Some impressions from the Sarah Palin interview with Charlie Gibson:
Palin was nervous, expecting Gibson to set her up for a “gotcha,” which was, of course, precisely what he tried to do. The questions on foreign policy were reasonable questions, asked in an unreasonable manner. Gibson’s framing of so many questions as a challenge to the nominee’s qualifications (as opposed to merely a quest to discover the candidate’s positions), coupled with the interviewer’s condescending tone, made it clear to the viewer that Gibson considers Governor Palin to be out of her league. So much for "unbiased."
For Media star, Charlie Gibson, to hold up his own head in the presence of his colleagues, he had to emerge from the interview with Sarah Palin’s severed head in hand. He did not. But, notwithstanding their frustration with Gibson’s failure to “kill the beast, spill its blood,” the Leftmedia machinery swung into action to concoct a “gotcha” moment from the “Bush Doctrine” Q&A. Aha! You see, this igloo-park-trash bimbo doesn’t even know what The Bush Doctrine is, never mind that the term could refer to any of four distinct Bush policy positions. This was the best they could come up with from the battle – er, I mean the interview? Palin passes the trial by fire.
As for Gibson’s assinine question about Palin’s remarks at her old church, i.e. “let’s pray that [our Armed Forces] are doing God’s will…” (a fairly unobjectionable prayer request to most Americans, I would think). The non-comprehending Gibson, assuming the default Leftist suspicion of religion, questioned the propriety of her remark as if he envisioned a glossalalia-spewing, snake-handling, future President Palin, supine on the Oval Office carpet, frothing in trembling ecstasy, with glassy eyes staring skyward, as she intones, “O Lord of Hosts, speak to me, shall I go up into battle against the North Koreans or shall I forbear?”
Palin provided her version of the reassuring answer that Christian candidates have felt obliged to offer a putatively post-Christian electorate for the last few decades, in her case alluding to Lincoln’s expressed concern that we be “on God’s side.” I had rather that she answered something like, “Charlie, I don’t know that God has revealed his will on any specific tactic in this conflict, but I do believe – and I think most Americans believe this too – that God is on the side of good against evil. I also believe that Islamo-Facist terrorism is pure evil, and the principle evil facing the world, and threatening freedom in this generation. I don’t know about you, Charlie, but I further believe that the United States is, and has been, the greatest worldly force for good in the history of mankind, and that although America hasn’t always perfectly lived up to our ideals, America has always strived to, always strived to do what is right, and strived to fight against evil – to be on God’s side against evil, and in this fight against Islamo-Facist terrorism I believe that America is the good guy, don’t you?”
Such an answer would have not only placed Palin’s earlier words in proper perspective, it would have seized back the initiative from her oh-so-smug inquisitor, begging the question, “do you think God is ambivilent about good and evil, Charlie, or are you just unable to distinguish who the good guys are between America and Al Qaeda?” Moreover, such an answer would position Sarah Palin in harmony with historic American civil religion (and with Biblical religion, for that matter), in the tradition of Benjamin Franklin (i.e. “the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see that God rules in the affairs of men…”), and highlight the philosophical disonance of Gibson and the Secularist Left, who scoff at the notion of America as the instrument of good, much less of God.
Oh well, that’s all Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Sarah was the one in the game, and she held her own against a hostile, high-profile interviewer, and at the least was more cogent in her answers than either Barack Obama or Joe Biden on their best day.