In September of 2008, ABC’s Charlie Gibson asked Sarah Palin to weigh in on the “Bush Doctrine,” a term for Bush’s proactive intervention against terrorism. When Palin struggled to interpret the term, a purely media/liberal construct, Gibson was aghast. Now, Gibson’s ignorance about actual news is exposed, and, somewhere, Sarah Palin is laughing.
by Michael Naragon
Anyone who followed the 2008 election in even a cursory manner must remember the interview Sarah Palin granted Charlie Gibson in September. Much like liberal comrade Katie Couric, Gibson used the opportunity to ask Palin every difficult question conceivable, a stark contrast to the kid glove treatment received by media darling Barack Obama.
In a now-famous exchange, Gibson asked Palin about the “Bush Doctrine,” as though it was a well accepted concept that had been widely circulated. Like many of us in the audience, Palin struggled to understand what Gibson meant by the term, and she received ridicule and criticism over the next several days from journalists who themselves had not been sure of what Gibson had meant. Gibson himself, professor-like, his glasses on the end of his nose like a tenured dinosaur whose life’s meaning has been reduced to baiting students into impossible questions, lectured the governor of Alaska on what, in his opinion, the so-called “Bush Doctrine” meant.
It is now a year later. The presidential candidate supported by Comrade Gibson and his ilk has won the presidency, helped in no small part by the society of community organizers known as ACORN. Perhaps Gibson believed his work was done at that point. Perhaps all journalists did. This would explain their absolute surprise and alarm that two amateurs with no real journalistic experience have managed, with limited time and funds, to crack the mighty oak that was disguised as an ACORN.
Gibson, when asked about this groundbreaking story and the resulting Senate vote that cut funding for ACORN, laughed hysterically and claimed he knew nothing of the story. Gibson’s claim of ignorance came despite the fact that a fellow ABC employee, Jake Tapper, had done a piece on the ACORN scandal and posted it on ABC’s website.
“Maybe that’s one you just leave for the cables,” Gibson said in an attempt to blow off the story. Had this been a conservative group, such as the Heritage Foundation, this story would be item one on every major newspaper and network news program. It would not be left “for the cables.” If Gibson truly did not know about the story, then his ignorance far outpaces that which he and his comrades in the media claimed about Palin. She did not know the media term for Bush’s actions in the Middle East. Gibson did not know details of an entire news story which involved an organization receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer money and holding ties to the president of the United States, who worked for the organization before seeking political office.
If Gibson was being deceitful, and simply feigning ignorance, then he has simply confirmed, yet again, his loyalty to the Marxist Left in Washington and his role as a pawn in their game of control. Sorry, Charlie.
