Charlie Gibson Fumbles VP Nominee Interview
Bill Smith, Editor: Five days ago, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had her first major media interview after being coming the vice presidential nominee for the Republican Party. She agreed to meet with Charlie Gibson on "ABC World News Tonight." Every since that interview, the media pundits have been weighing in with their tate-to-tate. I was one of many who were shocked that Charlie Gibson did not act with his usual demeanor of being a gentleman. It was rather disappointing, to see Gibson both demean himself and Gov. Palin by his behaviour. Gibson seemed to leave his role of investigative journalism and appeared to be competing for the roll of the former Tim Russert and his bulldog' approach. Gibson's proved that he is "no Tim Russert." While Russert was a bulldog, he did not allow his mannerisms or actions get out of hand during an interview. Gibson evidenced that he was intent on attacking (even mocking) Sarah Palin. I guess working for ABC and needing to bring home stories that support the ABC liberal agenda, is now getting to Charlie Gibson. Here are a few recent published comments on the interview:- ABC's bungles: Botches mar Palin interview
- The press: mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore
- Glenn Beck: The Sarah Palin smear-fest
- Charles Krauthammer: It was Gibson’s gaffe
- L.A. Times rebukes ABC for distorting Palin remarks
- Hollywood Republicans to mobilize for Palin
- "Values voters" eye a leader in Palin as others fade
- Dick Morris: Prepare for Sarah Palin versus Hillary Clinton in 2012
- Why our elites fear faith
- Palin: U.S. shouldn’t "second guess" Israel
- Palin's statements on climate change at odds
- Contrary to ABC report, Palin’s global warming views have been consistent
Tags: ABC, Alaska, candidate, Charlie Gibson, Election 2008, Governor, Sarah Palin, Tim Russert, vice president To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 10:30 PM - Post Link
1 Comments:
Charlie Gibson got it wrong. There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration—and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different. He asked Palin, ‘Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?’ She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, ‘In what respect, Charlie?’ Sensing his ‘gotcha’ moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine ‘is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.’ Wrong. I know something about the subject because... I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, ‘The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,’ I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine. Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: ‘Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.’ This ‘with us or against us’ policy regarding terror... became the essence of the Bush doctrine. Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world... Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know—while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and ‘sounding like an impatient teacher,’ as the [New York] Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.
Post a Comment
<< Home