Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Sep 14, 2008

Palin & Media Bias and Bastardry.

This was something I was looking at last night and was thinking of posting on it when I received the following, which saved me a lot of work. It was passed on to me by Steve Maloney from an address I didn’t recognize, so my apologies for not giving attribution.

The article was from News Busters who have a full rundown on the material that was edited out of the interview. The full article is a real eye opener.

Yesterday’s interview of Sarah Palin might have been a political success for the McCain campaign, but it was a shameful display of arrogance, snobbery, and elitism on the part of the Mainstream Media.

Sarah Palin might have looked a bit uncomfortable, all thanks to the pretentiously disrespectful first question that was launched at her, but she remained wholly in control of the subjects being discussed. The problem with the interview was both the HORRID editing that was given to her answers, which made her appear “talking point” obsessed, and also Charlie Gibson’s clearly condescending tone and demeanor.

The first question itself was not only arrogant on his part but offensive. In it, he asked her if she felt “ready” or “experienced enough” to have agreed to run for Vice President. When she firmly said “yes” to such a preposterous and insulting question (would ANYONE answer otherwise?), Gibson actually asked her if she thought that her confidence in this matter demonstrated a bit of “hubris” on her part.

What kind of journalists are we dealing with today? Did they EVER ask Barack Hussein Obama the same question and with the same tone? Obama is a mere junior senator, Palin is a GOVERNOR. How come Gibson didn’t ask Obama; “didn’t you recently admit in a press conference that running for President without even serving a day in the senate is irresponsible?”

The reason is quite obvious, if Gibson had asked Obama such a question, or even challenged him for his “hubris” on national television, every single Media pundit would have accused Gibson of racism and unfairness. But when they actually dare to ask these type of condescending questions to a truly accomplished woman (by any measure), they suddenly remain quiet, without a single mention of double standards and sexism (although I must admit that Mika Brzezinski, that well known Obama sycophant from MSNBC, actually admitted this morning that a man would NOT have been asked these questions in the same manner).

Of course, most of us already understand and personally know about the horrid bias that the Media exhibits on a day to day basis in favor of Liberals (in general) and Barack Obama (in particular), but when most people thinks about the aggressive ‘pop quiz’ style interview to which Sarah Palin was submitted to by ABC, it is quite clear that they did everything in their power, via questions and editing, to make her look as bad as possible.

When analyzed from this perspective, even after all of their efforts, they actually achieved making her look ‘more normal’ and ‘down to earth’ than any other politician in recent history, which in the end fits perfectly with her image as the “true people’s candidate”.

But let’s look a bit closer to a moment in the interview which the Democrats may be smart NOT to criticize about her performance: their odd discussion about the “Bush Doctrine”. This was another moment in which Gibson appeared to be “annoyed” at the fact that she asked for a bit of clarification regarding its import.

Let’s read what Richard Starr has to say about this part of the interview, which in my opinion, perfectly brings forth the problem with asking “quiz” type questions to candidates of this magnitude (thank you CC for bringing this excerpt to our attention):

Palin right on Bush Doctrine, ABC NEWS doesn’t even know what it means…

What Exactly Is the ‘Bush Doctrine’? It’s being taken in some quarters as revelatory of inexperience that Sarah Palin sought clarification when ABC’s Charlie Gibson asked her about the Bush Doctrine. To review, here is the passage from the transcript.
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

Gibson should of course have said in the first place what he understood the Bush Doctrine to be–and specified that he was asking a question about preemption. Palin was well within bounds to have asked him to be more specific, because, as it happens, the doctrine has no universally acknowledged single meaning.

Gibson himself in the past has defined the Bush Doctrine to mean “a promise that all terrorist organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated”–which is remarkably close to Palin’s own answer.

more at ......

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

NO, Gibson, those are NOT the “exact” words.

Actual quote: “Let us pray our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.”
“Let us pray” makes all the difference in the world, right Charlie? Typical media trickery.
Wow! that is a BIG OMISSION! That’s why she later said:

PALIN: I don’t know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is
that my son has made a decision.

But Gibson’s omission makes it appear she changed her position.

More at

ABC News also cut a KEY phrase in her remarks in a church. They omitted the words "Let us pray" that Palin spoke before "our leaders are sending our troops to do God's will.

My eyes have really been opened to MAJOR media manipulation this election year. I always KNEW it existed, but the media's love fest with Obama is over the top!

They've concealed his lies and now omitted key parts of Palin's interview to make her appear a neocon and a lunatic.


  1. Their intense hatred for Sarah Palin is also over the top, Jim. I put a picture of her up top on my blog just to bug them! You would think McCain had named a 50 foot monster from outer space as his vp. It's so ridiculous it boggles my mind, and the moonbats have done a good enough job of boggling my mind already! I've never seen anything as utterly ridiculous as their lies, manipulations, and outrageous hatred before. You would think Sarah Palin was Hitler! These people have got to be nuttier than fruitcakes, but it is the sheer meanness of their attacks that they should be ashamed of. Of course I know that they have no shame. If they did they couldn't be who they are.

  2. I think that to some extent the press and the leftist political insiders have some sort of mutual admiration society going on, except that it is only mutual if the press buy their way in, by saying the right thing.

    Another reason is that the press have decided for us that we should have a black President, and now. They don't want to wait for a decent one to come along, you'll have this one right now.

    As result they have been badly caught out by this turn of events. I notice Olberman seems to now be in a cold sweat as he lectures us on just what is wrong with McCain, and seems to be more strident than I remember him.