Thoughts on the Gibson-Palin interview: the Not-So-Grand Inquisitor
I was constantly distracted by two things: the shockingly choppy editing, and Gibson’s profoundly inquisitorial demeanor.
It wasn’t just his game face, and the peering over the eyeglasses (he gave new meaning to the expression “looked down his nose at her”). It was his remarkable condescension: “I got lost in a blizzard of words…” That crack sounded more like one side of a couple’s quarrel overheard in a restaurant than the statement of a neutral interviewer.
Palin’s answers seemed serviceable enough, neither terrible nor wonderful, and at least as on-point as those of most politicians—a group not known for laserlike focus, especially when answering questions of the “gotcha!” variety, such as Gibson was constantly posing to Palin. Gibson reminded me of certain teachers I had in grade school who would keep hammering the question home until the student offered the exact answer the pedagogue happened to have in mind.
Gibson went so far as to misrepresent Palin’s statement about praying that the troops be sent out on a task that is from God. Although she explained quite clearly (with a Lincoln reference, as well), Gibson’s distortion was unlikely to be caught by most listeners previously unfamiliar with the controversy. And although the videotape of the original moment was shown, a person listening to it for the first time would have to be paying very careful attention to understand what Palin had actually said.
In the final segment, where Gibson and she were walking near the Trans-Alaska pipeline, Palin absolutely nailed him on his prosecutorial reiteration of a question that she had already answered sufficiently. I reproduce the segment in full to give you a flavor of what I’m talking about.
Here’s Gibson’s first effort at interrogation, and Palin’s first response (the question I’ve emphasized in bold, by the way, resembles the classic “Have you stopped beating your wife?” gotcha routine because of the inclusion of the word “still”):
GIBSON: Let me talk a little bit about environmental policy, because this interfaces with energy policy and you have some significant differences with John McCain. Do you still believe that global warming is not man-made?
PALIN: I believe that man’s activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change. Here in Alaska, the only arctic state in our union, of course, we see the effects of climate change more so than any other area with ice pack melting. Regardless, though, of the reason for climate change, whether it’s entirely, wholly caused by man’s activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet — the warming and the cooling trends — regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it and we have to make sure that we’re doing all we can to cut down on pollution.
Seems more than adequate, right? After all, the lady’s not running for Chair of the Environmental Science Department of the University of Alaska. But it wasn’t enough for Gibson.
Round 2:
GIBSON: But it’s a critical point as to whether or not this is man-made. He says it is. You have said in the past it’s not.
PALIN: The debate on that even, really has evolved into, OK, here’s where we are now: scientists do show us that there are changes in climate. Things are getting warmer. Now what do we do about it. And John McCain and I are gonna be working on what we do about it.
Teacher doesn’t like that answer either. So he tries a third time:
GIBSON: Yes, but isn’t it critical as to whether or not it’s man-made, because what you do about it depends on whether its man-made.
PALIN: That is why I’m attributing some of man’s activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now.
Satisfied, Mr. Gibson? No? Let’s see if the fourth time’s the charm:
GIBSON: But I, color me a cynic, but I hear a little bit of change in your policy there. When you say, yes, now you’re beginning to say it is man-made. It sounds to me like you’re adapting your position to Sen. McCain’s.
I consider Palin’s next line to be the single most satisfying thing she said to the Grand Inquisitor during the entire interview. I assume it was unanswerable, because she actually managed to get Gibson to back off from trying the ploy a fifth time:
PALIN: I think you are a cynic because show me where I have ever said that there’s absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any affect, or no affect, on climate change.
Guess he couldn’t. I think she shouldn’t have let him off the hook, though; she should have kept asking him again and again.
[NOTE: Oh-oh, Palin really is Bush. She pronounces nuclear “nucular.” This of course immediately disqualifies her to run for any office in the land.]
[ADDENDUM: And don’t misunderstand what I’m about to say because I am not comparing Palin to Joan of Arc! But I called Gibson’s style “inquisitorial” for a reason; it put me in mind of this medieval trial technique:
The procedures of an Inquisitorial trial called for a preliminary inquest into the life of the accused. This investigation consisted of the collection of any evidence, including hearsay testimony, into the character of the subject. This could then be followed by an interrogation of the suspect, in which he or she was compelled to provide testimony which could then be used against them in a subsequent trial.
Sound familiar?]
I think the lady is pretty sharp. After all, she would have to be to get as far as she has…
If you compare Gibson’s technique and questions with O’Reilly’s interview with Senator Obama, Gibson looks like Larry King, for God’s sake! lol!
Despite the current infatuation with Governor Palin, which was a pretty shrewd, if desperate, move on McCain’s part — the Republican ticket’s in trouble and this interview ain’t gonna help.
You are clearly an extremely intelligent Republican woman, which is easy to see just from your excellent writing and your ability to set-up and execute a written argument. Governor Palin’s candidacy mocks the intelligence you so ably display on your blog. I don’t agree with most of your positions, but I’m not talking policy here — I’m talking the kind of good ol’ fashioned horse sense that they practice in Sarah Palin’s small towns. (Mine was a town of 400 in rural Kentucky.)
To use an adaptation of an old sayin’ I grew up with — “this pig won’t hunt!”
And, no, I’m not calling anyone a “pig” — I’m telling you that you aren’t going to get enough American’s to buy the grand McCain / Palin “narrative” to carry the day this time. You’d do better to take Governor Huckabee’s clear strategy of positioning himself as a voice of reason and looking toward 2012.
Wasting your formidable pen on Palin is beneath your talent and intellect!
P.S. Condi Rice is the real deal! I don’t agree with her on a lot either, but I wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep with her as Vice President, or President, for that matter. It’s too bad she’s so tainted by the Bush administration because McCain / Rice would’ve been mind-bogglingly historical and also something for which you “neo-neo-cons” could honestly feel good about.
Thank you for those comments. I agree. They were the first I’ve read commenting on Gibson’s appalling performance in both the way he asked his questions and his body language. There was that “condescension” with an almost minimal and disdainful lack of eye-contact while he asked his questions. The constant movement of his crossed right foot, during the sit-down interview, added to his demeanor of irritability, nastiness, and arrogance.
Before Palin’s ascent Obama team had more than 40 votes in EC lead during several weeks in a row. Now there is a tie, 216-217. Mc Cain can have both Florida and Ohio. If this is not an amazing success, what is?
“this pig won’t hunt!””
I like that statement about Palin – she is just as true as the statement (for those that do not know such things, pigs do not hunt).
I think you meant “this Dog don’t hunt” as the traditional use of dogs in the south is for hunting. Outside of truffles I’ve never known of a “hunting pig”. Maybe next time I’m at a Quayle Unlimited banquet or at a retriever trial I’ll see if anyone else has a hunting pig.
But then maybe liberals from Kentucky try to use pigs in place of hunting dogs.
What we didn’t see most likely produced “the shockingly choppy editing, and Gibson’s profoundly inquisitorial demeanor.”
McCain cut off press access a couple months ago, around the time the Democratic Primary Race ended. Since then, he has only recited talking points; he no longer responds spontaneously and directly, if at all.
And the press has not been granted access to her “on the record.”
Back to the editing:
I’m more interested in what we what didn’t see — the contractual agreement, their off-camera interaction, her preparation, even his preparation. For me, this would be a fascinating documentary.
Hey! Let’s watch it on the what pigs can do topic. Ever see Babe?
“Hey! Let’s watch it on the what pigs can do topic. Ever see Babe?”
I’ve known a couple of pig farmers and one of my uncles raised them for a bit too. Pigs are actually fairly interesting creatures – they are quite intelligent. Note that I’m not remotely claiming to be a farmer (I’m a city person – at least as far as “city” goes where I live).
Probably the thing I find most interesting about them is watching them eat. While they will eat anything and everything they do so in a a pattern – good parts first then the rest. You can watch them eat ears of corn carefully nibbling the buds off and then (after all the good parts are gone) gulping the core down in a single gulp. There are also a number of murders in our area that people are sure that no body will ever be found – the pigs ate them (quite disgusting if you ever see a large animal die in a large pig lot, they eat *everything* and do so quickly).
So, no real need to see babe, seen (and unfortunately smelled) the real thing. Babe is Hollywood at it’s finest, that cow won’t fly … er, well, you get my point 🙂
We should make Muslims walk through very shallow puddles of pig piss before getting on airplanes… and get rid of all the metal detectors, security.
The last question of Gibson interview was “How much of climate change can be attributed to natural variability, and how much – to human activity?” As far as I know, this it the most obscure point of all this climate debate, with no agreed estimate existing. People even avoid speculate on this point, for no approach to test such hypotheses available.
“To use an adaptation of an old sayin’ I grew up with – “this pig won’t hunt!” (Kurt Maddox)
Being from Kentucky myself and having a massive extended family, primarily rural people, you really need to substitute dog for pig in your attempt to be, ah, folksy, cute and clever – average, working voters are inclined to take things at face value. You really should substitute pit bull for pig because after all, pit bulls are not hunting dogs.
I’m for Obama, but even I was disgusted with Gibson’s attitude. My impression was that he was not interviewing her, but looking to expose her weaknesses. Give us an objective interview and let us make the decision.
Kurt Maddox – I think the IQ sort of intelligence is wildly overrated in leadership. I say this as a person who used to be president of a High-IQ society. For the record, I don’t think any of the four candidates have a lot of it this time around. Bush, Kerry, and Gore would all score higher. But above a certain threshhold – about 110, say – other factors become much more important in leadership.
I also suspect that you may be confusing cultural cues with those of intellect. If you are really talking “horse sense,” in its usual meaning – native wit and shrewdness rather than intellectual polish – I would rank them McCain-Palin-Biden-Obama.
“It was his remarkable condescension: “I got lost in a blizzard of words…” That crack sounded more like one side of a couple’s quarrel overheard in a restaurant than the statement of a neutral interviewer.”
That was because he was too polite to simply respond, “Bullshit.” She thinks that she is in a beauty contest and she was trying to run out the clock.
Actually is one goes to the transcripts of the interview one gets a far better idea of Palin’s answers. I understand from those who watched “Nightline” that Palin is far better than ABC attempted to portray her.
It is interesting, and this is where all the s “shakiness” comes in, that ABC cut out much of Palin’s responses. It is indicative how how poor the “media” has become in actually doing the research necessary to conduct a comprehensive interview. Gibson got several things wrong because to many reporters, if you can call them that, get their information from other so called reporters, i.e., AP.
You would think that those who pride themselves on their internet skills would actually use the available search engines to get their background information, but it seems to elude them some how.
It does make one wonder who the real “mind numbed robots” are and if they do not live in an echo chamber which provides blinders to all information that does not fit the narrative. I suspect that is why the “media” is less and less respected by both sides and the left has degraded itself. The “media,” and those on the left for the most part, only has one attribute that defines them and that is Credibility. Unfortunately they drop a point each time they get caught by anyone on the wide spectrum of political thought.
There is a part of me that enjoys watching the “media” and the left destroy themselves.
The sad part is that we need a vibrant information source that can impart the ideas of both sides of an issue, but I suspect that the barbarians have taken over and it will be quite some tome before we have a real dialogue based on ideas and the synergy that is possible from using the best of the “marketplace” of ideas.
Sorry about the mistakes, but I have another practice session and they are timed exercises.
Republicans including Palin should finally have the courage to publicly deny AGW as a threat. Just take the matter and call it for what it is; a non-issue. This is absurd that we all must play ball and except a premise that is structured upon nothing more than an Alinsky inspired mirage.
Please, people…please, enough.
accept
arrrgh
“Gibson went so far as to misrepresent Palin’s statement about praying that the troops be sent out on a task that is from God.”
Here is an example of the double standard, furnished by Norm Geras, of Normblog:
When Barack Obama was at the Western Wall, he left a written prayer there:
“Lord – Protect my family and me… Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will.”
Now where were all “those secular liberals who have been longing for a Democrat to succeed Bush in the White House, and were in the habit of sneering at Tony Blair’s acknowledgement of having a relationship with his Maker, to back off from their enthusiasm for the candidacy of the Senator for Illinois. I mean…’make me an instrument of your will’.”
What? I’ll wait in vain? You don’t think they will back off? Devoutness is bad only when you want it to be? Hey, you may just be right about that.
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2008/07/obama-at-the-wall.html
Neo,
I’m curious. If you could have written Gibson’s questions, what kind of questions would we have heard?
Pingback:Amused Cynic » Blog Archive » Sarah Palin: “I don’t blink, Charlie”….
Well, she ‘s the house still standing and intact after the hurricane, that’s a reasonable sign of character and intellect, good job Sarah.
“this medieval trial technique:”
Big lightbulb over Felix’s head flashes on.
*Despite the current infatuation with Governor Palin, which was a pretty shrewd, if desperate, move on McCain’s part – the Republican ticket’s in trouble and this interview ain’t gonna help.*
Really, what’s the basis for that? Wishful thinking.
Of course, it is the Nobama-Buy Time ticket that is in trouble, which is why the Princess met up with Bill Clinton, to take his campaign out of the toilet.
Re: Blizzard of Words that so flummoxed Gibson.
I think the number of words in the “blizzard” was around 43.
Kurt Maddox: It makes no sense to compare Gibson with Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly is not a straight newsperson doing what is supposed to be a straight and informative interview. He’s a personality and a well-known blowhard who prides himself on tripping people up and being “tough.” I didn’t even bother to write about his interview of Obama although I watched a fair amount of it, mostly because I thought for much of the time it was about O’Reilly and not Obama. O’Reilly was argumentative and showoffy, and I thought Obama mixed it up too much with him and descended to his level. But I didn’t think Obama had much choice once he decided to do the interview, and I didn’t think it tells us all that much of importance about Obama.
The Gibson interview should have been a totally different kettle of fish. And I argue Gibson’s tone and style was far worse than O’Reilly’s. The latter was somewhat tongue-in-cheek and playful. Gibson was grim and relentless in his attempt to trap her. Almost the entire interview was an attempt to set a trap. It was disgraceful.
In the part of the interview I saw: Governor Palin was alert, yet Gibson’s energy was oppressively low. I suspect, on Gibson’s part, this was an intentional affectation designed to drain energy from her and from her answers. Gibson was intentionally attempting to counteract her natural energy level, thus dampening some of her natural appeal and making her feel uncomfortable inside the interaction.
I have sat through more classes in sales technique than I care to remember. One sales technique, frequently taught, is the mirroring of the energy level and even the body language of the customer. This puts the customer at ease, and even helps build rapport. What Gibson did with his energy was the exact opposite. To my professional eye, Gibson was using his own lack of energy to create discomfort for Palin.
If Gibson were Mike Wallace, and if he had the goods on Palin’s culpability in some nefarious scheme, and if her were performing a necessary “gotcha”, then his technique of making her uncomfortable would be appropriate.
It’s revealing that Gibson, rather than draw out Palin’s true beliefs about policy and governing, instead went the full gotcha route – including his affected low energy technique, which was designed both to make her uncomfortable and to counteract the appeal of her natural energy.
One more thing:
It seems plain, to me: Gibson felt pressure from his tribe to reveal Palin for the unprepared, cynical sham they believe she is. In plain words: he felt pressure to destroy her.
I attribute much of Gibson’s disgraceful performance to his lack of grace under pressure. I expected better from him. He is an old hand, and I expected him to display more grace and wisdom.
kungfu: I would expect Gibson would ask a series of questions designed to elicit Palin’s views, rather than designed to trap her into saying something she would regret. Many of his questions were of the “McCain says this, you say that” variety, designed to either make her disown her own views and/or McCain’s.
Then, if there’s a glaring problem with the answer, ask a followup question. Not over and over again when the candidate has given a sufficient answer, even if it’s not exactly and precisely the self-incriminating answer you were looking for.
This was supposed to be an introductory interview to let us know what Palin thinks about foreign affairs and then environmental issues. It was not an oral exam for a doctoral dissertation, in which Gibson is the “expert” grilling the student who is supposed to know everything about one particular subject, his or her thesis.
Even more important, I would expect Gibson to do his homework and be straight. He was misrepresenting—otherwise known as lying—about Palin’s words in her church speech, using a truncated quote that’s been all over the internet for days. One I knew about, one that had been debunked over and over, a talking point on the Left. This is totally and completely partisan journalism, or else it is utter incompetence, or both.
Gibson also kept hammering home the fact that she had denied that global warming could have anything to do with human activities. But, when challenged, he could offer no quote in which she had said that. It’s very poor journalism, and he shouldn’t be allowed to get away with doing it to a candidate on either side. He needs to get his facts straight. After all, he knows the questions in advance!
Q&O has a good take on the “Bush doctrine” question:
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=9295
vanderleun: some blizzard. I fear Gibson’s been in Alaska too long. If he wants a blizzard, wait till he interviews Biden.
Can anybody tell us how many heads of state Bill Clinton knew when he was running for President, or Jimmy Carter, or whether such a question was ever even posed to them? For that matter, how many heads of state does Barack Obama know (before his recent, [taxpayer-funded?] PR tour)? That struck me as the single most bizarre question in the — yes, very choppy, ‘gotcha’ focused — interview, a sort of cocktail hour requirement for public office holding, which I find nowhere in the Constitution. If we wanted a requirement of that sort, it would result in an essentially aristocratic political order, for who has the chance to meet heads of state BEFORE assuming high office?
“If he wants a blizzard, wait till he interviews Biden.”
The color wont be white, but you’ll still want that shovel.
neo, would you happen to have a link to the full Palin church speech that was truncated?
I have a generally conservative friend who is deeply troubled by the truncated version, and I’d like to see/read the whole thing to put it in context (and, if appropriate, apprise him of it).
Thanks. The truncated version is all over the place, and if you can save me not wading through the chaff to find the full version I’d appreciate it.
Pingback:More reax to Palin/ABC (running updates) | The Anchoress
She needs to do a “blizzard” of interviews, that takes the onus off this one – and if Gibson is indicative of the quality of reporting/interviewing we’re gonna get by ‘real’ reporters, she’s better off on Leno and Letterman.
His questions revealed more about him than her – and the interview with McCain/Obama last night was even worse, the questioners looking to McCain for salve for their wounds, please tell us ‘Community Organizer’ is a good thing. Yes, it can be – but not when you squander $110 Million bucks and no reporter ask you any questions about that, preferring to ask Sarah Palin if Global Warming is real.
I just watched some of the interview, and Gibson (whom I’ve always disliked, for some reason) very obviously adopted an exaggerated professorial manner. Having administered more doctoral oral exams than I care to think about, I recognize the style, although we never laid the style on that thick.
Looking over the top of the glasses – good grief! How many times did Gibson watch Paper Chase before the interview?
Rose, I respectfully disagree regarding Palin’s need to do a blizzard of interviews. Quite the contrary – I think restricting media access (to both candidates) is a shrewd strategy. It drives the media nuts, and thereby will provoke them to even more extreme attacks, all of which work to McCain/Palin’s interest.
Furthermore, in the Internet era, there are lots of ways to get around the legacy media. Use ’em! Scupper the legacy media, until and unless they start providing a fairer shake. Housetraining, I call it.
In throwing the ‘Community Organizer’ tag back into the mix really what the Obama campaign really want to do? I know their attempting to attach Jesus to the tag, but is that really helpful? Will it play in Peoria? Or Dayton? Akron? Kokomo? Evansville?
I dont think they know which crowd their supposed to be playing to.
Sorry, one further thought. Wouldn’t it be cool to have a web interview of McCain/Palin, with people submitting questions that are selected by moderators (both pro- and anti-McCain) and put to the candidates, with their answers webcast?
It would neatly scupper the legacy media, it would provide a fresh new way of vetting candidates, it would use the new technology.
I think that would be dynamite!
I kept wondering when Charlie Gibson turned into Thomas Cromwell but if the MSM want to pile on the firewood and tie Palin to the stake let em do it.
That ought to sell America a lot of breakfast cereal.
Oh, of course, now I see it all so clearly —
Conservatives are good, decent, honest and fair.
Liberals are bad, indecent, dishonest and unfair.
Pentecostal Dominionism is “mainstream”.
Black Liberation Theology is a dangerous leftist ideology.
Governor Palin is ready to be President.
Governor Tim Kaine would have been dangerously unqualified according to Karl Rove.
Conservatives, if elected, will make our government smaller, less intrusive and more fiscally responsible.
Liberals, if elected, will explode tax rates, take from everyone according to their ability and give to everyone according to their need while bankrupting the country and driving out free enterprise.
Obama’s an imperfect candidate that happens to be the better leader for the United States that actually exists than John McCain and Sarah Palin. McCain, at least, used to be interesting. Palin’s rise will be an important and intriguing study for historians, sociologist, psychologists and political science professors — but she won’t be Vice President. She may not even survive as Governor. Biden’s just Biden — a run of the mill Liberal and a decent enough human being.
The race hasn’t changed much despite all the Palin hysteria with the race now polling once again as a statistical dead heat. The polls aren’t going to fare well this election cycle as the polling algorithms can’t capture the statistical abnormalities we’ll see in the actual voting stats. Minorities and youth are under-represented in the polls.
Obama is on solid footing for a solid electoral college victory. McCain may rally the popular the vote as the red states polarize in his direction — but he won’t win unless Obama stumbles badly.
The dreaded “October surprise” is more likely to leave the Republicans surprised this year.
All Presidential contests are truly a horse race these days. Obama will win this one by a little more than a nose.
Save your best stuff for 2012 and find some better candidates! There’s more true capability evidenced by you and those who follow your blog than there is on this year’s Republican ticket. (I suspect you know that and just won’t say it.)
I guess it never occurred to Gibson that Palin might out-nuance him. And the “hubris” question was astonishing for its, er, hubris. Did he ask Obama or Clinton about theirs? No, I didn’t think so.
And just as a point of information – why is Palin the focus of everyone’s questioning? No one is grilling Biden. No one grills the v.p. candidate, do they?? Are they so sure he’ll win with Sarah and also convinced he’ll die in office?? Were Garner, Wallace, Truman, Barkley (who?), Nixon, Johnson, Humphrey, Agnew, Ford, Rockefeller, Mondale, Bush (the elder), Quayle, Gore or Cheney grilled? Not if history books and my memory are correct…..
It would be interesting if Kurt’s predictions end up coming true and a party reversal of the 2000 race occurs. I bet we would see an instant reaffirmation of the electoral process by the same people who suggested in 2000 that the system should be scrapped as antiquated.
(Yes, its my day off.)
NOTE: Oh-oh, Palin really is Bush. She pronounces nuclear “nucular.” This of course immediately disqualifies her to run for any office in the land.
N.B. President Jimmy Carter had the same affliction. Perhaps he was exposed to something while serving as an officer on a US Navy “nucular” submarine.
yes
do compare Oreilly to Gibson
Gibson was tossing nerf balls !
Kurt Maddux reveals his true colors when challenged, resorting to sarcastic exaggerration rather than argument, then going on to make electoral predictions in which he has no particular expertise. And we didn’t even challenge him that hard.
Kurt, sounds like you’ve got nothing to worry about.
noga, they don’t worry about Obama’s prayer because they know he is lying.
Pingback:LeatherPenguin » When Charlie Met Sarah
“Oh, of course, now I see it all so clearly –
Pentecostal Dominionism is “mainstream”.”
Pentacostal christianity, yes. ‘Dominionism’???
“Black Liberation Theology is a dangerous leftist ideology.”
Absolutely, read the founder, Cone’s own words. He’s NOT subtle about it.
“Governor Palin is ready to be President.”
More ready than Barak Obama but then, you don’t want to talk about THAT part, do you?
“Governor Tim Kaine would have been dangerously unqualified according to Karl Rove.”
Karl Rove does not speak for republicans and why do I suspect that you are mischaracterizing Rove’s words? Perhaps because Rove is not stupid enough to characterize Kaine in the terms you assert?
“Conservatives, if elected, will make our government smaller, less intrusive and more fiscally responsible.”
That is the plan and the CONSISTENT message. They got off track but given the chance, Congress will play a different tune during McCain AND Palin’s watch.
“Liberals, if elected, will explode tax rates, take from everyone according to their ability and give to everyone according to their need…”
Well, that IS what they always TRY to do AND Obama has proposed a billion in new spending. Please explain just HOW he’s going to do THAT and LOWER the taxes of 95% of americans?
“Kurt Maddux reveals his true colors when challenged, resorting to sarcastic exaggerration rather than argument, then going on to make electoral predictions in which he has no particular expertise.”
Sorry, I thought sarcasm, exaggeration and lack of expertise was the ultimate qualification in your world!
My bad…
“Kurt, sounds like you’ve got nothing to worry about.”
What, me worry? My only worry is how I’m ever going to find something to do that’s this much fun once the elections over!
We’ve become the ultimate Greek Tragedy — Nation-State as Ultimate Theatre… Global War as a never-ending NASCAR race where the good guys never get a fair shake and the bad guys are always the more interesting characters, but everybody needs a lot of fuel to stay in the race… Democracy as an exercise in cynical manipulation and intellectual consistency is the hobgoblin of the naive.
Modernity sure is a heck of a lot of fun, ain’t it! Maybe the Neo-neo-neo Cons can save us!
Here’s my best shot a catchy new Republican bumper sticker :
Fornicate / Pro-create 2008!
(Can’t all laugh a little bit sometimes — we’ll all still have to live together and try to shop at Kroger on November 10th without intentionally tripping each other on the way out the door?)
C’mon, “Barack Obama for President?” That there’s funny — I don’t care you who you are!
Kurt. Better remember Satchel Paige’s advice. “Don’t look back, someone may be gaining on you.”
Dear Sirs,
I have read these comments with interest. In my great wisdom – at least you don’t get to be my age without looking both ways before you cross the street – I would like to offer a couple of observations.
Is is great fun to parse the arguments and look for inconsistencies. I do it myself so often that it is much like being a crossword puzzle fanatic.
First, Gibson was the perfect villain. Big plus for Sarah. The rest of the interviews don’ matter.
Second, Assistant Village Idiot came very close. Watch out, AVI – you may get promoted.
The real problem is that intellectuals are from another planet. There are many studies that show that people who have an IQ difference of 10 to 15 don’t communicate as well. People with an IQ of 100 – the average, you know – the voters – don’t do as well with mental manipulation but they do very well at living in this world. They are quite capable of understanding all of the policy discussions if you put it in their language. They even understand a lot of the $20 words. They tune you out when you use too many of them.
Metaphors – those that are well known and have an agreed upon meaning – are powerful communication tools. Code words are not. The intellectuals use code words that make sense to their tribe so they can say more in the time allotted. I could go on but I’m starting to bore myself.
The great leaders, men (generic I assure you) that in retrospect were were great intellects seemed to be rather dull in their time. FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan and – though not yet realized – GWB. They knew how to communicate – not look smart. When the intellectuals try that they learn from parodies they’ve seen on TV. I assure you that us common folk have a diametrically opposed of Archie Bunker than do they.
I find more wisdom in the daily comics than I do in The New York Times. I have loved them all my life and, in retrospect, they are a large part of me. That wouldn’t work for intellectuals. They read Doonesbury and write essays. Real people read Dilbert.
Regards,
Roy
Having only discovered neo-neocon’s site within the past few weeks, I gotta say it’s become one of the my daily site visits because it’s so intelligently written!
Anyway, in comparing this interview with Gibson’s Obama interview, it’s clear he took an adversarial role this time.
Compare his tone, his facial expressions, his mannerisms, his body language, and his overall demeanor while interviewing Obama with those same subjects while he was interviewing Sarah and it’s clear he exercised a double standard for these interviews.
As an interesting exercise, just turn the volume off while watching both and one can easily pick up on the subtle and not so subtle differences displayed between the two interviews.
I’m not suggesting that Palin shouldn’t be grilled as thoroughly as any other candidate for the office, I’m just pointing out that Gibson was very easy on Obama when he had the chance to grill him on more specific points regarding subjects such as Ayers, Rezcko, and Rev. Wright, but chose not to do so.
While he questions Palin about “hubris” in believing she was qualified to be VP – with Obama it was more supportive with such questions as whether Obama felt in his “gut” early on that he could win the nomination.
With Palin, the overwhelming issue of the interview segment seemed to relate to religious beliefs and vaguely worded questions about the “Bush Doctrine”.
Fortunately, Sarah was up to the task and Gibson was left looking like a left wing hack job. I’d love to see what segments ended up being cut from the full interview!
Barring something coming out in subsequent portions of this interview, Gibson has lost almost any credibility he was perceived to possess by such a blatant display of double standards.
Great! Then we’re all happy.
Geoffrey Brittain said:
“Karl Rove does not speak for republicans and why do I suspect that you are mischaracterizing Rove’s words? Perhaps because Rove is not stupid enough to characterize Kaine in the terms you assert?”
Um, you might want to watch this — an estimated 5 Million already have:
http://tinyurl.com/65d7wv
Scottie said:
“Barring something coming out in subsequent portions of this interview, Gibson has lost almost any credibility he was perceived to possess by such a blatant display of double standards.”
Hmmm, Scottie — I wonder if the following “blatant display of double standards” loses Karl Rove “any credibility he was perceived to possess”? (As if he was “perceived” to have any…)
http://tinyurl.com/65d7wv
I heard Gov. Plain’s press secretary (the state one in Alaska) mention couple of interesting points – one of which “neo-squared” touched upon . They seating was such that their knees were almost touching and he leaned back causing her to lean forward and then he started down at her. She should have conducted the interview sitting behind her desk in the Governor’s office – made Charlie fly to Juneau.
I didn’t see the whole interview so I went back this very minute to read the transcript (what there was of it) posted on ABC’s website because a friend had told me Gibson had asked how many foreign capitals she had visited. As it turned out the question was “have you ever met any heads of state?” But what I told my friend she should have replied works even better for the actual question. She should have said, “Well Charlie I’ve probably met the same number of heads of state as states that you have been governor of and probably the same number that Senator Obama had met two weeks after he declared he was a candidate for the presidency. And by the way Charlie, Did you ask Senator Obama that question the first time you interviewed him?”
She needs to be careful – and not worry about being too nice. One of her great attributes, I believe, is not letting anyone push her around. She needs to go out of her way to keep that image intact.
It should be obvious to any fair-minded person the questions were not meant to elicit information for the purpose of letting America get to know the governor better, rather to expose what the MSM see as her shortcomings. If information was the main purpose then the questions would have been phrased in a completely different way. It was also obvious (as neo-squared pointed out) that Gibson kept asking the same questions over and over again not because he didn’t get an answer, but because he didn’t get the answer HE WANTED. I think he must have watched the tapes of Lahey, Biden, and Kennedy questioning judges Alito and Roberts to pick up that technique. Hey ask the tough questions – no prob – they should be tough, but if you aren’t willing to accept an answer then your bias becomes obvious – you are no longer an objective journalist.
The republican ticket is in trouble?.
Kurt Kurt Kurt Kurt Kurt.
If your posting was say on the 29th or 30th of Aug. you might be able to say that with a straight face. When you say that today with the polls where they are well that is just ignoring reality.
A quick story:
My mother has voted in every election since 48 and has never voted Republican.
She had no use for McCain and didn’t care for Obama. When the subject of the election comes up all she talks about it Palin, who like her has 5 kids worked very hard while raising us and is a dead shot.
Multiply that time x amount of women and you win an election.
However if you are that convinced you will be delighted to know that Obama is trading at itrade at 48.5 so you have an excellent chance to make some easy money in November or if you don’t want to wait that long by the end of September if events prove you right you can sell early for a small profit.
Kurt Maddox:
Not all. Just most.
Not even most. Just most of the more famous and influential ones. Hadn’t you noticed?
Post-denominational evangelical Christianity, together with evangelical Catholicism, makes up the Christian mainstream in America. The disagreements on theological particulars between Pentecostals and Presbyterians are so little-considered by the layperson as to be very much out-of-sight, out-of-mind.
Well, yes. Where’ve you been? Anytime someone says, “God isn’t about liberating everyone, he’s only about liberating us…and not from our sins, but rather from the oppression of the whites, who monopolize wealth…” it results in a dangerous leftist ideology.
No one is. But on paper, Obama is less ready than Palin, who is less ready than McCain, who is less ready than Biden, who is less ready than Robert Byrd, who is less ready than Strom Thurmond, who is deceased.
Ah, that’s just Rove. He and James Carville need to have a traveling show saying exaggerated things about each others’ preferred candidates.
If they’re actually conservatives, and if they govern as conservatives, then, yes. Of course. (Not that we’ve had many like that since Reagan.)
Well, yes, as they partially did in California under Davis. And note that in “blue” states & cities, the onerous taxation and entitlements are causing them to feel like they’re in recession. Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, and the other “red” metropolises are booming, and haven’t been too badly fazed even by the mortgage crisis.
Any more questions?
Roy Lofquist Says:
“There are many studies that show that people who have an IQ difference of 10 to 15 don’t communicate as well. People with an IQ of 100”
Well, there is another issue. It’s the democrats pretention that they are more intelligent than they are and/or the other side. I think Bush and Kerry both have IQs that were close. Probably 130 on a good day (if they ate their breakfast and got some sleep). Kerry came off looking like a bigger as* because he tried to act like he had 145 whereas Bush acted like he had 115…
With practice and actual friends in that group (the 15 below you), it is easier to play below your level than above it… Kerry came off bombastic, long winded, and lame since he’d talk and talk and never say much. Bush came off as kinda dumb but hey, it worked for him…
I wish Palin would have asked Gibson: “Do you know what percent of “greenhouse gases” are caused by human activity?
The answer is here:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
What I want to know is why hasn’t the MSM gotten serious about vetting people who are a heartbeat away from being president before. As long as the candidates are Washington insiders…….no problem I guess? It’s just these pesky citizen candidates who never spent a day in Washington that are suspect. I’d like to see Charlie subject Ms Speaker Pelosi to the same kind of inquisition. After all she is just two heartbeats away from the Presidency.
Did it ever occur to them that we spend many million$ on specialists in the law, military matters, diplomacy, commerce, and such to advise the person who is entrusted with the presidency. What you want to know is the big picture philosophy of the candidate and whether they exhibit good judgment, not whether they are in command of all the details of every possible issue.
The AGW issue was so typical of the MSM. For them it is settled science. For those who have taken some time to dig into the issue it is anything but settled. In fact the differences of opinion on AGW and energy policy are very indicative of the differences between the two parties. That the MSM is convinced that the dems represent ultimate truth on these issues is just another example of why they are not objective, but deeply biased.
“Rove is not stupid enough to characterize Kaine in the terms you assert?”
Um, you might want to watch this – an estimated 5 Million already have:”
Ok, Kurt
Even though it’s an out of context clip (no question and not the complete answer) I’ll give you that one.
Out of 7 contended points, you got one.
Do keep in mind however that Rove does not speak for republicans any more than Carville does.
Technically that would mean you only get half a point but as you’re a liberal, I’ll grade you on the ‘curve’.
Oh, and John Stewart is NOT a reliable source, just in case you hadn’t caught it, he’s a comedian 😉
PALIN: I think you are a cynic because show me where I have ever said that there’s absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any affect, or no affect, on climate change.
When people are attacking you, and you are just defending yourself, the only permanent way to get them to stop attacking you is to break their knee caps. Or any other thing that makes it hurt, Neo.
When the only person hurting is you, Neo, the attackers are not going to stop hurting you just because you said something nice or reasonable to their interrogation questions.
If this was a boxing match, Charles Gibson got his ass kicked. His cut man has his hands full. He lost points for a low blow and also was knocked to the canvas several times. A unanimous decision…Sarah. Post fight analysis also appears to declare Governor Palin the winner and Gibson a stumblebum.
The procedures of an Inquisitorial trial called for a preliminary inquest into the life of the accused. This investigation consisted of the collection of any evidence, including hearsay testimony, into the character of the subject. This could then be followed by an interrogation of the suspect, in which he or she was compelled to provide testimony which could then be used against them in a subsequent trial.
Sound familiar?]
Well, yes. It was perfected in the 1990’s when the press and the Republicans were chasing rumors of Bill Clinton’s dirty laundry. They found some.
Why shouldn’t the press look for Palin’s?
Juanelle Oliver: You may be astounded to know that I think the Whitewater investigation went on way too long, and that I was and still am against the movement to impeach Clinton. I never thought and still do not think his lies under oath about sex in a trial that never should have happened (I disagree with the SCOTUS decision allowing it) rose to an impeachment-worthy level (many on this board no doubt disagree, however).
At any rate, are you really suggesting that because Republicans acted badly towards Clinton, it makes it perfectly okay for Democrats to act badly towards Palin?
You may have noticed, however, that this post is not about trying to discover facts about a candidate that might be relevant to the issue of whether that candidate is fit to govern. It is about an interview of a candidate by a member of the press, in which the questions are framed to entrap and in which the interviewer lies shamelessly about the interviewee’s record. This should not be the function of a journalist—not with any candidate of any party. Gibson acted like an inquisitor.
I love it! It’s been less than two weeks and already girlfriend has been EXPOSED! McCain once again exercised zero judgment or concern for the citizens when he cynically picked this vicious bimbo. The Empress has no clothes! And not everybody in the Kingdom chooses to pretend otherwise. Even a pawn fro the right (the only reason Gibson was even chosen to do this interview) could not hide his disdain.
“Why shouldn’t the press look for Palin’s?”
Because they refuse to look for Obama’s…
“vicious bimbo”?
There’s a fair minded assessment.
It’s not Palin that is exposed but you and, out of your own mouth.
Boy, Palin really drives the lefties nuts, doesn’t she?
It’s kind of amusing, rather like running a stick along the bars of the monkey enclosure to watch the ensuing uproar.
Geoffrey Britain has hit the nail on the head.
Obama is “ambitious” and “brilliant” for seeking the presidency after less than five months as U.S. Senator. Palin answers McCain’s call and she displays “hubris.” If she hesitated in her reply to Gibson, she’d be “timid” or “tentative.”
The knife slices both ways, gentlemen. Ask them both or ask neither. Also…in case you haven’t noticed, Sarah Palin is NOT the presidential candidate.
The questions were fine. His demeanor and attitude left a lot to be desired for a seasoned professional.
A fine blog, NeoCon. Thanks!
FWIW, I believe the published I.Q. of McCain is 153.
Of course that is really appros po of nothing as Mensa is full of Post Office letter carriers with I.Q.’s of 200+ while the greatest particle physics scientist in history after Einstein, Richard Feynman, had an I.Q. of only 127.
I wonder whether Gibson knows that Gordon Brown is not a head of state. Wouldn’t it be fun to interview some of our betters to see how often we could trip them up?
expat, it would indeed. Perhaps Master Gibson would care to expound on his understanding, such as it is, of the distinction between a head of state and a head of government.
I’d come out of retirement for that oral examination…
Dear linda,
I am sure some of wish she had no clothes. Not me, of course, I’m old. Of course I still have a deep admiration for the Venus de Milo.
Regards,
Roy
Dear Sirs,
I would like to discuss the global warming issue.
McCain’s and Palin’s position is simply a time honored political tactic. When the other side wants to make a minor issue a big deal the easiest way to diffuse it is agree with them. There will be no promises about specifics by either side.
McCain knows that anything done on this issue will be decided by Congress. Given the nature of Congress nothing will be done. Remember that the Senate rejected Kyoto 95-0.
Regards,
Roy
It is about an interview of a candidate by a member of the press, in which the questions are framed to entrap and in which the interviewer lies shamelessly about the interviewee’s record.
This is why if you trust the MSM to fairly cover the issues, you are going to get screwed.
You have to cheat and bypass the MSM. Destroy the MSM’s souces, convert their allies and reporters to our side, and essentially do counter-insurgency on the MSM’s “insurgency” against the President and the United States of America.
Kinetic operations, such as bombing and killing terrorists, turns into non-kinetic propaganda operations and infrastructure building where you win the trust of the locals and provide them security.
The question people should ask is, how will they provide security to MSM reporters so that MSM reporters can disengage from the terror of their editors.
Given Democrat terror tactics, you should also provide security to MSM reporters from them as well. Until then, you won’t get jack from the MSM, just as the US didn’t get jack from the Sunnis before security was provided to them from AQ.
There is no such thing as global warming
A rare outbreak of common sense in the Congress.
Speaking of vetting and experience. Would it be too much to ask how in the world the dems can come down so hard on a person who was Mayor/Gov (with stellar accomplishments) and at the same time insist that it is just NOT RELEVANT to question the competence of someone who has minimal experience in the Senate, and none in a Managerial position as to why he thinks he is ready to be the leader of the free world ???
Did he have absolutely NO opinion in voting “present”. As the old expression goes…..That don’t gee haw.
A rare outbreak of common sense in the Congress.
Money sense. They know donations will dry up if they screw their special interests.
Tom, look, the Democrats only care about making The GOP look like hypocrites. The Democrats have no internal standard concerning being consistent about anything. They don’t care about whether Obama has any experience or not. They don’t care about Palin’s experience or not. They care about finding a weak spot in McCain’s arguments concerning Obama’s experience, and using it to destroy, hurt, and obliterate the GOP. Period.
Look, if Palin becomes President–a real possibility given McCain’s age and health–she’s going to be facing MUCH tougher audiences than Charlie Gibson. Vladimir Putin and a Congress full of Democrats will try to trip her up and thwart her far more than this interviewer did. Gibson might not have been nice, but it’s foolish for us to complain about that. In fact, We NEED to see how she handles tough questions. To me, she seemed to hold her ground and look tough, but she also seemed unable to clearly answer most of Gibson’s questions. At times, she seemed to change the topic entirely–as when she was asked about how Alaska’s closeness to Russia had affected her take on forein policy. She switched to talking about energy. I honestly couldn’t even follow what she was saying. Most politicians are vague in giving answers to the press, but she was illogical. I felt like she was trying too hard to get back to her talking points. We need a president who can think on her feet and give smart, informed, and logical answers–even to tough interviewers who are trying to trip them up. Hillary could do this. Sarah cannot.
Charlie Gibson was in my opinion a respected journalist, key word here is was. How much did the Obama campaign pay him to do this interview? There was no fairness or impartiality in the questions or in their tone; the only thing what was missing from Mr. Gibson was a throne! He was acting like a pompas private school master integrating the girl from the ‘other side of the tracks’ on her application into the prestigious ‘inner circle’, and at the same time not taking the same attitude with the legacy member of the ‘old boy network (read here Joe Biden). Keep in mind Mr. Gibson; she has more experience then the number one candidate on the democratic ticket; please ask him the same questions with the same tone. Absolutely disgusting!
And you think that shows she an inexperienced politician? Politicians always answer the question they wished had been asked, rather than the one that was in fact asked.
I hold no brief for Palin, but all politicians do this. Even Hillary.
Roy:
“When the other side wants to make a minor issue a big deal the easiest way to diffuse it is agree with them.”
I couldnt disagree more.
This isnt a minor issue, its a non-issue. Its a potentially very costly non-issue. It is also very bizarre that we sit back and allow the willing perpetration of a hoax. Where does it end? Should we go along with allowing some carbon regulation in order to get along? Do we then accept the next incremental measure? This is diffusal?
We have CO2 listed by the EPA as a pollutant and polar bears on the endangered species list and both based upon ideology, not science. Political indoctrination by degree.
Its time to stand up and put an end to this.
It’s useful to liken the composition of the atmosphere to the population of the U.S.
Given the population of the U.S. as 300 million, the partial pressure (i.e., the contribution to atmospheric pressure from) CO2 would correspond to …150,000 people. (Admit it: you’d thought it would be more, didn’t you? But that’s 500 ppm.)
Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 3% of the total atmospheric CO2, or …4500 people, out of 300 million. Forty-five hundred people who are exactly alike another 150,000 in every respect.
So…would you believe that adding to the U.S. population 4500 people who were absolutely identical in every way with 150,000 people already here would make a significant difference?
If not, you doubt the global warming hysteria too.
Need more convincing that the AGW “issue” will not go away by diffusal?
Last June I remember the MSM going public with a climate scare story that this past summer might for the first time in recorded history see the complete melting of the polar ice cap.
Did you hear the next breathless report that it had actually happened? No, you did not. In fact, there happened to be more ice this year than previous years.
Now apparently this too can be attributed to AGW:
Sea Ice Increases Due to Global Warming
(http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/new_scientist_sea_ice_increase.html)
Its time for the game to end.
LJ: If you watched the longer versions of the interviews that were edited differently, it’s clear that a great deal of the odd, disjointed nature of some of her answers wa due to choppy network editing. That’s another reason to be critical of Gibson, et al.
Negotiating with someone (Putin, let’s say) over a particular issue is absolutely nothing like taking a pop quiz on things like Gibson’s version of “the Bush Doctrine.” Apparently Palin is actually a pretty tough negotiator, since I hear she managed to get a bunch of people to agree on the Alaska pipeline, something that had been brewing—and stalled—for many decades.
I agree, though, that one important thing that is shown by the Gibson interviews is how calm she can stay when under pressure. We already knew that from her speech at the Republican Convention. But now we see again that she stays pretty cool when things get hot.
“Its time for the game to end.”
The ‘game ‘ will not end for quite some time.
That is because we are in the realm of ‘religious’ dogma.
Liberals, in their naivete, cavalierly assumed that they could abandon religion. Such is NOT the case. There is a reason why mankind, throughout time and regardless of culture, demands the establishment of a religion.
Liberals have created their secular, relativistic, environmental ‘religion’ and they will not give it up easily.
The ‘tide’ has turned because liberal belief in environmental dogma requires scientific confirmation and that increasingly is refuted, by scientists.
But liberals have drunk the ‘kool-aid’ and until derision makes belief untenable and a replacement is found, resistance will be fierce because they face the collapse of their world-view and THAT any of us will resist because human nature requires its psychological foundation.
I hold no brief for Palin, but all politicians do this. Even Hillary.
But he didn’t have to think about what all the other politicians had to say. Palin, however, must be listened to carefully so we can get her. That requires attention and focus. More attention and focus than the status quo required before.
I agree, though, that one important thing that is shown by the Gibson interviews is how calm she can stay when under pressure. We already knew that from her speech at the Republican Convention. But now we see again that she stays pretty cool when things get hot.
The pitch of her voice is also consistent with what is popular these days concerning women’s voices. Slightly girlish, soft, and higher pitched.
Vladimir Putin and a Congress full of Democrats will try to trip her up and thwart her far more than this interviewer did.
And… when she has the power to drop a nuke on Putin, assassinate him, or kill/kidnap his family in Russia, this means that she better be able to be tough with Gibson, who she can’t order killed?
You have got to be kidding me.
If Palin acted the same way towards Putin, someone she can ordered killed, the same way she acted towards Gibson, someone she can’t order killed, then she’d be screwed.
How much did the Obama campaign pay him to do this interview?
These people work for peanuts. They aren’t in it for the money. It’s like the military. Getting paid is nice and of course, often times required. But it isn’t about the pay. It’s about defeating America’s enemies.
Dear Sirs,
I sense that I may have been around a little longer than a lot of you. There is a whole passel of issues that have been around since I first became aware of politics in 1949.
I won’t tire you by listing them, but I’d like to bring up an old chestnut – deficit spending. It is invariably the position of the minority that this will bring the country to perdition next Tuesday. What they really mean is that, by rules, the majority gets 60% and the minority gets 40%. As I sit here sipping a nice single malt and talk to you, my friends, in the far corners of the earth I look around and observe that this ain’t exactly the Hell that my Baptist friends tell me about.
I don’t get distracted by small beer. Takes a while to get there. As we used to say at Ft. Apache – you get it from arrows in the back. And yes, I know it well. If you want to know the best place on the res to get mutton stew and fry bread ask me.
This great country is designed to try try new ideas. We have tried many in our history. If they don’t work out we try something else. It’s worked out pretty damned good.
There is only one threat that we face. It is external. The only thing that I am at all concerned about is that my grandchildren and theirs have a long and happy life.
Our fortunes wax and wane. That’s life. What is bad is violent death. It extinguishes our mission here on earth, whatever that might be.
Regards,
Roy
Folks, sometimes after enough of that single mat I tend to get confused about whether I’m posting here or at The Anchoress.
Yes, we can see that Roy, but clearly you mean well and that has to count for something.
Ymarsakar: part of the nuclear missle launch procedure is teh ability to play mind games with journalists and opposition members of the government
Very good Kurt Maddox:
Cite the Daily Show. Solid choice for getting news. No wonder you are so impressed with yourself.
Dear Vince,
You almost got it. But the object of these efforts is not anybody that you mentioned. The object is to fuck with the mind of your enemy. They’re the guys who can kill you and millions of your countrymen.
Ambiguity is a hoary diplomatic and military weapon that is remarkably effective. I will start by citing what I think is a stark example.
In 1955, shortly after the Korean War, China precipitated a crisis in the Taiwan Strait revolving around the islands of Quemoy and Matsu. At that time Mao had driven Chiang Kai Schek and the Nationalists out of China who had taken refuge on the island of Taiwan. Mao was about to pursue the Nationalists and obliterate them. The US faced a very dangerous situation and there was behind the scenes diplomacy to defuse the situation to avoid another bloody war in Asia. The American press was clamoring for an interview with the President. This was a dangerous situation because if the press misconstrued what was said it could have grave consequences. Eisenhower’s press secretary expressed concerns about the dangers. Eisenhower said “Don’t worry Jim. I’ll just go out there and confuse them”.
There are a couple of more recent examples of this. Reagan knew that that mic was hot when he said “The bombing starts in ten minutes”. Everybody said it was just a joke. It wasn’t. It helps if the enemy thinks you might be just a wee tad crazy. It makes him unsure of his own calculations.
When McCain did the “Bomb, bomb Iran” ditty it was again written off as a joke. It wasn’t. It was a clear message to Iran that they’d be a lot better off settling peaceably with Bush rather than waiting for the new President. That off hand moment was coordinated with Bush.
We coffee house philosophers clamor for clear statements of diplomatic and military intent. It may satisfy our egos. It is often not in the interest of our country.
If anybody is interested in nuclear war planning I’d be happy to oblige.
Regards,
Roy
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.
The Palin interview
While Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq, and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.
“Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,” she said. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan.”
But PALIN believes that man’s activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change.
The fact is Iraq war have nothing to do with God but global warming, climate change is God Plan isn’t Palin?
According to the National Enquirer, Sarah and Todd Palin’s oldest son, 19-year-old Track, has a history of drug use and abuse
So she sent her Son for Rehab to Iraq, isn’t?
Tell us the truth how much you paid to be Megaphone of Bush and his doctrine , writing your cowboy thoughts her an there.
Btw, Enemies don’t go away by avoiding them. They go away by destroying their base of operations, their logistics, their armies, their cities, and their faith in their gods and leaders…..US enemy looks you lost your direction……Saudi regime is the breeders of US enemy and terrorists.
Last months your troops handed 200 Saudi terrorists caught in Iraq to Saudis does that make you wander what’s going on here why these Wahabi terrorists come and go between US and Saudis?
Is it war game or what our cowboy man?
Yep, he was a druggie – just like Obama.
Btw, Truth, real Americans (i.e., not liberals) take “cowboy” as praise, not criticism. It’d be like saying, “You guys are real men, you know that?” and expecting them to hang their heads and say, “Gee, sorry, we won’t do it again.”
As for the terrrorists we handed over to the Saudi government (assuming this actually took place, of course), I’d guess that about now they’re praying to Allah, God, Jehovah, Buddha, and anyone else who’ll listen that they be returned to U.S. captivity.
Seriously, how can anyone who watched these interviews take this woman seriously as a vice presidential candidate? Half the time she doesn’t sound like she even knows what she’s talking about – like she’s just spouting a bunch of talking points no matter if they relate to Charles Gibson’s questions or not. He, rightfully, hammered her on her B.S. answers.
Look, if she can’t take the tough questions, she shouldn’t be running for vice president.
“Look, if she can’t take the tough questions, she shouldn’t be running for vice president.”
That logic would apply equally well to Obama?
BTW, she ‘took’ the questions just fine thanks, your partisanship prevents you from acknowledging a ‘hit’ job when you see one.
Seriously, how can anyone who watched these interviews take this woman seriously as a vice presidential candidate?
You should know that the interview you “watched” wasn’t the actual interview on the paper transcript.
Yeah, funny thing, isn’t it.
anyone else who’ll listen that they be returned to U.S. captivity.
Good interpretation, but what about that Kuwaitis terrorist were in Guantamo, handed to Kuwaitis after a while he blow himself in north Iraq!!!!!
Yes we got rid of one terrorist in heavy human price but if these terrorists as you stated pray to return to US hand this just out of blue thoughts you dreaming here.
Saudis they kill any one threats their Kingdome but its OK if these ugly breed goes any where for their Wahabi jihad which is still this Wahabi institution running even in your DC.
For your unbelievs if that happened read this report and relax that did happen next time do not doubted by reading some thing put here, you and your officials more doubtable sources as uncovered clearly after 2003 with iraq.
U.S. military secretly sending foreign fighters to home nations
“You should know that the interview you ‘watched’ wasn’t the actual interview on the paper transcript.
Yeah, funny thing, isn’t it.”
I’ve read the transcripts, too. They don’t make her look much better. If that’s all you have to go on, you’re really grasping at straws. This woman is clueless.
X Crews thinks Palin is clueless but fell for the Leftist treason all the time while talking about Planned Profit’s videos being edited.
It’s pretty much how Leftist zombies are, they fall for cons all the time, every time.