Charlie Gibson Misleads and Tries to Bait Sarah Palin
Tags: media bias, Sarah Palin.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
The much awaited Sarah Palin MSM interview began airing today on ABC. And while Sarah Palin showed she is more than ready for the job:
From Politico.com: Sarah Palin confronted a major obstacle in her interview with Charlie Gibson – her first one-on-one as a vice presidential candidate – and appears to have held her own
Charlie Gibson showed why so many people distrust and dislike the media:
Palin defended a previous statement in which she reportedly characterized the war in Iraq as “task from God”.
Gibson quoted her as saying: “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.”
But Palin said she was referencing a famous quote by Abraham Lincoln.
“I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.”
But that wasn’t sufficient for Charlie Gibson. He needed to misrepresent her words in order to back her into a corner and attempt to bait her into a mistake. But Sarah smelled a rat and let him know, she didn’t think those were her words:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.”
PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
Of course, the big problem is those WERE NOT her exact words. The important words immediately PRIOR to that statement (which changes its meaning entirely) were “Let us pray . . . that our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” She is very clearly hoping that in this greatest challenge of our generation that our actions are correct and in accordance for whatever His plan for all of us. Which is something all of us should hope for.
UPDATE: Here are a few other good posts on the subject from: The Weekly Standard, Ace of Spades, The Corner, and Hot Air.
UPDATE II: The National Review has a potential scoop that ABC is editing out its own mistakes in its re-airing of the Palin interview.
NOTE: I just watched the re-airing of the interview on the 11:35pm Nightline and they most definitely edited out Gibson’s wrong and baiting charge of “Exact words.”
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Kevin was an active blogger during the last presidential campaign for BlogforBush.com before retiring to his regular Wall Street job. Although generally uninspired during this current campaign (save a general despondence over the likely Obama victory), Mr. Patrick picked up the blogging bug once again thanks to the absolutely amazing pick of Sarah Palin for Vice-President. He's now tanned, rested and ready to do whatever it takes to bring the real change agents to the White House: McCain-Palin 2008!
41 Responses to “Charlie Gibson Misleads and Tries to Bait Sarah Palin”
Caucus of Corruption
I didn’t realize the interview was on tonight. The last I heard ABC had decided to expand it to the full hour on 20/20 tomorrow night. When was it on tonight? It didn’t show up on our on-screen guide on ABC at any time this evening.
He needed to misrepresent her words in order to back her into a corner and attempt to bait her into a mistake.
Surprise, surprise. Judy Woodruff tried over and over to do the same thing to McCain during the National Volunteer Service Forum tonight, and he didn’t fall for it either. In fact, my opinion of McCain jumped a couple notches during his hour-long interview.
I feel much better now that I’ve heard Grandpa say this when questioned…
“What experience does she have in the field of national security?”
You have got to be kidding me…he didn’t say that did he?
McCain is also quoted as saying…
Sarah Palin “knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America”
Come on fella’s. This is your candidate speaking to the press. She knows more about “energy” than probably anybody else in America?
Hehehehehehehe. Sad, achingly sad, but funny.
Take a gander if you haven’t seen McSame embarrass himself recently.
http://www.wcsh6.com/video/default.aspx?maven_playerId=immersiveplayer&maven_referralObject=850878100
Wellington. Did the forum take place tonight in New Pennsylvania?
9/11 TOOK PLACE WHEN THERE WAS A REPUBLICAN IN OFFICE !! WHY ARE THE REPUBLICANS NOW ACTING REPUBLICANS WILL DO A BETTER JOB ? HELLO ?
MILLIONS OF CITIZENS CHOSE OBAMA
WHO CHOSE PALIN??
Rich, well at least we now know the name of one of those 8 extra states. I’m thinking The One will need a good percentage of votes from those 8 states in order to pull this one out of the fire.
Wellington, you ignorant, pompous ass, energy independence is one of, if not the most significant component of national security. The single biggest blow we could strike against radical Islam would be to become energy independent, and it’s not going to be achieved by tuning up our cars (a procedure that most modern cars don’t require) and keeping our tires inflated to the proper level (something that most people actually do anyway).
Are you kidding me, beef? We buy oil from countries who turn around and either give it to terrorists or fund their schools to educate young terrorists. Get it? Doa’h!
And, who let Patrica in? Mark/Matt, you really should do an IQ test before allowing idiots to post. I mean, come on!
I saw the interview and I thought Governor Palin did very well. She had more discipline than I because I would have reached over and strangled Chuck a couple of times. He seemed very condenscending. I kept wondering to myself … is this an interview or an interrogation?
The most telling moment of the interview was when Palin couldn’t describe what the Bush Doctrine is.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/11/palin-gibson-bushdoctrine/
Stunning… anyone who reads a newspaper should be able to answer this question, and we’re supposed to believe Palin has foreign policy chops?
Then again, she is “up there by Russia.”
So I take it wingers, that you believe Sarah Palin, as quoted by John McCain:
And this vast knowledge of energy and her proximity to Russia makes her a leader on national security?
THIS is why I love B4V!! You guys (and gal’s) are great.
yeah, even most of the ding dongs here on blogsforvictory know what the Bush Doctrine is. Apparently, they didn’t get that far in the crash Vice Prez school they’ve been sending he to for the past two weeks.
And tomorrow’s half of the interview promises to focus on her nuttier, fundie side
Palin agreed in principle to the “Bush doctrine,” the idea that the United States has the right to preemptively strike those another country the U.S. think will attack first.
“Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5778018&page=1
Not sure what “ThinkProgress” imagines happened when Gov. Palin was asked about the Bush Doctrine, but the source itself, ABC News, didn’t seem to have much of an issue with it.
Look at all the liberals slobbering all over themselves! LOL!
I thought Palin’s answer on the “Bush Doctrine” was excellent. It’s not a simple yes or no answer, it depends on the circumstances.
She knows a hell of lot more about energy than you do, beef.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAYPxIJSDg0
Maybe our energy czar Sarah Palin can explain why the country we “liberated” would sell oil to a communist country first? Why don’t they sell the oil to us at a discount. After all, we went into severe debt to finance their liberation.
I will wait for the energy expert to comment on this.
(if she actually holds a REAL presser). I won’t hold my breath to long.
The more I think about it, how long do you think she can AVOID a real press conference? All the way to November?
I shall grab my popcorn.
I’m with her. Attack Russia. They’re still commies. You know you can put lipstick ….
After she had it (the doctrine) explained to her…
wow…
I think the RNC should add a laugh track to the canned speeches. We would know for sure what was supposed to be funny, and what was supposed to be taken seriously.
Greg-O
“Palin agreed in principle to the “Bush doctrine,” the idea that the United States has the right to preemptively strike those another country the U.S. think will attack first.”
Uh, yeah – She agreed with the Bush Doctrine after Gibson explained to her what it was. Watch the interview.
Listen, I know you wing-nut authoritarian cultists here are too far gone to ever admit that Palin is not VP material. But in the living rooms of undecided voters across America, it was obvious she’s not quite up to the job of taking over as president.
And for those undecideds weary of perpetual war, she came across as a more than a little causal about going to war. Are we really prepared to go to war with Russia over a conflict Georgia initiated by the bombing of civilians in Ossetia? She seemed rip ready to go at it with the Ruskies over this.
She will continue to make a fine… governor of a remote, nearly unpopulated state.
But in the living rooms of undecided voters across America, it was obvious she’s not quite up to the job of taking over as president.
Gotbrains? (nope), it appears her opponent is questioning his own qualifications.
Man, ya just gotta love ol’ Slow Joe. You really want him a heartbeat away from the Presidency? Now THAT’S a scary thought!
Wrong, gotbrains.
GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?
PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.
GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.
Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but…
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.
(Perhaps so doesn’t mean hell yes.)
Also, the Bush Doctrine question was unfair. He could have been affixing a label to ANY aspect of Bush’s policy. And, asking him to be more specific was just the right move.
on a bear it’s still a bear. Perhaps.
Also, the Bush Doctrine question was unfair. He could have been affixing a label to ANY aspect of Bush’s policy. And, asking him to be more specific was just the right move.
Kim, that’s a good point. Initially the Bush Doctrine wasn’t about premptive war at all.
The Left likes to dwell on the “premptive strike” aspect of the Bush Doctrine because they think combating terrorism should be a law enforcement issue rather than a military issue. The truth is that the Bush Doctrine has several elements, and Palin was entirely correct to ask for a clarification of exactly which aspect Gibson was referring to. I’m guessing that Chuck was entirely familiar with the totality of it either, but, instead, just wanted to focus on a “gotcha” question.
We’ll probably never know the full extent to which the Bush Doctrine has prevented additional terrorist attacks, but we most certainly know how the Clinton Administration law enforcement policy failed to do so.
Oops, should have been “Chuck wasn’t entirely familiar”.
NOTE: I just watched the re-airing of the interview on the 11:35pm Nightline and they most definitely edited out Gibson’s wrong and baiting charge of “Exact words.”
Isn’t that special? Too bad for ABC, we have the Internet, YouTube, and bloggers. Heh.
It seemed like a 2nd grader was in charge of the editing. It was choppy and sometimes Governor Palin’s lips were moving but there was no sound. They cut off her answers in many places.
RS: I heard the Bush Doctrine was over 35 pages long!!
Wellington Beef: What? I thought we went to war in Iraq for their oil. Damn.
RS: I heard the Bush Doctrine was over 35 pages long!!
Yeah, and I’ll bet ol’ Beef and gotbrains? (nope) know every word of it, heh.
Bottom line: Palin has been the pick for 15 days and has had her first interview.
BO has been campaigning for 19 months, had dozens of interviews, a few debates … and look how he responded to the Georgia/Russia conflict. THREE TIMES WITH OVER 300 FOREIGN POLICY ADVISERS.
1) Both countries are at fault.
2) Go to UN (hello? Russia has veto power.)
3) Ask John McCain.
LOL!
No matter how the lefties spin it, BO is no foreign policy expert and he is the top of their ticket.
preemptive strike has been a policy for generations…it began way back when we fought the Brits…
its the presidents duty to protect the citizens of the USA…to infer it is a bush doctrine leaves gibson in the shade of ignorant rhetoric…and not truely in the spirit of true journalism…
I was once a democrat and now that I have grown up and seen the world a little more I see what a dumbass I was. I still have some liberal beliefs but my core seems to be conservative. Thanks for telling it like it is, I never understood how baised the media was until recently. It is crazy how this is a right wing blog but people from the left come here to cry about it. My vote is for McCain and I am going to do what I can to spread the word .
Look,
If you have any complaints about Charlie Gibson don’t complain about it. It was the McCain campaign who specifically chose him. Probably his soft core, Good Morning America credentials. Did he ask her if she knew the latest about Parris Hilton, Michael Jackson or Dizzy Lohan?
As expected she did a good job regurgintating all of the buzz words she was force fed over the past couple weeks. Maybe that’s why it appears that her lips were out of sink. Perhaps the tape recorder in her pocket wasn’t working right.
cam,
Not so much complaints as annoyance…Gibson, from the excerpts I heard, was condescending…which was actually a bit amusing as Palin is clearly the better informed person.
We knew what this interview would be like and we knew what the lefty reaction would be…first major interview put her on the despised MSM, allow MSM to make fool of self, then get Palin on again and again in both friendly and unfriendly venues as her skill in answering interview questions grows. Lefties will talk themselves for a day or two into feeling like they’ve stopped the bleeding only to find out that while they’re bandaging their hands, we’ve cut their legs off.
Oh for the love of—!
There is so much fallacy on the interpretation of her remarks from our left-fringe friends here that I find it difficult trying to tell them the truth about their statements and fitting it in one post! Can’t you people look at an interview impartially?
ENOUGH!
Energy: You all seem to act like because she’s not in national government, all of her knowledge on energy isn’t worth anything. Or rather, it seems you choose to ignore it. But highlights of her run for Governor include brokering a deal with oil companies and Canada for that natural gas pipeline. Energy isn’t the focus of national security or foreign policy, that’s true, but it’s like you people are denying the importance of the United States oil business just to get revenge on her. You’re chopping off your nose to spite your face, in my opinion. I think it’s a little bit of a stretch to equate her energy business savvy with national security too if we assume we’re talking about strictly military matters, but I can also see what they mean to the effect that securing energy independence allows for us to stop funding terrorist organizations.
Bush Doctrine: Contrary to what you all think, I think she made a very educated response. I think you’re all harping on her because she wanted clarification. I think the only people that think it made her look stupid are the people who have already convinced themselves to vote for Obama no matter what.
Russia and NATO: I think she made a very educated response here as well. Yes, part of getting these countries into NATO means that if they are attacked by an oppressing country, the member nations are REQUIRED to help them out somehow. What did you want her to say? No, she doesn’t support them getting into NATO? That’s against the McCain ticket, so then Gibson would have just asked her why she’s his VP if she disagrees with his policies. If she had said that, no, it wouldn’t mean they’d have to help them out in a war, then Gibson would have just reminded her that they are required by NATO to help member countries in such a situation. Sometimes the acts that countries do aren’t determined by what’s the most selfish thing for them to do, but what they can do to help countries with common goals achieve their desires together. Did you expect her to stray from her candidate’s view? If she said anything else she would have been crucified. Honestly…
I think it was a very in-depth interview, and I honestly think Gibson “vepped” her more in that one interview than Obama has been for this entire election season. And she isn’t even on the top of the ticket! I’m not going to comment on if I think the interview was fair or not; I will let people make that judgment for themselves. But you can’t say what we’ve seen hasn’t been informative in some way.
The reason that the left-fringe people that post here aren’t seen as intelligent, thinking citizens, however, is because they don’t take the time to evaluate their own candidate. It’s like they ignore all of the valid (in my opinion) questions and concerns about Obama’s past and candidate platform and just continue attacking. Do you honestly think you’re making a case for your candidate by your behavior? I have yet to see ANY controversial point about Obama be defended here by its numerous leftists. It’s like they can’t defend, but only attack. If you guys would just take the time to research your own candidate and come up with an appropriate reply, I could respect you, but now I’m losing faith that you’re capable of doing that.
You say “enough?” Well I say ENOUGH to you! Enough to reactionary politics! Enough to ignoring the issues! Enough to impolite, emotion-driven, partisan thinking! Why can’t both sides just get along and agree to be rational?! Obama has never went against his party, McCain has practically made a career of being the most “liberal-minded” conservative in the Senate (McCain was most recently ranked as the 46th most conservative Senator). This is why I can believe that McCain is willing to work with both sides on issues both sides care about. Obama only works with the other side on issues liberals care about! I don’t want a partisan government anymore! Enough! Can’t we have differing views on things without immediately disliking those different views?
Why do I have to point these things out?! And why do I feel that nobody is listening?
Well Ms. Kim,
Here’s your heroine…and her thoughts on the subject.
Does she agree with the left on this issue?
[...] and I am sure others, outed the Post’s smear late last night which led the WaPo, similar to Charlie Gibson’s “exact words” edit, alter their original smear to add: But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda [...]
To all of the mindless, talking points repeating, lobotomized trolls:
You realize that the “Bush Doctrine” doesn’t exist except in the minds of the MSM. It is not an official policy of the present administration. The MSM has taken the various components of the current National Security Strategy, which is the offical plan, and created the “Bush Doctrine.”
So it was perfectly acceptable for Gov Palin to ask the inquisitor what he meant, since the “Doctrine” exists in the minds of the MSM. As it has no official definition, it can mean different things to different people.
Gibson was clearly trying to tie the McCain/Palin ticket to what he feels is the failed “Bush Doctrine.” Except the “Bush Doctrine” has been 100% successful in prevent any further terrorist attacks on US soil. It has been successful in turning Iraq and Afghanistan from terrorist supporting states to growing democracies. It has succeeded in getting Libya to cease their WMD programs. It has succeeded in killing or capturing tens of thousands of terrorists.
It was also crystal clear from the ABC broadcast that they were trying to show Gov Palin in the worst possible light. Gibson was condescending, looked over his glasses like a disapproving teacher, and asked for yes and no answers to essay questions. The editing done by ABC was attrocious. They left out critical parts of her answers and made it look like the answers were curt and short, when actually she had given a more lengthy answer.
You can also bet that Gibson and ABC were raked over the coals between the Nightly News segment and the Nightline segment based on how they reedited portions.
[...] Patrick USA Today decided to actually look at Sarah Palin’s record as Governor rather than misrepresent her words or try to trap her with “gotcha” questions. Here’s what they found: Weeks after [...]
[...] Today decided to actually look at Sarah Palin’s record as Governor rather than misrepresent her words or try to trap her with “gotcha” questions. Here’s what they found: Weeks after [...]
Wellington,
Its typical of the leftist MSM to interpret a politicians remarks in such a way to reinforce their agenda.
Did Gov Palin specifically say that we went to war in Iraq for oil? No.
She said that one of the reasons nations fight wars are for energy supply. Your quote is turning it around to mean that she “believes the Iraq war was fought because of oil.” She never said that.
But, like I said, it is typical of the MSM. Were those her “exact words”, as Gibson claimed. No, not really. He left out portions before and after the “exact words.”
Its getting to the point that you cannot believe anything you hear or read from the MSM. Did the librarian of Wasilla get fired by Gov Palin? No, but the ABC website said she did. Did Gov Palin shoot animals from an airplane? No. A host of “The View” says she did.
Of course, all of the lies, distortions, and half-truths put out by the MSM, the leftist blogs, and the Obama Campaign are backfiring on them. Every time they put out a lie, there are hordes of fact-checkers finding out the truth and exposing them as liars.
I know that its all a political game, but it is becoming more clear that the McCain/Palin team is much more adept and the game than the Obama/Biden team. Examples:
Senator Obama is criticising Gov Palin for taking earmarks. So people are checking into the facts, which are: Gov Palin supported the “Bridge to Nowhere” until she found out the State of Alaska would bear most of the costs, then she opposed it. Senator Obama voted to continue funding even after nation-wide support was gone. In fact, Gov Palin has drastically cut the number of earmarks requested by Alaska. Senator Obama, on the other hand, has requested nearly $1,000,000,000 in earmarks, including one for his wife’s employer.
Senator Obama touts his mantra for “change.” However, he is one of the most liberal Senators. He has voted with the left nearly 100% of the time. Now, he criticises Senator McCain for voting with the President (funny, I didn’t think the President got to vote on legislation) nearly 90% of the time. What Senator Obama doesn’t say is that some of those votes are on bi-partisan issues and issues backed by liberals. H*ll, we conservatives complain about some of the President’s non-conservative stances all the time.
Senator Obama criticises Gov Palin’s percieved lack of “experience”. But each time he does, he shines a bright light on his own lack of experience. Gov Palin has served for nearly 8 years in elected executive positions of increasing responsibility. Senator Obama has no expecutive experience.
Senator Obama critcises Gov Palin for her lack of foreign policy experience, when he has none. And his running mate’s stances on critical foreign policy issues have been consistency WRONG.
A-10,
Don’t you think that the various elements of the political Left, including 80-90% of the MSM are launching into full sh*t-against-the-wall mode at this point? I think the attacks, distortions and outright lies are going to start coming fast and furious in the hope that McCain/Palin will be thrown on the defensive, and their responses will just get lost in the noise and ground clutter.
[...] and I am sure others, outed the Post’s smear late last night which led the WaPo, similar to Charlie Gibson’s “exact words” edit, alter their original smear to add: But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda [...]
Retired Spook,
You’re exactly right. They are pulling out all the stops.
They will do anything to get their “man” elected. It doens’t matter about the character, qualifications, or abilities of their nominee. In fact, they would vote for the worst possible candidate if there was a (D) after their name.
They would vote for someone who admits that he was becoming a “pothead” and a “junkie”. Someone who has a close personal relationship with a domestic terrorist. Someone who would lead us down the path towards Socialism and Marxism. Someone who has “charisma”, but unproven leadership. Oh, wait, that describes their candidate.
Sarah Plain lives near the Arctic Circle and she shoots grizzly bears for fun. This is no hothouse flower. She can handle a few harsh questions.
“I think the attacks, distortions and outright lies are going to start coming fast and furious in the hope that McCain/Palin will be thrown on the defensive, and their responses will just get lost in the noise and ground clutter.”
The attacks, distortions and lies were started by the McCain campaign against Obama very early on. He is simply fighting back. Fire with fire or in this case poo with poo. Deal with it…
“UPDATE II: The National Review has a potential scoop that ABC is editing out its own mistakes in its re-airing of the Palin interview.
NOTE: I just watched the re-airing of the interview on the 11:35pm Nightline and they most definitely edited out Gibson’s wrong and baiting charge of “Exact words.” ”
Sadly, a few networks including Fox News have been doing this for years. I’m not surprised really….Fox News is known for editing transcripts from their records. Remember when McCain said “I really didn’t love America until I was deprived of her company”That was scrubbed from the Fox News website but the video is out there. It just makes all news outlets seem untrustworthy.
CBS got caught editing video and now ABC has done the same.
Well, the first day interview, Palin didn’t do too well on ABC.
In the transcript of the entire interview? She did much better… you know, before most of her answers hit the cutting room floor.
http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/
There’s the full transcript… where Palin did much better than post-edit. Why ABC ran the edits to make Palin look worse? They must not have had time for a fair interview I guess.