All the interview did was reconfirm that Republicans running for office run against both their Democratic opponent and the mainstream news media.
Charlie, this is the woman running for VP. Do YOUR job and DO the same to The One and be as confrontational with him as you were with Sarah Palin. I am disgusted with the hostile technique you used for your so called interview. He wanted to grand stand. This interview was nothing short of a grilling interrogation. A hostile one at that. Why or why has Sen. Obama NEVER been interrogated like this? Why has no one challenged that cock and bull “community organizer” description that tanks when you ask for specifics.
The first interview and you had to be an ass. (Nothing more than a taunt with trick questions.) Yet, you did not do this to Obama during his interview. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/09/12/2007-interview-abc-s-gibson-greeted-obama-softballs
Yesterday’s interview of Sarah Palin might have been a political success for the McCain campaign, but it was a shameful display of arrogance, snobbery, and elitism on the part of the Mainstream Media.
Sarah Palin might have looked a bit uncomfortable, all thanks to the pretentiously disrespectful first question that was launched at her, but she remained wholly in control of the subjects being discussed. The problem with the interview was both the HORRID editing that was given to her answers, which made her appear “talking point” obsessed, and also Charlie Gibson’s clearly condescending tone and demeanor.
If Democrats make a big deal out of the fact that she does not know the “Bush doctrine” by heart, they are in fact distancing her even more from the current administration.
Hopefully, most people will get to see the UNEDITED version of her interview, and thus get to appreciate her thoughtful answers, instead of being forced to digest a group of rapid soundbites that made it seem as if she was applying for a job with a highly embittered and pompous boss.
http://savagepolitics.com/?p=1815
And I am not the only one to have noticed either:
***Comment by Toby | 2008-09-11 18:27:43
Re the ABC interview: Gibson’s body language oozed condescension and the dislike in his voice was palpable. The interrogation he attempted was designed to do nothing more than trip Gov. Palin as hard and as fast as he could. “Is Iran an existential threat to Israel?” Existential??? “What is the Bush doctrine?” (I the great Charles Gibson know but you, you silly female hockey mom, surely don’t.) I thought she came through it with head held high and colors flying. I also think he brought another few hundred thousand Hillary voters into the Republican fold. I hope we see a side by side video of Gibson interviewing Obama and Palin. The differences should be a revelation.
http://quipster.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/grilling-in-the-interrogation-room/
And from Australia (because, you know we have been told that the world wants Obama):
Evidence that a shootin’, cussin’ redneck is about to plunge the world into war. And away they go. From the Toronto Globe and Mail: Shooting from the hip on foreign policy, Palin raises spectre of war with Russia Indeed, 3AW’s Neil Mitchell this morning scoffed that a President Palin would have already started “four wars”, to judge by the interview.
Really? Let’s check.
The first war a President Palin would allegedly start was with Pakistan, by invading it in the hunt for terrorists, and perhaps from the transcript you might agree the words are indeed naive and alarming:
We should start with the premise that the United States, like all sovereign nations, has the unilateral right to defend itself against attack. As such, our campaign to take out Al Qaeda base camps and the Taliban regime that harbored them was entirely justified… (I)f we’ve got (Osama bin Laden) in our sites, we should ask for Pakistan’s cooperation, we should ask Pakistan to take him out. But if they don’t, we shouldn’t need permission to go after folks that killed 3,000 Americans.
Oops, sorry. That was actually Barack Obama. This is Palin:
ABC News Anchor Gibson also asked Palin several times whether or not U.S. forces have the right to make cross-border attacks into Pakistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government…
“In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists, who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink…”
The other war a President Palin would start, according to Mitchell, was with Russia over Georgia (should Georgia be a NATO member, which it isn’t). Again, the transcript might sound alarming:
I would also argue that we have the right to take unilateral military action to eliminate an imminent threat to our security— so long as an imminent threat is understood to be a nation, group, or individual that is actively preparing to strike U.S. targets (or allies with which the United States has mutual defense agreements)…
And those allies should include Georgia:
I have consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO…
Oops. Again, that’s Obama. Here is Palin:
Asked whether the United States would have to go to war with Russia if it invaded Georgia, and the country was part of NATO, Palin said: “Perhaps so.”
“I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help,” she said.
Pressed on the question, Palin responded: “What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against … We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.”
War three, fretted Mitchell, would be one with Iran, now seeking nuclear weapons, according to most assessments. Go to the scary transcript:
(T)he global community should offer “big sticks and big carrots” to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear programme.
“A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon…”
Damn, that’s Obama again. Here is Palin:
PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.
GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?
PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.
And the fourth war? Over Israel. To the transcript:
I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally, Israel.
You guessed it. Obama again. Here is Palin:
GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don’t think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.
If Mitchell is alarmed by Palin, running for vice president, he should be terrified by Obama, running for president. Either that, or he should accept that nothing Palin said was particularly bellicose, extreme or unreasonable. He’s just fallen for the Palin=redneck spin of the Left.
In fact, when you read the transcript of Palin’s discussion with reporter Charlie Gibson on foreign affairs, you realize how the gotcha cherry-picking of quotes from it, and the spin given to it, completely misrepresents Palin’s general ease with the subject. The Left dreamed of her making a fool of herself – “er, who’s Putin?” – but she most certainly did not.
September 11, 2008 06:46 PM
Charlie Gibson had a chance to show that he could be fair, balanced, and P.D.S.-free with Sarah Palin’s first major MSM interview.
Looks like he blew it.
Taking quotes out of context.
Engaging in distortionary hype.
And the reason we should watch the rest of this hatchet job is…what exactly?
Also: Guess this is good preparation for the kind of neutral, objective questions we’ll get during the debates.
Charlie, you should NOT rely on AP research. They gave you an incomplete quote to use or did you know that already? You came off as a pompous ass. What is up with the face? So seriouse, are yo afraid of this woman? Have you heard rumors about her man eating ways? Please! Interview excerpts here. http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/11/abc-news-blows-it/
From the New York Post:
At times, Palin seemed to know less than she should. On the other hand, Gibson sometimes seemed to “know” things that just aren’t so. Her responses to Gibson’s cross-examining seemed canned and rehearsed, a little like the answers you might give in a tough college interview. But that may be a result of the ham-fisted editing – which seemed to cut her off mid-thought on many answers. ABC should release the entire, unedited interview, so that Americans can judge her more fairly.
The biggest concern is that she appeared to not know what the Bush Doctrine is. There are, in fact, different definitions of it – but all have had an impact on this nation. One hopes Palin is more up to speed than she seemed.
Americans already know she lacks foreign-policy experience (as, by the way, did Democrats’ 2004 VP candidate, John Edwards). All we could learn from Gibson’s grilling on that topic was how well she’s memorized McCain’s positions. Why ask her whether Georgia and Ukraine should be admitted to NATO? Her position will match McCain’s, just as Joe Biden’s stands will mirror Barack Obama’s.
Plus, her answers last night are already being misrepresented. She said – quite correctly – that, if Georgia and Ukraine are admitted to NATO, the United States may be obliged to defend them. This has been morphed into an assertion that we might invade Russia. And ABC News bears much of the blame: It actually sent out a pre-broadcast alert to that effect. So now we can play this stupid game, pretending she wants to invade Russia instead of debating real issues.
ABC’s errors didn’t end there. The interview seemed to show a lack of good faith, with the blatant misrepresentation of comments she’s made about the Iraq war. Gibson – probably relying on a sloppy Associated Press report – told Palin she has said that, “Our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God.” In a part of the interview that was edited out (but is available on ABC’s Web site), Palin says, “You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.” Gibson snaps: “Exact words.”
Sorry, Charlie – let’s go to the tape. In the video of her remarks, Palin says “Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [US soldiers] out on a task that is from God.” She is clearly praying for wisdom for our national leaders – praying that they are following God’s will. This is Christianity 101, not some fundamentalist plot to wage a holy war. Presumably, Obama, as a Christian, utters similar prayers for our country as well.
There’s more: Gibson also accused her of saying of Iraq, “There is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.” Here’s what she really said: “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.” Despite Gibson’s insistance that she’d said things that she clearly hadn’t, Palin was polite and seemed unrattled.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09122008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/abcs_bungles_128726.htm?page=0
And then there is this:
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/09/first_look_gibson_interviews_p.html
Mr. Gibson, who sat back in his chair and wriggled his foot impatiently, had the skeptical, annoyed tone of a university president who agrees to interview the daughter of a trustee, but doesn’t believe she merits admission.
It was a tough first interview for Ms. Palin, but it was also a cautionary dress-rehearsal for Mr. Obama’s running mate, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., in his debate with Ms. Palin next month:On television, tone matters as much as content. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/us/politics/12watch.html?ref=politics
Fact checking seems to be a problem with the Washington Post as well: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/12/uh-wapo-saddams-been-gone-for-5-years/
…in the tone of “Oh, you didn’t know the Bush Doctrine was all about the right to attack preemptively.” I would dispute the premise that the Bush Doctrine is necessarily about preemptive attacks. The right of preemptive attack is an element of the right of self-defense, which is a natural right of states and was a bedrock of international law before there ever was a Bush Doctrine. News Flash for you Democrats and media types out there: About 40 years before there was a Bush Doctrine, JFK was relying on the self-defense right of preemptive attack during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The Bush Doctrine, technically, is not asserting a right of preemptive attack. It is saying that if Country A facilitates terror, it is responsible for that terrorist organization’s strikes, and therefore we can attack Country A. That is not preemptive; it is retributive.
It was utterly reasonable for Gov. Palin to press Charlie Gibson on what Gibson meant by the Bush Doctrine. Everyone does not mean the same thing by the term, there is lots of good faith argument about what it means, and — because the administration itself has only half-heartedly adhered to it — there is also the confusion between theory and practice.
And why did she want specificity? http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTM3NDIxOTg2N2M0YjYxNDgzZTVmNmY5ZTRlMDEzZmI=
Mr. Greg Gutfield has left Liberals a memo:
…how can one person create so much bile among folks who claim to be the most tolerant in the universe? I mean, liberals are the good people: They’re open-minded, caring and of course, fair.
But somehow, a Republican lady in her 40s is exempt from this treatment. Perhaps, she truly is the devil in a dress, a ghoul that eats children and pollutes the planet and possibly beats Barack Obama, the patron saint of every customer buying wheat germ in bulk at GNC.
But I know the real reason why every single elitist media type is terrified of her. They’ve never met her. And by “her,” I don’t mean Sarah Palin. I mean “her”, an actual normal woman with a bunch of kids, an average husband and no desire to watch “The L Word.”
She’s scary to these folks the way Wal-Mart is scary to them: Both are alien to someone who blogs about their chakras. They won’t go there, because they’ve never been there.
September 12, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Thanks for the very well-laid-out rebuttal. What a despicable, weak, shallow little man he is.
September 12, 2008 at 9:52 PM
I was so PO’d watching that arrogant, elitist, sexist POS Gibson grill Palin I had to turn it off. Who the hell does that scumbag think he is?
Ask Obama the same questions, you left-wing HACK!!
September 12, 2008 at 11:44 PM
There *is* a Bush Doctrine, just as there were Truman, Clinton, and Powell Doctrines (all mentioned in your Wiki article). It is unofficial, but used enough that anyone in politics, much less with a supposed National Security slant, should know what the term means.
Note that the same Wiki article states that the Doctrine is said to have been enunciated (def: to utter or pronounce (words, sentences, etc.), esp. in an articulate or a particular manner) in September 2002. Gibson’s quote from before this was before the term had evolved to the point of being codified in official National Security policy.
As for combative interviews, have you seen O’Reilly’s interview of Obama? I have never seen a candidate treated with such disrespect. THAT was disgusting. Don’t even try to say that Obama has not been put through the ringer.
Gibson’s interview revealed, to me, his frustration at her lack of familiarity with the politics of the last 8 years. He could have concealed that a little better, but, well, she’s a candidate for VP and isn’t familiar enough with the landscape to speak in the familiar terms that would be shoved into her face constantly were she VP, much less, god forbid, President.
September 13, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Kenneth, I disagree. I don’t use wikipedia as a reference. There have been many doctrines over the years but they have been written up with the express purpose of being made a part of the Congressional Record or made part of an official record with in another governing body. This is a small smattering of those doctrines, we should remember them from history class. Examples include the Monroe Doctrine, the Stimson Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, the Nixon Doctrine, the Brezhnev Doctrine, and the Kirkpatrick doctrine.
The definition of doctrine as it applies to foreign relations is this:
In matters of foreign policy, a doctrine, also known as dogma, is a body of axioms fundamental to the exercise of a nation’s foreign policy. Hence, doctrine, in this sense, has come to suggest a broad consistency that holds true across a spectrum of acts and actions. Doctrines of this sort are almost always presented as the personal creations of one particular political leader, whom they are named after.
I believe that he was asking the question as it pertains to strategy.
I stand firm in my analysis of Charlie Gibson’s interrogation. I did not see the same behavior during his interview with Obama. He may have been frustrated, but his crack research team did not provide him with accurate information which unbeknown to him left him in a precarious position. when interviewing her. He should have stated the entire quote not a partial out of context quote.
As for Mr. OReilly, I felt that his was not an interview as much as it was a chat. A fiery one at that. The banter between both of them seemed to not have bothered Sen. Obama in the least. Mr. O’Reilly is a commentator not a journalist.
September 13, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Kenneth, I also forgot to say why wiki info is not the last word. I have difficulty accepting wikipedia as the last word simply because it is a collaborative encyclopedia. I don’t dismiss it entirely for the same reason. We agree to disagree. Thank you for stopping by.
September 13, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Indeed, I apologize for having mixed up this blog with another one. I’m not just spamming the blogs, mind you. This is my only comment about this anywhere. =)
It’s telling that your definition of the Bush Doctrine is related to foreign policy, and mine is that it’s related to National Security, as the sources that I’ve researched indicate. There’s room for interpretation (and slight of hand in some cases), but even if you give her the credit of having known what he was talking about (she said Bush’s “world view”) that’s where she folded. She could have handled it much better. The hot seat is much, much hotter than Charlie Gibson’s uncomfortable silences.
As for O’Reilly, there really isn’t a difference between an “interview” and a “chat” when you’re speaking so disrespectfully of a candidate on national television. He was obviously trying to get Obama to crack and show some emotion. You have to admit that Bill O’Reilly is far more pompous and smarmy than Charlie Gibson…
Imagine if Gibson had looked Palin in the eye and said that she hangs out with the wrong kind of people. That would have gone over well. This is a drop in the bucket.
September 13, 2008 at 12:37 AM
Gibson is a great example of media bias and arrogance. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN,MSNBC,PBS all liberal all the time. They make me want to puke!
September 13, 2008 at 12:39 AM
I’m a Democrat. I’m voting for McCain/Palin 2008!!
September 13, 2008 at 12:39 AM
I thank you for your comments Kenneth. You truly care about this election. I have to say that I have been in this woman’s seat and it was very uncomfortable. (Of course, not for anything quite as important as VP. FYI, I got the job and did it extremely well. There were never regrets.) There was a humongous amount of pressure on this woman to perform at an acceptable level. I have no doubt in my mind that both Republicans and Democrats alike were waiting anxiously to see how well she would perform. Time is of the essence. I have no problem with Gibson having asked any questions in any manner however, he did not behave in the same manner with Sen. Obama in 2007.
O’Reilly is well, O’Reilly. I view his commentary as slightly bordering entertainment. Not to worry about spamming, I welcome any and all who come to discuss. That said, you are always welcome.
September 13, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Gibson thinks he knows it all and he probley could not quote the 5, Bush doct. either, he just wanted to be an ass and he succeded in that. We all know that he is in the tank for BHO, he should be ashamed to let her replies be distorted, but he is not.
September 15, 2008 at 9:14 PM
Thanks, mcnorman. I must say that I was pleasantly surprised that we’ve had an actual conversation about this. =) There’s not enough of that these days. Lots of folks forget that the people who disagree with them (even strongly) are still people.
For the record, I’m an independent. I don’t even find a need to capitalize independent. I vote for whoever seems like the right person for each race. Though it usually ends up being a Dem, it is sometimes an alternate. I believe that the two party system is silly, and helps to generate this kind of diversionary circus. Us versus them.
As for pressure, this is the irony of the whole situation for me. If Obama’s people whined that he was under pressure and someone was asking unfair questions, the wolves would sink their teeth in even deeper. If she were a male, _he_ would be ripped apart for being unprepared or stupid (Dan Quayle much?).
If she may end up being in control of the most powerful country in the world, she’s got to be able to take care of herself when confronted with a *very* serious reality that is not merely hypothetical. No one is going to cut her any slack. You don’t throw light punches in an interview and then expect a hardened champ to burst into the ring.
September 15, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Thank you Kenneth. It would be a far better world if we could all have calm discourse. Your posts have left me contemplating more about this election and that is always a good thing. I believe that we all have something to offer. FYI, I also vote as you do. I agree wholeheartedly when you state that she must be prepared. She will have to be able to anticipate and address without hesitation.