I know that sounds intemperate. We’re supposed to say things like someone “misspoke”, or “misremembered”, or that they just “mischaracterised” what was said. The pure statement of a simple, unadorned truth makes folks squirm, and that’s just so not nice, isn’t it? The fact is…
Charlie Gibson lied.
It gives me no pleasure to say that- in fact, when I heard that he would be doing the first interview I thought, “Good choice”. I was wrong.
From the exerpts at the ABC News site:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
Those were NOT her exact words, so unless he can confess to incompetence as a reporter, which I don’t believe he could, then… he lied.
What she said was:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan [Admin. note: wasn't EVERYBODY praying that there was a plan?] and that that plan is God’s plan.” [source].
Elsewhere he was simply deceptive, disingenious, and disinterested in a fair and honest exploration of her qualifications and beliefs; I don’t mean he should’ve coddled her- tough is fine, she can deal with tough- but fair and honest. Need examples?
Right out of the gate he asks her a no-win setup question: did you hesitate when he offered you the VP position? I imagine him having a little diagram on his notepad- if she says “yes”, that means she is unsure of her preparedness; if “no”, that means she is egotistical. A “win-win” gotcha. Sweet!
On whether she’s traveled outside the country and met foreign heads of state… I’d love for her to have said something to the effect of “I’m not sure I understand you Charlie- are you saying that you believe that makes someone a more qualified VP? In what way? Could you give me any examples?” After all, he got snarky with his question about “What insights into Russian actions does your state’s geographical proximity give you?”
How about an equivalent question for Obama- “What insights into foreign policy have you gained from a stage-managed celebrity tour of a few European countries and photo-op handshakes with their heads of state give you?”
But then they might have whined that our girl was beating up on their guys again, has a “chip” on her shoulder, doesn’t, in other words, know her place.
Lord have mercy. Lunch break over, more later.
LATER: The most snort-worthy non-gotcha was his attempt at getting her to commit to a straight up or down, yes/no answer to the “simple” question of whether she supports the Bush Doctrine. The man who first coined the term “Bush Doctrine” explains how Gibson got it wrong, here, and concluded:
“Yes, Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.”
Now, you tell me… how many thousands upon thousands of women across this great land do you think there are, who are all too familiar with that infuriatingly look of male condescension, when Gibson “looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain”… who recognize it, loathe it, and will respond accordingly?
Filed under: Alaska, Elections, International affairs, Liberalism, Obama, Politics, Presidential campaign, Religion, Sarah Palin
Thank you for your excellent post. I have lost all respect for Charlie Gibson.
It does bother me when a candidate passes up the fatball lob designed to let them demonstrate humility. Harry Truman was supremely prepared in some ways, and completely at sea in others (Roosevelt neglected to let Truman in on the Manhattan Project, for example). And when the presidency hit him, Truman said it felt like the weight of the world came down on him.
Humility is a necessary precursor to greatness, I think — scripture tends to support that idea. Palin’s hubris alone should give thoughtful voters great pause.
I appreciate that you want to give Mr. Gibson the benefit of the doubt, that he was offering her an opportunity to demonstrate humility. I just don’t believe for an instant that that was his motive. It appeared to be a cleverly designed “gotcha!” trap, wherein either a yes or no answer would be turned against her.
The media of Truman’s time would not recognize their counterparts of today- the politics of personal destruction had not appeared on the scene. A President, or candidate could expect to have his ideas and proposals mocked and ridiculed- he might even be called a fool or a blowhard- but nothing remotely approaching the levels of unhinged, vile, total character assassination and demonization as we see today.
I don’t mean that Mr. Gibson would have done that personally to Gov. Palin- but I certainly do believe that he had an agenda to uncover as much “red meat” material as he could, which the attack dogs would then rip into.
All pretense to impartiality has been abandoned. “Advocacy journalism” is all anyone does. The reassignments of Olbermann and Matthews provide just the barest cause for hope that the major media might begin backing off from their extremism.
As for Gov. Palin’s hubris or humility, I think the public will have many opportunities to see her and draw their own conclusions about that.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!
If Sarah Palin isn’t a smart enough person to make her point that she’s humble, despite a reporter’s intended question, she’s not smart enough to be a state officer, and she’d be a disaster in international diplomacy for the people she represents. All Gibson did was pitch the fat lob over the plate. It was Palin’s job to knock it out of the park. It’s nonsensical now to claim that Gibson’s pitch was unfair. It was right down the middle, slow, and not movement. Gibson’s network is famous among journalists for taking it easy on Republicans and conservatives. He demonstrated why in that interview.
She’d be a disaster with a curve ball, or if the question came in high with heat.
Charlie Gibson got the interview because McCain’s people thought he’d been nicest to her out of all the media types. The McCain campaign kept her sequestered away from media for more than two weeks to prepare for this interview. She had the best coaches the RNC can afford.
She still couldn’t do it?
I think it would be fair to criticize Gibson for using the kid gloves on her. He was way, way too easy (compare with the treatment John McCain got with the ladies at The View, one of the softest interviews on television).
Palin’s supremely unqualified for the job ideologically, and now we know she’s too ill-informed to handle the necessary chores.
In Truman’s time reporters covered for candidates’ drinking problems and marital infidelity. They regularly missed the key stories — like Douglas Stringfellow’s hoax that got him into Congress. In the past 8 years, journalists have largely returned to being lapdogs of politicians, failing to ask enough questions, failing to ask relevant questions, and failing to ask hard questions.
And you say Gibson looked unfair?
Heaven help Palin if she should ever meet Seymour Hersh, or Bob Woodward, or George Lardner, or Frank Rich — Palin might be in trouble if she has to answer questions from Peggy Noonan at this point.
It’s not a plot on Gibson’s part when Palin cannot answer the most basic questions of civics, the most basic questions of foreign relations, the most basic questions of domestic policy. Alaska has newspapers. She has no excuse.
The first time Gibson rolled his eyes at one of Palin’s responses, I was shocked. The line of questioning that followed, and the tone in which they were presented (and let’s not forget the hack job they did of editing!) was completely unprofessional. Lefty’s can spin it any way they want to, but you were right when you said that women will recognize his demeanor. Inexcusable.
I’ve posted (on 9/13) the UNedited transcript of the interview on my blog as posted by Mark Levin), which further illustrates the bias, and agenda of Gibson. If you haven’t seen it yet, I think you’ll find it very interesting.
Those claiming that she did not answer his questions are falling for the bait that ABC threw out to them with their edited version of her responses. They’re responding exactly the way the MSM wants them to, and it’s sad to watch. I wish people would stop allowing themselves to be manipulated so easily!
Your description of Charles Gibson in your last two paragraphs was right on. That’s exactly what I was thinking as I watched him looking down his nose at Gov. Palln. You could see and hear his irritation and disgust of her, not just because she was a woman, but more because she was an unflinching Conservative.
Umm what?
–
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?
–
, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants.
—
How is that not an exact quote? It’s the exact same words.
Considering how my words have been often deleted on most McCain/Palin blogs (they seem to endorse her penchant for banning ideas that don’t fit in with their “worldview”), I don’t expect an answer…but…when Palin mentioned that Russia was “unprovoked” when invading Georgia….do you think she was accurate?
Please feel free to google before answering.
Also…
—
On whether she’s traveled outside the country and met foreign heads of state… I’d love for her to have said something to the effect of “I’m not sure I understand you Charlie- are you saying that you believe that makes someone a more qualified VP? In what way? Could you give me any examples?”
—
Yea, he could have given examples….like every single VP candidate for the last 30 years. Each of which (exceptions: Quayle, Ferraro) was also considered to be a vialbe Presidential candidate.
Before she was nominated…did you think she should be President?
–
LATER: The most snort-worthy non-gotcha was his attempt at getting her to commit to a straight up or down, yes/no answer to the “simple” question of whether she supports the Bush Doctrine. The man who first coined the term “Bush Doctrine” explains how Gibson got it wrong, here, and concluded:
—
One quick point that Kruathammer completely missed. Gibson was clear in his question that he was referring to 2002. This was the “Nation Security Strategy for the United States”. It’s online. In a PDF.
Krauthammer’s egotism doesn’t fit here, as Gibson specifically mentioned the year.
Read the transcript….
–
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 world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
–
Then check Krauthammer’s article. Krauthammer specifically mentions his 2001 article.
He’s being incredibly disengenuous
This isn’t what Gibson talked about.
Truly humble people don’t make a public point about how humble they are- that would be the opposite of humility. Contrasted to how Sen. Obama didn’t seem to have a problem with the adulation and deification by his supporters.
I’m unsure what the “it” was you meant when you said “She still couldn’t do it?” The consensus seems to be that she did well- not flawless, of course, but she showed great grace under fire. You thought that Mr. Gibson went easy on her?! When even the NYT and the LA Times said that Mr. Gibson unfairly misrepresented and misconstrued her remarks, I can only conclude that yours is a decidedly minority opinion… which you are nonetheless completely entitled to!
My previous reply above… if it does come out above… was addressed to Ed Darrell’s last comment. I’m not liking this WordPress comments setup- doesn’t appear to be a way to link my reply to follow the comment I’m replying to- it get’s pushed to the end, and the continuity is broken up. Am I missing a step?
To Mr. RoPiNi’s first comment, I’d say that it is so obviously pulled from the middle of the sentence that it shouldn’t need any explanation. It was identical to the unfair claim by some people that Sen. Obama had admited to being a Muslim. During an interview he actually had said the words “… my Muslim faith”, which was an exact quote, but out of context. In full context he was obviously not admiting to being a Muslim.
It is wrong when the Left does it, it is wrong when the Right does it.
Regarding Gov. Palin’s statement that Russia’s invasion of Georgia was unprovoked, she was in fact accurate. I know that Georgia began the sequence of hostilities by it’s action against S. Ossetia- a fully legitimate action, btw, as a sovereign state enforcing it’s authority over it’s territory. Georgia did not attack Russia- Russia had no legitimate justification for it’s attack on a sovereign neighbor who was acting within it’s own borders.
Excuses they had, justification they didn’t.
And if Mr. Gibson had mentioned that every VP candidate in the last thirty years had traveled outside the US and met heads of state, I’d continue to ask him for specific examples of how those visits (in all likelihood just photo-op vanity tours) contributed to helping them handle specific foreign affairs issues in office.
The benefit of personal contact is vastly overblown, often misleading, and can backfire disasterously (Kennedy-Khruschev in Vienna).
If I can’t find a fix to this problem with the comments I may take this blog to a better host. Hard to followy the flow of comment and response.
Mr. RoPiNi states that Charles Krauthammer’s critique of Mr. Gibson was unfair, in that Mr. Gibson clearly specified which iteration of the “Bush Doctrine” he was refering to.
So what you mean is that Mr. Gibson’s question, essentially, amounted to “Out of the 4 or 5 various definitions of the Bush Doctrine that have been put forth over the years, which of them was the one put forth in Sept. 2002, and do you support it?”
And you don’t consider that a hostile “gotcha” setup?
This, brought to you by the same folks (Mike Wallace was it?) who go to Iran and ask Ahmadinijad “What’s your favorite hobby?” (I’ll bet the answer wasn’t “Stoning immodestly dressed women and hanging gays”)
Or express how thrilled and honored they (Rather?) are to get an interview with Saddam Hussein and ask similar cream puff questions.
Or Syria’s Assad, or about any of the world’s most murderous tyrants, so that they can, what? Mock our President for his assertion that these are dangerous, malignant regimes?
Lord, have mercy!