Who’s the Biggest Pinhead of All?

Posted on February 4, 2014 by Robert Ringer


After Bill O’Reilly’s childish bloviating for a week about his upcoming interview with Barack Obama on Super Bowl Sunday, guaranteeing viewers that he was going to ask questions that were different from any Obama has ever before heard and that the questions would be cast in such a way as to leave no wiggle room for the World Welterweight Wiggle Champion, viewers’ expectations for O’Reilly were higher that they were for Peyton Manning.

Throughout the interview, O’Reilly literally sat on the edge of his seat like a little boy trying to keep from wetting his pants, while Obama sat back and effortlessly employed his never-fail 80-20 Alinksy RuleMake sure that 80 percent of your words are lies and that the other 20 percent have absolutely nothing to do with the questions being asked.  His performance would have made Uncle Saul proud.

At one point, with a completely straight face, Obama said that the website is now “working the way it’s supposed to.”  O’Reilly responded by pointing out that a recent Associated Press poll revealed that only 8 percent of the people who have visited the website believe it is working well.

One would have thought that the disparity between Obama’s jaw-dropping claim and O’Reilly’s factual statement would spawn a quick and tenacious follow-up question, but, instead, No-Wiggle Bill went right on to the next question.  I mean, who cares about such a major disparity?  It’s no big deal, right?  As that paragon of morality asked not long ago in reference to a question about four Americans being brutally murdered in Benghazi, what difference does it make?

O’Reilly then bluntly asked Obama, “Why didn’t you fire Sebelius?”  To which the Prince of Puffery answered, in part, “You know, my priority right now is making sure that it [the website] delivers for the American people.”  Hmm … you leave the individual who destroyed the American healthcare system in charge because you believe she’s the most qualified person to fix the mess she created?

To his credit, following another meaningless filibuster by Obama, O’Reilly did follow up and say that Kathleen Sebelius “screwed up” and that the Master of the Monologue wasn’t holding her accountable.  To which BHO responded, “I promise you that we hold everybody up and down the line accountable.”

Whew, what a relief to hear … except that no one seems to know what “hold everybody accountable” means?  Did I miss someone going to jail?  Or getting fired?  Or at least being furloughed without pay?  Oh, well … maybe they’ll get that New Jersey guy for tying up traffic on a bridge.

But the best razzle-dazzle line of all was when Obama said, “I try to focus not on the fumbles but on the next play.”  Really?  So I guess that means that Obama doesn’t have to answer for anything that happens on his watch — just ignore the fumbles and move on to the next play … and the next fumble … and the next play … ad infinitum.  How sweet it is.

When O’Reilly brought up the dreaded “B” word, Obama pointed out that the day after the Benghazi attack he characterized it as an act of terror, which set the stage for O’Reilly to hit one out of the park.  Billy quickly pointed out that after Obama had called it an act of terror, Susan Rice went on five national television shows and unequivocally stated that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous demonstration caused by an obscure video.

Obama was visibly annoyed, but still managed to tap dance his way around the question effortlessly because O’Reilly — the self-proclaimed master of no wiggle room — did not follow up and demand a clear explanation as to why Rice would go on national television and repeatedly contradict her own boss.  Some questions simply have no credible answer, so it was fortunate for Barack Obama that O’Reilly didn’t bother to follow up and ask the obvious.

But the kicker to the whole interview was when O’Reilly read Obama a question sent in by one of his listeners:  “Why do you feel it’s necessary to fundamentally transform the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity and success?”

Without flinching, Obama said that he did not want to fundamentally transform America, then immediately switched gears and started babbling incoherently.  I don’t think anyone watching the interview has any idea what he was talking about, except that it had nothing to do with the unanswerable question posed by the O’Reilly viewer.

Surely, this was where O’Reilly would finally rise to the occasion.  With a big smile on his face and a boyish-like enthusiasm in his voice, he concluded by asking Obama what he referred to as the most important question of the interview:  “Who’s going to win the Super Bowl?”  I swear I thought he was going to give Obama a Charlie Crist bear hug right there on television.

Who would have believed that Peyton Manning’s performance on the field would be far superior to that of O’Reilly’s performance at the White House?  Manning was embarrassed by the Seattle Seahawks, but O’Reilly embarrassed himself.

How lucky Obama was that Megyn Kelly didn’t conduct the interview.  If she had, it never would have gone beyond the first question, because she has a no-dodging-the-question rule that would have made things real uncomfortable for the “leader of the free world.”

The good news is that, at long last, we have the answer to that most intriguing of all questions:

Mirror, mirror
On the wall,
Who’s the biggest
Pinhead of all?

Surprise:  It’s turns out to be none other than Bill O’Reilly himself!

Robert Ringer

Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.

40 responses to “Who’s the Biggest Pinhead of All?”

  1. Daniel says:

    I have read that one of the defining characteristics of the sociopath is the ability to lie, charmingly and remorselessly. I would like to see/hear that Megyn Kelly interview. One can hope.

  2. Leedees111@hotmail.com Lee says:

    Well said Daniel.

  3. simpleton12 says:

    Bill O'Reilly = blowhard par excellence!

    What can you say about a man who writes "historical books" w/o bothering to include ONE footnote?

    He's pathetic and so are all his fans!

  4. Murray Suid says:

    Robert, maybe I don't understand the word "destroyed" as in your comment "you leave the individual who destroyed the American healthcare system." But is it really your experience that the American healthcare system has been "destroyed"? Last week, a relative of mine was very sick, and had to be transported to a hospital. There, she got fast and competent treatment, and now she's fully recovered. I know, you can't prove a case with one example, but I'm sure your readers could supply lots more. My hard ball question to you: "What's the point of using exaggerations in an analysis of an interview show? Is your goal to be funny? I'm not laughing, and I'm really disappointed because I come here to get sensible insights.

    • Glenn Jaffas says:

      Murray, your relative experienced the remains of the functional health care system that was in place prior to ObamaCare. A few short years from now healthcare as you just experienced it will be gone due to ObamaCare.

    • Robert Ringer RJR says:

      No need to be disappointed, Murray. This is a complicated subject, and I don't doubt that some people will benefit from Obamacare. But from where I sit, however, I believe that millions more will be devastated. In any event, I don't believe government is the solution to our problems. As that old guy said back in the eighties, government is the problem.

      In any event, thanks for the feedback.

      • Rob Larson says:

        It’s a case of locking the barn after the horses have run off, but I think that the American people as a whole are getting a taste of what it really means to have a collectivist society. And I think many of them don’t like it. Have you by change read “Liberation by Internet” by Gennady Stolyarov? I ran across it years ago and his analysis of what destroyed the Soviet Union and Communism in Eastern Europe was illuminating, to say the least.


        His article can be used to explain why this administration is having such a hard time controlling spin as opposed to the Clinton administration who had no real opposition or alternative to what we now call mainstream media or traditional media. I have to admit to a bit of glee that the evolution of a system that was designed by the military to survive a nuclear war has, after it was released to the public, become the very instrument that will destroy the welfare-warfare state.

      • larajf says:

        My cousin's brain tumor is back, and my aunt, bless her kool-aid drinking heart, said how great it was that she gets treated with Obamacare. I said it's too bad they spent $300 billion on software that didn't work instead of spending it directly on people who needed it.
        I didn't point out that our government didn't HAVE the $300 billion in the first place to spend, but that's another rant.
        I think Murray has fallen into the trap of thinking because he has money to burn, it's OK and good to spend it on those who don't have. What he doesn't realize is that if people would get out of the way, health care would become affordable again. Oh, and we need litigation reform, desperately.
        I tell people that when I was a kid, an office visit was less money than my current copayment.

    • JRC says:

      Give it time. We may be able to still receive American-rate health care service now. But the ACA (Obamacare) will so thoroughly screw up the integrity of an already unsustainable system of health insurance and medical treatment that you'll be singing a different tune soon enough.

  5. Scott theczech says:

    Right on! I won't be happy until someone interviews this CIF in such a way that he gets so flustered that he angrily stops the interview and storms out in a huff…now that would be fun to see.

  6. Jim North says:

    Thank you for critiquing the obvious. We can hope that Fox News has been forever forewarned to use a REAL no nonsense interviewer the next time they interview the phantom leader of the free world.

  7. Heather says:

    Harsh, Robert! I do agree that I expected a little more from Bill, but he used the excuse that you cannot make the president answer any questions he does not want to. But I also think that the president did himself more harm than good – Bill may have made the mistake of being to easy on the guy, but the shallow, blah responses by Obama showed what a superficial man he really is. All show, no depth – sad but true.

  8. saintquinn says:

    Does ANYONE believe that was a REAL interview?
    Those questions were approved well ahead of time….

  9. Janet says:

    Who is the biggest pinhead of all? After reading this, I think maybe it's you, Robert Ringer.

    • TommyG says:

      You must be a Bill O'Reilly sycophant!

      • Rimrock says:

        Nope. Ringer is off the mark on this one. OR did the best he could. No need to "dream" that Kelly would have done any better at all. I can almost guarantee it.

  10. chuck says:

    I read your articles for your business acumen. Why waste a newsletter on your personal beliefs? Just as many facts exist to counter yours or O’Blowhards argument. It’s all how you see the picture. Is it am old lady or a beautiful woman. Theres no right or wrong, just opinion. The truth is never do black and white…neither with the health care debacle or the Benghazi deaths. But you’re too busy reading WSJ or Fox to see things for what they are, not as you choose to see them.

    • Robert Ringer RJR says:

      I haven't read the WSJ in years. I do watch Fox, but not very much. That said, everything anyone writes is based on his personal belief system. That's how I choose who to read.

    • TommyG says:

      Hey Chuck, it's called moral relativism. That along with political correctness is what is ruining our country.

  11. catfur says:

    ..it was Ted Baxter interviewing the Wizard Of Oz…a waste of bandwith

    • larajf says:

      I think this deserves the award for most brilliant comment. I told my husband & we both laughed…it's so true.

  12. Tom says:

    Robert you should know better. There has to be at least some respect for the office of the Presidency, Especially with millions of people watching. Obama knows he has the Media on his side, which is the only reason he agreed to do the interview. He knew he could say just about anything and the Media would have him a pass on it. Obama would have loved it if O'Reilly had been tougher on him, because that's all the Media would have talked about is what a jerk O'Reilly was to the President. O'Reilly was as tough and to the point as much as you could possibly expect when interviewing the President. What O'Reilly did accomplish was that he asked Obama few questions that few have asked, and Obama wasn't able to answer any of them. That speaks more than anything else O'Reilly could have gotten the President to say with follow up questions. As O'Reilly said, he can't MAKE the President answer the questions. What did you want him to do put him in a headlock? Come on. Let's be realistic here.

    • Rimrock says:

      Ahhh a clear thinker..finally!!

    • Ragnar says:

      It always makes me laugh when someone says we must respect the office of the Presidency. I guess we must respect the leader of the mafia too, after all they both want the same thing – your property. Obama and people like him only know one thing – how to coerce. One other comment was funny too – there is no right or wrong just opinion. Comments like this show a complete lack of understanding of how the universe works. For example is gravity an opinion that is right for some and wrong for others? Is stealing your property sometimes right and sometimes wrong? Think about it – we are ruled by criminals.

  13. flp says:

    What crap… Obama could not have been force to answer any question he didn't feel like answering no matter what Oreilly did. The point of the interview is that by his dodging and weaving he's basically proven he's not being truthful about what his administration is doing. That was the goal.

    The last question was simply to take the "edge" off and let Obama relax – it had nothing to do with being a pinhead, but just simply to end on a nice note.

  14. Rob Larson says:

    Let’s not forget that the President only gave 10 minutes for his interview. I’m pretty sure that Bill had to decide whether nor not to follow up on questions or continue with his interview as he planned it. This is more a criticism of Obama than it is anything else. By deliberately limiting time, he pretty much insured that the number of tough questions he had to answer would be limited. Just another bit of nonsense from the “most transparent administration ever”.

  15. Sandra Sandy E says:

    The interview was disappointing but expected. The liar and chief is so good at what he does. The only thing more disappointing about the night was the performance of the Broncos and the half time amateur hour.

  16. Barbara M Florida says:

    You guys are on the wrong side of the street. Remember Obama wamma was groomed and schooled by George Soros all through Occidental and Harvard; sent to Toastmasters etc and is soo narcisstic that he loves to smile and lie while dodging the questions with aplomb. Now Soros is courting Miss Killary with his $$$$$$$

  17. Mike M says:

    Sorry, but I'm outta here. I subscribed to Robert's emails for some timeless wisdom and tips. It's gotten too political for me, so I just unsubscribed. Have a nice life everyone!

    • Daniel says:

      TOO political? Really? The good ol' USA – with its unique culture, its values, its liberties, its exceptional role in the world, its economy – is being attacked from within by a well-funded, well-oiled, nefarious political machine, and a commentary about an interview with the POTUS is too political? Listen up, Mike; if we lose the First Amendment, I expect you'll be one who pines for the days when one could even find critical commentary about the POTUS in a public forum. The fight is on NOW, and you want to discuss WHAT that's so vastly more interesting and important? Where is your head, dude? One can guess.

      • Jean says:

        Mike M is clearly an Obamabot – he bought the Kool Aid, drank it, and continues to be impacted by it's incredible ability to enhance one's capacity to deny reality. Bet your boots if Robt. criticized G. W. Bush and repeated the regime's lame excuse that Obama inherited "the worst economy in the history of the world," Mike would be on board and cheering.

  18. Phil L says:

    Hello Robert

    Over here in the UK we have a terrific 'no nonsense' interviewer called Jeremy Paxman. Its a shame he was not asked. President 'O' would have been squirming in his seat!

    Keep up the great work!

    Phil L

  19. Jean says:

    " we hold everybody up and down the line accountable…" O'Reilly should know that is Obamaspeak for, "we gave everyone involved a raise and a promotion." To date, not ONE person in this administration has actually been held accountable for his or her actions.

  20. Ellis Baxter says:

    IT is worst that anyone knows.. old Billy Boy… on page 300 of Killing Kennedy tells a story about a reporter going to interview George de Mohrenschildt [friend of L.H.Oswald called at the time to appear before the committee on assassinations (1977)} in Palm Beach Florida.. says the reporter was at the door talking to George's daughter when they heard the shotgun go off and George had killed himself … the reporter was Bill O'Reilly … one small detail the daughter was not home, it was not her house .. no one heard the shot.. according to the police report .. and Old no spin will not answer the question .. .WTF ?

  21. Robby Bonter says:

    Prior to the last national election, I noticed that both Bill O'Reilly and John McLaughlin did a 180 – completely abandoning their objective, mostly conservative values, to the extent that I had to conclude they had been
    "bought" and were effectively in the tank for the other side. What else can one conclude?

    To complicate matters, a friend pointed out to me, before the fact, that even Mitt Romney would be in the "tank" in the last presidential campaign debate, because the behind-the-scenes elitists who control our fate had mandated the election would go the other way. Sure enough, came time for Romney's first statement of the night, his overview of the Middle Eastern situation, he spent 1 1/2 minutes of the allotted two minutes THANKING certain people for being there!

    Lost my vote right there, he did. What a lay down loser he became. That was the most enfeebled, off-track bumbling I have ever witnessed from a politician, and it came in "crunch time."

  22. Bernard Hall says:

    Were we actually watching the same interview? To me, while I agree O'Reilly was all over the map, Obama came across as sincere, measured and coherent in his responses. He was given no opportunity to elaborate and explain as O'Reilly was so intent on imposing his own ideological opinions rather than just listen and read the interviewee as every interviewer worth his salt should know how to do.
    Labelling Obama as "The Prince of Puffer" is merely your projection. You seem to think that Obama's responses are nothing but skillful spin. Is that because that's exactly what you would do if you were in his position?