POLITICS - Bye Bye Charlie Gibson / ABC

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:05 pm

Charlie Gibson's "interview" (more like interrogation) of Governor Palin was clearly noted by Dems and Republicans to be acerbic and unprofessional. His demeanor and body language clearly furthered the perception - at least by many Independents and Republicans - of the hate infested liberal who cannot stand to be in the same room as somebody who thinks differently.

Given the historic stance of the Democratic Party that they are the "reasonable" ones, Mr. Gibson's handling of the "interview" pointed out the ongoing hypocrisy of the left leaning mainstream media.

ABC - a once great network that has long since fallen in with the march of the far left nut jobs - really should have used somebody else, who didn't look like they were struggling to control their hatred, to do the interview. I have watched Charlie since he came aboard; I clearly saw his vastly changed onscreen attitude in this segment - an "I'm going to get you" attitude that he has never been displayed with other guests. If you watched it, you know what I mean.

Google "Charlie Gibson ABC" and click on the "ABC Worldwide News" choice; then click on Charlie Chipmunk's picture in the upper right corner of the website. You will see 1163 comments (and counting) - all blasting him and ABC for the total disaster of an interview that was clearly just a mean tempered attack. He could hardly modulate his voice as he spoke.

Bad showing for ABC World News, and a black eye for the liberal media - it only furthers the chances of Conservatives taking office this year. I say, thank you ABC; Great job. Oh... and, perhaps I should say - Bye bye, Charlie. His credibility went the way of Dan Rather.

Looks like I'll be able to keep my guns after all.

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:13 pm

Charlie Gibson and Tom Brokaw have shown themselves to be partisan, unprofessional and biased. Let's throw in condescending to women on Charlie's part. He did not treat Obama the same. And there is much more reason to question Obama hard.

Then I believe Charlie is being accused of unfairly distorting what the interview revealed.

Remove Charlie from prime time. Let him sit on a couch with women in the morning with pleasant music and discuss soft news topics and smile a lot like a kindly uncle. He was out of his element here.

How far Meet the Press has fallen with Brokaw.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:14 pm

Hopefully he will get the Matthews/Oberman treatment x10 - all much deserved!

Idahoser · Post by **Idahoser** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:14 pm

I looked it up on YouTube today. I don't watch TV anymore.

You have to expect that to make it fit their world view but to (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt) at least maintain plausible deniability they must have at the very least removed his worst, and her best, moments.

And still she made him look like a flaming ***#@!e.

PALIN '08

Idahoser · Post by **Idahoser** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:16 pm

Idahoser wrote:And still she made him look like a flaming butt#@!e.

HEY, that's not what I wrote.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:41 pm

I didn't see where Gibson was anything but serious and or professional.

Mrs. Palin was easily agitated, and displayed a tendency toward not hesitating in order to think.

She was scrambling to recall coached responses, but luckily her beauty pageant experience saved her. I was half expecting her to smile and wave as she finished each sentence with "...and world peace..."

She is not familiar with current U.S. foreign policy. That could be a good thing.

She's bright, but needs but more coaching before they start parading her around without McCain to do the heavy lifting

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:45 pm

FWiedner wrote:I didn't see where Gibson was anything but serious and or professional.

Mrs. Palin was easily agitated, and displayed a tendency toward not hesitating in order to think.

She was scrambling to recall coached responses, but luckily her beauty pageant experience saved her. I was half expecting her to smile and wave as she finished each sentence with "...and world peace..."

She is not familiar with current U.S. foreign policy. That could be a good thing.

She's bright, but needs but more coaching before they start parading her around without McCain to do the heavy lifting

Thank you, Miss Sodginest

Idahoser · Post by **Idahoser** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:50 pm

FWiedner wrote:I didn't see

fixed it for you

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:56 pm

FWiedner wrote:I didn't see where Gibson was anything but serious and or professional.

Mrs. Palin was easily agitated, and displayed a tendency toward not hesitating in order to think.

She was scrambling to recall coached responses, but luckily her beauty pageant experience saved her. I was half expecting her to smile and wave as she finished each sentence with "...and world peace..."

She is not familiar with current U.S. foreign policy. That could be a good thing.

She's bright, but needs but more coaching before they start parading her around without McCain to do the heavy lifting

Check out any other inerview Charlie Chipmunk has given; especially with Obama, on You Tube; start the engine in the ol' noodle and put it in gear; and then look again at the issue. Clearly "Uncle Charlie" had on his Halloween mask for this interview, avoided eye contact except when posing what he thought were tough questions, and did everything he could do to keep a constant frown, despite Sarah's attempt at professional pleasantries.

Then, contrast that obviously hostile "interview" with Hannity's interview of Obama, where he (Hannity) posed tough questions but still smiled and joked. I think that, at least in your heart of hearts, you will know that Gibson was anything but professional. Or go to ABC World Wide News and read the 1200 comments (probably by now) that all pan him as being the total butt that he was.

Then, tell me, in all honesty, that you knew what the "Bush Memorandum" was - or whatever Charlie called it. Did you know the answer?

Most people at DC could not have answered that question, from what I have learned; it was clearly a trick question. When I testified as an expert in court for something or other, the defense lawyers used to pull out obscure questions similar to this just to try to attack my credibility in front of the jury - it's all the same game.

As far as the beauty pageant thing goes - that sounds like the type of characterization that a far left liberal weenie would use - and I know from your many insightful posts on this net that you are definitely NOT of that crowd; I'm a little surprised you would post that. I taped the interview, and it was clear to me upon rehearing it a couple of times that she carried the interview quite handily because she knew her subject - even seeing through the cheap trick question where she was misquoted about "God's plan."

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:01 pm

Hey - is there some type of professional software that changes text? A--S--S is not a swear word, it is a donkey, and (as far as I know) acceptable and appropriate when describing a stubborn, stupid beast. Am I wrong?

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:27 pm

FWiedner wrote:I didn't see where Gibson was anything but serious and or professional.

Oh yes, he is quite the serious turd. (Excuse me while I blow chunks...)

Post by **David** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:44 pm

FWiedner wrote: Mrs. Palin was easily agitated, and displayed a tendency toward not hesitating in order to think.

I guess she needs to do a lot more Ah Um , Ah Um, Ah Um, Ah Um, Ah Um....

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:49 pm

Like Nobama,

RIHMFIRE · Post by **RIHMFIRE** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:55 pm

what did you guys expect from that liberal idiot....
To be fair and objective....

Id like to see Rush do an interview with osama obama

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:17 pm

RIHMFIRE wrote:
Id like to see Rush do an interview with osama obama

I'd pay good money to watch that!

Grizz · Post by **Grizz** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:51 pm

I'd love to see someone ask EXACTLY the same questions of NOBama that person asked Palin, in EXACTLY the same tone of voice.

NoBama would have a Cow..,

and that would be good television

specops · Post by **specops** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:57 pm

Better yet would be Rush and Glenn Beck doing a tag team on Dumb and Dumber. That would be better than a nude goat ropin'.

Post by **Hobie** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:13 pm

FWiedner wrote:I didn't see where Gibson was anything but serious and or professional.

Mrs. Palin was easily agitated, and displayed a tendency toward not hesitating in order to think.

She was scrambling to recall coached responses, but luckily her beauty pageant experience saved her. I was half expecting her to smile and wave as she finished each sentence with "...and world peace..."

She is not familiar with current U.S. foreign policy. That could be a good thing.

She's bright, but needs but more coaching before they start parading her around without McCain to do the heavy lifting

That is simply laughable.

HATCHETTJACK · Post by **HATCHETTJACK** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:47 pm

Hobie wrote:
FWiedner wrote:I didn't see where Gibson was anything but serious and or professional.

Mrs. Palin was easily agitated, and displayed a tendency toward not hesitating in order to think.

She was scrambling to recall coached responses, but luckily her beauty pageant experience saved her. I was half expecting her to smile and wave as she finished each sentence with "...and world peace..."

She is not familiar with current U.S. foreign policy. That could be a good thing.

She's bright, but needs but more coaching before they start parading her around without McCain to do the heavy lifting

That is simply laughable.

democrat troll.. i mean fwiedner

HATCHETTJACK · Post by **HATCHETTJACK** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:48 pm

BlaineG wrote:
FWiedner wrote:I didn't see where Gibson was anything but serious and or professional.

Mrs. Palin was easily agitated, and displayed a tendency toward not hesitating in order to think.

She was scrambling to recall coached responses, but luckily her beauty pageant experience saved her. I was half expecting her to smile and wave as she finished each sentence with "...and world peace..."

She is not familiar with current U.S. foreign policy. That could be a good thing.

She's bright, but needs but more coaching before they start parading her around without McCain to do the heavy lifting

Thank you, Miss Sodginest

good to see ya tubby... must be back from ohio in one piece

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:51 pm

HATCHETTJACK wrote:democrat troll.. i mean fwiedner

No.

Fred may be many things... but he is NOT a demoncrap. Radical Libertarian/Constitutionalist with a proper disgust for the D/R party machine maybe (likely? Certainly?... I'm only marginly less radical myself...), but NOT a Demoncrap.

gak · Post by **gak** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:03 pm

I am not particularly a big fan of the McCain/Palin ticket. I think McCain is a great American, but think she is/was a fluff choice--even agree with some that she was a distraction and strictly a political decision by McCain('s camp) with not a whole lot else behind it--I guess that makes sense, this is politics - but you all know what I mean. ..... I didn't say un-intelligent, she clearly is, but as someone(s) said - not coached particularly well. That said I agree that the interview was unfair and unprofessional. While she clearly was caught off guard and otherwise unprepared - I felt very uncomfortable "for her" and could hardly watch, feeling bad for her--not a fair shake.

Tycer · Post by **Tycer** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:42 pm

Thought Sarah Palin did fine. Politispeek in the face of Charlie's persistence. Good little politicion.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:53 pm

I got to watch most of last night's interview. I thought the Gov. held her ground pretty well considering the deck was stacked against her. She could have made Charlie look really bad had she stood her ground, but I think she showed her ability to take cheap shots and not be diverted from her objective. She could have made Charley clearly define the doctrine question and took him to school about it at the same time. I think she handled it like a lady.

I did hear that later that night when it was shown on Nightline, the west coast version cut out the questions about God. Can anybody confirm or deny that?

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:02 am

Rusty wrote:I got to watch most of last night's interview. I thought the Gov. held her ground pretty well considering the deck was stacked against her. She could have made Charlie look really bad had she stood her ground, but I think she showed her ability to take cheap shots and not be diverted from her objective. She could have made Charley clearly define the doctrine question and took him to school about it at the same time. I think she handled it like a lady.

I did hear that later that night when it was shown on Nightline, the west coast version cut out the questions about God. Can anybody confirm or deny that?

Incorrect. The Left Coast (at least Communist News Network and Fox) included Charlie Chipmunk's loaded and misquoted question about the deity statement, including Palin's answer that "we should pray for God's will." O'Reilly showed the whole quote, correctly, that Chipmunk intentionally butchered up to take it out of context. Sarah did fine, and in fact at one point backed off Charlie in the Georgia Invasion question - taking him back to school and advising him that NATO treaties should be honored.

Post by **Old Savage** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:47 am

Charles Gibson lied in the question - he isn't that careless and stupid and to me he is reprehensible.

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:07 am

Old Savage wrote:Charles Gibson lied in the question - he isn't that careless and stupid and to me he is reprehensible.

I agree - I probably used a poor choice of words. It is crystal clear, after one reads the original quote, that he intentionally twisted the quote by taking a few words out of context, to try to trap her into making a disingenuous answer. She did not fall for it, and in fact remembered precisely what was said and answered to the original quote. This backfired, since she showed a great amount of statesmanship (that is, political savvy) in seeing through the trap and recalling what was said.

In viewing the interview, one sees that Charlie then jumped onto another subject, since he hit a wall with that tactic.

Bogie35 · Post by **Bogie35** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:12 am

Gibson is a frustrated gay man.
He's dying to be Hillary Clinton.
He gets cherry-eyed every time Ted Kennedy fanny burbs.
And, he's shopping for property in Venezuela to build his and Obama's dream home.

Other than that, he's a nice guy.

bogie

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:33 am

Bogie35 wrote:Gibson is a frustrated gay man.
He's dying to be Hillary Clinton.
He gets cherry-eyed every time Ted Kennedy fanny burbs.
And, he's shopping for property in Venezuela to build his and Obama's dream home.

Other than that, he's a nice guy.

bogie

Thats the funniest darn thing I've read in some time!

And Oh So True!!!

don Tomás · Post by **don Tomás** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:12 pm

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:42 pm

Lipstick on a pig!!

RSY · Post by **RSY** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:04 pm

gak wrote:I think McCain is a great American, but think she is/was a fluff choice...

You mean like the Democrats' choice of Obama???

Scott

505stevec · Post by **505stevec** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:04 pm

You know Fweidner? When you first started posting the "Dont vote because there are no real conservatives running" drivel. I pegged you for a Liberal mole. How can any man or woman who owns guns and claims to love the constitution be pro-liberal is beyond me. Maybe your just a hater and a little bit off.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:21 pm

Or perhaps you simply lack confidence in your "choice" and need to change the subject by attacking someone with an opinion different than yours, rather than addressing the issue itself.

oldmax · Post by **oldmax** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:31 pm

I vote steve..!

Idahoser · Post by **Idahoser** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:34 pm

FWiedner wrote:Or perhaps you simply lack confidence in your "choice" and need to change the subject by attacking someone with an opinion different than yours, rather than addressing the issue itself.

Well I will give you that in spades-- there ain't nobody (that's not some shrill "Libertarian" nutjob) who IS talking bout the real issues that are the foundation for all this nuttiness. The only good thing gov't can do is they need to take every single law in existence and comb it across the words of the Constitution and they need to instantly repeal every one that fails to meet Constitutional authority for the action. I'd say conservatively, 10% will pass and be retained, and 10% of those will make sense to keep.

So you're right, nobody is doing the "right thing", and it really is dancing on the head of a pin, then, to discuss whatever difference' there might be between socialist #1 and socialist #2.

Now since I live in the world where the Constitution was abandoned centuries ago and I have to live with the choice I have in front of me, I am excited about our first Alaskan President. And disgusted at the four years I have to wait for it.

505stevec · Post by **505stevec** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:49 pm

FWiedner wrote:Or perhaps you simply lack confidence in your "choice" and need to change the subject by attacking someone with an opinion different than yours, rather than addressing the issue itself.

Well since there is a conservative, God fearing, gun toting person on one side of the isle, I vote Republican. You sit back and wait till the boogers come get you or, as I fear you may, vote for Obama. The Republican party has many faults I agree but pray that the new face of change will spread like wild fire thoughout the party and we will see a definite change to the right. The Consitution IS very important but more than that is the fear of God and trusting Him to guide the Country.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:20 pm

505stevec wrote:
FWiedner wrote:Well since there is a conservative, God fearing, gun toting person on one side of the isle, I vote Republican. You sit back and wait till the boogers come get you or, as I fear you may, vote for Obama. The Republican party has many faults I agree but pray that the new face of change will spread like wild fire thoughout the party and we will see a definite change to the right. The Consitution IS very important but more than that is the fear of God and trusting Him to guide the Country.

Whether or not there is a conservative politician on the menu remains to be seen. The evidence thus far is quite shallow, and the major portion of the Republican ticket leans definatively in the opposite direction.

Yes, the Constitution IS very important. G_d gave us the law, and He expects us to obey it.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:38 pm

FWiedner wrote:
505stevec wrote:
FWiedner wrote:Well since there is a conservative, God fearing, gun toting person on one side of the isle, I vote Republican. You sit back and wait till the boogers come get you or, as I fear you may, vote for Obama. The Republican party has many faults I agree but pray that the new face of change will spread like wild fire thoughout the party and we will see a definite change to the right. The Consitution IS very important but more than that is the fear of God and trusting Him to guide the Country.
Whether or not there is a conservative politician on the menu remains to be seen. The evidence thus far is quite shallow, and the major portion of the Republican ticket leans definatively in the opposite direction.
Yes, the Constitution IS very important. G(o)d gave us the law, and He expects us to obey it.

The top half of BOTH parties is left leaning, the bottom half is on one ticket. The difference is definitely a matter of degree. I don't believe we've had a Presidential candidate as left as Obama. The only person that appears to have a snow-balls chance of being on the winning side that has a history of leaning right is Palin. Her's is a new face, with the ability to convince me that she's the person for the top position in 2012, none of the other folks on the horizon as proven by this election cycle, has the ability to withstand the left's marginalizing them and their politics. I really wanted Ron Paul, but... his ability to get elected has passed. Therefore, a new candidate needs to arise onto the national scene. I'll certainly give Palin credit for energizing the Republicrats with a feeling of something besides impending doom. For without her, I really didn't think McCain was going to win.
There isn't a libertarian or independent candidate that has a chance of being elected. Voting for one is in effect, voting for Obama.
So, choose wisely friends, for your rights do hinge upon who sits in the Oval Office after January, 2009.
Bickering over semantics and degrees of left leaning is certainly counter-productive.

O.S.O.K. · Post by **O.S.O.K.** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:57 pm

Fweidner = glutton for punishment, liberal appologist.

So, why do you hang around here?

You obviously "don't get it".

Go back to dumicrap underground where you will be appreciated and sucked upon lubriciously.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:27 pm

+1 Griff.

OSOK... I will say it again: I do not believe Fred is a Liberal (socialist).

He is a liberal in the sense I am.... a JEFFERSONIAN "liberal" - one who believes that LIBERTY is more important than either socalisim (a given) OR "Conservatisim".

Once you understand that, then you can at least understand where he comes from if not appreciate his sense of humor/irony/disgust with the status quo.

L8agin · Post by **L8agin** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:33 pm

Palen shoots pretty good in an ambush. I think I see some effects of coaching but still using her brain and smart enough not to double the time and look like dumb with a bunch of ah's.
Simply a breath of fresh air. Hope politics don't change that.
Yep Fred sounds like a troll to me, he'd kick if ya hung him with a new rope

I listen to him with the same reaction as gore on global warming

L8

L8agin · Post by **L8agin** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:44 pm

OI all that may be true about Fred, but accomplishes nothing. He is not behind anything that will get anyware, finding unconstructive criticisim with what might just be the best thing that can happen in a real world.
Still a troll
L8

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:52 pm

L8agin wrote:OI all that may be true about Fred, but accomplishes nothing.

Does it? If it causes a man to think then it is good. More people need to think about what the Constitution used to mean.

He is not behind anything that will get anyware, finding unconstructive criticisim with what might just be the best thing that can happen in a real world.
Still a troll
L8

It's only trollish if it isn't true.

bunklocoempire · Post by **bunklocoempire** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:59 pm

Talk talk talk, easier to talk about lipstick on a pig, secret muslims, etc. than a little self examination of ones self and ones party.

Keep it up Mr. FWiedner, it appears to me your one of a handful with a working conscience and a sense of true Patriotism on these forums, shows me where the "from my cold dead hands" crowd really stands.

You'll notice there was no debate when this was posted http://www.levergunscommunity.com/viewt ... =1&t=10003 from Christians, so-called Christians or unbelievers.

"When people — especially Christian people — start doing their duty and standing for truth and principle, whether it is considered politically incorrect, or unpopular, or "naïve," or anything else; then, and only then, will God give us the results that will bring healing and restoration of our land."

Folks don't like having their conscience pricked, they'll start calling you names or simply won't call you, and they'll look to anything (Palin) to ease their troubled conscience.

"Duty is ours; results are God's."

Bunkloco

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:03 pm

Let's keep it simple. Vote for Pedro.

L8agin · Post by **L8agin** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:33 pm

Thinking is it!! no argument-But -- My successes in life are when I am in the zone and confident- that is dealing with reality in a depth that can be used to direct and give confidence with my experience to accomplish. Thinking like like Fred and Gore doesn't do that for me. Trolls only agitate
L8

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:37 pm

It's not my goal to be contrary, only to promote continued discussion. It's safe to say that I'm not satified with the status quo.

It's sad to see people so blinded by party loyalty that they cannot objectively scrutinze the qualifications of a candidate for high office.

It's even more sad that people believe that electoral victory is the only object at issue, given that there is an absolute certainty that the candidate that they support and whom can presumably achieve victory, is corrupt and likely does not support their ideals.

IMO the goal should not be victory at any cost, especially when victory will put a particuarly poor candidate in a position to rule over the lives of a somewhat free People. The goal should be to establish right over wrong, and freedom over tyranny. I'm sorry, but IMO neither of the current candidates, Republican or Democrat, believes in an America that espouses those American values. What they do believe in is adminstering a mammoth governmental machine to service and provide optimum benefit to those whom they favor or select. They believe in "security" in as far as it can be used to control the American People and drive them to serve the purposes of the state. To me it's a simple question of right and wrong.

... and so far, the candidates being offered are wrong.

meanc · Post by **meanc** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:54 pm

especially when victory will put a particuarly poor candidate in a position to rule over the lives of a somewhat free People.

Does anyone else here SERIOUSLY believe that the President of the United States acts solely on his/her own accord in 99% of the decisions regarding either domestic or foriegn affairs?

bunklocoempire · Post by **bunklocoempire** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:03 pm

meanc wrote:
especially when victory will put a particuarly poor candidate in a position to rule over the lives of a somewhat free People.
Does anyone else here SERIOUSLY believe that the President of the United States acts solely on his/her own accord in 99% of the decisions regarding either domestic or foriegn affairs?

Ahh.. but what has the trend been? More power given to the executive, more power given to someone you may agree with now but will likely also be wielded by someone you don't agree with. Is their nothing to be said of a bully pulpit? A leader to champion Liberty?

Bunkloco