Article

2008-09-13 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2008-09-13 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top

#1 "I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, ..." I thought it was Clinton and Congress that first 'rejected' the Kyoto protocol. I do not think Pres. Bush would have acceded to Kyoto, mind you, but he was not first. As I remember it anyway.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2008-09-13 01:16|| 2008-09-13 01:16|| Front Page Top

#2 while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher,"

Gibson came off as a condescending prig.

Posted by SteveS 2008-09-13 01:29|| 2008-09-13 01:29|| Front Page Top

#3 Clinton never actually rejected it, he just never did anything with it.

Posted by Mike N. 2008-09-13 01:32|| 2008-09-13 01:32|| Front Page Top

#4 Like the UPI review said, George Stephanopolous just glided over BO's gaffe, "my muslim faith".

I say: up-Chuck.

Posted by anymouse">anymouse 2008-09-13 02:07|| 2008-09-13 02:07|| Front Page Top

#5 In 2002 Bush released a National security strategy which includes most of the positions outlined by Krauthammer. It's a bit of a stretch however, to call it the Bush Doctrine, although I could be wrong.

Posted by tipper 2008-09-13 03:57|| 2008-09-13 03:57|| Front Page Top

#6 From Wikipedia...

On 25 July 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 950 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[67][68] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or it "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On 12 November 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[69] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

Posted by BrerRabbit 2008-09-13 08:04|| 2008-09-13 08:04|| Front Page Top

#7 Charlie came off as a chauvinist pig at worst, and intolerant of Republicans at best.

As I said before, he just swung another 10 points of women voters into Palin's camp.
Good job Charlie, keep it up!

Posted by DarthVader 2008-09-13 12:30|| 2008-09-13 12:30|| Front Page Top

#8 On Gibson: some on the right think Gibson was too obnoxious or rude. He might have been (it's a matter of opinion), but the real point is: Sarah Palin has to be able to handle such interviews. It's a matter of fact that Republicans are always going to be interviewed more toughly than Democrats.

I thought Gov. Palin did well enough. She wasn't as crisp and assured on some questions as I would have wanted but she didn't provide the other side with any ammo for an ad. She looked a little tense on the foreign policy questions but most folks are going to let that slide.

I'd give her a B+ on the interview. I'd give Charlie a C+.

Posted by Steve White 2008-09-13 12:29|| 2008-09-13 12:29|| Front Page Top

#9 Folks, you have to read the full transcript especially the parts that were edited. This is a typical "60 Minutes" type hatchet job that was skillfully edited to make Charlie Gibson seem more qualified than Obama and McCain and Palin to appear unsure of herself. But in the context of the whole interview she is amazingly knowledgeable of foreign affairs and other issues that you don't sense from the TV version.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2008-09-13 12:42|| 2008-09-13 12:42|| Front Page Top

#10 For the next one Palin should insist on having her own cameras so she can put the director's cut on You Tube.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-09-13 12:52|| 2008-09-13 12:52|| Front Page Top

#11
Bingo. Follow this link to see just how badly Gibson and his editors distorted, chopped and truncated the much more sophisticated answers Palin gave on national security and foreign affairs. I am beyond pissed at this blatant attempt to sink her candidacy.

Posted by lotp 2008-09-13 12:56|| 2008-09-13 12:56|| Front Page Top

#12 InstaMan Glenn Reynolds has suggested a good way for Sarah and other candidates to fight the media distortions and "creative editing." Record interviews with their own equipment and post the unedited results. {I tried to link to the article from here but it only seems to work from his site. Sorry.)

Posted by PBMcL 2008-09-13 13:11|| 2008-09-13 13:11|| Front Page Top

#13 It seems like the idea is a no brainer. I would not be surprised if the McCainiacs were counting on Gibson doing a hatchet job to build his street cred with the MSM so that they could make the demand in all subsequent interviews. Gibson will always be a morning show host to me and some how I doubt Dave Garroway or Jack Lascoule would ever have the audacity or hope to think they could replace Huntley or Brinkley. Even if they brought J. Fred Muggs.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-09-13 13:23|| 2008-09-13 13:23|| Front Page Top

#14 It's time to loudly press for ABC to release the raw video footage - all of it. When they refuse, as they will, then announce that in the interest of fairness and in the spirit of the Intertubes (video wants to be free) all interview footage with the republican candidates will be posted online 3 hours after it airs on TV. And challenge Obama to do the same.

Posted by lotp 2008-09-13 14:55|| 2008-09-13 14:55|| Front Page Top

#15 Sarah did just fine. The proof is how little media focus is being done on the interview series. NBC is doing wall to wall hurricane coverage because they recognize they are hurting this cause.

Posted by regular joe 2008-09-13 15:40|| 2008-09-13 15:40|| Front Page Top

#16 I'm shocked, BrerRabbit, that Wiki actually got it right!

"the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 950 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[67][68] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or it "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States"...The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification."

Posted by Minister of funny walks 2008-09-13 19:06|| 2008-09-13 19:06|| Front Page Top

#17 Well, you better make sure that they don't walk off with the recordings!

One guy was suspicious, and recorded the entire interview he had with Dan Rather. Dan pinched the tapes and boasted of them while holding them up on prime time.

THAT is when I first suspected that the MSM wanted to be the sole purveyor of truth.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2008-09-13 21:37|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2008-09-13 21:37|| Front Page Top

23:58 Barbara Skolaut
23:56 Barbara Skolaut
23:42 GK
23:22 Angaise Gonque8425
23:13 Old Patriot
23:05 anonymous2u
23:03 anonymous2u
23:01 anonymous2u
23:00 anymouse
23:00 anonymous2u
22:57 anonymous2u
22:55 anonymous2u
22:03 Angie Schultz
22:02 AzCat
22:00 AzCat
21:37 Ptah
21:34 Old Patriot
21:32 lotp
21:31 lotp
21:30 Hellfish
21:30 Old Patriot
21:28 Hellfish
21:28 Redneck Jim
21:25 Hellfish