Charles Gibson's much-anticipated interview with Gov. Sarah Palin allowed Palin to shine again while Gibson's transparent attempts to discredit Palin failed miserably and served only to reinforce the already low opinion the American public has of biased network news programs.
ABC News obtained an exclusive first interview with McCain's selection for his Vice Presidential candidate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska. Charles Gibson, host of ABC's Evening News, conducted the interview in Alaska. With interest in Palin so high across the country, the Gibson interview will likely rank among the highest rated Evening News shows this year. With so much of the American public turned off by the constant bias of major news outlets (ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, AP, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, etc., etc.), here was an opportunity for ABC News to win back some lost viewers with an interview that was fair, balanced, and civil.
What viewers witnessed was a smug, smarmy superior attitude from Mr. Gibson as he peppered Palin with questions about her foreign policy experience. Without hesitation, Palin responded intelligently and forthrightly to Gibson's questions. Gibson tried to elicit definitive answers to vague questions, apparently in the hope that he could trap Palin into making a policy statement beyond the responsibilities of a Vice President or in conflict with the stated position of McCain. But Palin was too much for Gibson. While providing a clear insight into her command of the topic, Palin impressed with her skillful ability to dodge the traps Gibson set for her.
At one point, while grilling Palin on her thoughts on being asked to join the McCain ticket, Gibson suggested it was "hubris" for Palin to be unhesitating in her belief that she was qualified to take on the position she was offered. Gibson's feeble attempt to denigrate Palin only backfired in his face and he looked foolish in his failed effort to unsettle Palin. It is just this kind of smarmy tactics and snide remarks that have turned the public away from the liberal network evening news programs.
At another point, Gibson asked her whether she agreed with the Bush "doctrine" without defining what he (Gibson) viewed as that doctrine. Palin asked Gibson to clarify which aspect of the Bush "doctrine" he was referring. Gibson parried that he wanted to hear what Palin viewed as the Bush "doctrine" (something he might have asked in the first place). Now the term "Bush doctrine" is one the media have coined to refer to the President's view that the US can act preemptively to protect its interests. So Palin gave him a clear answer based on her view of what constituted the Bush doctrine. To which Gibson responded that he had a different view of the Bush doctrine. Does Gibson really think this kind of confrontational sparring with an interviewee appropriate? Was this a "test" to see whether Palin knew the precise definition of a media term for what would be considered normal policy by any normal person? Is there ever a time when the US should not preemptively defend itself against a planned foreign aggression when there is absolute certainty of the planned aggression? Is there any rationale for the US to not take appropriate action against a country that willfully harbors and assists those who are active enemies of the US?
So what was the point of Gibson's question? Would Gov. Palin be unfit to serve as Vice President to a President McCain because she didn't provide the response Gibson wanted? Last time I checked, there was no provision in our Constitution that requires any candidate for any office to respond to a hostile press. Yet Palin graciously accepted the invitation from ABC. It is a shame that ABC could not have at least been civil in their part of the bargain. No matter. Palin outshone Gibson brilliantly. All to Palin's credit and to the continuing demise of the reputation of network news departments.
Despite Gibson's best attempts to discredit Palin, he succeeded only in further discrediting his own reputation and that of ABC News. Gibson's performance is exactly why so many Americans no longer watch the archaic liberal network news programs and why they also shun the enormous bias of CNN and MSNBC in favor of the more balanced approach at FOX News. Gibson came across as a stodgy old self-impressed white guy in the "good old boy" network news department trying his best to beat up on this woman who had the temerity to become John McCain's running mate without the permission of liberal media mavens. Gibson looked the pseudo-intellectual fool. Palin shined.
Aside from the complete failure of Gibson to achieve his objective (to trip up and embarrass Gov. Sarah Palin), he managed only to embarrass himself, his network, and the "good-old-boy" liberal media establishment. And he managed to strengthen the American public's growing perception that the liberal media are doing whatever they can to try to elect the liberal media's candidate, Barack Hussein Obama.
Which brings up another important point that emerges from this interview.
When has Gibson or ABC News ever peppered the Democrat Presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, with questions nearly as harsh as these? Answer: Never. And they never will.
Because the liberal media's candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, is not capable of handling the situation with nearly as much skill as did the GOP Vice Presidential candidate. When have any of the liberal-in-the-tank-for-Obama media ever asked difficult questions of Obama? Same answer. Never.
Obama is never questioned or pressed for explanations by his adoring liberal media about (1) his close and ongoing relationship with unapologetic terrorist, William Ayers, (2) his long time close relationship with the virulent anti-American Reverend Jeremiah Wright, (3) his financial relationship with convicted slum-lord Antoin "Tony" Rezco, (4) his utter lack of executive experience, and (5) his complete lack of foreign policy experience. And while we're at it, why isn't Obama ever asked to explain why he didn't take so much as five minutes to visit injured American servicemen in Germany when he could easily have made that arrangment during his recent tour?
Why does the liberal media avoid these questions of Obama, yet they work overtime to try to smear Gov. Sara Palin, the GOP Vice Presidential candidate?
I think we all know the reason.
It's the same reason why ABC News will lose even more viewers thanks to Gibson's sorry performance with Gov. Palin.
And the beauty of this whole situation is that it is the hubris of the liberal media establishment that prevents them from realizing how much damage they do to their own reputation (what little reputation remains) while achieving just the opposite of their objective. Their smarmy tactics only strengthen the poll numbers for McCain-Palin.
Bob Webster, a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s) is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.