Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Palin Meets the Mainstream Media
Time Magazine ^

Posted on 09/11/2008 6:30:55 PM PDT by Chet 99

On a day when people paused and prayed, when Barack Obama joined John McCain at Ground Zero and made peace with Bill Clinton over lunch, when the ads were stilled and the e-mails sheathed just for a while, GOP Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin held a peace conference of her own with the Mainstream Media, when she sat down with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson in Fairbanks, Alaska.

Charles Gibson, gentleman journalist, was not about to field dress Sarah Palin before a national television audience, but at times he seemed to be trying. They were sitting practically toe to toe, and there was no forced conviviality. From the very beginning, he pushed her on her credentials, her experience, her "hubris" in thinking she was qualified to be Vice President. "I'm ready," she shot back, and when he asked again whether she had hesitated at all before accepting John McCain's offer of a place on the ticket, she made it clear that her son was not the only one heading off to war. "You can't blink," she said. "You have to be wired in a way, of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink."

She parried questions like a fencer. Pressed about her lack of foreign policy experience, she pivoted to her work on oil and gas policy, calling energy "a foundation of national security."

(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Alaska
KEYWORDS: abcnews; chucklestheclown; gibsonpalin; liberalmedia; mccainpalin; palin; timemag

1 posted on 09/11/2008 6:30:55 PM PDT by Chet 99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Chet 99
Sarah has experience as a journalist, so she's not a total babe in the woods. She knows "gotcha" questions. I think it dawned on Charlie Gibson he met his match.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

2 posted on 09/11/2008 6:34:27 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

Let me ask an obvious question here...

Why the hell isn’t anyone questioning whether Obama is qualified to be a CIC? His resume is much more thin than hers.


3 posted on 09/11/2008 6:34:51 PM PDT by Jaguarmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

Gibson was in way over his head but it appears that the abc editors are going to be able to fix it.


4 posted on 09/11/2008 6:37:01 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (McCain/Palin '08! Real change you won't have to "believe in." You'll be able to see it!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

Sarah did great from what I saw and give Sarah credit she didn’t try to touch Charlie’s knee.


5 posted on 09/11/2008 6:37:22 PM PDT by fkabuckeyesrule (What does september mean to me? hockey pre-season. Yes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarmike

One mustn’t question the messiah.


6 posted on 09/11/2008 6:38:19 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Eras will now be referred to as: BS: Before Sarah and AS: After Sarah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

Except for the snarky little comment at the end, a fairly balanced piece. Surprising from TimeOUT magazine.


7 posted on 09/11/2008 6:41:36 PM PDT by PhilosopherStones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

The one thing that bothered me about the part of the interview I saw was when Palin answered one of his questions and he said something to the effect of, “I heard a lot of words there but no yes or no; what is it yes or no?” What a hypocrite. I have NEVER heard any of these network news numbskulls ever ask any of the Dems such a thing. I’ve heard Hillary, Barack, and numerous others obfuscate, dance around the answer and do everything but answer it - they won’t even touch on the actual topic at times and I have NEVER heard one of them say, “now I have heard you just utter a bunch of gobbledegook, but is it yes or no?” Do they think they are in a court?


8 posted on 09/11/2008 6:41:53 PM PDT by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fkabuckeyesrule

We’re all nervous for her, so it’s hard to see how well she did.

She was great.

Anyone can see that they chopped the tape to interrupt her impressive presence.

Go Sarah.


9 posted on 09/11/2008 6:42:27 PM PDT by davidjquackenbush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

This is a pretty damn favorable article for Palin


10 posted on 09/11/2008 6:43:59 PM PDT by Krankor (Are you claiming you eat toucans or)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

Except for the little fact that Obama was campaigning in Harlem along side bubba. There he was waving to the folks.........on this of all days.


11 posted on 09/11/2008 6:45:25 PM PDT by Carley (she's all out of caribou.............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarmike
Yeah, can you imagine what it would look like if Bill Sammon got an uninterrupted hour with obozo?
12 posted on 09/11/2008 6:46:00 PM PDT by skimbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

Should Sarah be scheduling another interview with Sean Hannity to refute some of the out of context editing that ABC might do to her?


13 posted on 09/11/2008 6:47:32 PM PDT by kempster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99
"came on the day Palin's eldest son Track attended his deployment ceremony to head to Iraq"

Are the rats sending anyone to Iraq to 'assist' her son?

14 posted on 09/11/2008 6:49:04 PM PDT by balk (thefightnetwork.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

The McCain campaign should never consent to media interviews where editing is permitted. Or if editing is allowed, they should be running their own cameras too.


15 posted on 09/11/2008 6:49:47 PM PDT by Chet 99 (http://www.mccainpalinvictory2008.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

Palin met the quota. Her performance, IMO, was neither impressive nor underwhelming. She did what she had to do, give an interview and get out. She stumbled and repeated some worn-out talking points.


16 posted on 09/11/2008 6:51:30 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99
sorry for the size - it's the only still I could find.

Have you ever seen an interview with such a setup?

The two are sitting directly opposite, almost toe-to-toe. The camera is positioned 90 degrees from her chair to capture her profile and show the interviewer in more of a full-body shot.

Who is the featured person in this picture?

17 posted on 09/11/2008 6:52:17 PM PDT by TexasNative2000 (Obviously, liberals can't handle a strong, independent woman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

Wow! The actualy see what my daughter and I saw! She owned (or should I say pwned) him! I thouhgt she was wonderful and self-assured. I would have like to have her and McCian stand up for Bush just a little.

I pray that once elected that come Sept 11 next year they offer a prayer for the man who risked his reputation and legacy as a president to keep us safe.


18 posted on 09/11/2008 6:53:55 PM PDT by Pharmer (How am I supposed to rule the world when I surrounded by freakin liberal idiots!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

This is from Time magazine?!? WTH?


19 posted on 09/11/2008 6:54:03 PM PDT by MortMan (Those who stand for nothing fall for anything. - Alexander Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

Gov. Palin just proved she can handle the media. There’s nothing left for them to do except throw out a few more pitiful false charges and then watch the first female vp in history be elected.


20 posted on 09/11/2008 6:55:25 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

I’m amazed that “Time” did such a good job of reporting...I think it’s been so long since I’ve read a piece of journalism that wasn’t propaganda that I’d almost forgotten what it looked like.


21 posted on 09/11/2008 6:55:44 PM PDT by GWMcClintock (Right after Lib Democrats, the most dangerous politicians are country club Republicans. T. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GWMcClintock
I’m amazed that “Time” did such a good job of reporting...I think it’s been so long since I’ve read a piece of journalism that wasn’t propaganda that I’d almost forgotten what it looked like

Thanks for this comment. I wasn't gonna read the article cause I saw the Time byline and assumed it would be a hit piece. I figured I get a better read form the freeper on this thread. I'm shocked to hear of actual journalism going on. Something has slipped at Time.

22 posted on 09/11/2008 7:01:57 PM PDT by free_for_now (No Dick Dale in the R&R HOF? - for shame!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Nuh uh!! really?
A politician repeating talking points to the media?
GET OUT!!

Erm..I think that’s how a message gets out.


23 posted on 09/11/2008 7:02:49 PM PDT by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

“. She knows “gotcha” questions.”

This is why Charlie was so irritated and why MSM is giving her generally good reviews. The time to “wow” people was during the convention. The only purpose of these interviews is to not fumble the football so they can’t run a “potatoe” gaffe 24/7.


24 posted on 09/11/2008 7:06:19 PM PDT by Chet 99 (http://www.mccainpalinvictory2008.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

Exactly. She did fine, and that’s all they can say.


25 posted on 09/11/2008 7:09:39 PM PDT by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99
Yes, this article from Time was obviously released without being ideologically edited. Hints of neutrality slipped in, in several places.
26 posted on 09/11/2008 7:11:21 PM PDT by Mediocrates (Joe Biden, get that V.P. thing in writing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

Balanced article, considering the source.

I thought Sarah did great. She did what she had to do, she didn’t slip up in any major way, and she came across as confident and well-poised.

The editors at ABC News need to be fired. What a friggin hack job.


27 posted on 09/11/2008 7:13:38 PM PDT by bdeaner ("It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." --Mother Theresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

I obsserved her skills in not falling for his “bait”. I was impressed with Sara. Now if Obama would be given the same tough questions with the same condescending tone of voice. They edited out the rest of her answers...is that allowed? I wanted to slug Charlie with a trout!


28 posted on 09/11/2008 7:16:56 PM PDT by jcmfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

bump for later


29 posted on 09/11/2008 7:31:38 PM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GWMcClintock

“I’m amazed that “Time” did such a good job of reporting..”

I think most in the MSM are feeling some blowback for how incredibly biased and unprofessional most of them have been. A few have expressed embarrassment over the Matthews/Olberman behavior, and over the immediate attempts to smear Palin from day one. There might be some effort to be a little less in the tank for Obama, but it’ll probably be temporary.

But the MSM has taken a few beatings about their bias recently.


30 posted on 09/11/2008 7:37:28 PM PDT by Will88 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99
The look on her face when Charlie asked the “Bush Doctrine” question was priceless. Wry little grin that seemed to say “I know what you are up to”.
31 posted on 09/11/2008 7:41:57 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter ( Sarah Palin is America's Margaret Thatcher; Obama is America's George Galloway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: davidjquackenbush

Yes, it’s hard for us to objective about her performance.

However, several MSM reviews said she sounded rehearsed, or gave pat answers, or stuck to her talking points. How could that be! She was going against an experienced interviewer who was trying to trip her up.

Sarah is an incredibly smooth and direct speaker. She is the “Natural”. Her lack of uh-uh-uh has the lefties labbergasted. Why, why, the Alaskan governor is a better communicator than the Messiah.


32 posted on 09/11/2008 7:55:17 PM PDT by BigBobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

Laney Davis is flying the standard yellow flag of liberalism on H&C tonight.

Proclaiming concern that Sarah suggests that America should actually stand behind it’s NATO commitments.


33 posted on 09/11/2008 7:57:36 PM PDT by G Larry (Our VP has more executive experience than B.O.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

Am I seeing things? This was from TIME MAG????


34 posted on 09/11/2008 7:57:42 PM PDT by pvoce ('Good' sense and 'Common' sense are two entirely different concepts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99
Boston.com THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
JEFF JACOBY

Death of the Bush Doctrine

THE Bush Doctrine - born on Sept. 20, 2001, when President Bush bluntly warned the sponsors of violent jihad: "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists" - is dead. Its demise was announced by Condoleezza Rice last Friday.

The secretary of state was speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route with the president to Kuwait from Israel. She was explaining why the administration had abandoned the most fundamental condition of its support for Palestinian statehood - an end to Palestinian terror. Rice's explanation, recounted here by The Washington Times, was as striking for its candor as for its moral blindness:

"The 'road map' for peace, conceived in 2002 by Mr. Bush, had become a hindrance to the peace process, because the first requirement was that the Palestinians stop terrorist attacks. As a result, every time there was a terrorist bombing, the peace process fell apart and went back to square one. Neither side ever began discussing the 'core issues': the freezing of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the right of Palestinian refugees to return, the outline of Israel's border, and the future of Jerusalem.

"The reason that we haven't really been able to move forward on the peace process for a number of years is that we were stuck in the sequentiality of the road map. So you had to do the first phase of the road map before you moved on to the third phase of the road map, which was the actual negotiations of final status," Rice said. . . . What the US-hosted November peace summit in Annapolis did was "break that tight sequentiality. . . You don't want people to get hung up on settlement activity or the fact that the Palestinians haven't fully been able to deal with the terrorist infrastructure. . ."

Thus the president who once insisted that a "Palestinian state will never be created by terror" now insists that a Palestinian state be created regardless of terror. Once the Bush administration championed a "road map" whose first and foremost requirement was that the Palestinians "declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism" and shut down "all official . . . incitement against Israel." Now the administration says that Palestinian terrorism and incitement are nothing "to get hung up on."

Whatever happened to the moral clarity that informed the president's worldview in the wake of 9/11? Whatever happened to the conviction that was at the core of the Bush Doctrine: that terrorists must be anathematized and defeated, and the fever-swamps that breed them drained and detoxified?

Bush's support for the creation of a Palestinian state was always misguided - rarely has a society shown itself less suited for sovereignty - but at least he made it clear that American support came at a stiff price: "The United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state," Bush said in his landmark June 2002 speech on the Israeli-Arab conflict, "until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure." He reinforced that condition two years later, confirming in a letter to Ariel Sharon that "the Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure."

Now that policy has gone by the boards, replaced by one less focused on achieving peace than on maintaining a "peace process." No doubt it is difficult, as Rice says, to "move forward on the peace process" when the Palestinian Authority glorifies suicide bombers and encourages a murderous goal of eliminating the Jewish state. If the Bush Doctrine - "with us or with the terrorists" - were still in force, the peace process would be shelved. The administration would be treating the Palestinians as pariahs, allowing them no assistance of any kind, much less movement toward statehood, so long as their encouragement of terrorism persisted.

But it is the Bush Doctrine that has been shelved. In its hunger for Arab support against Iran - and perhaps in a quest for a historic "legacy" - the administration has dropped "with us or with the terrorists." It is hellbent instead on bestowing statehood upon a regime that stands unequivocally with the terrorists. "Frankly, it's time for the establishment of a Palestinian state," Rice says.

When George W. Bush succeeded Bill Clinton, he was determined not to replicate his predecessor's blunders in the Middle East, a determination that intensified after 9/11. Yet now he too has succumbed to the messianism that leads US presidents to imagine they can resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Clinton's legacy in this arena was the second intifada, which drenched the region in blood. To what fresh hell will Bush's diplomacy lead?

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com. 

© Copyright The New York Times Company
 

35 posted on 09/11/2008 7:58:30 PM PDT by Notwithstanding (Obama/Biden: the "O" stands for Zero Executive Experience & Zero Accomplishments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GWMcClintock

I agree. Actual reporting. I’m shocked.

So...Palin’s performance. Sigh. I have high hopes for her, I really do. And I’m one of those “very excited Republican base” people. But to be honest, I was very underwhelmed by her performance. Yes, ABC hacked it up in editing to make her look bad, in some spots, and I’m quite certain to change her meaning in at least one instance (”...they have no choice but to become suicide bombers...”).

None of that changes the fact that it was pretty clear to me that she hasn’t put a lot of thought into national or international affairs. And her “don’t blink” attitude will come off as scary when combined with her lack of thoughtfulness, there. I would have much preferred that she’d answered with more humility and thoughtfulness. “Well, Charlie, I wouldn’t say I had self doubt, but I certainly did have many questions for Senator McCain. And I also needed to spend some time in introspection, soul searching, and prayer. And after I went through that process, this is what I discovered...”

Anyway, I give it a C for her first performance. Still plenty of time left in the term.


36 posted on 09/11/2008 7:59:41 PM PDT by showpromid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding

Wouldn’t you love someone to ask OBama if he subscribed to the Clinton Doctrine?


37 posted on 09/11/2008 8:02:52 PM PDT by Notasoccermom (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding

The Bush Doctrine, R.I.P.

Published: April 13, 2002

As a statement of principle set forth by an American chief executive, the now defunct Bush Doctrine may have had a shelf life even shorter than Kenny Boy's Enron code of ethics. As a statement of presidential intent, it may land in the history books alongside such magisterial moments as Lyndon Johnson's 1964 pledge not to send American boys to Vietnam and Richard Nixon's 1968 promise to ''bring us together.''

It was in September that the president told Congress that ''from this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.'' It was in November that he told the United Nations that ''there is no such thing as a good terrorist.'' Now the president is being assailed even within his own political camp for not only refusing to label Yasir Arafat a terrorist but judging him good enough to be a potential partner in our desperate effort to tamp down the flames of the Middle East.

Yet the administration's double standard for Mr. Arafat is hardly the first, or only, breach of the Bush Doctrine.

As Tina Fey explained with only faint comic exaggeration on ''Saturday Night Live'' last weekend, the U.S. also does business of state with nations that both ''fund all the terrorism in the world'' (Saudi Arabia, where the royal family on Thursday joined in a telethon supporting Palestinian ''martyrs'') and are ''100 percent with the terrorists except for one little guy in charge'' (Pakistan). President Bush, who once spoke of rigid lines drawn between ''good'' men and ''evildoers,'' has now been so overrun by fresh hellish events and situational geopolitical bargaining that his old formulations -- ''either you are with us or you are with the terrorists'' -- have been rendered meaningless.

But even as he fudges his good/evil categorizations when it comes to Mr. Arafat and other players he suddenly may need in the Middle East, it's not clear that Mr. Bush knows that he can no longer look at the world as if it were Major League Baseball, with every team clearly delineated in its particular division. ''Look, my job isn't to try to nuance,'' he told a British interviewer a week after the Passover massacre in Netanya. ''My job is to tell people what I think. . . . I think moral clarity is important.''

Mr. Bush doesn't seem to realize that nuances are what his own administration is belatedly trying to master -- and must -- if Colin Powell is going to hasten a cease-fire in the Middle East. Mr. Bush doesn't seem to know that since the routing of the Taliban his moral clarity has atrophied into simplistic, often hypocritical sloganeering. He has let his infatuation with his own rectitude metastasize into hubris.

The result -- the catastrophe of the administration's handling of the Middle East -- is clear: 15 months of procrastination and conflict avoidance followed by a baffling barrage of mixed messages that have made Mr. Bush's use of the phrase ''without delay'' the most elastically parsed presidential words since his predecessor's definition of sex. It takes some kind of perverse genius to simultaneously earn the defiance of the Israelis, the Palestinians and our Arab ''allies'' alike and turn the United States into an impotent bystander.

The ensuing mess should be a wake-up call for Mr. Bush to examine his own failings and those of his administration rather than try (as he did a week ago) to shift the blame to Bill Clinton's failed Camp David summit talks (and then backpedal after being called on it). While the conventional wisdom has always had it that this president can be bailed out of foreign-policy jams by his seasoned brain trust, the competing axes of power in the left (State) and right (Defense) halves of that surrogate brain have instead sent him bouncing between conflicting policies like a yo-yo, sometimes within the same day.

Speaking to The Los Angeles Times this week about Mr. Bush's floundering, the Reagan administration policy honcho for the Mideast, Geoffrey Kemp, said: ''A two-year-old could have seen this crisis coming. And the idea that it could be brushed under the carpet as the administration focused on either Afghanistan or Iraq reflects either appalling arrogance or ignorance.''

The administration of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell is hardly ignorant. But arrogance is another matter. ''We shouldn't think of American involvement for the sake of American involvement'' is how Condoleezza Rice defined the administration's intention to butt out of the Middle East only a couple of weeks after her boss's inauguration, thereby codifying the early Bush decision not to send a negotiator to a last-ditch peace summit in Egypt. Since then, even as Sept. 11 came and went, we've been at best reluctantly and passingly engaged, culminating with our recall of the envoy Anthony Zinni in December, after which we sat idly by during three months of horror. Not until Dick Cheney returned from his humiliating tour of the Arab world in late March did he state the obvious: ''There isn't anybody but us'' to bring about a hiatus in the worst war the region has seen in 20 years.

Even then, the 180-degree reversal from the administration's previous inertia was not motivated by the bloody imperatives of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians but by their inconvenient disruption of Mr. Bush's plans to finish his father's job in Iraq. A cynic might go so far as to say that ''Saddam Hussein is driving U.S. foreign policy'' -- which, as it happens, is what Benjamin Netanyahu did tell The New York Post on Tuesday.

The goal of stopping Saddam, worthy as it is, cannot be separated from the conflict of the Jews and the Palestinians and never could be. But even now Mr. Bush seems less than engaged in the Middle East. It took him a week after the Passover massacre to decide to send Colin Powell to the region. The president has yet to speak publicly about the spillover of the hostilities into Europe, where each day brings news of some of the ugliest anti-Semitic violence seen there since World War II. He continues to resist the idea that American peacekeepers will be needed to keep the Middle East (not to mention Afghanistan) from tumbling back into the chaos that could once again upend his plans to take on Saddam.

Peacekeepers, of course, are to Mr. Bush a synonym for nation-building, which he regards as a no-no. If there's a consistent pattern to the administration's arrogance, it's that when the president has an idée fixe of almost any sort on any subject -- from the Bush Doctrine on down -- it remains fixed in perpetuity, not open to question, even as a world as complex and fast-changing as ours calls out for rethinking.

Never mind that Sept. 11 was the most graphic demonstration imaginable that a missile shield may not be the most useful vessel for our ever more precious defense dollars; it's still full speed ahead. Nor has the bursting of the stock-market bubble dampened Mr. Bush's conviction that Americans should entrust their Social Security savings to his campaign contributors from Wall Street's investment houses. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, once pitched as a quick fix to the (fleeting) California energy crisis, is now being sold as an antidote to our Middle Eastern woes (because some 10 years from now it may reduce our oil imports by 4 or 5 percent). The Bush tax cut, conceived at a time of endless surpluses and peace, is still touted as the perfect economic plan even now that the surpluses are shot and we are at war. In this administration, one size idea, however slender or dubious, fits all.

To Mr. Bush, these immutable policies are no doubt all doctrines, principles, testaments to his moral clarity. In fact, many of them have more to do with ideology than morality. Only history can determine whether they will be any more lasting than the Bush doctrine on terrorism. Meanwhile, we should be grateful that the administration did abandon its stubborn 15-month disengagement from the Middle East to make an effort, however confused, hasty and perilous, to halt the bloodshed and (one imagines) lead the search for a political solution.

''This is a world with a lot of gray,'' said Chuck Hagel, the Republican from Nebraska, to The Washington Post late this week. ''We can choose either to live in an abstract world or choose to engage in the real world. . . . The reality of that has started to set in with this administration.'' We must hope that Senator Hagel is right. While it is far too late for an Arafat or a Sharon to change, it is not too late for a young president still in a young administration to get over himself. At this tragic juncture, the world depends on it, because, as his own vice president put it, there isn't anybody else to do the job.

E-mail: frankrich@nytimes.com


38 posted on 09/11/2008 8:12:01 PM PDT by Notwithstanding (Obama/Biden: the "O" stands for Zero Executive Experience & Zero Accomplishments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

This was a very good article actually. Quite fair to her and the interview.


39 posted on 09/11/2008 9:58:33 PM PDT by Lent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fkabuckeyesrule

His knee?!?!

Heck, if I’d been her, I’d have slugged the jerks jaw! How many times did she have to say ‘we can go into Pakistan to defend ourselves’ before dumbo figured out her answer?

When he asked for a yes or no for the 4th or 5th time, I was hoping she would tell him to review the tapes with an adult, and have the adult give him the answer.


40 posted on 09/11/2008 10:13:21 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Mav & the Barracuda vs. Messiah and the Mouth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: showpromid
“Well, Charlie, I wouldn’t say I had self doubt, but I certainly did have many questions for Senator McCain. And I also needed to spend some time in introspection, soul searching, and prayer. And after I went through that process, this is what I discovered...”

Seriously? Thats a HORRIBLE answer to a question about whether she is ready to lead, because it sounds like she's on Oprah or IS Oprah.
41 posted on 09/12/2008 3:14:30 AM PDT by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: showpromid

Remember, she is running for VICE-President. She doesn’t have to know everything about everything on January 20. I guarantee you she knows more now than O-boy will know in ten years.
If she had not come off as direct (”don’t blink”), the drive-bys would’ve immediately jumped on that as her being “indecisive” so it was a no-win situation, and that was what Charles was hoping to achieve.

After her two wonderful speeches, expectations were so high I’m not sure Jesus Himself could’ve lived up to them. She handled him directly, he didn’t trap her as he tried on numerous occasions to do and she called him on it, and she was not intimidated by him.

Don’t lose your enthusiasm because of one interview. She’s come for “such a time as this”, and the public and the base already KNOW that. :)


42 posted on 09/12/2008 4:33:17 AM PDT by GWMcClintock (Right after Lib Democrats, the most dangerous politicians are country club Republicans. T. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BigBobber

Sarah Palin seems to have a bit of a photographic memory. She is able to recall statements and speeches and replay them in her head, so her answers may seem too pat for the left, when they are unable to trip her up.


43 posted on 09/12/2008 8:22:14 AM PDT by Eva (CHANGE- the post modern euphemism for Marxist revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: showpromid

Sarah Palin did extremely well on her first interview, considering the confrontational pounding that Charles Gibson gave her. What I heard on the news, today was that as the media and Obama keep concentrating their attacks on Palin, they are deminishing Obama, rather than the other way around.

It was the plan of the Obama campaign to go after McCain on the issue of age, by attacking his VP candidate. They had their ads and talking pts already to go for Mitt Romney and Pawlenty. McCain threw them a curve, and they have failed to adjust their swing. They just keep striking out.

As Karl Rove pointed out in the WSJ, yesterday, Obama can’t win by running against Palin. It makes him look like he’s not even qualified to be VP.


44 posted on 09/12/2008 8:29:32 AM PDT by Eva (CHANGE- the post modern euphemism for Marxist revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Eva

Oh, I definitely think she got over the bar of “what she needed to do.” But I think she’ll have to keep showing rapid improvement.

And make no mistake: I’m glad the consensus here is that she did well. This place is a great barometer of how the Republican evangelical and conservative base sees her. And it’s clear from this thread that the base isn’t disappointed in her performance. So I take great heart in that.

My main worry is about how that interview would play with fence sitters. that’s the lens I tried to view it through.


45 posted on 09/12/2008 8:34:39 AM PDT by showpromid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99

Now that Sarah has made herself available to the communist MSM, her next interviews should be with Hannity & other conservatives.

GO SARAH!!!


46 posted on 09/12/2008 8:39:54 AM PDT by Lions Gate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarkytart

“Seriously? Thats a HORRIBLE answer to a question about whether she is ready to lead, because it sounds like she’s on Oprah or IS Oprah.”

No, I don’t think so. Swing voters have their doubts about her, when it comes to this. Simply blurting out, “Oh, yeah, I’m totally ready to lead,” will do nothing to set their minds at ease. They’d feel better hearing that she understands the gravity of the office and is a thoughtful person. To them, she will sound like George W. Bush, and that will scare them away. You need to keep in mind that these swing voters don’t like the way Bush has governed and McCain/Palin are trying to convince them that it won’t be 4 more years of Bush.

So, understand, I’m not questioning her ability to lead. I’m criticizing her approach to that question.


47 posted on 09/12/2008 8:42:39 AM PDT by showpromid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: showpromid

What liberals don’t seem to realize is that the independents LOVE her. The “fence sitters” are no longer “fence sitters”, and the more that Obama keeps attacking her, the more the independents are turning away from Obama. They see the attacks as attacks on them and their values.

I read a remark from an independent in Michigan that said that what the Democrats don’t seem to realize is that the middle of the country and small town America is not fly over country. It IS the country. The elitist left is so out of touch with America, that it is sad. The left constantly underestimates conservativism.


48 posted on 09/12/2008 8:48:11 AM PDT by Eva (CHANGE- the post modern euphemism for Marxist revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Eva

You’re right: attacks from the left will NOT bring down Sarah.

But Sarah’s can bring down herself. And she needs to be careful about that.


49 posted on 09/12/2008 8:59:31 AM PDT by showpromid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: showpromid

Yes, Sarah could bring down herself, but she won’t. Obama is bringing down himself. McCain and Obama don’t need to a thing, but be who they are.

The Obama campaign and the media pimps keep saying that McCain is running on a personal narrative. Well, that might be, but Obama is running on a personal meta-narrative, that he keeps trying to re-write.

The general public don’t understand meta-narratives and they don’t relate to it. Sarah Palin is real, they relate to that.


50 posted on 09/12/2008 9:31:11 AM PDT by Eva (CHANGE- the post modern euphemism for Marxist revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson