Fred Martinez's Monitor

Palin Defeats ABC's Shameful Editing and Insulting Questions Never asked to Obama

http://savagepolitics.com/

Facing the Snob
September 12th, 2008 SP Editor Posted in Political Analysis |

Yesterday’s interview of Sarah Palin might have been a political success for the McCain campaign, but it was a shameful display of arrogance, snobbery, and elitism on the part of the Mainstream Media.

Sarah Palin might have looked a bit uncomfortable, all thanks to the pretentiously disrespectful first question that was launched at her, but she remained wholly in control of the subjects being discussed. The problem with the interview was both the HORRID editing that was given to her answers, which made her appear “talking point” obsessed, and also Charlie Gibson’s clearly condescending tone and demeanor.

The first question itself was not only arrogant on his part but offensive. In it, he asked her if she felt “ready” or “experienced enough” to have agreed to run for Vice President. When she firmly said “yes” to such a preposterous and insulting question (would ANYONE answer otherwise?), Gibson actually asked her if she thought that her confidence in this matter demonstrated a bit of “hubris” on her part. What kind of journalists are we dealing with today? Did they EVER ask Barack Hussein Obama the same question and with the same tone? Obama is a mere junior senator, Palin is a GOVERNOR. How come Gibson didn’t ask Obama; “didn’t you recently admit in a press conference that running for President without even serving a day in the senate is irresponsible?” (WATCH VIDEO HERE)

The reason is quite obvious, if Gibson had asked Obama such a question, or even challenged him for his “hubris” on national television, every single Media pundit would have accused Gibson of racism and unfairness. But when they actually dare to ask these type of condescending questions to a truly accomplished woman (by any measure), they suddenly remain quiet, without a single mention of double standards and sexism (although I must admit that Mika Brzezinski, that well known Obama sycophant from MSNBC, actually admitted this morning that a man would NOT have been asked these questions in the same manner).

Of course, most of us already understand and personally know about the horrid bias that the Media exhibits on a day to day basis in favor of Liberals (in general) and Barack Obama (in particular), but when most people thinks about the aggressive ‘pop quiz’ style interview to which Sarah Palin was submitted to by ABC, it is quite clear that they did everything in their power, via questions and editing, to make her look as bad as possible. When analyzed from this perspective, even after all of their efforts, they actually achieved making her look ‘more normal’ and ‘down to earth’ than any other politician in recent history, which in the end fits perfectly with her image as the “true people’s candidate”.

But let’s look a bit closer to a moment in the interview which the Democrats may be smart NOT to criticize about her performance: their odd discussion about the “Bush Doctrine”. This was another moment in which Gibson appeared to be “annoyed” at the fact that she asked for a bit of clarification regarding its import.

Let’s read what Richard Starr has to say about this part of the interview, which in my opinion, perfectly brings forth the problem with asking “quiz” type questions to candidates of this magnitude (thank you CC for bringing this excerpt to our attention):

Palin right on Bush Doctrine, ABC NEWS doesn’t even know what it means…

Weekly Standard ^ | 9-12-08 | Richard Starr

What Exactly Is the ‘Bush Doctrine’? It’s being taken in some quarters as revelatory of inexperience that Sarah Palin sought clarification when ABC’s Charlie Gibson asked her about the Bush Doctrine. To review, here is the passage from 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. PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better. GIBSON: 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. Do you agree with that?

Gibson should of course have said in the first place what he understood the Bush Doctrine to be–and specified that he was asking a question about preemption. Palin was well within bounds to have asked him to be more specific. Because, as it happens, the doctrine has no universally acknowledged single meaning. Gibson himself in the past has defined the Bush Doctrine to mean “a promise that all terrorist organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated”–which is remarkably close to Palin’s own answer.

Consider what a diversity of views on the meaning of the Bush Doctrine can be found simply within the archives of ABC News itself:

September 20, 2001 PETER JENNINGS: . . . Claire, the president said at one point, ‘From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.’ Should we be taking that as the Bush doctrine? CLAIRE SHIPMAN reporting: I think so, Peter,

September 21, 2001 CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We’ll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.

September 21, 2001 CHARLIE GIBSON: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That’s pretty broad. Broader than you expected?

December 9, 2001 GEORGE WILL: The Bush doctrine holds that anyone who governs a territory is complicit in any terrorism that issues from that territory. That covers the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Second, the war on terrorism is indivisible, it’s part of the Bush doctrine.

December 11, 2001 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Two years ago, September 1999, Bush gave his first speech when he was running about terrorism. And his first–had the first explanation of the Bush doctrine, that if you harbor a terrorist, you’re going to be attacked. The Bush White House is putting this out, saying it shows that Bush was very prescient, but that was only one speech given in the campaign.

January 28, 2002 BOB WOODWARD: This is now the Bush Doctrine . . . , namely that if we’re attacked by terrorists, we will not just go after those terrorists but the countries or the people who harbor them.

January 29, 2002 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It was striking and significant that the president really expanded the Bush doctrine. If a nation builds a weapon of mass destruction–Iraq, Iran or North Korea–we will reserve the right to take out those weapons even if we’re not attacked or even if there’s not a threat.

March 19, 2004 TERRY MORAN: That was the Bush doctrine we just heard. On this one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, President Bush offered a very broad justification of American leadership in the world under him since 9/11. Not just since one year in Iraq. For American voters as an argument that the country is safer, but more as you point out, for the world, which has been divided by his leadership, that Iraq is knit, in his mind, very firmly into that war on terrorism. One omission which I believe will be noted around the world, he made no mention of the role of multilateral institutions, the UN and others, in this fight against terrorism. In his mind, it’s clear it’s American leadership with others following along.

May 7, 2006 GEORGE WILL: Now the argument from the right is the CIA is a rogue agent because it has not subscribed to the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine being that American security depends on the spread of democracy and we know how to do that. The trouble is, Negroponte, who is considered by some of these conservatives the villain here and an enemy of the Bush doctrine is the choice of Bush, which makes Bush an insufficient subscriber to the Bush doctrine.

I’ll stop there, although anyone with a Nexis account can find far more where that came from. Preemptive war; American unilateralism; the overthrow of regimes that harbor and abet terrorists–all of these things and more have been described as the “Bush Doctrine.” It was a bit of a sham on Gibson’s part to have pretended that there’s such a thing as ‘the’ Bush Doctrine, much less that it was enunciated in September 2002.

Even if we put aside the problematic of defining this “doctrine”, for the sake of giving such “gotcha” question the benefit of the doubt, the fact of the matter is that most Americans have no clue what this means (and I assume that for most Democrats this is actually a good thing!), so ‘beating up’ on her for asking for a further explanation of “which aspect” of said doctrine he was referring to, makes her seem a lot more cautious, thoughtful, and actually in touch with America. A lengthy, off the cuff, answer of this question, even if she agreed with Gibson’s definition, would have been dangerious, since it would have been taken to signify a complete endorsement of George W. Bush.

In other words, if Democrats make a big deal out of the fact that she does not know the “Bush doctrine” by heart, they are in fact distancing her even more from the current administration. Most Reagan Democrats would see it as a good thing that she doesn’t have to “unlearn” said policies, and the majority of our citizens already view her response as a clear DIFFERENCE between the last 8 years and what she will bring to Washington.

Hopefully, most people will get to see the UNEDITED version of her interview, and thus get to appreciate her thoughtful answers, instead of being forced to digest a group of rapid soundbites that made it seem as if she was applying for a job with a highly embittered and pompous boss.

At the end of the day, the people of America are the ones that do the hiring, not the Media bosses or the quasi-intellectual puppets that do their dirty work, and so far, she is looking like the next female Vice President in the history of the United States.

©2008 SAVAGEPOLITICS.com. All Rights Reserved.

posted by Fred Martinez @ 9:50 AM