Sarah Palin’s Interview with Charlie Gibson

Posted on September 12, 2008 by elizabeth

For the past two weeks we've witnessed the full fury of the mainstream media trying to destroy Sarah Palin personally. That failed. So, now they are trying to destroy her professionally.

"Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" Charlie Gibson asked tonight, in Sarah's ABC interview.

"In what respect, Charlie?" she replied. Because this was about as loaded a question as: everyone hates Bush and you hate him, too, right?

Charlie would not clarify his question. But if you were reading his body language–the rolling foot, the pursed lips–what he was really saying was: THIS IS A TRICK QUESTION DESIGNED TO EXPOSE PALIN'S LACK OF FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE.

Why the "lack of experience" accusation somehow sticks to Palin but not to Obama is just plain mystifying.

At least ABC isn't as bad as CNN where Ariana Huffington keeps telling us that John McCain's REAL running mate isn't Sarah Palin, it's Geoge W. Bush. Uh..thanks for that shining bit o' wisdom, Ms. H. But no-one's buying that anymore. And not just because Sarah wears lipstick.

And how 'bout Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment? OK, so he didn't mean it as a personal slam against Sarah. Sure was interesting timing. And he didn't shush the applauding crowd, either. How convenient for him. I mean, things always work out OK for this guy. The New York Times attributes this to a "disciplined and unflappable campaign strategy."

Well, what's there to get upset about? When people are hailing you as The One, when Oprah "cries her eyelashes off" over you, when you grace the covers of countless magazines—no wonder you're unflappable!

I'm just wondering why the media grills Sarah Palin on policy and domestic issues, and then allows Obama to wax eloquent about his….Compelling Life Story [cue majestic music].

For the record, I think Sarah rocked the interview. Putin must be wondering if moose hunters have good aim.

[Comments are open. Agree or disagree agreeably. Trolls will be deleted.]

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.UsborneConnection.com Tressa

    Well, I agree with your perspective. Why isn’t the media, Charlie Gibson, for example, trying to rake Obama over the coals?

    For me it all boils down to who is going to be making those big decisions on my behalf. Was it President Truman that had a sign on his desk stating, “the buck stops here”? He ultimately took responsibility for the tough decisions.

    My vote is not going to be squandered on someone that thinks the most important question = when does life begin = is above his paygrade. I have yet to see Obama stepping up to take responsibility for answering the big questions. The ones that matter.

  • http://www.heidijowhatdoyouknow.blogspot.com Heidi Jo

    i was dumbstruck (not surprising i know) about the “bush doctrine” question too. i don’t think it showed her foreign policy shortcomings, it showed that she is not an elitist politician, forming her ideals on the genre of washington.

    yes, charlie may have meant one thing, but what if he was tricking her and referring to something entirely different? how can she win that? by asking for clarification…she is ignorant?

  • http://restoringtheyears.blogspot.com Grafted Branch@Restoring the Years

    I thought she handled it well too. Very well. One might even call her unflappable, even though insider her head I’m pretty sure she was screaming, “I’m not sure what he’s asking!”

    And I’ve changed my mind about her.

    She no longer makes me think of Deborah, but rather–David coming out to meet Goliath with all confidence that God was with him and WOULD GIVE HIM THE VICTORY for His own sake.

    And all David had that he could see was a slingshot and some slick stones.

    Your readers who don’t know the story can find it in 1Samuel, chapter 17. In the Bible.

  • http://monkswife.blogspot.com Michelle

    I was completely floored by that interview. Charlie Gibson was nothing but a JERK! Of course, this is lefty, liberal Charlie Gibson we’re talking about so I shouldn’t have been surprised, but oh, did he make me mad! (Evidenced by the fact that I kept yelling, “You are such a jerk!” at the television) :)

    What cracked me up was that Sarah Palin KNEW he was being a jerk, especially with the Bush doctorine question, and when she kept using his name I was just rolling. But she stood firm and didn’t waffle. woo-hoo!

    Did you catch the part of the interview when they were talking about global warming and he tried to accuse her of flip-flopping?? As if she has to agree with EVERYTHING John McCain does? Grrrr… The man has no integrity whatsoever.

    I better shut-up now, I’m a little worked up.

  • http://www.elizabethesther.typepad.com Elizabeth Esther

    To be clear, I have no problem with candidates being asked tough questions. I have a problem when only one candidate is grilled and the other is fawned over.

    Secondly, is “The Bush Doctrine” a media construct? The way Charlie asked the question made it sound like this was a historical fact. Just wondering if anyone knows?

    Which is why Sarah asked him to clarify his question: “His worldview, you mean?” she said.

  • http://www.butterville.blogspot.com Sara

    It is so nice to hear other ladies voicing their opinions. And that we are smart enough to see past the smoke and mirrors and stand firm on the REAL issues that matter to us.
    One counrty, under God…

  • http://www.UsborneConnection.com Tressa

    Okay, I caved. I was going to let go of the irked feeling I had about Charlie Gibson’s interview and get on with my day. That lasted all of 6 hours.

    I googled “Bush Doctrine” and checked out what was posted on Wikipedia (LONG definition). Below is what was most recently posted on Wikipedia regarding Palin, Gibson and the “Bush Doctrine”.

    “During an interview on September 11, 2008 with Charles Gibson of ABC News, Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin was asked about her opinion of the Bush Doctrine. The definition of the Bush Doctrine is complicated and Palin asked for a clarification of what Charlie Gibson meant by the term. Then she answered saying she understood the strategy to be going after radical Islamic terrorists. There is no clear definition of what is meant by this unofficial term, as is made clear by this Wikipedia “definition”. Palin appeared to be unfamiliar with the policy, and, once provided with the definition, demurred from providing her opinion.[24] As the Bush Doctrine provided the primary impetus towards war with Iraq, and provided support towards war within Afghanistan, some policy experts voiced concerns regarding Palin’s fitness for office.[25][26][27]“

  • http://www.elizabethesther.typepad.com Elizabeth Esther

    OK, see? This is exactly my point. Gibson’s question was intentionally obtuse. It was a trick question and thus, unfair. And when she asked for clarification, he got all ruffled and said: “as enunciated in September 2002.” Uh, OK, Charlie.

    Why couldn’t he just have said: “Do you agree with the pre-emptive strike position?”

    Nobody calls it The Bush Doctrine except the media who made up that definition themselves!

    And now they can say: see? see? She doesn’t even know what The Bush Doctrine is! She’s not qualified!

    What hogwash.

  • Cathy

    I was only able to catch part of the interview with Charlie Gibson. The part that bugged me was when Gibson asked Palin if she was ready for the job. Her response, that she was ready, that she was prepared and that if elected, she and McCain would be ready, etc., prompted Gibson to ask her if she was guilty of “hubris.” Dude, you can’t have it both ways. When she answers honestly, you follow up with a question that implies that she is guilty of being prideful. Can you imagine if she had said, “No, Charlie, I’m not ready. I’m not qualified. Perhaps he would have been better served to have chosen Hillary since Obama didn’t.” I can just see the headlines now. “Obama was right: Palin not up for job, he tried to tell you.”

    Geez…gimme a break already.

    Cathy

  • http://anothermomonthego.blogspot.com Just Mom

    I’m purposefully not paying attention to those kinds of interviews/stories, mainly because of the way those things can be edited. I’m waiting for the Palin-Biden square off in October.
    :-D

  • AGAPE

    She is not a China Doll, If she is as suitable for the position as is clained by the McCain campaign, then she should be ready for tough questions and interviews. She is a politician by choice and so far all I have heard from her is other people’s words. I still don’t know what Sarah Palin stands for or thinks.And whether we accept it or not a grasp of foriegn affairs is CRITICAL. from this interview I feel like she has no clue.

  • http://karennkool.blogspot.com karenkool

    Who the heck is CHARLIE anyway??? I had never heard of him before the interview–an interview that was sooo ridiculous! I base that judgment my own belief that he was behaving obnoxiously and was just plain rude to his interviewee.

    I wonder if this is the year that the elitist media digs their own grave. I wouldn’t shed tear.

  • Marie Denedchezhe

    I think Sarah Palin likes to talk just to hear herself and her interview last night reminded me of the school adage if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bull***t. Sadly, as a hockey mom I’ve met pitbulls like her and yes they stir things up but in the end they leave nothing but chaos and and dissension. She doesn’t seem to understand that the handshake at the end of the game is as important as the check into the boards. As women have we really considered what she stands for: no real committment to the environment ( you know the place our children will grow up in) and has a poor record on helping working mothers realize maternity and sick day benefits. Yes she is bold and cheeky ad fresh but what is she really offering women.

  • Laura

    I believe Palin thought Gibson was making some kind of wise-crack about Bush when he talked about the “Bush Doctorine”.

    Until now, I’ve never heard of it.

  • Pat

    I disagree agreeably. How’s that? :-)

  • http://feliciasorrellsgmailcom.blogspot.com Real Talker

    FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2008

    Please tell me you saw that little gilr lick her dirty hand and smooth down the babies hair? LOL! UGGG!
    So as usual evangelicals are taking a seemingly biblical perspective about the republican vice president nominee. Somehow that doesn’t surprise me. I don’t understand why some Christians are so one-dimensional it is a disease that plaugues the body, and it is really getting grotesquely out of hand. Now if Palin (SP) had been a “wordly woman,” she would have been stoned a long time ago. However, because she is a self-professed Christian Conservative she doesn’t deal with the scrutiny nearly as much. Forget the fact that she has a daughter who is 17, unmarried, and pregnant. I’ve heard commentators on the beloved Talk/Christian radio praise her. I guess because the fact that her daughter is going through with the pregnancy, this somehow cements her claims of being pro-life. Give me a break. If any other time, you would hear these same commentators ranting and raving about how she should be a “Keeper” of the home. Maybe the fact that she has the Christian minimum requirement of 4 children, that makes her exempt. Or could it be that she is a staunch conservative? I just don’t get it.

    And lets not even get on the fact that she has a SPECIAL needs newborn. I personally think she is in no position @ this time in her life to handle the position of vice president, because of her family demands; but it really doesn’t matter that much to me, because I don’t plan to vote Republican anyway (YES we can LOL!). The real purpose for this blog is to show the inconsistancies in our body. The same people who talk about standing for truth, run from it when it exposes their inconsistancies. That’s not counter-culture at all, in fact it is extremely worldly. I quess that is why I am at a place where I take what people say (and the way the vaguely use scripture to substantiate their claims) with a grain of salt. If it is not explicit…I dismiss it…LOL!

  • http://feliciasorrellsgmailcom.blogspot.com Real Talker

    BTW, I in no way shape or form am demeaning Mrs. Palins family situation…we all make mistakes. However, she should really be taking this time to focus on her family and leave the demanding title of VP to a woman with an older family.

  • http://www.elizabethesther.typepad.com Elizabeth Esther

    Well, I see my latest post has unearthed the inevitably ridiculous comments. *rolls eyes*

    Real Talker’s comments are intentionally inflammatory and not worth my time. All such comments will be deleted in the future.

  • http://lauriemo.blogspot.com Laurie

    I don’t know much about Sarah Palin. She first crossed my radar on Al Mohler’s blog, when he posted about the governor of Alaska having a Downs Syndrome child. I was touched by her story, and thrilled to see this particular disability brought into the public spotlight – or I could say seeing the light of day at all – since it is estimated that over 90% of such children are murdered before they can ever see the light of day.

    When I found out this is the woman picked as VP candidate I was instinctively glad. What a boon to have such an advocate for life in such a position. Since then I’ve heard the claims that she is an evangelical Christian. I don’t know her, and have no way of knowing whether she is truly in Christ or not. That is not what I’m concerned about at this point, as far as the election is concerned. It’s more a matter of whether or not she is qualified to do the job. I agree with John MacArthur’s perspective (as voiced at the Shepherd’s Conference), that if I’m needing a surgeon, it’d be nice and fine if it was a Christian, but really I just want to know if they know what they’re doing.

    That being said, what has shocked and upset me has been the venom spewed against this woman by Christians. It has been a horrifying thing for me to see the claws come out, claws I never knew existed. What I have seen is downright gleeful hatred and slander against her – among Christian women. They would actually prefer Barak Obama (who referred to children as a punishment) to Sarah Palin – because she works outside the home. I honestly don’t know what to make of all this.

  • Liesl Marie

    Great post. And I really like Laurie’s comment – I echo your thoughts. I like Sarah Palin, and while there may be more people qualified than her to be VP or potential president, I think she’s qualified enough and I’d much rather have her than Obama or Biden. She is stepping up to the plate and has a servant attitude of politics and not a power hungry attitude. That’s what this country needs to get things accomplished.

  • http://feliciasorrellsgmailcom.blogspot.com Real Talker

    Esther my comments were not intentionally inflammatory, but if you think they are inappropriate, you should remove them for the sake of peace.

  • http://humblemusings.com Amy

    With your new comment policy, I suppose I’m banned for my profanity and poor Cathy is banned for #5. I think I pseudo-cussed once.

    (Ducking.)

  • Cathy

    YIKES. I just read Amy’s comment…and your policies. Is it still OK to call my husband a sexy stud??? Is this off topic?

    I’m kidding, all, I will try to keep it clean.

    I await your next controversial subject.

    Cathy

  • http://www.sadiemotta.typepad.com JoAnn

    I don’t think “real talkers” comments are intentionally inflammatory either, I just think she offers up a controversial view.
    I too have a controversial view to many of the readers, and usually, I’d refrain from commenting because you know my beliefs and a comment war isn’t what I have time for.
    Now- while I admire Sarah Palin for being a strong woman and mother, I have serious doubts about her in a position of control, and am waiting for the VP debates to take a stronger position. So far, manipuating people’s jobs to get personal results doesn’t sound like a professional in my eyes, nor anything different than would be done by the Bush administration, so that’s a big concern. I check every email I receieve on truthorfiction.com, or snopes, and those things seem to be facts. Same with the “book ban” email, which I think is appalling (sp?). Having a pregnant 17 year old daughter while pushing for abstinence-only education is almost laughable, doesn’t that show that it might not work, and we might want to consider different forms of education to deal with REAL kids who are doing REAL things. Flat out saying that she’d believes Roe v. Wade should be repealed and preaching abstinence ed. is not a workable plan.
    So far, the most poignant problem is that I am hearing nothing new, and we need new- because what we have isn’t working.
    Woo, I should have just emailed you, but maybe this will have one of your readers think a bit about the big plan, and how they think it’ll work….I am just thinking it’ll not..and focusing on one or two issues (which is one of the points I agree with about “real talker”, and disagree with you about) is too narrow, there is so much to the bigger picture. No matter how much you respect/wish there was a strong woman in office, it has to be the right woman.

  • http://www.sadiemotta.typepad.com JoAnn

    Let me just add to the “workable plan” comment above, since in re-reading it seems to have cut the thought a bit short….

    repealing Roe v. Wade, in my opinion, would take a whole plan of carefully thought out action to teach kids how to actually prevent unwanted pregnancy in every situation (except, possibly in the situation of rape- but since I won’t be having the chance in this lifetime to actually inact my big plan, I haven’t gone totally far in developing it for all circumstances). Saying that no kids will have sex before they are ready to be parents is denying all that we know about human nature, and all history to the contrary. We can HOPE that OUR kids won’t have sex, we can teach in OUR homes what we want them to do, but we have to ARM them to be prepared in all circumstances. AND we have to arm all of the teens whose parent’s won’t be teaching them anything, because they’ll get pregnant too. ONCE a plan has been set in place to give all kids the ammo to make good choices before, we can actually discuss taking away choice after the fact.
    I don’t believe we can actually discuss ending choice until our plan for teaching good decisions has been set into action, because at that time, maybe (hopefully) if the plan was comprehensive enough, there would be no need for a discussion.
    Expecting that telling kids “not to” will change the behavior of every American teen, with all types of parents is naive at best. It didn’t even work in the Palin household, so how can she say it will work for the much, much less involved parent.

  • http://www.elizabethesther.typepad.com Elizabeth Esther

    Cathy & Amy? Yep, my comment policy was directed at you! LOL! Kidding!

    Before I wrote my political posts, my blog was a small-time deal. Now I’m getting tons of hits–which is great, but also means I have to create some boundaries.

    I’m getting these drive-by comments from people who never read here with profanity, name-calling etc. I’ve deleted some of these.

    My friend, JoAnn, has a completely different perspective than I do, but she was able to write about it graciously and intelligently. I can appreciate that. I can respect that.

    My friend, Pat, has a different perspective. She is able to express this respectfully.

    My friend, New Yorker Frances, often disagrees with me. She expresses herself graciously as well.

    I know I’m probably asking too much–heck, even I can’t stay on topic sometimes! and I’ve been known to pseudo-curse, too—but mostly my hope is that this can be a place of open, honest dialogue.

    I’m more than willing to look at these issues from other perspectives. I appreciate my friends who call me on the carpet.

    But I’m more willing to listen if someone does this respectfully.

    Again, thank you for the feedback. I’m just a mom trying to figure it all out, too.

    Carry on….. :-D

  • http://humblemusings.com Amy

    I think “heck” is a bad word, FYI, E.

  • http://www.elizabethesther.typepad.com Elizabeth Esther

    Ok, Ok. Mea culpa. I am guilty of sinning against my own comment policy!

    As Matt said to me a few minutes ago: “Even with your comment policy, people are gonna say what they’re gonna say.”

    So fine. Clearly, I need to stop taking myself so seriously.

    SAY WHAT YOU WANT, PEOPLE!

    And also? I’m a nincompoop.
    See? And I’m even calling myself names!

    Dude.

    Thanks A LOT AMY SCOTT!

    hey, that rhymes.

    boy, do i need a cup of coffee.

  • christy

    If Gibson (and the rest of the MSM) want to ask tough questions of Governor Palin, that’s fine, as long as they ask the same questions of all 4 candidates. When CNN does a special program “revealing” the candidates and uses suspenseful/horror movie music for McCain’s story (plus a litany of scandals in his life) and then uses optimistic/groovy music for Obama and briefly touches on the MANY scandals he is connected with while focusing chiefly on his accomplishments, I have a problem.

  • christy

    Oh, and about abstinence-based education vs. condom-distribution: When I was taking my state-mandated health class so that I could teach high school, the teacher told us point blank that condoms allow the AIDS virus to get through. Expecting kids to have sex and then giving them condoms gives them a false sense of security. We can teach abstinence with an emphasis on this fact and hope to save the kids that will listen from a life of disease, or we can ignore the truth, pass out the condoms, and deal with the fallout.

  • http://feliciasorrellsgmailcom.blogspot.com Real Talker

    Okay so let me clear my throat…E-hem :) I shall tread lightly. JoAnn, I am very grateful for you defending me. I often times am looked down upon because my views usually are the opposite of the majority, and from time to time I have a tendancy to be too passionate and my tone comes off a little harsh. Well I’m used to it, but I also know the Lord is continually using this flaw to santify me.

    At any rate. I still think the comment I left was misunderstood, so I will try to explain it again. I adore Sara Palin. I think she is an agressive, ambitious, seemingly Godly woman. I think she embodies what My husband and I call a “Tiger Lady;” basically a go-getter. Although I don’t plan to vote Republican, I dig her!

    What I don’t dig is the fact that Evangelicals (yes I am one) who in the past would have “stoned” (so to speak) this woman for working outside of the home (let alone accepting the VP nomination), for having a pregnant 17 year old daughter, and for seemingly emasculating her husband(for the record, I don’t think she is), are now the very ones singing her praises.

    It just come off a bit hypocritical, and it sends mixed messages to the unbeliever, and believe me they are watching. If we are going to stand for the word of truth, we HAVE to do it on all sides, not just when it is convenient. That’s all a sista was trying to say!

  • http://joyfullygrowingingrace.wordpress.com JGIG

    Yeah, that interview was something, eh? Sarah came off just fine – especially as in the days after pundits from both sides started admitting there are at least 4 parts to the “Bush Doctrine”. Watching the segments of the interview over two days I kept asking myself, “Ok, when will Charlie be asking these questions of the democratic presidential candidate??”

    As for Ms. Huffington, McCain’s running-mate isn’t George Bush, she’s Ronald Reagan in a skirt!

    And after the convention, Sarah Palin OWNS lipstick. That Obama thought he could use the ole “lipstick on a pig” bit from that point on and it not being associated with her is just not believable =o).

    Yup . . . this is really fun to watch . . .