100 Comments

1. Duddy Kravitz:

Since we can’t all be President, many become journalists so as to be President-makers and President-breakers.

Lincoln-Douglas debates are still possible, but one candidate speaking at a time. In the Canadian PM elections, they just put the podiums together and let the party leaders go at each other, interrupt each other. Rules of order are in order.

Sep 12, 2008 - 11:13 am 2. Lightnin' Hopkins:

From your keypad to God’s ears, Roger. However, as I noted in my comment on your previous post, there seems to be an alarming lack of curiosity about the facts of the war we are engaged in. 9/11 is a one-off to these people, and the finer points of the very real theocracies that rule in the Middle East pale in comparison to the perceived, and entirely delusional, threat of right wing “zealots” here in the U.S.

Incisive and balanced journalism is above Charlie’s pay grade.

Sep 12, 2008 - 11:24 am 3. Dick Stanley:

It would be nice if the effete media elite could learn to put themselves and their smirks, skeptical looks and toe-tapping in the background, and just concentrate on drawing out a politician’s ideas, personality and character. Something like journalism, as opposed to showbiz. But that would require actual work on their part, which isn’t likely.

Sep 12, 2008 - 11:44 am 4. Pops in Vienna:

Hi Roger,

When Bill Clinton ran for president his resume consisted of being governor of Arkansas and the state attorney general. I don’t recall any angst about his lack of foreign policy experience.

I’m not sure Arkansas can claim to be a more “important” state than Alaska. At least Alaska is next door to Czar Putin’s empire and it is home of most of our untapped energy.

Why wasn’t Clinton grilled by Charlie Gibson?

Sep 12, 2008 - 11:50 am 5. Huan:

I think the McCain expected Gibson to be condescending and bias. He came accross that way and i think Palin’s forceful response and demenaor are reflections of that. All she needed to do was alright, which she did.

The real interviews will come later on Fox or at the debates itself.

Sep 12, 2008 - 11:57 am 6. Godzilla:

One important myth has been busted, no matter heard the MSM tries to revive it. It is clear that Sarah Palin is no “Creationist”. “Charlie” tried to back her into that corner but couldn’t, because she isn’t a creationist. Very laudable to counter with an explanation that she was hoping that America was following God’s plan and not dictating it. Outstanding, and a perfect answer.

Sep 12, 2008 - 12:18 pm 7. V.B. Bart:

Bravo, Roger! Gibson is a twerp. Palin did just fine, even with the deck stacked against her — which is saying something given Gibson’s attempt at a hatchet job and the purposefully (?) lousy editing that cut her off in mid-sentence. It would be great if the McCain-Palin campaign could put up the entire uncut interview on the internet. They should use Gibson’s disgraceful performance to hammer the MSM again and again for bias (70% in the U.S. now believe that the MSM is in the tank for Obama). McCain-Palin should emphasize this, as it would inoculate them from the inevitable MSM October surprises.
Lincoln-Douglas-style debates are what we need. Newt Gingrich and Mario Cuomo did one last year in New York, and it was brilliant. However, without a teleprompter in sight, Obama would sooner do the rest of the campaign in lipstick and a dress than go head to head with McCain in this kind of event. Obama is relying on his pals in the MSM to come through for him, yet again, in the debates. I have no doubt that they will oblige.

Sep 12, 2008 - 12:36 pm 8. Lem:

not Lincoln vs. Douglas seen the through the prism of Gibson, Couric, Stephanopoulos, Olbermann or anybody else.

I say amen to that.

Sep 12, 2008 - 12:39 pm 9. chrisa798:

1. Gibson’s “hubris” comment was the worst. I don’t even want to get into the deeper meaning of hubris and what Gibson was implying, and whether he was suggesting that one or all the Gods would wreak havoc on SP (I guess I just did).

2. Obama looks exhausted. Not being critical, just sayin’–what these candidates go through would have taxed me at 18, so bless’em.

3. Good work, as usual, by RLS, but I heard something about Gibson doctoring a quote. Isn’t that a cardinal journo-sin? If Mr. Simon has thoughts on that, I’m all eyes.

4. Two Best Presidents of the 20th Century: Reagan and Truman. Eureka College and, I think, the Kansas City Area Hard Knocks Institute. I think they were both men of faith, as well.

CA

Sep 12, 2008 - 1:08 pm 10. jedrury:

The American voter is smart enough that he/she does not need the media filters telling what is right and wrong, smart and dumb, in and out. The de-legitimization of the MSM is apace. See Mark Penn’s apt comments today about the media being on dangerous ground.
Chris Matthews, Keith OberFuehrer and Bill O’Reilly are leading the voter to deeply distrust the media; it is not a question of guidance/wisdom that viewers tune in, but humor and scandal, a jolt – like an after dinner coffee to jazz you up and howl at the moon or at Keith.

Sep 12, 2008 - 1:19 pm 11. Minerva:

Time for another essay on the meaning of “hubris” from VDH…

Sep 12, 2008 - 1:19 pm 12. fred:

Gibson came across as arrogant and antagonistic. His “body langauge” reeked of it — especially his inability to make consistent eye-contact (to me always a bad sign).

Also, I will take Sarah Palin’s relatively brief foreign policy experience over Barack Obama’s scant experience and Joe (”send $200 million to Iran” and “divide Iraq into three countries”) Biden’s screwed-up “experience”, anyday. It’s what your instincts, common sense, and core beliefs are that count. FDR never put Truman in the foreign policy loop after the 1944 election — but he did okay. I believe he handled the USSR better than FDR would have. It’s also worth recalling that FDR dropped Henry Wallace for Truman as his vice-president. Wallace had more “foreign policy experience” than Truman, but his ascending to the presidency would have been an absolute disaster for this country.

Sep 12, 2008 - 1:43 pm 13. Godzilla:

OT: At the PUMA Site I’m getting a lesson in nicknames for Obama (and one for MSNBC):

MSNBO
Oblah blah
Obambi
NoBama
The Precious

LOL!!!!!!

Sep 12, 2008 - 2:23 pm 14. Barry Dauphin:

Wow, big media is truly in the tank to…protect itself. Even David Brooks tonight was a complete dope. He was almost embarrassed by Palin, says Gibson’s question about the Bush doctrine was unfair but does not make much of it, says nothing about Gibson’s butchering quotes and how someone would experience being asked questions on false premises. Also accusing McCain of “lying” about Obama meaning Palin when using the lipstick on a pig phrase. In an unbelievable bit of myopia, because McCain has used the phrase in the past, therefore he can’t say what everyone knows Obama to have meant by the phrase (here the uber relativists who believe that meaning is infinitely flexible want us to believe that the phrase has one and only one application). It’s not Obama’s people who are the most nervous, it’s the MSM. They are running scared, and it shows.

Sep 12, 2008 - 4:28 pm 15. Nate:

Your observation about media ignorance of Sunni/Shia politics really struck a chord with me. As a former diplomat who spent years working on Iraq policy both outside and inside Iraq, I have received more than my fair share of journalistic condescension on the supposed “irreconcilable differences” between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds. Whenever I briefed reporters on our efforts to stand up the Iraqi government, I would invariably be treated to some laughing scorn about how “the Kurds will never get along with the Sunnis” coupled with an assertion that “the Iraqi Shia are just following orders from Iran.” I usually pointed out to these misinformed NYT/AP/Reuters/WaPo fools that 1) the Kurds are Sunnis, and 2) the Iraqi Shia hate Persians more than anybody else in the world because the Shia were the foot soldiers of the Iran/Iraq war. Such “subtleties” are lost on the journalistic mind.

Sep 12, 2008 - 4:30 pm 16. Godzilla:

Just finished watching the tail end of Gibson’s interview on World News, and he seemed much less agressive. Also, Sarah appeared much more at ease, supremely confident, and very poised. Later tonight on 20/20 and/or nightline, she responds to the library banning charge and trooper gate.

Sep 12, 2008 - 6:02 pm 17. Godzilla:

OT:

In the past two weeks I’ve heard dozens of people, when asked why they like Sarah Palin so much, a frequent answer is “I don’t know. She’s just so real. I identify with her…”. The fact that people have such a hard time in qualifying their admiration of her is a reflection of the demise of philosophy and the subversion of the “classic liberal” education. Sarah Palin is so hard to define because the core qualities that she emodies have never been able to be defined absolutely, from ancient times down to the present. Socrates tried, Plato tried, but they too were unable to define the concepts that Sarah embodies: Beauty, Virtue, Goodness. We still can’t define these concepts absolutely, but we can look at Sarah Palin and recognize that she embodies them. The pundits look foolish (she’s good because she appeals to social conservatives, disgruntled Hillary voters, fiscal conservatives, blah blah, etc.) The only people who can really dislike Sarah Palin are the nihilists, those who think that all traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that all existence is consequently senseless and useless, that life serves no higher purpose. Recently, we have seen these nihilistic types crawl out from under their rocks in droves. They hate Sarah Palin with a passion because she puts a lie to their beliefs, and does so very vividly. To the nihilists she is an existential threat to everything they hold dear.

Sep 12, 2008 - 6:19 pm 18. Lem:

..she is an existential threat to everything they hold dear.

I would add that Sarah is a breath of fresh air.

She represents such a threat, is it possible that some of the calls for Obama to ‘get tough’ are code for Obama to go nuclear.

While it is supposed to be a last resort, somebody allready jumped the gun giving McCain a glimpse at the arsenal.

http://tinyurl.com/576825

Sep 12, 2008 - 6:42 pm 19. Godzilla:

While it is supposed to be a last resort, somebody allready jumped the gun giving McCain a glimpse at the arsenal.

They should have tried that tactic on the day after Sarah Palin’s speech. It’s too late now, especially since they’ve been going on about how Jesus was a community organizer. That was plain stupid, to metaporically refer to Obama as Jesus. I really have no idea what Obama’s people can do. This election is McCain’s and Palin’s to lose now, and I just don’t see it happening. Obama looks weaker and more empty every day. There was a report that democrats up for election are starting to create distance to him, and have begun to stop critizing McCain. The “Drill baby drill” mood of the country has really got them nervous.

Sep 12, 2008 - 7:05 pm 20. Godzilla:

Speaking of “Drill baby drill”, is there any doubt about who represents the “baby”

Sep 12, 2008 - 7:07 pm 21. Bill Bradley:

Charlie Gibson was selected for this by Team McCain because he is a Republican who eviscerated Obama when he moderated a Democratic debate.

It’s not his fault that Palin is intellectually unprepared.

Sep 12, 2008 - 7:24 pm 22. Capn Eddie Ricketyback:

I thought the ‘Dowdification’ tactic had been pretty thoroughly discredited, but the perfidy of the MSM has no limits. I saw an audio clip of one of the interviews that had crudely edited out certain words of some remarks that she had made that completely changed the meaning of what she said. Maureen must be proud of Charles!

Sep 12, 2008 - 7:28 pm 23. chrisa798:

Bill Bradley:

Evidence that Gibson is a Republican? I don’t know, I’m asking.

Sep 12, 2008 - 7:29 pm 24. Sally:

Charlie Gibson is 65 years old, almost 20 years older than Palin. His tone and demeanor are not that unusual in men (and some women) of that age who have already predetermined that the younger person is lacking in some way. Palin’s youthful persona probably brings it out even more in ole Charlie. And I think the campaign picked him for the first major network “get” because NBC was out (because of the morons at MSNBC) and if it had picked CBS that would have meant Katie Couric and they probably wanted to avoid a woman-to-woman interview for the first one. If and when she does a Sunday morning show, I predict it will be Bob Schieffer at CBS first.

Sep 12, 2008 - 7:42 pm 25. Capn Eddie Ricketyback:

Correction to my post of Sep 12, 2008 – 7:28 pm: It was a video clip, and was of the remarks Palin made about “God on our side”, played in conjunction with Gibson’s question on the subject. This was the clip that had crudely edited out some words in her statement to change the meaning, and Gibson had confronted her with the edited quote.

Sep 12, 2008 - 7:44 pm 26. Barry Dauphin:

Bill

Apparently it was Gibson who was unprepared. He asks a question about the Bush Doctrine but botches up what it is and doesn’t understand that it has come to mean many things. He could have simply asked a question about specifically what he wanted to ask. Instead he goofed or he was disingenuous. Then he butchers her quote and gives the “exact words” foot in (his) mouth.

There’s a new ad that McCain does email (and thus doesn’t understand computers). It was Gibson who ends up looking like he doesn’t know how to use a computer or have the time to watch a video-tape when preparing for a high profile interview. However it looked at the moment and however “bad” some think Palin looked, the more time that passes and the more people examine Gibson, he comes off very badly. No matter what he did in Dem debates.

Two possible explanations: He simply wanted her to look bad by asking questions with false premises while appearing to know what he was talking about OR he did not handle the prep work competently. No, he looks worse when anyone bothers to look.

Sep 12, 2008 - 7:46 pm 27. Wingnut Ann LOL:

Below is what you were told earlier this week.**

Go back to defending the intellectually unprepared Arnold.

Go ahead, take the bait and reply. Until Roger closes this thread (and then we’ll just draw you in on the next one) we will keep you so busy you won’t have time to write Old West Notes or your other blog…

Aureliano:

Billy Brad,

You have a bad habit of jumping onto the discussion boards of other authors in Pajamas Media and posting drive-by factoids that are largely irrelevant or uninteresting (always in support of Democrats, naturally, while simultaneously posturing as a ‘neutral’ observer).

You have your own thread. Why don’t you stay there where you belong. Perhaps you’ll actually take a shot at composing essay-length commentary for once, commentary which you might actually be held to account on your views. Stop being such a weasel.

Sep 12, 2008 - 7:53 pm 28. Arnold:

Go back to defending my stupidity, Billy Budd!

Sep 12, 2008 - 8:01 pm 29. Diogenes:

Congrats, Barry. No reply means that, as with Aurelino earlier this week, you have bested BB.

Sep 12, 2008 - 8:06 pm 30. A. Randolph:

Barry Dauphin, you are correct. I was going to post the same myself. I am surprised that Bradley was not up to speed here. Gibson really made some professional blunders here, perhaps out of a form of insecurity. And then ABC compounded them in the editing room, bowdlerizing the interview. Who cares if Gibson was a Democrat or Republican? He was pompous twit. Ironically, Palin most likely comes out the winner here to the public. Media ignorance in these manners veers to the comic. Don’t they have any insight into the way the way people think?

Sep 12, 2008 - 8:08 pm 31. Barry Dauphin:

I watched more of Gibson-Palin on Nightline. Gibson was terrible. This is professional journalism? The local weather guy could have done a more competent and fair job. A sad observation is that so many consider him to be the most objective. Sadder still is that they are probably right.
It was abundantly clear that Gibson had to protect his bone fides with the “right” folks. It appears that Gibson & Co. think that such interviews are only about people sizing up Palin but not sizing up the journos who ask the questions. I predict shock…shock as McCain moves up in the polls, and Obama continues the self destructive path of making fun of crippled people. And to make matters worse, multiple old news articles testify that McCain can use email. So, in essence cruel and stupid. Any minute now I expect Dean Wormer to arrive on the scene.

Sep 12, 2008 - 9:19 pm 32. Godzilla:

Starting with Gibson was smart, since the Obamians were screaming about how hard Gibson on been on their Precious. Now Sarah Palin goes on Hannity, and we can all sit back and enjoy a nice relaxing interview. Hopefully with good camera shots

Sep 12, 2008 - 9:24 pm 33. ic:

Bradley: It’s not his fault that Palin is intellectually unprepared.

It’s his fault that Gibson is intellectually dishonest.

Sep 12, 2008 - 10:02 pm 34. Godzilla:

Just watched 20/20. It’s hard to pin down the chronology of the sessions. Inside Sarah Palin’s house, Gibson is extremely agressive in his demeanor. This interview with Sarah Palin is the first time I’ve seen him in action, so I don’t know if he’s always so unpleasant. He’s so stiff you’d think his face would crack if he were to ever smile. During the outside sessions he’s less domineering, perhaps because he’s not surrounded by 4 walls and is himself intimidated by fresh air and mountains. There is a difference in his demeanor when he’s outside, and no doubt it’s psychological. Interestingly, Sarah Palin is more comfortable outside. There’s one more segment on Nightline, and then that’s it. I hope she never gives him another interview. Stephanofalus (sp?) would have at least smiled a few times. Gibson is like an ogre.

Sep 12, 2008 - 11:08 pm 35. Godzilla:

OT: Prepare to laugh your ass off

Sep 12, 2008 - 11:34 pm 36. Elroy Jetson:

The interviews themselves are a joke. Your right Roger, it’s all about the talking head doing the interview.
Which is why I liked the Warren format with Obama and McCain. It forced the candidates to answer exactly the same questions and let the people decide what the best answers were. Egos were left at the door.

Sep 13, 2008 - 12:27 am 37. California Dreamer:

Would someone care to attempt a translation of Charles Gibson’s “existential threat” question into plain English? I must have slept through that philosophy class.

Sep 13, 2008 - 12:43 am 38. Godzilla:

Regarding Gibson’s questions, there was one that I thought was very objectionable and callous. When he asked if Track thought he was doing God’s work in going to Iraq. Just what does that have to do with Sarah Palin’s ability to be a VP. And to ask that question on the day she sees Track off. It was a cruel question.

Sep 13, 2008 - 2:23 am 39. Neo:

“So, when American workers hear John McCain talking about putting ‘Country First,’” Obama said, “it’s fair to ask –- which country?”

Breathless coming from “The One”

Sep 13, 2008 - 6:33 am 40. dougf:

I actually managed to watch most if not all of the complete interview.

Now maybe I was just overly-sensitive but it seemed to me that EVERY question or comment from Mr.Gibson was a bomb. Some were big,some were small. Some were designed to explode on impact, others more in the delayed reaction category.

But ALL were explosive. Not a friendly lob in the bunch. All in the ‘Gotcha !! You backwoods,rube. That’ll learn you,” type category.

Now my memory fades as time goes by, but I don’t recall the same level of inquisition being lobbed at any of the others.

Ever.

I hate to say this because of my long standing and well known respect for the ‘Media’,but I grow a little suspicious that there might be some hidden ‘Media’ agenda in play here.

Just a feeling.
But I’m sure I’m wrong. The mass medai ‘information stream’ would not behave as mere propagandists. Not in a society that depends on ‘accurate’ information. Why that would be socially disastrous in the long-run.

Disastrous.

Sep 13, 2008 - 6:52 am 41. steveaz:

Roger,
“Most of all I would like to see the candidates left alone, without intermediaries, to debate the issues. ”

I was bemoaning this just last night. And I dreamed that, hope of hopes, Barack Obama or John McCain would show up on the back of a trailer in every small town along our nation’s freeway system: the modern equivalent of Lincoln’s train-tours.

Just take, say, interstate-40, and hit every town from East to West. It would be very instructive.

For instance, if they dare make a Lincoln Tour, Barack and Michelle will have to shake hands with god-fearing gun-owners and Denny’s waitresses all over rural America. Could be didactic for everyone, especially the candidates.

I highly recommend it.

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:36 am 42. NRA Life Member:

Regarding the Friday night interview, I’ll address the economy question. Gibson’s tack was to establish that the current economic downturn is entirely GWB’s fault, and so how would a Mccain-Palin administration be different? To his credit as an interviewer, he kept pressing for a direct answer to an extremely complex question. Moreover, the underlying assumption that everything is Bush’s fault is both simplistic and incorrect.

First, if Governor Palin was going to answer as Gibson demanded (name three changes from Bush policies), I wish she’d offered the following:
1. End the Ethanol mandates as they have not increased fuel supplies and thus have not achieved their intended purpose, and also have been a sop to special interests such as Archer, Daniels Midland etc.
2. Introduce legislation to lower corporate taxes as the US rate is the second highest in the industrialized world, and is causing capital investment to flee for greener pastures
3. Lower the deficit through efficiency (she did say this) and less spending in general as this will help to strengthen the dollar and increase our purchasing power.
The larger issue is Gibson’s economically illiterate observation that Bush policies are the one and only cause. Capitalistic systems are always prone to boom and bust. Bush inherited a bad stock market (not that I’d blame Clinton for it either) and then a virtual crash due to 9/11. His tax cutting policies probably saved us from a much worse downturn. He has tried to increase home produced energy and has been thwarted by Democrats and Greens. Good ideas such as free trade with Columbia (which would be a boon to farmers and would help to remove the need for Ethanol mandates as a sop to them) have been blocked by the Congress.
I wouldn’t expect the wife a union member to note this one, but unions have killed auto manufacturing. UAW (U Aren’t Working) has changed GM from a car company with benefits, to a benefit provider that sells cars on the side. Obama’s sponsorship of a bill to end secret ballots for union certification will in the long run be another nail in the coffin of American manufacturing. meanwhile, non-union car plants run by Honda, Toyota etc. are doing fine and keeping people employed.
Finally, Roger is correct in asking who the hell is Charley Gibson, Bill O’Relly and any of these other pretenders to the crown of THE MAN WHO ASKS QUESTIONS FOR AMERICA. Townhall meetings and the Saddleback model (remember,they were not Rick Warren’s questions) are good enough formats for me

Sep 13, 2008 - 8:37 am 43. david levavi:

Journalism did a nose dive after Watergate. The popularization of Woodward and Bernstein flooded journalism schools with whole armies of lamebrains and halfwits who would otherwise have gone into teaching or social work or somesuch. Absent sense or sensibility, these fools who made Journalism a hot major never noticed that Woodward writes like a high-school sophomore or that Bernstein, who does have talent, didn’t pick it up at J-school.

The profession of journalism has fallen victim to the age of specialization. J-schools no more produce great journalists than creative writing programs produce great writers. A genuinely talented newspaper correspondent from generations past, a Theodore Dreiser, say or an Arthur Koestler, would scratch his head at the notion of J-schooled journalism. Mark Steyn, who may be the finest journalist writing in the English language today, allowed in one of his columns that he is lucky to have graduated from high-school.

I’m not suggesting that writing or journalism can’t be taught. But the best of what comes out of writing programs reads like Cool Whip Zero. Chill and smooth and sans any particle of substance or nutrition. Un-zaltz und un-schmaltz in plain Yiddish. The enterprise is hackneyed at the source.

(I would make the case, incidentally, that the vaunted New Yorker Magazine contributed to the decline of both writing and journalism.)

Television journalism isn’t degraded because it was never worth much in the first place. The reputation of William Paley’s beloved and coddled CBS News, like Paley’s own is self-generated propaganda. Paley’s singularly brilliant contribution to television was the wildly profitable sixty-second commercial. Regular commercial breaks ruined the greatest medium for human communication ever invented, precluding forever any possibility for quality drama or in-depth news coverage on American television. If assault on culture was a crime, William Paley would have been hung by the neck.

MSM was always tendentious, mainly left oriented, intellectually dishonest and deliberately shallow. What has changed in recent years is the emergence of robust competition from Cable, notably FOX News, and the internet. MSM’s pretence of impartiality has been torn away and the lockstep-left prejudices beneath exposed.

We are not far from the day when onlookers to newsworthy events take to pelting journalists with rotten eggs and vegetables.

Sep 13, 2008 - 8:40 am 44. Herb:

I can’t wait for you to analyze the upcoming Hannity-Palin interview. I predict a five-star glowing review, full of praise for the respectful questions and penetrating answers. In fact, I don’t see why you can’t start hacking away at it now…

Sep 13, 2008 - 2:25 pm 45. Roger L Simon:

Actually, Herb, my anonymous drive-by friend, I find Sean Hannity a complete partisan dullard and have no interest in his interviews. His counterpart Alan Colmes is an equally partisan liberal dullard. They deserve each other.

Next time check out the writings of the blogger when leaving your hack excrescences, speaking of hacking. You’re way ‘above your pay grade’ here.

Sep 13, 2008 - 2:36 pm 46. Terrye:

I thought Palin did pretty well considering what a condescending prick Gibson was.

I read over at Newsbusters, that ABC edited out a good deal of Palin’s response. They have the transcript.

I think Palin knew what the Bush Doctrine, or had heard of it anyway, but I also think she thought Gibson was trying to trap her. Suspicion has more to do with her response than ignorance.

Sep 13, 2008 - 2:49 pm 47. Terrye:

Bill:

Do you remember Gibson’s interview with Obama? It was softball, all the way. Not one single policy question. It was all about feelings. Disgusting.

Sep 13, 2008 - 2:50 pm 48. California Dreamer:

I’m still wondering if anyone knows what CG was asking with his “existential threat” question. Was it cumbersome phasing about a “threat to our existence” or did he really mean some flavor of a threat to individual Americans in an unfathomable universe where good and evil are unclear? If the latter, one must ask, “What the hell….?”

Sep 13, 2008 - 2:59 pm 49. Mike Shuster:

A couple things:

I gotta say, I think Krauthammer is on target a lot of the time, but not this time. His argument about the Bush Doctrine evolving is in some technical way correct, but ask anyone who follows foriegn policy what ‘the Bush Doctrine’ is, and you’ll get an answer: that it’s the preventitive (as opposed to pre-emptive) strike doctine he laid out at his West Point 2002 speech.

Is it a big deal that Palin doesn’t know this? Well, that’s another issue, and I think reasonable people can disagree. But come on. It’s pretty clear she hasn’t been paying a whole lot of attention to foreign policy issues. (And this Alaska-is-next-to-Russia trope really has to go.) Does that disqualiify her? I don’t necessarily think so, but let’s not be intellectually dishonest with ourselves.

Also, I saw the blog-posts about how ABC cut up the footage unfairly. But I saw the segments that ABC aired, and reading the transcripts, I only see a couple things they cut (in fact only one, but I might have missed something). My sense is that the people who are making an issue of this are referring to the re-caps ABC (and affiliates) aired on their nightly news programs– which of course are going to be sliced up.

I’m not a fan of Gibson’s tone, but who really cares? She ought to be able to deal with it– which, I think, she was. She did okay. Not great, but not awfully. (Unless you think the VP needs to know about things like the Bush Doctrine. Actually, I was more disappointed in the vagueness of her answers about the economy and her apparent non-understanding of how entitlements work)

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:20 pm 50. NRA Life Member:

Thanks Mike, you said in one sentence what I was trying to say in many. Of course, if that is an implication that she wouldn’t inject the government into it and try to manage every little thing, it would be fine by me. Capitalism works best when left alone, as the British hands off policy on Hong Kong proved.

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:39 pm 51. Barry Dauphin:

Actually not many pols would handle well the way Charlie Gibson approached the interview. All pols have to be careful about firing something sarcastic back to the journo because they are running for office and don’t want to look out of control (and they aren’t stand up comedians). While Palin was OK, the premises of many of the questions were simply phony, and the style was calculated to make her look bad. Charlie does TV for a living, so he knows how to do exactly what he did.

Why didn’t he simply ask about preemptive strikes instead of “Bush Doctrine” if that’s what he was interested in? Because he wasn’t really interested in her answer. He wanted to see how she handled being “challenged” in that way. It didn’t matter what she said, he’d have done the same thing. Bush Doctrine does mean lots of things to lots of people, and Charlie Gibson didn’t make a great accounting of himself in trying to say what he thought it meant. Maybe a journo can actually interview her instead of preening, and then we can see what she says. And no I don’t mean Sean Hannity.

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:04 pm 52. Bill Bradley:

First for the really lightweight but typical stuff.

As the owner of New West Notes, I have some news for you. You are banned from my site.

I don’t tolerate people who post obscene personal flames between 2-3 AM. I don’t tolerate it any time, but people of your ilk who have nothing else to do on a weekend night … I’m sure you’ve heard this before, even behind your Hotmail account.

>chrisa798:

Bill Bradley:

Evidence that Gibson is a Republican? I don’t know, I’m asking.
Sep 12, 2008 – 7:29 pm

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:12 pm 53. Bill Bradley:

Now, for the reality check for one or two people and their various handles …

As Roger knows very well, there is no one with Pajamas Media who has strong contacts with the McCain for President campaign than me.

I introduced Roger to my old friend Steve Schmidt, who is now doing such a brilliant job of running the McCain campaign.

When Schmidt was running late for the interview I set up, Roger was surprised to see me text messaging Schmidt to remind him he needed to get over there and do our interview.

You may recall my columns on PJM in late 2007 and early 2008, identifying McCain as the guy on the Republican side and the only Republican who could win the election.

I also have other serious contacts with the McCain campaign, some of them stemming from when I campaigned for him in 2000 as a member of Veterans for McCain.

The McCain campaign selected Charlie Gibson, not just to do an interview but to have two days of exclusive access to Sarah Palin, because he is regarded as a friendly media contact. He is a Republican. I have this from an advisor to the McCain campaign. (Not Schmidt.)

They did this because everyone is noticing that Palin just keeps repeating the same things over and over and refused to take any questions from the press.

Things with Gibson did not go as well as they expected. So her only other scheduled interview is with Sean Hannity.

I don’t think Team McCain is whining about what happened. They’re doing a very good job of stage managing and browbeating the press.

But not everything works. And it was a risk to try to force-feed Palin — who was not the first choice and is an example of what may or may not be inspired improvisation — so quickly to bring her up to a semblance of credibility.

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:24 pm 54. Whatever:

Bill Bradley, nice to hear of your fine contacts. Regarding Palin vs. Gibson – so far no damage to McCain/Palin:

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Saturday, September 13, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows John McCain with 49% of the vote while Barack Obama attracts support from 46%. That is unchanged from yesterday and a complete reversal over the past week. Last Saturday, before McCain’s convention bounce had its full impact, Obama was up by three (see recent daily results). New state polling shows McCain up three in Nevada and up five in Missouri.

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:33 pm 55. Herb:

Sorry, Rog, just when I think I have you pegged, you swerve! I would have never predicted you were in the Hannity-haters club, which is strange because I totally predicted that you’d save your harshest words about the Palin interview for Charlie Gibson. I mean, he is “MSM” after all and those people can’t do anything right.

Speaking of harsh words…”excrescences?” That’s cold! And I thought we were friends.

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:54 pm 56. Bill Bradley:

It’s USC kick-off time, but here’s the National Review’s Rich Lowry on Sarah Palin’s intellectually deficient performance with the hand-picked interviewer, Charlie Gibson:

“The foreign-policy session was a white-knuckle affair. She barely got through it and showed no knowledge more than an inch deep. What she did demonstrate was amazing self-possession. She somehow bluffed her way through the Bush doctrine question. Gibson apparently didn’t want to go into full “gotcha” territory by asking flat-out if she knew what it is. And then he muddled things further with his dubious definition of it, so she was never truly nailed and there was enough ambiguity there for conservatives to defend her. The fact still remains that she very likely didn’t know any of the possible definitions of the Bush doctrine. I can’t imagine if Obama had picked Gov. Tim Kaine and he had had a similar moment, conservatives would have rushed to say that the Bush doctrine is just too amorphous and complicated for him to know anything about it.”

Sep 13, 2008 - 5:03 pm 57. Barry Dauphin:

If the McCain folks thought that Charlie Gibson would be a” friendly media contact”, perhaps he needs to replace those handlers who have such “astute” perceptions or at least ask them what the hell they were thinking. With friends like that, who needs enemies? Maybe Charlie needed to prove that he’s not anybody’s lapdog. Understandable. Of course he could have done that by playing it straight. He didn’t. He was a horse’s hinie. Maybe that was the secret McCain plan all along. “Let’s get Charlie to do it. He’ll make an a** out of himself and Sarah will look good by comparison.” Now that would be clever handling.

There’s the reality of whatever the McCain people thought and the reality of that interview. Whatever they thought about Charlie has no bearing whatsoever on the great unwashed watching the interview and forming an opinion of how it played out. What if she had said there are 57 states or 10,000 died in Kansas tornadoes? It would be leading the news, and the Republican campaign would be in deep doo doo, whether they thought Charlie was friendly or not.

Sep 13, 2008 - 5:07 pm 58. Sandy P:

When Bill Clinton ran for president his resume consisted of being governor of Arkansas and the state attorney general. I don’t recall any angst about his lack of foreign policy experience.

——-

It’s the economy, stupid and #41 was scorned as paying too much attn to the world……….

Sep 13, 2008 - 6:08 pm 59. Mike Shuster:

In 1992, people were less concerned with foreign policy, for better or worse. Times change…

Sep 13, 2008 - 6:36 pm 60. Rob S.:

I had forgot that Gibson interviewed Obama a little while ago. There were a couple of questions that we almost identical to Palin’s. For a great comparison, go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8-pYvr3irg

Sep 13, 2008 - 6:43 pm 61. Mwalimu Daudi:

The lack of MSM understanding of Islam in general at this late date is stunning. (If more than five percent even know the rudiments of Shia, I would be stunned, but they play gotcha with politicians on the subject.)

Forget Islam. I wonder how many MSM journalists could actually find Iraq on a map? Perhaps more than 5%. But then again…..

Remember that this is the same MSM that lied about the success of the military surge in Iraq until it became politically dangerous to continue to do so. Why should we take their ravings about the Bush Doctrine seriously after that fraud? Slowly but surely the MSM’s lies are catching up with them.

Sep 13, 2008 - 6:50 pm 62. Nostradamus:

Real Journalists understand their role: To investigate and report the facts, which go on page 1. They know that Opinion goes in the Op/Ed section, and use phrases like “I Think, “I believe” or “In my opinion” when opining. Real Journalists also know that they’re entitled to the same number of votes that I am: ONE. The “Mainstream Media” believe they’re ‘elite’, and are thus entitled to 100,000 votes or more by publishing their opinion as FACT, thereby changing the voters views toward mirroring their own. What Pajamas Media does quite effectively is embedding links to practically all they publish, be it opinion OR facts of news. (If Instapundit says “Bush Lied”, the word ‘lied’ is linked to the text of what he said, swiftly followed by the facts of the matter). And I HATE THAT PHRASE, “The fact of the matter is….”, because devoid of that link, you know they’re fucking lying. The Fact Of the Matter is: At West Point we were taught propaganda techniques, and nobody holds a candle to the Socialist bastards in that MSM crowd. They learned their Talking Points at Mills, Bard, Hampshire and Pitzer Colleges. Heheheh!

Sep 13, 2008 - 6:52 pm 63. Thank God for Karma:

The degree of journalistic malpractice we experience on a regular basis is stunning. Charlie Gibson’s “exact words” assertion is a perfect example. And asserted with such chilling grandiosity, no less.

George Stephanopolous stepping in to save Barack Obama after he stated “my Muslim faith” by desperately stating “my Christian faith” on his behalf, also reveals how pervasive is the mainstream media’s blatant bias. One might ask, would Stephanopolous have done the same thing had McCain made reference to “my Muslim faith”? But the real question is, is there is any chance whatsoever that Senator McCain would “accidentally” make that same assertion, and the answer is, of course not… no chance at all.

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:00 pm 64. ZEITGEIST:

[...] ROGER SIMON: The (condescending) media is the message. [...]

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:09 pm 65. Huan:

Bush Doctrine. All head of states believe in pre-emption when you have good info that you are about to be attacked (unless you believe the conspiracy that FDR let Pearl Harbor get bombed in order to enter WW2). The difference with W imho is two fold. Firstly, if you harbor those who attack us, we have a right to attack you. This is a much more aggressive stance than pre-emption alone. This was his first term. Secondly, W’s doctrine also includes support of Democracy as the counter for islamofascist radicalism. Whether Palin knew this i cannot say with certainty, but it was clear that Gibson did not.

Gibson. Whether he is a Republican or not is irrelevant. He was likely chosen from the big 4 (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN) because he might have been viewed as the most fair. But two things should be considered. Firstly is that he is a Washington insider and well entrenched in MSM. Even if he was conscious of elistism from being both i doubt he could counter it. The fact that Palin is an outsider has rattled the establishment on the right and the left. Some are just more shrill about it. Secondly, there was significant editing of the interview and what complete transcript is available so far, the broadcast edit clearly suggest bias of the producer, which may not have been clearly anticipated by the McCain camp.

Hannity. I don’t think he interviews. He either confronts or re-inforce his own bias. But this interview is not meant to inform the independent voters like the Gibson interview (which was more an introduction to the voters). The Hannity interview is more about rallying the base again as well as reassure the hold out on the right that she is still better than Obama. Her real interview will be against Biden in the VP Debate.

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:09 pm 66. Evil Pundit:

Here’s a detailed comparison between Gibson’s treatment of Obama and Palin.

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:10 pm 67. Dan S:

“California Dreamer:

I’m still wondering if anyone knows what CG was asking with his “existential threat” question. Was it cumbersome phasing about a “threat to our existence” or did he really mean some flavor of a threat to individual Americans in an unfathomable universe where good and evil are unclear? If the latter, one must ask, “What the hell….?”
Sep 13, 2008 – 2:59 pm”

Cal Dreamer,

That’s the political wonk usage, not the philosophical one, he was employing. Yeah, it means “threat to our national existence.” I found it pretty clunky when I first heard it too, but I’ve absorbed it and context usually clarifies the usage.

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:17 pm 68. Ken:

Re: the Sunni-Shia divide:

It’s funny that no one would ever raise an eyebrow at the thought of radical Shiite Iran cooperating with Russia, which is governed by militant atheists in league with Orthodox Christians. Yet they feel the need to act as if Shiites and Sunnis are totally unable to cooperate on anything, even though they both subscribe to the same basic planks of Islam. As near as I can tell, the difference is mainly one of who did what to whom in the 8th century. Shiites and Sunnis, on doctrine, are probably closer than Protestants and Catholics.

I think that the media, having little knowledge of the actual doctrines of these sects, and therefore what they have in common as well as their differences, saves itself the trouble of thinking by acting as if they were two entirely different religions.

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:18 pm 69. Dan S:

Ken,

The media has little knowledge of Christian doctrine or sects either, as these past weeks have once again amply illustrated.

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:28 pm 70. kcom:

I have only seen a few short clips of the interviews so far but I noticed, and was annoyed, by the shoddy camera work. Half the time, when Palin was talking, you couldn’t see her face. What good is an interview where you can’t see the interviewee’s facial expressions? It looked like amateur hour.

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:33 pm 71. kcom:

“Sorry, Rog, just when I think I have you pegged, you swerve! I would have never predicted you were in the Hannity-haters club…”

I’m surprised that you were surprised, Herb. It didn’t surprise me at all to see Roger write that. Haven’t you been reading his blog and following the journey that got him here? If he had said anything else, that’s what would have surprised me. (Okay, enough with the word ’surprise’.)

Anyway, Hannity is a waste of time and I’m not entirely sure why he’s (apparently) next on her interview list. He’s the right side version of Keith Olbermann, and is as likely to do his own side as much harm as good. Ann Althouse observed when Olbermann interviewed Obama the other day, Olbermann was so busy sucking up to Obama and speaking for him (and putting words in his mouth), that Obama was sort of trapped into trying to figure out how much to look like he was agreeing with Olbermann’s every (wacky) thought. Olbermann didn’t ask questions for Obama to answer, he gave the answers he thought Obama should give and then waited for Obama to agree with him. In the end, Althouse thought it did Obama a disservice, even though Olbermann was putatively on Obama’s side. Sarah Palin needs to be careful of that with Hannity. She needs to answer her own questions instead of letting him answer them for her.

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:49 pm 72. Tom H:

Palin did very well, but it would be very cool if next time she was put into that position, just comment that the interview is over, get up and walk out….I’d vote for her just for doing that….

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:52 pm 73. Huan:

like Gibson, Hannity’s interview is likely warm run practice for the real interview against Biden

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:53 pm 74. Mwalimu Daudi:

…there was significant editing of the interview and what complete transcript is available so far, the broadcast edit clearly suggest bias of the producer, which may not have been clearly anticipated by the McCain camp.

Which is why I still think that this race is the Messiah’s to lose. For all of McCain’s political acumen up until this point he has one massive weakness that could doom his chances in November. He and too many of his advisers still do not get it – the MSM is their blood-sworn enemy and always has been. Republicans have been playing kissy-kissy with MSM journalists for decades, and so far their efforts are unblemished by success.

McCain used to be the MSM’s Favorite Republican – an honor that is now shared between the RINO tag-team of “Missing Linc” Chaffee and Chuck Hagel. I sometimes get the feeling that McCain longs to reclaim that title. He does not seem to understand that once he decided to actually try to win the November election (and defeat the Messiah in the process) the MSM would brand him as a traitor and heretic.

Having Charlie Gibson of ABC (or any other MSM airhead) interview Palin made as much sense as letting Ted Kennedy drive a car full of naked cheerleaders home from a bar one night. McCain gave ABC a free shot at smearing Palin, and they took advantage of it. I would like to think that if someone suggests having Randi Rhodes interview Governor Palin the McCain people would refuse. But after this unforced error with Gibson and ABC I am not 100% sure.

In live debates there is no “creative editing” such as ABC practiced. Not so in interviews, which makes them a poor warm-up for debates. If Republicans must consent to interviews, why not bring along your own cameras (as Glenn Reynolds suggested) and turn the tables on your inquisitors?

Sep 13, 2008 - 8:11 pm 75. jum1801:

You know, in the 18 months which Charlie Gibson has had, I don’t recall him having subjected The One to an interview such as he conducted on (I use that preposition advisedly) Governor Palin. Seems if Chalrie had unleasehed that surprisingly powerful instinct for reporterly bulldoggery, we would have known long ago when and under what circumstances Obama met Bill Ayers, and exactly what O’s and Ayers’ involvement was on the Annenberg board. Even more importantly surely Exact Quote Charlie would have gotten right to the heart of the Obama-Rezko and Obama-Wright relationships, you betcha yesiree Bob.

What powerful forces of Evil could have kept Charlie from digging out those stories? How was Charlie rebuffed in what must have been his repeated and relentless calls to the Obama camp to set up one of his no-holds-barred specials?

I suspect Karl Rove, for only the Evil Genius has the power to overcome Gibson’s innate imperative to Get The Facts. The bastard!

Sep 13, 2008 - 8:26 pm 76. Paul:

I laugh every time a democrat brings up Palin’s passport issue. It just shows how out of touch the media really is.

A question more middle class Americans would probably be interested in would be how many states has she visited before she was governor.

Living in Alaska she is probably more isolated than living in the lower 48. I would not be surprised if it is less than what most people would expect.

Sep 13, 2008 - 8:27 pm 77. kcom:

“McCain used to be the MSM’s Favorite Republican”

Of course, during a general election, that’s a phrase that becomes entirely irrelevant. It’s the equivalent of saying “my favorite rash” or some such thing. The media are yellow dog Democrats to the core, and they behave accordingly when things are on the line.

Sep 13, 2008 - 8:33 pm 78. Alice Finkelstein:

No, it was a fantastic idea to let Gibson interview Palin. Get the MSM’s motives out in the open where everyone can see them.

It’s like when the new quarterback goes into the game, he needs to get hit hard once to clear the cobwebs. The fans need to see that he can take a good hit.

Palin can take a hit, and when she keeps coming out stronger and stronger, the media will never understand where they went wrong.

Sep 13, 2008 - 8:35 pm 79. California Dreamer:

She is going to be fine mano a mano with Biden, especially since I will be watching in HD.

Sep 13, 2008 - 9:18 pm 80. California Dreamer:

(Nixon-Kennedy reference and nothing has changed in pop culture)

Sep 13, 2008 - 9:18 pm 81. Gekkobear:

No, I thought the content was very revealing.

The Content that they deliberately left on the cutting room floor that is…

http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/

Read that transcript and tell me honestly you don’t think the cuts had a significant difference.

Someone somewhere didn’t like Palin having decent answers, so they chopped them. A lot.

But hey, if you trust ABC news you deserve to be lied to.

Sep 13, 2008 - 9:35 pm 82. Insatty:

The MSM give the Democrat socialists the home-field advantage in every election. In 2004, Meecham of Newsweak (misspelling intended) said the media advantage to Democrats is 15 points. In 2008, his opinion is misunderestimating the duplcitous MSMers. Bush had to run against Kerry, Michael Moore, Hollywood, Academia, every secular institution this country has, and the MSM.

McCain/Palin is running against all the same tsunami. This year, McCain/Palin may not be the David to defeat the this Goliath that seeks the fall of American Exceptionalism.

Sep 13, 2008 - 9:57 pm 83. nw:

as a Rhodes scholar Clinton studied Foreign affairs in – hold your horses – A FOREIgN Country

Palin visited Kuwait for 2 days .

palin is a wacko.

Sep 13, 2008 - 10:50 pm 84. V.B. Bart:

Roger,
Here’s an interesting blog post from an anonymous director at his Hollywood Trenches’ Blog about the camerawork and lens choices that ABC used in the Palin interview. Though it was no doubt obvious to your practiced eye, it was a revelation to me. They used a telephoto lens to make Gibson, “look overpowering and governor Palin the weak prey,” that is to make Gibson look physically much larger and Palin tiny before him. And they thought no one would know, no one would notice….. A symptom of hubris, n’est-ce pas?

The ghost of Leni Reisenthal has been busy these last months, first at The Obam’s European coronation in Berlin, then at the Greek revival meeting in Denver (did he feature himself as Zeus? Nero had that problem too…..), now at ABC. All weird, heavy-handed, clunky efforts. We can only hope that enough Americans (still, for now, the only ones who actually get to vote in U.S. elections) see the game and the weirdness, and make it a McCain-Palin landslide in November.

Sep 13, 2008 - 11:19 pm 85. Fresh Air:

I dunno, Mike. It seems to me there was a foreign war that ended a few months before the election that year. There was a peacekeeping mission in Somalia. And then there were all these untethered nukes supposedly floating around Russia and Ukraine. I think there was a great deal of foreign policy stuff to think about then, too.

But it was all about the supermarket scanner to the pukes in the press. Doom and gloom every night. Woe is us! Then Bill gets elected and unicorns were seen galloping on rainbows within a day. No, these jerks have been at it a very long time. Reagan knew it, and that’s why he liked to do TV addresses and go around them. Personally, I would like to see McCain kick the NYT out of the White House altogether. Newspapers that print government secrets can file their stories from outside the gates.

Sep 13, 2008 - 11:20 pm 86. Roger L Simon:

V. B. Bart, thanks for tipping me to the Hollywood Trenches’ Blog. I had not seen it.

You are correct that I noticed the same thing. Camera placement, lenses, etc. do everything. Also blocking. The word “upstaged” exists for a reason.

by they, nw, I would wager I have spent more time abroad than Bill Clinton and Palin combined and doubled, including long stints in Prague and Southern Spain, and shorter periods in France, the UK and Japan. I also spent a month in China in the Seventies when it was still Maoist and visited the Soviet Union twice and CUba once. Does that make me qualified to be President? Grow up, nw.

Oh, I forgot to mention I have been all over the Middle East, including Jenin. Do you know where that is, nw?

Sep 13, 2008 - 11:36 pm 87. Helen:

I’d like to see Greta van Susteren interview both Palin and Obama for a full hour each.

Why Greta?

I don’t know if this has always been her rep, but from watching Greta on Fox, I see she is the best questioner in the media. Her questions are straight, short, and to the point. Plus, she connects them, follows up on answers, does not do ‘gotcha!’, and seeks to obtain a maximum amount of information by letting the questions, rather than her ego, take the lead.

Sean Hannity is a lousy questioner generally. Too much long-winded speechifying so the question becomes lost. Periodically, Sean will do a very good series of logical questions in the Greta van Susteren mold.

Brit Hume is better than Chris Wallace. ‘Tis a pity Tony’s gone.

Maybe the best thing would be to throw Palin to the wolves on Fox ‘N Friends. We’d see who she really is once Brian gets going on her.

Sep 13, 2008 - 11:54 pm 88. schnargley:

I do not understand all the contrived rage at Charlie Gibson´s aggresiveness and one-sidedness with Palin. What? Does he not have the right to express his political beliefs and feelings? Are all you right-wingers against free speech? I was just amazed he was as poised and reserved as he was, and did not physically reach over and try to punch her or tell her to screw off. As a matter of fact, many of us on the Left were utterly disapointed in him that he treated her so defeentially, considering the circumstances. She has ruined Obama’s chances of the Presidency, and with that, all our hope, all possibility of Change, peace on earth and global healing. And you expect us not to be enraged? We are not only enraged, but we are outraged.

I think the MSM news network needs to fire Charlie for being such a pathetic whimp and hire Rosie O’Donnel to do these interviews with Palin.

Sep 14, 2008 - 5:21 am 89. Gary Rosen:

“I would wager I have spent more time abroad than Bill Clinton and Palin combined and doubled”

Simon for President!

Sep 14, 2008 - 9:28 am 90. Gary Rosen:

You almost had me, schargley. Then again your post without irony was still less unhinged than some of the stuff you see on the left these days …

Sep 14, 2008 - 9:30 am 91. nlcatter:

as Begala said
it showed PALIN UNFIT to be Vice president

darn, I wanted a lying book burning creationist with a scandal in office on day!

Sep 14, 2008 - 9:46 am 92. nick:

MCCAIN could not even answer questions on the View, they ate his lunch,

Sep 14, 2008 - 9:49 am 93. Aureliano:

Man, this Bill Bradley is one strange cat. I poked around some of his commentary on other people’s sites, and he has a consistent habit of puffing himself up and belittling anybody who doesn’t recognize his blinding magnificence. He tries to correct people’s grammar, in a down-stream copyeditor sort of way (thus often getting it wrong while not noticing his own grammatical errors –- just read his posts above), ALWAYS slips in a ‘I know so-and-so’ comment, which is exactly equivalent to bellowing “DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM!”, and seems incapable of getting beyond the freshman journalism practice of writing in single-sentence paragraphs. He seems to think all this makes him a consummate professional, talented wordsmith, and intellectual juggernaut.

Oh, and he bans people who challenge him after he insults and attempts to put them down, posturing as ‘above it all’ in the process. He bans them from his New West Notes, which given the plethora of California political sites available, means rather not a lot, or bans them from his own forum, in which I’ve seen fully 50% of the comments come from none other than Bill himself (some ‘dialogue’, eh?), most of them little more than single-sentence factoids and/or puerile snark.

The psychology of the crackberry party appartchik gadfly is a truly bizarre thing to behold.

So, why don’t we have a little fun and review this summary of the ‘even-handed’, above-the-fray commentary Bill Bradley engages in.

Here’s what he thinks of his co-authors on PJM:
”They pay me for the privilege of having me on the network. In fact, I just gave the CEO of PJM shit again for never correcting that idiotic Ledeen “report.”

Here are a few examples of the ubiquitous ‘I know so-and-so’ braggadocio in which he engages:
”I introduced Roger to my old friend Steve Schmidt”

“Now grow up, get some sources, and learn. I have sources in the Middle East.”

“You should be able to meet SOMEBODY in Hollywood.”

“What you should do is work in some actual campaigns before pretending like this.”

“Not that Ragone can’t be a total pain in the ass. Trust me, I know. But how would you know?”

“Julia Rosen, DO NOT start with me … Do you know how nice I was to you last year?”

‘You may have heard of him. I’m sure you’ve never met him … John Edwards.”

“Jim Webb is a personal friend of mine.”

He seems to be enamored of his computer skills. In this current thread he makes a point of noting his text-message skills, and constantly makes comments like these:
”Incidentally, I published several thousand words of real time blogging during the convention. I’m the only one who uses a wireless handheld so I don’t have to go off somewhere to write about what happened.”

There are literally thousands of examples Imperial Bill — just perusing a single thread of his on NWN demonstrates this, but here is a demonstration of a particular subset:
”You guys are fairly pathetic, you know … This is a very small blog. It usually has few to no comments.”

[It doesn’t seem to occur to BB, however, that spending a lot of time on someone else’s ‘small’ blog posting factoids and defending himself when someone impugns him is rather small-minded for someone who imagines himself a political goliath who got Arnold elected, and possibly John McCain, as well .... Doesn’t this pattern sound familiar? Is it predictable what will happen after he reads my commentary?]

And of course, his everyday ‘above-the-fray’ commentary such as:
”Have a nice day, chump.”

And finally, crème-de-la-crème, is this post, in which he reveals one of his MOs, which he ridiculously thinks is quite clever:
”See if you can grasp the concept … You use a CONSERVATIVE source, i.e., Dick Morris, to advance your own thesis that a liberal candidate is strong. Try it sometime.”

Now consider Bill’s last post quoting Rich Lowry regarding Sarah Palin.

I’m sorry, this guy is a weasel. A ‘professional’ who spends so much time posting factoid corrections and tracking down the IP addresses (and therefore the geographical locations) of people on PJM strikes as rather adolescent, and a bit nutty, as well. Something tells me that authors such as Victor Davis Hanson, for instance, don’t spend much time worrying about everybody’s IP addresses and where they live. What’s your excuse, Bill? Do ‘professionals’ try to track down personal information about their readership in order to ’set them straight’? Or do true professionals have a thick enough skin to take criticism in all its guises, and the courtesy to stay off of other authors’ threads?

Sigh. But go ahead and ban me from NWN’s drive-by factoids. You go right ahead ….

Sep 14, 2008 - 11:21 am 94. mike in tn:

I wish Brian Lamb could get an hour with each of the candidates, one on one.
He asks fair questions and let’s the person answer. He leaves it up to us to decide how the person did.

Sep 14, 2008 - 11:45 am 95. Ken:

Nick, why do you feel the need to post under different names? Does it make you feel like you have another person who agrees with you? An imaginary friend?

Oh, BTW, learn to spell “one.”

Sep 14, 2008 - 3:14 pm 96. Anna Keppa:

Aneo: “So, when American workers hear John McCain talking about putting ‘Country First,’” Obama said, “it’s fair to ask –- which country?”

Breathless coming from “The One”.

ESPECIALLY since B. Hussein Obama TOLD us, in front of all those Germans, that he is a citizen of the world. If so, why would he choose the U.S. first?

What a fraud.

“It takes a Potemkin Village”, I guess…

Sep 14, 2008 - 7:46 pm 97. John Link:

Regarding Bill Bradley:

I hereby introduce “Link’s Rule”:

“Every political website has its troll.”

Sep 14, 2008 - 7:57 pm 98. California Dreamer:

“As a Rhodes scholar Clinton studied Foreign affairs in – hold your horses – A FOREIgN Country”

I can guess what Clinton spent the bulk of his time and energy studying abroad.

Sep 15, 2008 - 12:38 am 99. Nancy:

Here’s a little comparison.

I think it will suffice without my making any editorial comments!

Compare and Contrast:

Gibson Obama interview after his nomination for President, a job he had been seeking for over a year
Source: abcnews.go.com/print?id=5000184
How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Gibson Palin interview after her nomination for VP, a job she only learned she would have 10 days before
Source: elections.foxnews.com/2008/09…with-abc-news/
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

Sep 15, 2008 - 11:18 am 100. Nancy:

Here’s another little bit of trivia ==

Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, is the world’s most powerful woman. (3rd year in a row)

Merkel’s first foreign trip took place on the day she was sworn in as Chancellor, and went to Paris for a meeting with the then French president, Jacques Chirac.
Source: wikipedia.org Angela_Merkel

So much for a baited question that implied visiting foreign countries to meet foreign leaders is a qualification because he obviously knew that her trip to Kuwait was the only time she had been to a foreign country!

Sep 15, 2008 - 11:22 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: