Stand up, Chuck!
Posted on 09/14/2008 9:50:27 AM PDT by AmericaTalks
Sarah Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson was an appalling attempt at smearing her, even to the point that some in the mainstream media even took Gibson and ABC News to task on it.
From the outset, it was clear that Gibson planned to paint her as completely inept and unqualified. The very first question, asking Palin if she hesitated when McCain offered her a spot on the ticket, dripped with condescension. Here was Gibson, looking professorial with his glasses down at the end of his nose, eyebrow cocked, as if to portray her as a liar, or so self-assured as to be arrogant. But Palin handled it quite well, explaining that if she felt she could benefit McCain and be of service to our nation, there was no need to hesitate.
On her faith, Gibson misrepresented what she had said about God's role in the Iraq war. Through careful editing, viewers of the interview did not get an opportunity to hear her full answer. Gibson asked Palin: "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 answered, "You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote."
"It’s exact words," Gibson said.
But Gibson’s quote left out what Palin said before that:
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan."
This response appears in the transcript but was edited out of the televised version. That leaves a false impression of her answer and is a deliberate smear.
Palin also told Gibson that she was referring to Abraham’s Lincoln’s words on how one should never presume to know God’s will. She said she does not presume to know God’s will and that she was only asking the audience to "pray that we are on God’s side."
The liberal press even took ABC to task. The far left L.A. Times rebuked Gibson for distorting Palin's remarks.
Gibson also ambushed Palin with the question regarding the definition of the Bush Doctrine. No official doctrine exists, and the definition of the term was coined by Charles Krauthammer. In a column appearing in the Washington Post on September 13th, Krauthammer wrote "There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different."
So it becomes exceedingly clear that ABC and Gibson were going for the 'gotcha' moment. They failed to get one. Palin acquitted herself well in the interview.
The elite media had better be careful as to how they attempt to paint Sarah Palin. The more they go after her, the more invincible she becomes. At one time, Barack Obama was the Teflon candidate. But as time goes by, people are seeing that the emperor has no clothes. Obama is sizzle and no steak. And the sizzle is cooling off, as polls seem to show a growing admiration and respect for the McCain-Palin ticket by conservatives, independents and women.
Democrats are running scared. They are not sure Obama is the candidate that will make it over the finish line. They are beginning to regret that Hillary Clinton was not offered the number two spot on the ticket. And democrats are even worried about congressional races as the bloom fades from the Obama rose.
Palin is the real deal. Obama is an empty suit. The closer we get to this election, the clearer it becomes.
Sounds possible until we consider The One’s oversized ego. He won’t step down, and any attempt to take him down will train wreck the democr@p party.
'AB' who?
What is best in life?
To crush the liberals, drive them before you and hear the lamentations of their feminazis and metrosexuals.
Has ANYONE in the media EVER accused Obama of hubris? EVER? If Gov Palin had answered it any differently, the media would have reported it as her not having the confidence to be VP.
As it’s been said before, the New York Times (and MSM overall) would have reported Christ’s walking on water with the headline: Self-procliamed “Son of God” Can’t Swim!
Or, as Walter Mondale once asked, "where's the beef?"
In order for your “October Surprise” scenario to work, O-boy the man child would have to agree to appear to have made a “mistake”. Believe me, that ain’t gonna happen!
“You may come to think differently when you start needing reading glasses. Then it’s not an act of condescension but of focus.”
Yes, it it condescending. If you ‘need’ reading specs, then get out of the grocery check out line where you can get your ‘reading specs’ and get the prescription filled for the bi- (or tri-)focals you really need.
Has Gibson said anything in response to the criticism of the way he conducted the interview?
“Yes, and the “sizzle” is starting to fizzle, if you know what I mean. “
Foshizzle, as Snoop would no doubt say. Or sumpin lak dat.
Stand up, Chuck!
Hillary isn’t getting on the SS Obama. It is a sinking ship and she knows it.
You sir, are an idiot.
Hey, guy, I wear contacts, and have only recently needed reading glasses. And, if wearing them, I do look over the tops so I can see the person I’m talking with. If this offends you, so be it. Take your ugly elsewhere.
It is more likely that O will resign from the race when hiis numbers fall below 40%. That would create a vacuum that Hillary could step into.
Have you ever seen him do that before? Just asking, I wouldn't know, I probably haven't seen him more than a handful of times.
Today he can get inter-ocular lens implants, cheap too. I had cataracts removed, now see 20/15.
Whether you are offended or not, he looked judgmental and prosecutorial. He can afford better options.
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.