Cavuto examines Rolling Stone's interview with Pres. Obama

Magazine throws too many softball questions at POTUS

So he reads all New York Times columnists...

Not Wall Street Journal columnists.

Although he does read both papers.

Says Paul Krugman's one of the smartest economic reporters out there...even if Krugman is clearly one of the most biased, over-the-top, hate-all-things-Republican economic reporters out there.

Says he doesn't watch cable.

He does catch "The Daily Show," which last time I checked, is on cable.

Calls Jon Stewart brilliant for the way he cuts through the nonsense.

But says nothing about young people depending on that "for news" as just "being" nonsense.

Says he spends a lot of time reading reports, studies and briefing books at home...

But leaves enough time apparently for TV shows like "Homeland."

All fine, all predictable.

All very much Barack Obama in an all too familiar, not exactly earth-shattering interview with Jann Wenner in Rolling Stone.

So it wasn't those answers that startled me...I guess, even given the fact this was the "rolling stone," it was the "questions."

Forget about fair and balanced...Wenner, who's usually a pretty smart dude but one with an obvious bias...didn't even try...just listen this doozie/combination "diatribe" of a question...and I quote...

“In working with the Republicans in this term, it seems clear that the traditional rules of give-and-take politics have changed...That the Republicans have been playing a "lose-lose" game with you. What's your

Relationship with the GOP leadership at this point?”

But it gets better...

“Is there any way to break through that obstructionism by Republicans?”

And as if to cement the impression the grand old party's full of a lot of grand old idiots...this softball...

“Doesn't all of that kind of talk and behavior during the primaries define the party and what they stand for?”

No wonder "this" question near the end of this vapid exchange...

“It must help to get a break, though, given how stressful. And demanding the job is.”

Are you kidding me?

Look, I know Rolling Stone isn't The Wall Street Journal,"...

And that left-leaning Paul Krugman makes a better read for a left-leaning president named Obama...

Than Art Laffer, who actually changed history working for a Republican president named Reagan.

And I know, given Rolling Stone's music and arts-loving audience, some of these questions might make sense...but humor me...throw in, at least some balance...

...like...I don't know...

"Why are Republicans obstructionists, mister president, simply because they don't like what you're doing? But you're not, simply because you don't like what "they're" doing? Why are they Satan? And you're a saint?

Or...

"Why is it obstructionist when they won't budge on taxes...

But not when "you" don't budge on drilling?"

And this goes directly to Jan Wenner...

If you're going to extol the virtues of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, and ask how it's influenced the president's rhetoric...would it kill you to at least throw a bone...?

To the Tea Party and ask the same of its clearly much wider influence?

Of course not.

Occupiers are hip. Tea Partiers are not.

This president's a rock star...and even talks about doing gigs with them.

Republicans aren't rock stars...so Jan Wenner and the president all but giggle at them.

Please.

The next time someone tells you Fox isn't fair.

Read this interview and ask yourself this of the Rolling Stone:

And you are?