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.
Yes, I agree.
I always thought it was the Doctrine of the Disproportionate Response: You topple our towers, we topple your regimes!
like Iran?
the last State of the Union was very disappointing
LOL! elite is not Charlie.
like Iran?
the last State of the Union was very disappointing
Agreed. I did vote for the guy twice, and I believe we're better off than we would have been, had either of his opponents won.
Interesting saying.
If interpreted literally, a corollary would be that such people would be cruel to themselves.
I think compared to the news media, they have been quite equal opportunity offender.
But Obama’s right. we do need a change from Bush. We need mccain/palin!
You just defined Hell:
Every day, waking up with Michelle, so you can go to work with Hillary all day, then come back home to Michelle.
The US government should defund any student loans for "journalism" majors...it no longer exists as an occupation.
“...while democrats act like scum...”
they don’t act like scum, they ARE scum.
IMHO
Gibson Doctrine......DESTROY ALL REPUBLICANS!!!!!
GREAT Tagline!!! How true....how true.
bump
Gibson was so full of himself thinking he was looking so pretentious and professorial when he really looked like a Baffoon.
Pray for W, McCuda and Our Troops
It worked for post #44.
Dont know what happened to you.
In 1954, Willie Mays, in an emphatic stroke of Byzantine whimsy, made his over-the-shoulder catch off of Vic Wertz. What was it not unlike?
Sidney's skills as a rhabdomantist were useful while he and his party were stranded in the desert. What is the nature of Sidney's talent?
Doris was concerned with the rash she was experiencing in her oxter. Where was this irritating rash located?
Define the word "Ximelolagnia."
Isn’t it ironic that in his zeal to perform a character assassination and the resultant exposure and discredit his actions earned him, Charlie Gibson’s interview awarded Sarah Palin a place in all his future references about his career, accomplishments, famous moments, and even in his obituary someday.
ABC News needs to get a lot of emails and letters grading Gibson an absolute “F” for his contemptuous, arrogant, prideful, unprofessional distain when Gov. Palin did him the favor of allowing herself to be interviewed by such a liberal hack.
Contrast his questions with Obama when he interviewed him - they were touchy feely softball questions. It only shows what a disgrace to journalism he truly is. I hope his ratings go in the toilet because I’ll never watch him again. He is in the same category as Obermann and should be shunned.
“SNL has made some skits involving 0bama, Clinton, and the media. They also had aired a funny skit involving McCain making fun of the Dim primaries (yes, the real McCain).
I think compared to the news media, they have been quite equal opportunity offender.”
Here’s my take on this...it’s sad that we have come to this point in the media of ridiculing the people we choose to represent us in the world. What a mockery they have made of George W Bush who has in my estimation, stood tall with dignity and class thru the troubles he’s been dealt and the a-holes he’s had to deal with....
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.