The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American Elites

Posted on September 14, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Climate, Economics, Immigration, Life, Links, People, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Religion, Resources, Science, Taxes, Technology, Video, War |

“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right”


~President Abraham Lincoln



September 11, 2008

Palin ABC interview – Part 1 — Sarah Palin interviewed by ABC’s Charles Gibson


Palin ABC interview – Part 2 — Sarah Palin interviewed by ABC’s Charles Gibson


Palin ABC interview – Part 3 — Sarah Palin interviewed by ABC’s Charles Gibson


  September 12, 2008

SARAH PALIN : The FULL INTERVIEW with Charles Gibson & ABC News ! [PART 1 of 3]


SARAH PALIN : The FULL INTERVIEW with Charles Gibson & ABC News ! [PART 2 of 3]


SARAH PALIN : The FULL INTERVIEW with Charles Gibson & ABC News ! [PART 3 of 3]


Governor Palin did very well in the interview.

The Governor sounds like a libertarian that would cut taxes, federal spending and regulations.

Charlie should have asked her what federal departments she would close.

I suspect that she would like to eliminate several (see the Milton Friedman videos below especially Part 4).

Charlie Gibson was disappointing and certainly was no David Frost, more like a pompous know-it all.

Charlie Gibson should know that most Governors do not meet heads of state. They are too busy trying to deal with local concerns. Few heads of state have the time or the inclination to visit with the Governors of other countries.

Only an arrogant elitist like Senator Obama has time to visit Europe to give speeches and to meet a few heads of state there and not have time to visit wounded American soldiers recovering in a hospital.

Within a year of being elected Vice-President she will meet more than enough heads of state.

A big so what Charlie.

Listening to Governor Palin’s responses to the foreign affairs questions about NATO defense of a member that was attack by Russia and the Bush Doctrine, I became concerned that the neocons had been coaching her. Apparently they have been, but Pat Buchanan is right, she is really a traditionalist conservative and I doubt that the neocons will find her as easy as President Bush. She will pushback when the occasion arises.

Yes, Charlie, Senator McCain has fallen for all the rubbish about man-made global warming and Senator McCain is pandering to the greens or liberals for votes.

So for that matter has Senators Barack Obama, Joe Bidden and Hillary Clinton.

Conservatives and libertarians understand that climate is always changing and oppose any and all efforts to use this fact as an excuse for more taxes, i.e. cap and trade.

The American people are not buying man-made global warming nonsense, now called climate change, peddled by the green socialist crowd lead by Al Gore.

The American elites are full of GAS–greedy, arrogant and stupid– on the whole subject of man-made global warming.

The late George Carlin and Charlton Heston had it about right.

George Carlin – Saving the Planet

Charlton Heston on Global Climate Change

Unfortunately, Charlie Gibson, seems to be a charter member of the Save the Planet elite. 

Governor Palin has not bought the nonsense.

There are many causes of climate change, mainly the sun, and man’s contribution is trivial.

For the last eight years temperatures have been stable and failing.

Governor Palin will convince Senator McCain that he should change his positions on both ANWR and global warming and forget about the cap and trade tax. She does not believe the green nonsense about saving the planet. The planet can take care of itself.

Gibson reminds me of those elitists who believed in eugenics at one time and now support Planned Parenthood–Senators Obama, Biden and Clinton. 

Pro choice is essentially the position that woman should have the right to kill their babies.

Well excuse me–babies have rights too.

No Charlie neither woman nor doctors should have the right to kill their babies.

Killing babies in America


“A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell. “

   ~C. S. Lweis


Background Articles and Videos

The Neocons’ Palin Project

by Patrick J. Buchanan

“…In fairness to Palin, on issues like NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, her answers reflect the views of the man who chose her. She has no option at present but to follow the line laid down by Scheunemann.

But make no mistake. Sarah Palin is no neocon. She did not come by her beliefs by studying Leo Strauss. She is a traditionalist whose values are those of family, faith, community and country, not some utopian ideology.

Wasilla, Alaska, is not a natural habitat of neoconservatives.

And her unrehearsed answers to Gibson’s questions reveal her natural conservatism. Asked if she agrees with the Bush Doctrine, Palin asked for clarification. “In what respect, Charlie?”

Gibson: “Do we have the right of an anticipatory self-defense?”

Yes, said Palin, “if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against (the) American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.”

Exactly. The intelligence must be legit and the threat “imminent.” …”


Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe

Charles Krauthammer

“…The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”


I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This “with us or against us” policy regarding terror — first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan — became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.  …”


Still More Confusion about the Bush Doctrine (Or, Krauthammer is Wrong)

Alexander F. Di Pippo


In Bush’s own words, in the speech he delivered on September 20, 2001:




We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.  Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.  From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.



This is the core of the Bush doctrine.   States or nations that sponsor terrorism would not be treated any differently from stateless terrorist organizations (e.g., Al-Qaeda).









In my view, there are two main reasons for the confusion about the substance of the Bush Doctrine. First, most people are probably not aware that the Bush Doctrine amounted to a radical change in the way the United States dealt with states that  sponsored acts of terrorism. The US had always targeted the organizations that carried out the acts, not the states that supported them. Second, one tends to conflate 1. the means of enforcing the Bush doctrine with2. the doctrine itself. Reserving the right to launch pre-emptive strikes against a nation that sponsors terrorism would, for example, be one way of enforcing the Bush Doctrine. But reserving that right already presupposes the principle that the Bush doctrine articulates.

So, Gibson is wrong and someone ought to update Wikipedi” 


Charles Gibson

“…Charles “Charlie” deWolf Gibson (born March 9, 1943) is anchor of ABC World News with Charles Gibson, the network’s flagship evening newscast. He became anchor on May 29, 2006, when the program was known as ABC World News Tonight. He also anchors the 5 p.m. EST Information Network weekday newscast on ABC News Radio. Under Gibson’s leadership, ABC World News beat NBC Nightly News for the first time in several years. The two programs have now been in a dead heat, taking turns at the top among household viewers and the 25-54 age group prized by advertisers.

Gibson previously co-anchored ABC’s Good Morning America for a span of 19 years; first from February 1987 to May 1998, then again from January 1999 to June 2006. …”


EXCERPTS: Charlie Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin (September 11, 2008)


Newt Gingrich asked about Palin’s Experience. Checkmate.

Sarah Palin ABC Interview With Charlie Gibson | God Edit Controversy


JFK Inaugural Address 1 of 2


JFK Inaugural Address 2 of 2


FDR’s D-Day Prayer


Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 1 of 4)



Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 2 of 4)



Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 3 of 4)



Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)


Charlie Rose – Economist Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman


SNL- Tina Fey as Sarah Palin

object width=”425″ height=”344″>

SNL- Tina Fey as Sarah Palin


Er, which candidate is the dangerous one?


“…And away they go. From the Toronto Globe and Mail:

Shooting from the hip on foreign policy, Palin raises spectre of war with Russia

Indeed, 3AW’s Neil Mitchell this morning scoffed that a President Palin would have already started “four wars”, to judge by the interview.

Really? Let’s check.

The first war a President Palin would allegedly start was with Pakistan, by invading it in the hunt for terrorists, and perhaps from the transcript you might agree the words are indeed naive and alarming:

We should start with the premise that the United States, like all sovereign nations, has the unilateral right to defend itself against attack. As such, our campaign to take out Al Qaeda base camps and the Taliban regime that harbored them was entirely justified… (I)f we’ve got (Osama bin Laden) in our sites, we should ask for Pakistan’s cooperation, we should ask Pakistan to take him out. But if they don’t, we shouldn’t need permission to go after folks that killed 3,000 Americans.

Oops, sorry. That was actually Barack Obama. This is Palin:

ABC News Anchor Gibson also asked Palin several times whether or not U.S. forces have the right to make cross-border attacks into Pakistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government…

“In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists, who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink…”

The other war a President Palin would start, according to Mitchell, was with Russia over Georgia (should Georgia be a NATO member, which it isn’t). Again, the transcript might sound alarming: …”



Lost on the Rude-Tube

Charlie Gibson’s poor navigation.By Ruth Wedgwood“…It was the flourish of a trial attorney who chooses to substitute body language for substance, in persuading the jury that the witness is unworthy.It was, to be plain, a distraction from what could have been an interesting conversation.Most women, even now, are quite familiar with being talked over and not so subtly demeaned when they venture an opinion. It happens at dinner parties, in Washington and New York, where Gibson reigns as a network anchor, and even in educational classrooms.It can happen to students who venture to Ivy League colleges without the benefit of a private preparatory school. They may never have heard about a “Nash equilibrium” or “Pareto optimality.” It doesn’t mean they are stupid or without cunning.There was no evident need to demand of Palin three times in a row how she could consider herself to have the necessary qualifications for the vice presidency. The host’s closing line was a debater’s sally — “doesn’t that take some hubris?” Gibson asked, demanding again how a local mayor and Northern Exposure governor could properly consider national office. …”


Reaction to the Charlie Gibson/Sarah Palin Interview

“…I thought she performed very well, much better than Gibson. What a condescending ass! And the Bush Doctrine question? The Bush Doctrine is an inside the beltway, media coined term. 95% of America couldn’t tell you what the Bush Doctrine is.

She was excellent turning his national security experience into a highlight of what she has accomplished regarding energy. As if Barack Obama has any experience in foreign policy. And he’s their Number One.

She showed more knowledge on Russia than Barack Obama did. No stuttering, no stammering, no uhhhs. And she’s been working on this for a week. …”


Reaction: Governor Palin’s interview

Rove: Obama can’t win against Palin

Rick Moran

“… Karl Rove thinks that Obama is making a huge tactical error in paying attention to Sarah Palin at all:

It’s a matchup he’ll lose. If Mr. Obama wants to win, he needs to remember he’s running against John McCain for president, not Mrs. Palin for vice president.

Michael Dukakis spent the last months of the 1988 campaign calling his opponent’s running mate, Dan Quayle, a risky choice and even ran a TV ad blasting Mr. Quayle. The Bush/Quayle ticket carried 40 states.

Adlai Stevenson spent the fall of 1952 bashing Dwight Eisenhower’s running mate, Richard Nixon, calling him “the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, and then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation.” The Republican ticket carried 39 of 48 states.

If Mr. Obama keeps attacking Mrs. Palin, he could suffer the fate of his Democratic predecessors. These assaults highlight his own tissue-thin résumé, waste precious time better spent reassuring voters he is up for the job, and diminish him — not her.

Rove isn’t the only analyst talking about this blunder. Many Democratic strategists are saying exactly the same thing and are worried that the Obama campaign has lost focus and is sliding into oblivion.I don’t think Obama is in that much trouble. Watch as the media tries to destroy Palin following her first interview with ABC News on friday night. Any little stumble she makes – and even if she doesn’t make a gaffe, one will be invented – will receive headlines as big as the pregnancy of her daughter. The media is desperate to bring Obama back up and will no doubt oblige him with manufacturing a controversy over something Palin says. …”


ABC News blows it

By Michelle Malkin

“Charlie Gibson had a chance to show that he could be fair, balanced, and P.D.S.-free with Sarah Palin’s first major MSM interview.

Looks like he blew it.

Taking quotes out of context.

Getting basic facts wrong.

Engaging in distortionary hype.

And the reason we should watch the rest of this hatchet job is…what exactly? …”



Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[2] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier, stronger and/or more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.

Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral. Historically, a minority of eugenics advocates have used it as a justification for state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. Eugenics was also used to rationalize certain aspects of the Holocaust. The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[3] drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including H. G. Wells, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, William Keith Kellogg and Margaret Sanger.[4][5][6] G. K. Chesterton was an early critic of the philosophy of eugenics, expressing this opinion in his book, Eugenics and Other Evils. Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities. Funding was provided by prestigious sources such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and the Harriman family.[7] Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenics’ scientific reputation started to tumble in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin began incorporating eugenic rhetoric into the racial policies of Nazi Germany. …”


The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics

By  Edwin Black

“Mr. Black is the author of IBM and the Holocaust and the just released War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, from which the following article is drawn.

Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a co-called “Master Race.”

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn’t originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement’s campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed “unfit,” preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in “colonies,” and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the Twentieth Century’s first decades, California’s eugenicists included potent but little known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate and Polytechnic benefactor Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles M. Goethe, as well as members of the California State Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.

Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics’ racist aims. …”


Top 7 Myths, Lies and Untruths About Sarah Palin 


Frost over the World – Benazir Bhutto – 02 Nov 07


Margaret Thatcher talking about sinking the Belgrano


Yvonne De Carlo on David Frost show – “I’m Still Here”


Barbra Streisand- 1971- David Frost In Hollywood- unaired


Related Posts On Pronk Palisades


Neoconservatives–Not New and Not Conservative–American Empire Interventionists

New Poll: McCain/Palin Will Win 50 States!–Obama/Biden Will Win 57 States?

Sweet Sarah Palin Knocks Out Bitter Barack Obama

Knight of Faith Sarah Palin vs. Knight of Infinity Barack Obama

A Place for Your Stuff–When You Are Dead–You Just Disappear–You are Going Away–Your Safe At Home!: George Carlin RIP

The Earth Will Not Miss Us, But We Will Miss Charlton Heston

Al Gore 2.0 and The Coming Renewable Energy Ice Age–The Big Chill

National Center for Policy Analysis–A Global Warming Primer

Global Warming is The Greatest Hoax, Scam and Disinformation Campaign in History

Global Warming Videos

Global Warming Books

Global Warming Sites

Al Gore: Agent of Influence or Useful Idiot of Disinformation

Al Gore: Agent of Influence and Planetary Propeller Head!

Al Gore’s Little White Lie: Man-Made Global Warming Causing Polar Bears To Drown 

Al Gore’s Big Whopper–Sea Levels Rise By 2100: Gore 20 Feet vs IPCC 2 Feet? 

Clinton’s Cap and Trade Tax on The American People for Consuming Electricity and Driving Cars, SUVs and Trucks!

Facing Fundamental Facts

Presidential Election 2008: American Elites Vs. American People

Let Them Eat Cake Act: American Elites Killing and Starving The American People

The Heidelberg Appeal: Beware of False Gods and Prophets 

Going Deep–Cool–Deep Ocean Water (DOW)–Ocean Power!

Saving The World: The Importance of Getting The Priorities Right

McCain: Cut–Drill–Victory vs. Obama: Increase–Talk–End 

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

14 Responses to “The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American Elites”

RSS Feed for Pronk Palisades Comments RSS Feed

[…] The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American… […]

[…] The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American… […]

[…] The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American… […]

[…] The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American… […]

[…] The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American… […]

[…] The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American… […]

[…] The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American… […]

[…] The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American… […]

[…] The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American… […]

[…] The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American… […]

[…] The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American… […]

[…] The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American… […]

[…] The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American… […]

[…] The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American… […]

Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: