes to bring down the debt. But that crushes economic expansion. Corporations and rich folks will only take so much taxation before they leave the building, as Elvis once did.

Capitalism is a tough system. It’s not touchy-feely like in Sweden, where cradle-to-grave entitlements rule. But there are fewer than 10 million Swedes, so they work it out. With more than 300 million Americans, we can’t “provide” for everyone.

The cold truth is that unions are on the way out. High tech means big changes in the workplace, and labor protections are not needed as much as they once were. What we are seeing in Wisconsin is the beginning of a new attitude toward the American worker. And there will be pain until we get things sorted out.

Veteran TV news anchor Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor” and author of the book “Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama.” To find out more about Bill O’Reilly, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. This column originates on the website www.billoreilly.com.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Getting Schooled in Wisconsin

Here’s a lesson that is both ironic and sad at the same time. According to the U.S. Department of Education, two-thirds of the eighth graders in Wisconsin cannot read proficiently. But assuming the kids are skilled enough to watch TV, they can now see their teachers demonstrating to keep their generous union benefits. So while things do not seem to be going well in the classroom, any thought of holding teachers somewhat responsible is cause for a protest march.

As a former high-school teacher, it pains me to criticize those trying to educate American children. You will never become rich doing that, and the job can be maddening. Today, many children are the victims of a permissive society that often refuses to hold kids responsible for their actions. Cowardly parents make excuses for the failures of their kids, rather than finding a solution to their poor academic performance. Instead of preparing their children for rigorous academic challenges, derelict parents sit it out.

But teachers are supposed to overcome apathetic parenting and at least give the kids a fighting chance to succeed. That is a challenge that’s supposed to be met.

As I’ve written before, in my eighth-grade class at St. Brigid’s School on Long Island, there were 60 students and one nun in the classroom. We all could read proficiently, and believe me, some of the parents were not exactly Ozzie and Harriet, if you understand what I’m saying. The nun brooked no nonsense. She forced us to learn.

But that was then.

In 10 years, starting in 1998, Wisconsin doubled the amount of money spent on each public-school student to more than $10,000 per pupil per year. And test scores went down! Doing the math, the equation seems to be that money is not the key to knowledge.

Discipline is.

The teachers in Wisconsin should be compensated to the best of the state’s ability. But the educational gravy train is off the tracks. There’s no more money. The taxpayer is tapped out.

In the future, if you want to teach kids you’ll have to accept less to do it. That may not be fair, but it’s the lesson Wisconsin is teaching us. The writing is very clear on the blackboard: No more public money is on the way.

I left teaching because I understood the limitations of the job. I knew at a young age that my income would be restricted and my life would be fairly predictable.

Selfishly, I wanted more.

But I respect immensely those who devote their lives to teaching. I want them to have as much as the market will bear.

Sadly, that point has now been reached.

Veteran TV news anchor Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor” and author of the book “Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama.” To find out more about Bill O’Reilly, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. This column originates on the website www.billoreilly.com.

Enhanced by Zemanta

No Offense

We live in a touchy age where any ethnic remark is a blowtorch. Your mom might have told you never to talk about politics or religion, but these days, mother should include race and ethnicity in her maternal guidance.

Recently, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg showed up at the American Irish Historical Society to do a little schmoozing. After the beating the mayor took on the blizzard debacle, he is busy visiting just about every society that exists in order to do some good-will hunting. Unfortunately, Bloomberg pulled a Jackie Mason and told the Irish crowd that he lived nearby and was used to seeing “people that are totally inebriated hanging out the window” of the society’s building.

Did somebody say avalanche?

Some in the crowd actually booed Bloomberg, which was unusual because the mayor stood just a few feet away from them. There were very few Irish eyes smiling, and the ensuing media reports made the situation even worse.

You don’t get much more Irish than me, but somehow I am not offended by Bloomberg’s ethnic one-liner. I am troubled that it was very lame in the humor department, but the cliched drinking reference is meaningless to me. Consuming alcohol, as we all know, extends to every ethnicity, and the destruction that alcoholism causes is no laughing matter.

Historically, social life in Ireland was built around pubs, at least for men. The culture embraced beer and good cheer. There’s no question about it. When the Irish immigrated to America, that culture came with them so much so that when the police removed drunks from the streets, they called the transport a “paddy wagon,” referencing the Irish name Patrick.

Even today, the St. Patrick’s Day parade celebrations, at least in New York and Boston, feature a heavy alcohol component that does little to tamp down the cliche Bloomberg embraced. My advice to my Irish brothers and sisters has always been this: It is a great day for the Irish. Don’t sully it by drinking like a camel.

My grandfather and first cousin both died from alcohol-related illnesses. But again, those tragedies were not caused by their ethnicity. Booze is a temptation that must be controlled, or bad things will happen. There is no evidence that one group is more susceptible to drinking than another. The abuse of alcohol is a problem for every society on earth.

Perhaps because I don’t drink and never have, I chalked up Bloomberg’s gaffe to a bad decision. I’ve said a lot of dopey things in my life, and so have you. The mayor harbors no disdain for the Irish — he was born in Boston, for crying out loud. It was a simple mistake. And as an Irishman, I am very familiar with those.

Veteran TV news anchor Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor” and author of the book “Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama.” To find out more about Bill O’Reilly, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. This column originates on the website www.billoreilly.com.

Enhanced by Zemanta

True Believers

Presidents Obama and Bush the Younger have one striking similarity: self-assurance. After speaking with both men recently, I am firmly convinced that they are convinced their policies are/were right for the nation.

Let’s take Bush first. The Iraq War has cost America more than $750 billion since it began in March 2003. So far, more than 4,400 Americans have been killed in that country, in addition to the approximately 32,000 who have been wounded. Many of those wounds are life-altering. Yet Bush thinks the great sacrifice was worth it because Saddam Hussein is dead and Iraq is on the road to democracy. There is not an argument in the world that could dissuade Bush from this belief.

It is likewise with Obama. He sincerely believes the country was on the verge of another Great Depression when he took office, and that the massive federal spending he has championed prevented economic catastrophe. Again, there is no way anyone is going to persuade the president otherwise.

Strong leadership requires a sense of certainty. In order to motivate folks to support your vision, you must demonstrate bold conviction. Gen. George Patton, for example, convinced his troops that they were better than the German “Huns.” His confidence was contagious, and victories emerged.

But what happens when a person’s conviction is wrong? There is no question that Hussein could have been destroyed by other means. Surely, the world is a better place without him. But would most Americans support the Iraq invasion if we could do it all over? I don’t think so. In hindsight, the Iraq situation should have been handled by the Air Force and the Navy. Hussein’s regime could have been strangled without so much American blood.

Things are a bit murkier on the economic front. Since the Obama administration has been in power, the feds have spent an astounding $7 trillion. This has left the United States vulnerable in the world marketplace because we need to borrow so much money from nations like China. The massive $14 trillion debt has now become as big a threat as the economic meltdown of three years ago. No matter how you frame the issue, federal spending must be cut back, and Obama has to know this. But, like Bush, the president does not regret his controversial policies.

Presidents Obama and Bush are true believers. Bush says he did his best, and that’s the end of the story. Because Obama’s story continues to unfold, he must continue to sell his policies as wise and effective. The problem is problems. Sometimes they are so overwhelming that people, even presidents, simply cannot solve them.

Even if they believe they can.

Veteran TV news anchor Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor” and author of the book “Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama.” To find out more about Bill O’Reilly, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. This column originates on the website www.billoreilly.com.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Talking With The President

As some readers might know, your humble correspondent (that’s me) will be conducting a live interview with President Obama a few hours before the Super Bowl game begins on Sunday. The chat is scheduled to last about 12 minutes and is fraught with danger — for me, not for the president.

That’s because the rules are different when it comes to interviewing the president of the United States. Since the beginning of our republic, only 44 men have held that office, and when a citizen is in the presence of the chief executive, there is strict protocol. For example, he is addressed as “Mr. President.” No one says “Yo, Barack, how you doin’?” There is a respect for the office that formalizes all conversation.

I well remember President Bush the Elder telling NBC correspondent Stone Phillips to be “careful” after Phillips asked Bush about a rumor concerning his personal life. The president’s tone stopped Stone cold, pardon the pun.

Back in September of 2008, I interviewed then-Sen. Obama on the campaign trail. There was no protocol involved except for civility. I asked Obama a series of specific questions and interrupted him if he didn’t answer them directly. I had 30 minutes of his time and made them count because I could say pretty much what I wanted to say.

But that was then. On Sunday, I can ask the president valid questions, but he doesn’t have to answer them. He can say what he wants. If I interrupt him too much, I look like a dope. With only 12 minutes to work with, I have to frame my questions with precision. The president is an eloquent man; he could easily run out the clock if he wants to. And the interview is live, so there’s no editing. In other words, there’s nowhere to hide if things don’t go well.

Experienced journalists know that any interview with a powerful person is a chess game. Your job is to get information, to deliver something the audience has not heard. Many times, the interviewee does not want to answer certain questions and, indeed, might even refuse to answer them by spinning or deflecting. With anyone else, I could call the spinner on that. With the president of the United States, you have to be careful, as Bush pointed out.

So I fully expect to get hammered after the interview. Depending on how you feel about the president, the questions will either be too soft or too intrusive. The first time around, the interview benefited both Obama and myself, as it was a virtual free-for-all, a spirited back and forth about a variety of subjects.

This time, I will have to bring a completely different game plan to the White House. The president has home-field advantage, an established presence as the world’s most powerful quarterback and the clock running to his advantage. Vegas wouldn’t even put out a line on this one. Can’t wait to see what happens.

Enhanced by Zemanta