Posted on 09/15/2008 9:19:30 PM PDT by goldstategop
Sarah Palin's reputation survived her interview with ABC News' Charlie Gibson.
The same cannot be said for Charlie Gibson.
On my radio show last week, I twice defended Barack Obama. Once, against those conservatives who took a comment made by Obama in an interview with George Stephanopoulos out of context and suggested that Obama had inadvertently admitted he was a Muslim. And again, when I contended that Obama did not imply that Palin was a pig in his now famous "lipstick on a pig" reference.
I mention this only because I want to assume that people of good will on both sides can still be honest about what transpires politically. And in this instance what transpired was that Gibson intended to humiliate Palin.
It wasn't even subtle. Virtually everything Gibson did and virtually every question he posed was designed to trap, or trick, or demean Gov. Palin. There are views of his face that so reek of contempt that anyone shown photos of his look would immediately identify it as contemptuous.
But one series of questions, in particular, blew any cover of impartiality and revealed Gibson's aim to humiliate Palin.
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His worldview?
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
When he asked Palin whether she agreed with the Bush Doctrine without defining it, he gave the game away. He lost any pretense of fairness. Asking the same unanswerable question three times had one purpose -- to humiliate the woman. That was not merely partisan. It was mean.
I couldn't answer it -- and I have been steeped in international affairs since I was a Fellow at the Columbia University School of International Affairs in the 1970s. I have since been to 82 countries, and have lectured in Russian in Russia and in Hebrew in Israel. Most Americans would consider a candidate for national office who had such a resume qualified as regards international relations. Yet I had no clue how to answer Gibson's question.
I had no clue because there is no right answer. There are at least four doctrines that are called "Bush Doctrine," which means that there is no "Bush Doctrine." It is a term bereft of meaning, as became abundantly clear when Gibson finally explained what he was referring to:
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that -- the right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America?
That's the Bush Doctrine? "The right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America?"
Isn't that just common sense? What country in history has thought it did not have the right to attack those planning to attack it? I learned the "Bush Doctrine" when I was a student at yeshiva in the fourth grade, when I was taught a famous Talmudic dictum from about 1,800 years ago: "If someone is coming to kill you, rise early and kill him."
And preemptive attack is exactly what happened in June 1967, when Israel attacked Egypt and Syria because those countries were planning to attack Israel. Would any American president before George W. Bush have acted differently than Israel did? Of course not. Did they all believe in the Bush Doctrine?
That is how Gibson added foolishness to his meanness.
All the interview did was reconfirm that Republicans running for office run against both their Democratic opponent and the mainstream news media.
This year it is more obvious than ever. The press's beatification of Obama is so obvious, so constant (how many covers of Newsweek and Time has Obama been on?) that media credibility even among many non-conservatives has been hurt.
Let me put this another way. Charlie Gibson showed far greater hostility toward the Republican vice-presidential candidate than Dan Rather did in his interview with Saddam Hussein or Mike Wallace did in his interview with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Which reminds me of another Talmudic dictum: "Those who are merciful to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful."
We might call it the media's Gibson Doctrine: Confront Republicans, act obsequious toward tyrants.
Then SNL took every “gotcha” response from Sarah Palan and wove it into their skits. They didn’t lay a finger on Obama the entire show. I’m not going to watch SNL for a long, long time.
Mr. Prager, please allow me to suggest a new word for our lexicon, it’s a compound noun used as a verb, and its meaning and application are instantly apparent.
Media-boat, or mediaboat, v. (t)
–verb (used with object), -boat•ed, -boat•ing.
-to use print, broadcast, or online falsehoods to destroy or harm treacherously and viciously: to assassinate a person's character, esp a politically prominent or popular person via the journalistic or entertainment media.
-to conspire clandestinely to act as a media agent for one political party and against another; selectively characterizing the good news of one, and the negative news of the other. The inventing or distortion of facts for reporting to harm political opponents.
Ex. “The networks are media-boating Sarah Palin’s life and history in order to promote left-wing and globalist agendas and to aid Barack Obama.”
I will add this to several similar threads in the next few days. (Hopefully folks will overlook the repetitions.)
.
i cant believe you watched it this time
Well, I clicked on your link, and my brower closed. Is that what you wanted? Have I missed some joke?
Question: Did Bush actually name any policy of his the “Bush Doctrine” or is this a term applied to one or more policies by the media, like Star wars for SDI?
Excellent piece by Dennis Prager and he showed Charles Gibson for what he is, a very small man.
It’s sure hard to argue with this: “Those who are merciful to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful.” Praeger is right on target here.
I like Dennis a lot, and it isn’t very often that I disagree with him. I am going to do so here, in that Obama’s delivery left absolutely not doubt in my mind that he was referring to Palin with the lipstick comment. There was no policy or other object for him to be referring to.
For instance, when McCain made the lipstick on a pig comment in reference to Hillary’s health care plan, it was the plan that he was referring to. Obama had not made a reference to any Palin policy, so what else could he have been referring to but her?
So I will say that Praeger is going to merciful to the cruel here, but I have never seen him be cruel to the innocent, unless you could say it was cruel to Palin to give Obama a pass here.
Dennis is a good man, and I mean that in all sincerity. I think he’s wrong, but the man is too sound to take to task unfairly.
Kudos to Dennis Praeger, a man I have respected a great deal since his religion on the line days on Sunday evenings decades ago on KABC radio in Los Angeles, California. At least I think it was KABC.
What a mess. Sorry about that...
It’s sure hard to argue with this: “Those who are merciful to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful.” Praeger is right on target here.
I like Dennis a lot, and it isn’t very often that I disagree with him. I am going to do so here, in that Obama’s delivery left absolutely not doubt in my mind that he was referring to Palin with the lipstick comment. There was no policy or other object for him to be referring to.
For instance, when McCain made the lipstick on a pig comment in reference to Hillary’s health care plan, it was the plan that he was referring to. Obama had not made a reference to any Palin policy, so what else could he have been referring to but her?
So I will say that Praeger is showing mercy to the cruel Obama here, but I have never seen him be cruel to the merciful, unless you could say it was cruel to Palin to give Obama a pass here.
Dennis is a good man, and I mean that in all sincerity. I think he’s wrong, but the man is too sound to take to task unfairly.
Kudos to Dennis Praeger, a man I have respected a great deal since his religion on the line days on Sunday evenings decades ago on KABC radio in Los Angeles, California. At least I think it was KABC.
I certainly agree with his comments about Gibson. It saddened me to watch Gibson out himself in that manner. I have had a fair amount of respect for him in the past. No longer...
As for the doctrine question, it was just another gotsha moment for Gibson. There were many. They revealed what Gibson is at the core. That’s too bad really, the fact that he is that vile.
HAROLD (one of the judges)(trouble reading): "Uh, if you could be any tree in the woods, what kinda tree would you be?"
TESS: (long pause) Dogwood.
MOLLY: Bonsai.
LESLIE: Green?
MICHELLE: A tree? I can be any tree you want. Gimme a minute. (She begins vocal and facial warm-up exercises.)
BECKY: One with strong roots in a community like Mount Rose, a solid Christian trunk and long leafy branches to provide shade for handicapped kids on a hot summer day.
**************************************************
(CAMERA ON THE JUDGES - Harold reads, John (another judge) stares longingly.)
HAROLD: "Who would you pick to be president, dead or alive?"
(PAN OVER to Molly Howard.)
MOLLY: Uh, Emperor Hirohito.
LESLIE: Brett Favre!
BECKY: My mother, because she could solve world hunger with one of her blue- ribbon rhubarb pies, create world peace with one of her prayers and still find time to look beautiful...for my dad, Lester Leeman.
(John Dough drinks nervously from his water glass.)
JOHN: D-do you like to swim?
(The other judges look at him, then at their clipboards trying to find this question.)
LISA: Oh-yah, I love to swim. When I was in New York, I met Greg Louganis at one of my brothers' shows...
*********************************************************
HAROLD: You Amber Atkins?
AMBER: Yes. Yes I am. Thank you, hello.
(All judges turn a page on their clipboards.)
HAROLD: "Name and spell all the United States in alphabetical order."
(PAN OVER to a stunned Amber.)
AMBER: Seriously?
HAROLD: Ah-yep.
(Amber can't believe what she's hearing.)
AMBER: Well, ah...Alabama. A-L-A-B-A-M-A. Alaska. A-L-A-S-K-A. Arizona. A-R-I- Z-O-N-A.............
Watch the movie to see what happened. Spoiler: like Sarah-cuda, Amber nails the question.
I actually liked the gotcha yes-no question with Pakistan because it showed that Palin wouldn’t make the same mistake that Obama made. Palin demonstrated a skill that goes beyond knowledge of facts and doctrines.
Biden may know a lot of facts but his undisciplined nature would cause so many diplomatic problems. And of course he also happens to be wrong on the issues.
Prager bump.
I am praying for the day Sarah, or someone like her, asks her Nazi interrogators: Who made up these snotty questions you’re asking? You or some other idiot?
Obama interview by Gibson:
How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?
Palin interview by Gibson:
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]
There was nothing taken out of context in that interview. Stephanopoulos correcting Barack Hussein is proof enough of that. Besides, if Osama had said, "..my Christian faith." it would have been ridiculous on its face as it makes no sense.
Generally, if you can survive a set-up like what Gibson executed against Palin, it says a lot about you. She’s not a flash in the pan, and these folks better come to grips with that fact.
I know what you mean. I agree with you.
Pound for pound, up against Obama, Palin is quite impressive. The more they try to take her down and can’t, the less impressive Obama will look. They don’t have a clue how bad they are hurting themselves.
I don’t mean in a one on one face off. I mean in stature. She is the VP nominee, and she outshines Obama the presidential nominee based on the gauntlet each have had to go through. They have made her into a giant, the stupid fools. They could have allowed her to be popular and then fade away to a certain extent. Instead they focus on her every day and make her bigger than life.
McCain couldn’t have asked for more help from the Democrats. Eh, why even mention the media. It’s all the Democrats, so why bother breaking it down.
From now on we should simply refuse to refer to Democrats and the Media. We just refer to them as the Democrats. We can refer to them as the LA Times wing of the party, the NY Times wing, the WP wing, the CNN wing, the MSNBC wing, the NBC wing...
it also prepares her for the VP debate
Sarah Palin appears as a barricade in the middle of the road to socialism. She has the ability to convince more people of the frauds of the left has in store. . People who don’t generally listen to political speeches will listen to Palin.
I think that’s a good point. Good luck Biden. While you’re getting a free pass, Sarah is getting trained by the DNC’s ABC division.
The Gibson Doctrine.. repeated over and over will put a hitch in his git-along..
The media have pretty much proven that they really are stupid (little, if any, intellect and uneducable). We are wasting time if we expect anything else from "schools" of journalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.