A note from Radarsite: It is a rare event that will bring me to watch MSM these days. Tonight's Charlie Gibson interview with Gov. Sarah Palin was one of these exceptions. And I am still trying to get the bad taste out of my mouth. If I ever doubted my reasons for refusing to watch the Big Three MSM networks, tonight's stain on the face of objective journalism did more than enough to confirm it.There was indeed great hubris revealed during this first interview. But not the hubris of Sarah Palin's response that she did feel comfortable about her qualifications for the job of Vice President -- or, if necessary the President of the United States. No, the disgusting and embarrassing display of hubris came from the condescending and arrogant demeanor of CG. If anyone still doubts that there really is media bias rampant in our MSM, just watch this interview with an objective view.
Was this a true, unbiased interview, or just another hatchet job? Just another attempt to discredit the most dangerous new player in the game, and Obama's biggest threat? Throughout this entire ludicrous spectacle, as the unflappable Gov. Palin responded with dignified politeness to each and every attempt to trip her up, my blood boiled, and I swore to myself: Never again! Never again would I allow the stench of liberal hypocrisy and leftist MSM propaganda into my living room. It just takes too long to get rid of the odor.
Immediately following the first segment of this one way interrogation, ABC moved on to cover the rest of the important news of the day; and with a barely suppressed 'I-told-you-so' hubris, enthusiastically reported yet another American soldier's death in the bloody war in Afghanistan.
These are the battle lines which have been drawn so clearly now, between our leftist antiwar Bush-hating MSM and our shining hope for the future. Could our choices be any clearer?
Go Sarah, go!
rg
.jpg)
.jpg)
.BMP)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
I didn't have the pleasure of seeing the interview live, though I've no doubt that I'll come across it sooner or later.
ReplyDeleteI also missed the pleasure of attending "The Illusion of Conservatism: Moral Politics from Kennedy to Clinton" forum at my university today. It's just as well...I may have gotten myself arrested had I been in attendance.
In closing, no post is complete today without a heartfelt thanks extended to everyone who ever has or ever will be a part of our military, police or firefighting services. Were it that the selflessness and patriotism you all exhibit every day were reflected in the political forces at the helm of this great nation.
Your article couldn't be more true. This interview made me lose what little respect I had left for Charlie Gibson.
ReplyDeleteSarah Palin Interview Grade A+ (for Sarah that is, not Charlie)
ReplyDeleteI find it strange that Obama is complaining about the coverage that Sarah Palin is getting. It seems that the MSM isn't giving him the adoration that he once had. They are only covering his sexist remarks.
ReplyDeleteGood interview on her part. And see, there were no hidden earpieces. The answers she gave were her own.
VICTORY '08!
I couldn't agree with you more!!! It was more of an interrogation than an interview. If she were a liberal democratic man the whole thing would have had a whole different tone. Like you it reminded me why I quit watching MSM years ago.
ReplyDeleteLet's be serious here. There is moral, ethical, and political hypocricy on both sides of the aisle, be it Democrat or Republican. That being said, to portray Sarah Palin as an "agent of change" is a farce, at best. You don't have to a member of the establishment to act on behalf of that establishment and tow a party line. While I respect her for her convictions--and I really do--the fact of the matter is that she is the most unqualified vice presidential candidate in recent history (excluding H.W.'s former potato mispelling suboordinate). Obama may not have substantially more experience than her, but, disagree with him or not, he clearly has a better grasp on the gambit of issues. The thought of this nation electing to office a candidate that literally does not even know the basic parameters of the Bush Doctrine--the most influential and guiding foreign policy decision of the last 7 years--is well, scary. And to suggest that she has foreign policy experience because you can see Russia from an Alaskan island and that her energy background will suffice is like saying that I have automotive mechanical experience because I can see the cars on the street outside my window.
ReplyDeleteGibsom is an idiot. He did everything to discredit Palin. What's irresponsible reporting is the MSM not being fair and balanced. I bet Gibson wouldn't have asked Obama these questions. The MSM has a huge propensity that certain topics are off-limits to Obama and his camp. Wonder why. And besides, Obama is going for the number 1 spot and many questions need to be presented to him. Though the number 2 spot is important, that person hold the 2 spot will be making decisions on many issues.
ReplyDeleteWhen Gibson attempted to trick Palin about NATO and attacking it didn't work, I just wonder if Obama would have answered it correctly. Since Obama did say once there 57 states. When in fact there are 57 muslim nations. And recently in an interview with Obama. He said the McCain Camp was good at not going after his "muslim faith." And then the interviewer corrected Obama. Even Obama said a while back that he didn't want to pick a Washington Insider for his VP. And then he goes and pick the biggest Washington Insider (Biden) with 36 years in the Senate.
Also, the MSM is making a big deal over Palin's husbands DUI that occurred 22 years ago while they were subsequently dating. But, the media neglects to say how Obama admitted to using Cocaine while in college. And Obama is running for the presidential position. And Palin's husband wouldn't be involved with any political decision making. How people cannot see how the media is using their resources to influence the American people in whom to vote for. Since that who the MSM wants to be in the office (Obama). To me this is pathetic and irresponsible reporting. Unbelievable in how the MSM is permitted to get away with this BS.
Now it appears the MSM is not helping Obama but actually hurting him big time. Even if Obama asked the MSM to stop. It wouldn't happen, the monster is out of the book and cannot be controlled.
Brilliant post. We've lost all respect for Gibson. Kudos to her for remaining presidential.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely could not believe CB last night. While admittingly I am a conservative I usually do not have a problem with interviewers playing hard ball bcz our public servants should be up for the challenge. Being an attorney I can't help but think you have to be tough enough to take on anyone but I have got to say.....he was absolutely condescending...and was talking to her like a)he was conducting a cross examination and b) like he was speaking to an idiot or a 3 year old. PATHETIC! I no longer respect Charlie Gibson! However, I have utter respect that our favorite "Hockey Mom" was wearing her lipstick and didn't turn into a pitbull and tear his face off! What in the world was that interview?!?! I will tell you who CB reminded me of last night..classic Joe Bidden! If you have ever watched Joe Bidden in senate hearings he is absolutely the most rude, vial, smug, low life condescending person I have ever witnessed. The choice is clear!
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I hate MSM as much as anybody. However, I believe that YOU believe that it was biased, but compared to what other candidate?
ReplyDeleteHere is the real deal. The only bias is that Palin is somehow expected not to be held to the normal standard because she is a woman or she is attractive, or she is a self-promoted "mom of five" or others "can relate to", or some combination of those. Whatever. That is not Charlie Gibson's problem. CG is a journalist responsible to gage just what Palin knows and doesn't know.
The Palin interview was day camp next the interview that Obama had with Bill O'Reilly last week. If an interviewer was EVER as aggressive and interrupted her as much with Palin as O'Reilly did with Obama, people would be crying sexism from the mountaintops. I urge you to "objectively" watch the O'Reilly-Obama interview on youtube and honestly tell me that the nation wouldn't be outraged if Palin was talked to this way. Then I urge you to ask yourself "why is that?" The reaction to Palin's so-called bad treatment is visceral one, not an intellectual one. I mean Howard Dean made one loud speech and the media literally ran him out of a campaign 4 years ago -- and nobody cried. Palin is in the big leagues now.
...McCain, Obama, and Biden would have all answered these questions with far more specificity and all three would have certainly instantly known what "the Bush Doctrine" was. All the others have gone through rounds and rounds of interviews or debates. Any requests for less scrutiny or "kid gloves" for Palin are irresponsible and dangerous.
People need to be reminded, Sarah Palin is campaigning for VICE PRESIDENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Given McCain's age, she can very likely be president. Yet we know almost nothing about her. THAT is the reality. Does anybody think that Putin is going to be sweet, warm, and fuzzy in a face to face meeting? Seriously.
Firstly, I hate MSM as much as anybody. However, I believe that YOU believe that it was biased, but compared to what other candidate?
ReplyDeleteHere is the real deal. The only bias is that Palin is somehow expected not to be held to the normal standard because she is a woman or she is attractive, or she is a self-promoted "mom of five" or others "can relate to", or some combination of those. Whatever. That is not Charlie Gibson's problem. CG is a journalist responsible to gage just what Palin knows and doesn't know.
The Palin interview was day camp next the interview that Obama had with Bill O'Reilly last week. If an interviewer was EVER as aggressive and interrupted her as much with Palin as O'Reilly did with Obama, people would be crying sexism from the mountaintops. I urge you to "objectively" watch the O'Reilly-Obama interview on youtube and honestly tell me that the nation wouldn't be outraged if Palin was talked to this way. Then I urge you to ask yourself "why is that?" The reaction to Palin's so-called bad treatment is visceral one, not an intellectual one. I mean Howard Dean made one loud speech and the media literally ran him out of a campaign 4 years ago -- and nobody cried. Palin is in the big leagues now.
...McCain, Obama, and Biden would have all answered these questions with far more specificity and all three would have certainly instantly known what "the Bush Doctrine" was. All the others have gone through rounds and rounds of interviews or debates. Any requests for less scrutiny or "kid gloves" for Palin are irresponsible and dangerous.
People need to be reminded, Sarah Palin is campaigning for VICE PRESIDENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Given McCain's age, she can very likely be president. Yet we know almost nothing about her. THAT is the reality. Does anybody think that Putin is going to be sweet, warm, and fuzzy in a face to face meeting? Seriously.
Your article is very true, and I cannot believe the fuss people are making over the bush doctrine question.
ReplyDeleteShe knew what she was talking about unlike CG when he said: "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." What is wrong with his statement is that we don't have the right to preemptive strike against a country simply because we THINK that country is going to attack. We can THINK countries are going to attack all we want.
Unlike CG, Sarah Palin was correct in saying: "Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend."
Sarah Palin did a great job during the interview!
While they leave their messiah's foul nest of vipers alone, they are scouring Alaska, demanding subpoenas for everyone in sight in order to dig up anything possible to harm Sarah Palin.
ReplyDeleteBut, I think they've already surrendered what little credibility they had left.
They'll be bewildered by the collective yawn from the Heartland...
Gibson was like an elitist professor type, condescending, like he was talking down to a high school student.
He was trying to 'play gotcha' on her more than finding out more information about her. He even accused her of hubris.
I'm sick of these liberal media pigs, I hope they get their come uppance in November.
Ya hear that bubbling and gurgling sound? That's the S.S. Obama being swamped by Hurricane Sarah.
"Anyone who criticizes Governor Sarah Palin for asking Charlie Gibson to be more specific about the "Bush Doctrine" is trying to mislead you in at least two ways (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/7656b78a-a090-4a56-9bf5-0e37bdaff80a)
ReplyDelete1. They're pretending that the term "Bush Doctrine" has a single clear, unambiguous meaning that anyone who follows national affairs ought to have immediately recognized. It doesn't.
2. They're pretending that because Gov. Palin didn't immediately try to guess which of several plausible meanings Gibson meant to give that term, but instead asked for clarification, she therefore must have been unprepared to discuss any of them. Gov. Palin herself disproved that premise, because upon receiving the requested clarification, she immediately responded with clarity and self-assurance.
If they had bothered to look, even the Wikipedia could have cured Josh Marshall, Greg Sargent, or Andrew Sullivan of their illusion that there's a single, simple meaning to the term "Bush Doctrine." When it comes to any discussion of Gov. Sarah Palin, these folks have shown us yet again that they just can't be trusted to get their basic facts right."
See some of the (many) various definitions of the “Bush Doctrine” (including the many variations used at Gibson's ABC) at
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/what_exactly_is_the_bush_doctr.asp
Kudos to Governor Palin for recognizing Chuckie's MSM trap.
Now, can someone please explain why nearly every one of Governor Palin's answers appeared to be cut off or edited?????????????????????
Did anyone really expect any mainstream media talking head to not try to trap and disparage Sarah Palin. She is the worst nightmare of these left leaning cretins; an intelligent, strong willed, homespun, family loving woman who the average American can finally relate to.
ReplyDeleteWatching Ms. Palin speak is reminiscent of watching Ronald Reagan at the beginning of his presidential career. She answers every question with conviction and a smile even though she knows the questioner hold every one of her answers in disdain, AND ALWAYS PUTTING AMERICA FIRST!
Ms. Palin also proved she is far more intelligent than Mr. Gibson could ever be by not falling into any of the many traps he was trying to set. This is the type of person I want dealing with foreign heads of state. A truly intelligent person alsways asks for clarification when the question itself is subject to interpretation. Only a fool blurts out an answer without doing so.
I didn't know much about Ronald Reagan when he first ran for president in 1976, but I learned quickly and said then that he would become a president who would change our country for the better. I didn't know much about Sarah Palin when she was chosen as a running mate by McCain, but I have learned quickly and state with conviction now that she will someday become a president who will change our country for the better. Go Sarah!
Isn't Sarah Palin a breath of fresh air! Charlie Gibson was an arrogant jerk, just like Bill O'Reilly. The difference between the two interviews? Sarah Palin was cool, calm, and collected while Charlie was condescending. Bill and Barack had a hate affair between them.
ReplyDeleteI actually praise Charles Gibson for his direct interview. We, the American people, need to know Sarah Palin's background to determine if she's indeed qualified to hold the 2nd highest office in our country. And there's a good chance given McCain's age, that Ms. Palin could one day be President.
ReplyDeleteI'm in the corporate media communications field and I can vouch professionally that Mr. Gibson displayed the utmost of journalistic integrity with this interview. Our country faces tough problems and we demand tough questions and answers in choosing the candidate slate which will best serve and solve our messy problems of this past administration (sagging economy, financial institution bail out and collapse, housing market, foreign policy, health care reform, energy policy, etc.).
Given the fact that Ms. Palin froze up not knowing the Bush Doctrine poses a very scary and dangerous situation. Wouldn't you think a mom in the Republican political position as she would look into this by the mere fact she's seeing her firstborn go off to war?
Trust me ... John McCain, Mit Romney, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman all know what the Bush Doctrine is all about.
Sarah Palin is a great novelty and has put an interesting and amusing new slant to our election. Her devotion to country, faith and family is not in question. But, we aren't voting for the next American Idol or who will win Dancing With the Stars. It's not personal to Ms. Palin ... anyone in the VP seat deserves to stand up to this kind of questioning. If American's don't demand this of their media and candidates, then they shouldn't be irresponsible and cast their vote.
I have the opportunity to travel abroad regularly on business. Our internation relations are a global embarassment. Our situation is dangerous and complex and we are headed into dire straits if we don't elect strong leadership.
I've always aligned well with the independent thinker, John McCain, and praise him for his stance on many key issues. However, with his choosing of Sarah Palin, I quickly have discovered that his decision-making abilities in leadership are as questionable as Ms. Palin's inexperience. My pendulum is swinging the other way now.
I'd even prefer to have Charles Gibson facing international leaders and putting together domestic policies versus Ms. Palin. Mr. Gibson deserves no defending. If all good flag-bearing Americans really stand behind our freedoms and the constitution, then Charles Gibson is a shining example of our first amendment rights.