In portions of Charles Gibson's third interview with Sarah Palin aired on Friday's 20/20 and Nightline, but not earlier on World News, Gibson demanded to know why she and John McCain “keep saying” Barack Obama will raise taxes when he says he won't, followed up her wish that Roe v Wade be overturned by -- in a question left out of the ABCNews.com transcript -- contending “it's a critical issue for so many women. You believe women should not have that choice?” and after Palin expressed support for gun rights, he asserted “we spend billions of dollars a year every year treating people who are victims of gun violence” and pleaded, as if more gun control is the only solution: “Nothing we can do about that?”
As the two sat in Palin's Wasilla home, Gibson scolded her and McCain:
Why do you both keep saying that Obama is going to raise people's taxes? It's been pretty clear what he intends. He's talked about middle-class tax cuts, extending Bush tax cuts on everything but people who own or earn more than $250,000 a year -- cuts taxes on over 91 percent of the country. Why do you keep saying he's going to raise people's taxes?
Palin retorted: “Well, I would argue with the whole premise of that, that his mission is to not increase taxes. He's had 94 opportunities to either vote for a tax cut or not support tax increases. And 94 times, he's been on the other side of what I believe the majority of Americans want.”
As excerpted on Friday's World News, Gibson asked: “Roe v. Wade, do you think it should be reversed?” Palin affirmed: “I think it should and I think that states should be able to decide that issue.” But in a follow up question carried on 20/20 and Nightline, Gibson portrayed Palin as anti-women: “It's a critical issue for so many women. You believe women should not have that choice?”
At another point in the interview as shown on World News, Gibson made the dubious claim that “70 percent of this country supports a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons. Do you?” Palin replied: “I do not...” 20/20 then played Gibson's thesis: “Isn't gun violence in America a health issue? We spend billions of dollars a year every year treating people who are victims of gun violence. Nothing we can do about that?”
Palin delivered a perfect conservative response:
Do I think that all of that gun violence, though, is caused by people pulling a trigger who would have followed any law anyway? No. You start banning guns and you start taking away guns from people who will use them responsibly and use them ethically. You put more and more laws on guns and you start taking away a Second Amendment right, it's going to be, Charlie, the bad guys who have the guns, not those who are law-abiding citizens.
For my previous rundowns of all three Gibson sit-downs with Palin (part 1 on Thursday's World News, part 2 on Thursday's Nightline, with some of portions 1 and 2 on Friday's Good Morning America), and part 3 as aired on Friday's World News, check:
Part 1: “Gibson Accuses Palin of 'Hubris' and Seeing Iraq as 'a Holy War'”Part 2: “Gibson Pushes Palin to Concede Global Warming 'Man-Made'”
Part 3: “Gibson: Economy 'Sick,' Makes Palin Affirm Conservative Social Views”
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Looks like the left finally
September 13, 2008 - 01:22 ET by BlazerLooks like the left finally said enough was enough and decided to send out their attack beetle, Cholie.
I pray now that their losing they dont' choose to implement the nuclear option and send bluebirds on a kamikaze mission to bombard us all with a rainbow of fruit flavors.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Answer.
September 13, 2008 - 02:31 ET by SchnikeysNice answer from Palin on this one. I'd have rated it "Excellent."
------------------------------------------------------------
"My morality is your morality."
Palin is unfit to be President.............
September 13, 2008 - 01:48 ET by riff_raffBased on her record as Governor of Alaska, democrats likely consider Sarah Palin to be unqualified to serve as President-in-waiting. Consider this: the last 9 US Presidents have all served their entire terms (sadly including Mr. Reagan) without ever once producing a legitimately balanced budget (ie. an annual budget whose revenues cover all existing federal financial obligations, including interest and principal on debt, plus all future spending obligations legislated in that fiscal year).
On the other hand, as Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin produced massive state budget surpluses every fiscal year she was in office. This type of prudent fiscal management is wholly foreign and bizarre to liberal democrats. The liberal democrat fiscal policy demands that you should always spend substantially more than the tax revenue you take in each year. If you don't, you won't have any reason to raise taxes next year.
Your Subject Line Had Me Going...
September 13, 2008 - 01:54 ET by cest moiWhew - but thanks for a great post! Now I can go to bed. G'nite all!
Just a couple months ago. . .
September 13, 2008 - 06:36 ET by WingletDriverweren't we being reminded of how inexperienced Abe Lincoln was when he was elected President?
»→ Somebody get a shovel.
September 13, 2008 - 06:39 ET by Cool ArrowNever mind, Abe's doin' his lessons on the back of it.
More complicated than how you are presenting it
September 13, 2008 - 11:20 ET by NewHavenLet's not forget that oil revenues pay for more than 80 percent of Alaska's budget. Palin
came into office inheriting a budget surplus, and as oil prices soared
in 2007 and 2008, state revenues spiked, creating huge surpluses.
"Let's not forget that oil
September 13, 2008 - 11:45 ET by ckc1227"Let's not forget that oil revenues pay for more than 80 percent of Alaska's budget. Palin came into office inheriting a budget surplus, and as oil prices soared in 2007 and 2008, state revenues spiked, creating huge surpluses."
And? The source of the revenue could come from snow cone sales, what matters is she isn't spending more than the state takes in, unlike many other states and the federal government that, by the way, has also received spiking revenues because of oil.
"He's talked about
September 13, 2008 - 01:56 ET by ckc1227"He's talked about middle-class tax cuts, extending Bush tax cuts on
everything but people who own or earn more than $250,000 a year -- cuts
taxes on over 91 percent of the country."
How can he extend the Bush tax cuts on those earning less than $250,000? I thought only the rich received tax cuts under Bush's plan? And how is he going to give 91% of the country a tax cut when many, if not most of that 91% don't even pay taxes?
It's not just that they don't pay any income tax......
September 13, 2008 - 02:43 ET by riff_raffNot only are the bottom 40% of federal wage earners not paying any federal income taxes, they're also receiving thousands of dollars in tax-free federal payments under the "earned income" scam. It's a program created to give what is essentially a tax cut to people that don't pay any income tax. Just like Bush's "stimulus checks".
I live in the L.A. area and we have a huge population of illegal immigrants here. I know a guy (who shall remain nameless) who does income tax returns as a side business. He has lots of people that come to him to have their taxes done because he speaks spanish and they feel comfortable with him because of that.
One day he was explaining to me the myth that illegal aliens avoid filing tax returns is completely untrue. He gave me an example of a married couple with three kids, that were working here illegally on fake SSN's with cash-paying jobs. They worked hard and each made about $40,000 in income, but since wages were paid in cash they each only claimed less than half that amount on their tax returns. Thus they had zero income tax liability, plus they were eligible for the earned income tax credit for the kids. They each filed as single parent, both claiming the $4700 EITC for the kids.
So for the year, their combined gross income was almost $90,000 with zero income tax liability. With their "low" income they were also eligible for food stamps, housing assistance and MediCal, which I'm sure they took full advantage of. And tack on to that the $33,000 annual cost to California taxpayers for their three kids' public school education.
Every time I see illegal aliens marching in protest here in L.A. because they feel that their "human rights" are being trampled on,I think back to the story my acquaintance told me of how they game the system. And my face gets red.....
Tax Redistribution.
September 13, 2008 - 07:10 ET by Par for the CourseExcerpts from an article at the Tax Foundation:
I believe the above $131 billion dollar figure doesn't take into account Obama's proposed payroll tax increase on people making more than $250,000.
How vice presidents handle guns......
September 13, 2008 - 02:02 ET by riff_raffHow ex-VP Gore handles a rifle:
http://www.theodores...
How (soon to be) VP Palin handles a rifle:
http://patriotroom.c...
So who's more qualified to be Commander-in-Chief?
looks like I got busted on the V.P. gun issue
September 13, 2008 - 02:30 ET by caiobabeRight in the middle of writing a post on just how well I thought Gov. Palin handled the gun talk my wife (yes, a republican) walks over and says, "Didn't Cheney shoot his friend with a gun?"
I was completely dumbfounded. So, I deleted my post and thought I'd send a response to your subject post. Right as she was, I had to explain that as a hunting accident. Anything else to tell her would help.
Mind you I own several semi-auto handguns, I go to the range every two weeks and I think Cheney is the single best V.P. this country has ever seen.
But I still think I got busted.
"Right in the middle of
September 13, 2008 - 11:33 ET by ckc1227"Right in the middle of writing a post on just how well I thought Gov.
Palin handled the gun talk my wife (yes, a republican) walks over and
says, "Didn't Cheney shoot his friend with a gun?"
Yes, Cheney shot his friend in a hunting accident. And?
Ask your wife if she thinks we should get rid of cars, because, as far as I know, Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than Cheney has with his gun.
He was....
September 14, 2008 - 06:22 ET by old croa lawyer anyway.
People are always talking about brands...
September 13, 2008 - 02:27 ET by jawebster1and thanks to these three interviews with Sarah Palin, Charles Gibson has branded himself as a biased and very much partisan member of the left wing media. I have read the comments on his page over at ABC and they are devastating! Move over Keith Olbermann.
The difference between...
September 13, 2008 - 02:26 ET by HeavyChevyCharlie Brown during Halloween and Charlie Gibson from GMA;
Charlie Brown got rocks in his candy bag and Charlie Gibson got rocks in his head....at least Charlie Brown can get rid of his rocks.
"9 out of 10 doctors agree that flag burning is the number one killer of liberals."
Charlie Gibson is like a limp noodle! Ha!
September 13, 2008 - 02:42 ET by Travis NoodleCharlie Gibson's performance was like a limp noodle. His yellow-bellied media bias was like a scarlett letter on his lapel.
He peppered his interview with "gotcha" questions and a condescending, mysoginist attitude towards the Governor. Be careful...The Dems are coming off as total mysoginists in their disgust for Governor Palin.Vengeance comes on voting day, November 2.
charlie
September 13, 2008 - 02:45 ET by owlpelletsSucks to be you....A young gal with class, spunk, morals, common sense, and focus has officially turned you and your ilk on its' ear. She has exposed you to the world (with the help of NEWSBUSTERS) to what scum you really are. I would say s**k it but I don't have the brains or body to have an opinion on ABC.
I always wanted to get into politics, but I was never light enough to make the team.
»→ Gibson challenges Olbermann
September 13, 2008 - 02:58 ET by Cool ArrowIn other news, Charles Gibson telegraphed his intention to unseat former anchor of a small network, Keith Olbermann.
A spokesman for Olbermann statement reads: Gibson isn't fit to scrub Keith Olbermann's back with the softest of loofah.
Another leftist quack
September 13, 2008 - 03:20 ET by marvlCharlie Boy has shown himself to be yet another leftist quack. Rather than do his job as an impartial journalist he instead does his job as a leftist Obama supporter. And he attempts to add salt to it all by acting like a condescending prick in the process. I tried to watch this but gave up after 10 minutes. I refuse to give ABC my ratings nickel.
Personally, I think there is only one news journalist in America that would give her a fair shake in an interview, and that's Brit Hume. Why did they not offer the first round to him?
Taxes
September 13, 2008 - 05:59 ET by ferv888Hey Charlie,
You hit it without knowing it, yes he is going to raise taxes on the people who pay them. The 95% of the rest of us, will get something from someone who earned it, and the govt. is going to decide the whinners and losers and give it to us who did not earn it.
FERV888
Charlie, what did Obama say when you asked him that?
September 13, 2008 - 06:04 ET by smartestmaninamericaI was watching this interview. When Gibson arrogantly asked her about the Bush Doctrine or about Georgia and Russia, I wish she had said, "Good question Charlie. Before I answer though, can you tell me what Barack Obama said when you asked him that?"
What could Gibson do but say he had never asked him?
Then Sarah could have said, "Now wait a minute. Barack Obama has been running for President for 2 years and you have never asked him that??? Why not?"
Would have been a great MSM bias red meat moment.
dip-dung
September 13, 2008 - 06:15 ET by kilrodYep, charlie dip-dung, abc, and 20-20 had their hatchets out with every intention of doing a hatchet job on Palin and the Reps. The segment 20-20 did on Palin in addition to dip-dungs interview, was telling, 20-20 twisted and misrepresented the facts and spliced several things together to give it a negative slant. I wish NB would do a topic just on that part of the 20-20 segment. It's still hilarious that o-Dumb-uh-uh and the msm are having to run against the Reps. VP pick. Palin did a good job under the conditions.
kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
The perfect comback to "is homosexuality genetic"?
September 13, 2008 - 06:23 ET by smartestmaninamericaHere's what Sarah Palin should have said:
"Charlie, I'm not sure, but let me ask you this. Let's assume for a moment that it is genetic. Let's also assume that there is a pre-natal test which can be performed which would allow the parents to know in advance that their child was going to be a homosexual. Should the parents be allowed to abort the baby because they didn't want a homosexual child?"
»→ smartguy
September 13, 2008 - 06:32 ET by Cool ArrowGood question, especially if the question is asked of a loving homosexual couple who have just conceived . . .
Whoops, never mind. But doesn't it seem the homosexual gene would eventually disappear from the gene pool?
Democrat escape clause
September 13, 2008 - 07:17 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsShould the parents be allowed to abort the baby because they didn't want a homosexual child?
Wait a minute, you mean the parents would have a choice?
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.