back
Been out. Not reading the internets. Checked the bloglines account with over 600 unread. Said screw it and marked it all read.
Miss anything important? Well, other than ABC trying to win an election?
And that gas in East Tennessee is one hundred billion dollars per gallon.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Well, other than ABC trying to win an election
The nerve..ABC asking Sarah Palin hard questions about the Bush Doctrine and stuff like that..clearly they should have been asking her about moose burgers and shooting guns.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
i think the nerve involved them editing out the context of her answers.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Like I said on TOS’s site…I just don’t see it. But even if they did, it really doesn’t obviate the bigger booboos (like thinking the BD is “his worldview”).
Guys, really–do we have to defend EVERY Palin attack? I’d think you’d have more integrity if you’d just offer up that no, she’s not a FP expert.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
In any event, I’d be more worried about this sort of thing.
Again, I’m not a Palin basher–I’m somebody who realizes that McCain’s flimsy vetting just might ensure President Obama and all that entails for the RKBA.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Sebastian, if you don’t see the editing issues, then you’re not paying close enough attention. They cut out HALF sentences to make her appear to say something she did not. Of course you think she’s not vetted properly, you’re only getting a quarter of the news.
The Bush Doctrine is defined by everyone differently. If you hate Bush, it’s one thing. If you like him, it’s another. I’ve heard the Bush Doctrine invoked for both foreign and domestic issues. When certain funding has been cut, it’s part of the “Bush Doctrine”. Global warming? “Bush Doctrine”.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:53 am
its the hallmark of all TV interviews..they interview people with lots of questions and then have to use some of the footage and scrap some of it to fill within a certain amount of time. Looking at what was cut, I too don’t see it…how would you have cut things differently? What pearls of wisdom were dropped in the cut segments that would have shown her in a better light? In particular, the bit about Gibson dropping the part where he agrees with Palin on the reference to Lincoln is particularly idiotic..the interview is there for the viewer to decide if they agree with the candidate, not to learn if the interviewer agrees or not..isn’t that what objective journalism is supposed to be about?
September 15th, 2008 at 4:24 am
actually, looking at the entire interview and what stayed and what was cut, I would say that the cutting was more beneficial to Palin than detrimental. The transcript is here. I’ll go one-by-one on each cut:
the edited out parts are Palin not answering the question and could have cast her in a light that of being evasive.
This is redundant, as they showed Palin saying pretty much the same things that got cut. In the prior question she had said (which did get aired):
and the next question was:
After that, the following was cut:
Airing this question would have slammed home the point to the viewers that saying that Russia is close to Alaska as foreign policy experience is utterly ridiculous.
This was cut. I’m not sure what great insight it would be for the viewing public to know that Sarah Palin repeatedly said that we have to have good relationships with our allies and we can’t repeat the cold war.
She previously mentioned that Ukraine should be in NATO so that part is redundant. And it seems rather obvious that we are going to have a new President on January 20th (maybe it should have been noted that Palin knows when inauguration day is?)..and then again the bit about relying on our allies.
In this question, she rambles, but she seems to say that yes..the US should go to war with Russia over Georgia..probably not a popular position with the American people.
First Palin doesn’t directly answer the real question (i.e. what should we do about Iran) and answers the sub-question saying that McCain is right and Abizaid is wrong, so Gibson gives her the opportunity to answer the real question again, though phrases it slightly differently (“So what should we do about a nuclear Iran?” vs. “So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?”) And again, ABC decides to cut Palin talking about our allies.
This question was edited out completely and was a follow-up to the previous question where it was edited out that Palin thought that more diplomatic pressure was needed. However, once you’ve implemented sanctions there is little else you can do diplomatically and she’s called for implementing sanctions. This exchange also makes Palin look like she doesn’t have an opinion of her own as she first says pursue diplomacy and then when Gibson says threats of sanctions haven’t worked, she says oh then implement those sanctions.
The part about making sure Iran doesn’t get nuclear weapons was addressed in the previous question and was shown.
Gibson asks a question about the Bush Doctrine (after explaining to her what it is), she doesn’t answer the question responding with the Presidents duty to defend the nation and her knowledge of when Inauguration Day is again. He asks again, she answers which gets shown (though again evades the question). The part about “the President has the obligation, the duty to defend” gets cut, but I don’t think that this was earth shattering that she (or any other person in the country) thinks this.
They edited out an embarrassing moment where she denies saying something that she said.
There are other points where she implies fighting Islamic extremism being right including (in a question about Pakistan):
They edited out the part where she says that she doesn’t like war, but I think most people would make that assumption given that they did air the part where she says that her son is shipping out to Iraq. She did say that these were freedoms that we take for granted and that victory is in sight in Iraq, but again, I don’t think its earth shattering that she thinks this way.
right after the above, we have:
Gibson agreeing with Palin is irrelevant. The interview is there for the American people to listen to her answers and judge, not to find out what the interviewer agrees with or not.
So there you have it..a bunch of redundant answers, some cliches, ABC deciding not to include answers about working with our allies for some reason and several embarrassing moments getting cut. In the end I would say that Palin got the better half of the deal.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Manish spent a lot of time doing the heavy lifting I was too lazy to do, but yeah that’s pretty much it–I don’t see where that stuff hurt her.
And like I said in the other thread, the fact that the BD is defined differently doesn’t excuse the fact that she couldn’t come even remotely close to ANY of the possible answers. She pretty clearly didn’t have much to offer on the defining FP principle of the last 8 years other than “terrorists are bad” soundbites she’d been trained on.