You Know It’s Bad When Even The New York Times Defends Sarah Palin

Kit Seelye:

The Network [ABC] teased the interview on its web site this afternoon with this eye-popping bulletin: “Exclusive: Gov. Sarah Palin warns war may be necessary if Russia invades another country.”

But the transcript showed that she was merely repeating Mr. McCain’s position and had not used provocative language. And we’re wondering if the McCain camp is reconsidering its selection of ABC, since it hyped the teaser to sound like Ms. Palin was ready to press the button.

Sheesh! I hope to do more on this later when I have time, but for now it seems the only rational move for any Republican candidate is to make an independent video of all interviews—-the distortions in the press of what Palin said and Gibson’s own misquotes and misrepresentations, make this the only rational course.

Advertisements

Author: qcexaminer

None of your damned business.

12 thoughts on “You Know It’s Bad When Even The New York Times Defends Sarah Palin”

  1. I watched the interview on NIGHTLINE. I can see why Sarah Palin will be careful about interviews,

    Charlie Gibson was an absolute pr*ck.
    The man had a scowl on his face the entire time and seemed to be offended at having to interview Palin. He seemed to have an aire of superiority about him.

    He never smiled.
    He never showed any personality.

    Charlie Gibson can learn a few things from O’Reilly. When O’Reilly interviewed Obama he was tough – very tough. I would say that he was argumentative at times.

    However, he treated Obama with respect. He showed personality and he and Obama laughed and smiled.

    Charlie Gibson extended NO, none, nada respect for Palin. I don’t know if this had an aire of sexism to it or not – but I can see why women are behind Palin.

  2. I watched the interview. I thought she handled it well. The War with Russia comment was the correct one since it was a follow up question. Gibson and here were discussing the NATO treaty and who else should be admitted. Georgia was one of her selections to be added. Gibson fired back, we should admit them even if it means going to war with Russia. Yes as the only possible answer if NATO were to accept Georgia in to the pact and Russia invaded them, it could very well be necessary for NATO to defend Georgia, even if it meant War. That is how the pact works.

  3. Bruce, I was thinking the same thing. I was amazed that Gibson (the Left) is so willing to allow Russia to dictate ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’

    The fear of any confrontation is EXACTLY why Obama cannot be POTUS in this dangerous world.

    Obama’s initial reaction to the Russia/ Georgia issue showed that he was thinking, and reacting, out of fear of Russia. Russia attacks Georgia – and Obama calls for ‘both sides’ to realx, unwilling to single out Russian aggression (because of his fear of Russia).

    This is not a good trait for a Commander-In-Chief.

  4. O, you know I love ya man, which is why I’m sad that you choose to parrot those DNC talking points rather than THE TRUTH.

    As it turns out, even ABC doesn’t know WTF “The Bush Doctrine” is, as highlighted by this post.

    O, please get help before it’s too late!

  5. I have to admit – I had no idea what the “Bush Doctrine’ is/ was – and the link clearly identifies that it has a number of possible meanings.

    It further shows what I stated earlier – Gibson is so in the tank for the Left, and, as we all know – Oracle is a fool.

  6. I saw most of the first interview, and it reinforced my opinion that the establishment press is absolutely useless when it comes to educating the electorate on important issues.

    This is what Gibson gave us first up:

    1. Can you look the American people in the eye, etc. Yeah, just like Bill Clinton looked us in the eye, shook his finger at us and said “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky”. The whole “look ’em in the eye” trope is just bogus.

    2. Did she have any hesitation when chosen as VP? Another stupid inside-the-beltway question. If she would have had misgivings about being VP, she would not have submitted bazillions of pages of documents to be vetted.

    3. Charlies misquote about what she supposedly said in church. Most of us are nonjudgmental and tolerant of people’s religious beliefs—only liberals think this is an important policy issue—you know, the old “theocracy” shriek.

    4. The Bush Doctrine kerfuffle. Even the WaPo says there are various parts of this murky doctrine, yet Gibson felt this obscurity was an important issue to discuss.

    So the majority of the interview that I saw was taken up with these nothing questions, that are of interest only to the Inside-The-Beltway types and have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how real people live their lives, or how a McCain/Palin administration will affect their lives.

    Some of the other aspects of the interview were germane, but somewhere I saw Gibson was pushing the DNC “McSame” talking point. Obama must be so proud to have Charlie Gibson on his campaign staff.

    I also noticed the editing seemed choppy, which makes me suspicious of ABC. As I said before, I think every candidate should take a video camera and record the whole thing to guard against press misreprentations and distortions.

  7. Proving my point about bringing a camera to every interview, here’s a link to the transcript of the Palin/Gibson interview including the parts left on the cutting room floor.

    Through clever editing, ABC was able to manipulate the information in the interview in order to promote their “truth”.

    Shameless!

  8. The mainstream media is putting itself in a position to be rendered utterly useless and irrevelant in a very short order.

    I have to believe that all, other than the extreme left are starting to see them for the lap-dogs for the Democrats that they are.

    Gibson was absoluetly shameful in his contempt for Palin. Could you imagine him asking the same questions (and in the same manner) to Obama, who has the same degree, maybe less, of experience as Palin?

    No, the liberal media fawns over Obama.

  9. I didn’t notice Gibson’s condescending tone until I listened to part of the interview on the radio—it was like he was talking to a retarded child!

    I also see that ABC won’t answer questions about the Lincoln misquote.

    Must.Feed.Anti-religious.Agenda

    Sheesh! Has anyone ever asked Obama tough questions about the good Rev. Jeremiah “God DAMN America” Wright?

  10. Here is the VERY telling thing…

    Gibson interviewed Obama.
    The interview was part biography, part Oprah-show.

    It was a puff-piece times 10.
    NOT ONE TOUGH QUESTION!

    No liberal bias?

  11. There’s even more to this bias than just the questions.

    I plan on doing a post today about how the camera angle in the Palin/Gibson interview was such to diminish Palin and puff up Gibson.

    As I’m sure you can guess, compared to photos of the camera angles of Gibson’s interviews with both Hillary and Obama, the results are—shall we say “predictable”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s