Posted on 09/13/2008 12:23:59 PM PDT by quesney
Gibson’s first John Edwards interview after he was nominated for vice president came on the September 2, 2004 Good Morning America, on the Thursday morning of the Republican convention in New York.
--------
Charles Gibson Interviews John Edwards
Democratic Vice-Presidential Nominee
September 2, 2004
GIBSON: Senator Edwards, they went at you hammer and tong last night from the podium here at this Republican Convention...I wonder how you felt as you listened.
GIBSON: Did it make you in any way second-guess the decision at the Democratic Convention not to mention George Bush from the podium so often, not to engage as directly?
CHARLES GIBSON: They get into this theme about John Kerry's conflicting votes on various issues. How are you going to answer that?
GIBSON: This crowd was chanting "flip-flop" last night. It is this elemental issue that they're trying to make that there are two John Kerrys, citing his conflicting votes on a number of issues.
GIBSON: You speak with such equanimity this morning. Didn't they make you mad last night?
GIBSON: Did you get mad, though?
GIBSON: John Edwards, good to talk to you. Thanks very much.
-----
ABC "News"
Charles Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin Republican Vice Presidential Nominee September 11, 2008 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5782924&page=1
GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. 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?"
GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"
GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?
GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?
GIBSON: I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.
GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.
GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.
GIBSON: I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
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.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?
GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.
GIBSON: Let's start, because we are near Russia, let's start with Russia and Georgia.
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?
GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?
GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?
GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who's right?
GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?
GIBSON: But, Governor, we've threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn't done any good. It hasn't stemmed their nuclear program.
GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.
GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.
GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
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.
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: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?
GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
EXCELLENT catch.
Someone has to make a Youtube video contrasting these two interviews!
So glad you guys posted these interviews. It’s all feelings questions when it comes to the Dems. I darn well knew he wasn’t asking any of them hard questions.
ABC, NBC CBS,CNN and the others have a long list of leftist loons to replace the leftist loons they have to take off because of public pressure, so what’s the difference from one leftist loon to another?
But ask yourself: How would a real foreign policy sophisticate have replied to Gibson’s question?
Well, Anne-Marie Slaughter is the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. She was interviewed by Alan Johnson, for a book titled: “Global Politics After 9/11: The Democratiya Interviews.”
Here’s how the exchange begins:
Johnson: What are the central differences, and what are the elements of continuity, if any exist, between ‘the Bush doctrine’ and the ‘grand strategy of forging a world of liberty under law’?
Slaughter: Tell me what you mean by ‘The Bush Doctrine’.
In other words, Dean Slaughter gave the same answer as did Palin.
Bam.
Krauthammer was all over this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2081692/posts
“The one you did yesterday is more telling. Here’s your list on Gibson “interviewing”
A fellow FREEPer made the fair point that this was not a fair comparison. An apples-to-apples comparison is Palin vs. Edwards being interviewed shortly after they were picked as VP nominees. I think they’re equally revealing, and damning.
Forever shall it be written.
The difference between the two interviews is fundamental. Edwards didn’t have a chance of winning and Palin does. The interview with Edwards was nothing more than pleasantries and inconsequetial drivel.
Palin represents a view that is unwelcome in liberal circles and is a demonstration of the philosophy of mainstream America. Her refferals to the will of the people of the state of Alaska were awesome. Obama and his ilk have long forgotten those whom they are to represent.
Gibson does look like a fool.
Very good work! I would love to see a video (no sound needed) showing Gibson’s facial expressions and body language in the two interviews. Something tells me that would be a comparison as well.
Video:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/WhoIs/story?id=3927243&page=1
Extended version of Charles Gibson’s talk with the presidential candidate.
Nov. 29, 2007
You’re right - they don’t play “gotcha” with dems...
The best part of this is Palin handles it so well. May we say, “Gravitas?”
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.