It’s aggravating that Charlie Gibson would not only ask mind numbingly stupid questions that only the tin foil hat brigrade is interested in during the ABC interview of Sarah Palin, but it’s even more aggravating that ABC would edit so viciously to take so much of the pith and wisdom out of Sarah Palin’s replies.
Charlie’s tortuous pimping of five year old talking points and gotchas ranged from terminal BDS misinterpretation of the “Bush Doctrine” to idiotic smears about book banning and global warming apostasy. In that environment it’s tough to have an intelligent conversation about matters essential to America, but Sarah still managed until they they edited out the pith that is.
Gibson was truly on a hunt for the damning sound bite, and not an objective interview. You can see this clearly in the transcript of sections of the interview edited out posted at Mark Levine’s. You see she’s much more knowledgeable about the nature of our relationship with Russia, and the strategy of the moment than Charlie is. You see she is definitely against Islamic terrorism, but that was left on the cutting room floor, and finally you see that she firmly supports Israel, but the part about working with Allies to throttle Iran’s quest for the bomb also didn’t make it to prime time.
With this interview Charlie Gibson has left the ranks of journalism and has become just another hack smear artist, aligned clearly with those on the left. We have those hacks on the right as well, but this is an important election as all presidental elections are. This is clear journalistic malfeasance, and Charlie needs to start wearing his tinfoil hat to interviews so America knows where he is coming from.
One other thing: the question on “Bush Doctrine” was obvious setup to declare McCain / Palin as four more years of Bush, which is the main campaign point that Barack’s campaign would have you believe. ABC’s collusion in trying to perpetuate that is ridiculously transparent in the snips I’ve seen. While the left will tell us that Charlie gave Sarah pause on the question, in reality it’s like asking her to futher the talking points of the left. I would have paused at that question too, since the Bush Doctrine means many different things to many different people, and the left boiling it down to “pre-emptive strikes” is foolishness. It really was more than pre emptive strikes, and it has changed over the years since 9/11.
My reply would have been “Which Bush Doctrine Charlie?” By making him specify what he was getting at she helped make the ploy transparent. The only thing she might have done better would be to say that the McCain Doctrine is what saved the Bush Doctrine from defeat in Iraq.
I don’t think the left’s BDS has as much traction or heft as they think it does, as President Bush’s poll numbers continue to rise while Congress’ numbers lie in the sewer. This post is the last in which I will compare Bush and McCain, the differences are many, and that’s direction the left wants the conversation to go. I’d rather look at the future, as the candidates should be.
The conversation needs to turn to energy, the economy, and victory in Iraq, not the crap we’ve been re-hashing for five years as that’s gotten rather circular.