Posted on 09/14/2008 10:02:40 PM PDT by Kaslin
What an amazing escapade in broadcast journalism.
In his exclusive one-on-one interview with Governor Sarah Palin, the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, Charlie Gibson of ABC News began with what he characterized as “the central question:”
“Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question” he stated. “Can you look the country in the eye and say ‘I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?’"
Great question, Charlie. And it should be the “central question” for anybody who seeks the presidency or vice presidency. So why is Governor Palin being asked this question now, while the question has not been posed to the other candidates that have participated in the 2008 election cycle?
Gibson further questioned Palin about having adequate understanding of “international affairs,” and how, and why, she remained so confident in her abilities to be President or Vice President. Gibson even asked if her attitude towards the challenge didn’t entail “some hubris.”
Much has been written in the past two days about Gibson’s condescending attitude towards Governor Palin, as well as his questioning her about “the Bush doctrine” - - complete with his refusal to clarify what he was implying with the term “Bush doctrine,” as though the term implies one precise, easily defined concept (it does not). Within the past twenty-four hours, it has also been discovered that the complete transcript of Gibson’s interview does not match up with the edited video that ABC News aired, and it appears that edits were made so as to make Governor Palin seem more aggressive towards Russia than she actually was.
I do not wish here to attempt to add to this type of analysis. I must, however, raise this question - why hasn’t Gibson’s line of questioning been applied universally, to other candidates? In particular, why hasn’t Barack Obama ever been asked similar, if not the same questions?
Senator Obama is a lawyer, former “community organizer,” and legislator, who cannot claim any particular legal, business, or legislative accomplishments. He has earned a few million dollars in the past two years with his writing and publishing, yet his written works do not enlighten about history, nor reveal any great new insights or visions for the world’s future. Both of his published books are about himself, and his “life’s journey.”
With his rather limited personal and professional background, it seems reasonable that Mr. Obama would be asked if he is “experienced enough,” or if he has a sufficient understanding of “international affairs.” One could also make the case that Obama should be challenged about “hubris,” given his favorite writing topic, and given his fast-track approach to pursuing the presidency (he launched his presidential campaign with less than a full year of experience (184 days) in the U.S. Senate).
But Barack Obama has not been asked about these things. Not by Charlie Gibson, nor by anyone else among the esteemed ranks of American journalism. And “experience” aside, there are many other puzzling facets of Mr. Obama and his candidacy, that don’t seem to elicit the slightest bit of curiosity among our journalist friends.
For example, Mr. Obama has insisted for most of this year that we are in a recession. The American economy has not posted a single quarter of “negative growth” in the GDP this year (indeed Q2 posted a rather robust gain of over 3%), and last week’s projections for Q4 estimate strong new hiring and job growth. Yet, Mr. Obama continues to say that when he becomes President, he will lead Americans out of “the recession,” and has used “the recession” to argue for a doubling of the capital gains tax rate, and sharp increases in corporate and personal income taxes. His presupposition about “the recession,” and his reasoning that tax increases will help fix “the recession,” continue to go unchallenged by American journalists.
On foreign policy, Mr. Obama has vowed to abandon the policy of the American President refusing to personally meet with leaders of known terrorist states. The policy has been in place since 1979 when President Carter’s Department of State implemented it, and it has been followed by every President since. Yet Mr. Obama has promised that when he becomes President, he will continue his great “healing work” and will meet “without pre-conditions” with the heads of our nation’s adversaries, terrorist states and all. This plan has gone unchallenged by American journalists.
The “small town gal” from Alaska is being scrutinized. The guy from the big city of Chicago, who writes and speaks eloquently about himself and has already labeled himself as a “change agent” and “the one” who is leading America “to healing,” manages to escape such scrutiny. Somebody is displaying a whole lot of “hubris,” and it is not Governor Palin.
Is BHO next? You must be kidding.
If he is, you can be sure Charley Gibson will ask him soft ball questions and none will be edited out
The MSM has indeed gone mad, like a bunch of rabid dogs, and they are in the process of destroying themselves.
OTOH Greta Susteren presented a fair-minded "life journey" video essay on Sarah Palin, not hiding the Troopergate non-scandal, but not dwelling on it. She's not rabid....yet.
Greta probably isn’t going to go too rabid. Her husband is supporting McCain.
i’m surprised that anyone is surprised. this is abc, mind you.
its just a validation of the obvious. charlie gibson is a subtle, coniving, liberal “full of thyself”, never been elected, “i know more than you”, wart on a nat’s ass, puckered lip, poodle-dingle-berry figment of Michael Moore’s wet dream.
just to set the record straight.
I thought Greta’s husband was for Obama. Got any reference on that?
It is my understanding that a replacement candidate would have to get their name on the ballots state-by-state. And that window is closing very quickly. So expedited is not the word. It needs to happen tomorrow. Then the dems would have to select a new candidate and that candidate would have to get their names on all fifty state’s ballots.
I assume that where the state judiciary is controlled by rats, the state courts would waive any deadlines ala lautenberg. But that’s a pretty big risk to think they would prevail in every swing state.
What’s interesting is that this is a somewhat more explosive development than, say, conversations an Alaska mayor had with a librarian. And that this issue has seen absolutely NO play in the old media at all.
So it could be an October Surprise. But not a pleasant one for dems.
Not sure what would happen if Obama won the election and then lost the lawsuit before the swearing in. If after the swearing in, Biden would become president.
The glorius leader of the Revolution? The MESSIAH himeself?? NO.
But I did some digging myself and found something. Did anyone know Barry tried to start up a singing career? Found a short clip here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGOYG-8AjeU
Might be used in his campaign......
Senator Obama is a lawyer, former “community organizer,” and legislator, who cannot claim any particular legal, business, or legislative accomplishments.
With his rather limited personal and professional background, it seems reasonable that Mr. Obama would be asked if he is “experienced enough,” or if he has a sufficient understanding of “international affairs.”
These are the questions that our side has been asking since Obama started running.
The media's incredibly blatant double standard has been framed in undeniably stark contrast by ABC and Charles Gibson.
Good article, and I hope that ABC News is pinned to the wall with these questions by McCuda and the RNC.
Is Greta’s husband somebody famous?
Somehow, my post went to the wrong thread. My apologies.
Ok I found a reference. You’re right about Coale being a McCain supporter nee Clinton supporter. Interesting....
Greta’s hubby is a well known trial lawyer (some would say ambulance chaser) named John Coale.
The media are covering this campaign exactly as they might run an internal “diversity” program.
1. They have established a hierarchy of victimhood. Bros before hoes, as the vulgar t-shirt says.
2. Scrutiny and standards are lowered for protected classes. The higher one is in the victimhood hierarchy, the more the bar is lowered.
3. “Diversity” is not achieved by simply having a black COO, CEO, or POTUS. It is never achieved, no matter what.
4. Of course there is a totalitarian, sans-culotte impulse behind “diversity”. Everyone knows this, but almost all wearily go along with it either out of guilt or fear.
5. If questions are raised about the process - the lowered standards of scrutiny, the fact that 0bama has a chorus of unpaid advisors on the editorial page of major papers - it will be duly noted who raised the question, so that recriminations can be carried out upon him/her when convenient.
The problem is, when the left-wing does their very biased coverage of the presidential election, some voters on the left, are stupid enough to believe this hype of about how unqualified the Republicans are. So when the Democrats lose, some idiot voters on the left are going to be so outraged, who knows what could happen. Because those idiots are believing the outrageous slanted coverage against the Republicans. They are going to feel completely cheated when they lose. Because they actually believe all these lies. It’s a very dangerous game the left wing nut jobs in the media are playing. I don’t know, maybe this is part of the left’s plan, maybe they want an all out civil war. It seems like they are trying really hard to egg something on. The news coverage is outrageous, it is so slanted against the Republicans.
No, I heard a report that he was disgusted with Obama and his tactics
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.