Dr. Red Eye

The second part of Charles Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin still tinged with an anti-Palin sentiment. Let’s dive in…

1. Her credentials.

The situation: Gibson started off by once again trying to get Palin to acknowledge her inadequacy, using different synonyms like “Holy cow!”, “frightening” and “overwhelming”. Palin refused to acknowledge any of those feelings although admitted “humbled” by the opportunity.

My take: Palin sounded confident without sounding arrogant…and without getting frustrated by Gibson’s repeated attempts to get a soundbite from her. Excellent job.

Topical grade: 4 RedEyes out of 4.

2. Hillary Clinton.

The situation: Gibson asked Palin if she thought Obama should have picked Hillary. Palin smiled and opined that Obama is “regretting not picking her now.”

My take: Palin sounded proud of herself being the only woman on either ticket, then followed with some praise for Hillary Clinton. This echoes my sentiment, sans the praise for Hillary. Clearly, if Obama picked Hillary, the Democratic ticket would boast of making double history if they won the election. As it is, Obama went with status quo (white Washington-savvy male), opening the door for McCain to boast of making history in their own right if the Republicans win the election.

Topical grade: 4 RedEyes out of 4.

3. Change from Bush economics.

The situation: Gibson posited that if the McCain-Palin ticket is positioning itself as the party of change, what 3 things would change from Bush economic policies. Palin said she cut taxes in Alaska. Gibson countered that she raised the sales tax. Palin replied that it was the people who wanted a sports arena and there needed to be a way to fund it. Gibson then reiterated his request for Republican change from Bush economic policies, saying that her prior answer wasn’t a departure from Bush economic policies. Palin replied that agency reform was necessary. Gibson wanted a list of three items to change from Bush economics. Palin said (1) reduce taxes, (2) control spending, and (3) reform oversight of agencies.

My take: Bush has certainly spent more than Republican presidents are expected to, so controlling spending is certainly a worthy goal. Her answers were acceptable, but just that. Palin gave no specific details but since the interview was wide-ranging, the answers matched the scope of the questions. Nothing earth-shattering here.

Topic grade: 2.5 RedEyes out of 4.

4. Wasilla fiscal management.

The situation: Gibson thought he had a ‘gotcha’ when he said Wasilla was debt-free when Palin came and was in “considerable” millions of dollars in debt when she left. Palin answered that the people had the opportunity to vote on the ballot for the bonds for the sports arena, then listed the various taxes she cut.

My take: Her response to Gibson’s attacks on her fiscal management of Wasilla was essentially a ‘gotcha back’. Well done.

Topical grade: 4 RedEyes out of 4.

5. Controlling spending.

The situation: Gibson asked Palin how spending would be controlled. She responded that every department would be analyzed. Gibson asked specifically about entitlements and Social Security. Palin repeated that every department would be analyzed. Gibson repeats the need for specifics. Palin repeated that every agency would be looked into. Gibson tries another ‘gotcha’ by saying agencies are not involved in entitlements. Palin insists that agencies can certainly be excessive.

My take: Palin didn’t get specific, probably because she’s not entirely sure. That’s understandable as she tries to get up to speed on McCain’s plan. Government bureaucracy and waste is legendary but my guess is that McCain has more than agency scrutiny in his plan for spending control.

Topical grade: 1.5 RedEyes out of 4.

6. Difference from Bush’s maverick-themed campaign.

The situation: Gibson said George W. Bush campaigned as a maverick and on a message of Washington reform but claimed nothing changed in Washington eight years later, then questioned how McCain-Palin would be any different. Palin declared it was obvious that she is an outsider, not tied to any Washington lobbyists based on her situation in Alaska.

My take: Indeed, Palin is far less beholden to Washington lobbyists and entrenched politicians than Obama, who has built up ties with fellow politicians during his three years in the U.S. Senate.

Topical grade: 3.5 RedEyes out of 4.

7. The claim that Obama will raise taxes.

The situation: Gibson defends Obama’s tax plan to cut taxes on 91% of the nation and asks why she and McCain “keep saying” Obama will raise people’s taxes. Palin responds that she doesn’t believe Obama’s plan is the real plan because Obama had 94 chances to either vote for tax cuts or not support tax increases and he whiffed on all 94 of those chances.

My take: Zing! I was wondering the same question, although not with the obvious liberal disdain that Gibson showed (”It’s been pretty clear what he intends”). Palin addressed my/Gibson’s question perfectly.

Topical grade: 4 RedEyes out of 4.

8. Earmark abuse/Bridge to Nowhere

The situation: Gibson said one of McCain’s big campaign platforms is eliminating earmarks and asked Palin if she was “with McCain on that.” Palin said she certainly was and voluntarily brought up the Bridge to Nowhere. Gibson then confronts Palin on her stance that she didn’t want congressional money for the bridge, saying it was “pretty clearly documented” that she was for it initially but went against it only after Congress pulled back funding for it. Gibson offers Palin an opportunity to admit she was wrong.  Palin states that it’s common for governors to seek a portion of federal funding for infrastructure, and that she requested congressional funding for infrastructure, not specifically for the Bridge. Furthermore, Palin said that although Congress “pulled the plug” on the Bridge, transportation dollars still came in and she could’ve chosen to use it to build the Bridge but decided not to use those dollars for the Bridge. Going off on a bunny trail, Gibson then questioned her image of being a reformer when Alaska kept those dollars. Palin replied that using the money wisely is indeed consistent with the image of being a reformer. Gibson then stated that her state got 10x the amount of earmarks as the people in Obama’s home state of Illinois and again questioned her reformer image. Palin responded that the earmark request was “drastically, drastically” lower. Gibson then mocks the usage of $3.2 million for certain research projects and asks if Palin is being a hypocrite. Palin replies that her state’s requests are transparent, unlike others who do it “behind closed doors.”

My take: While some (including McCain) argue that the Bridge to Nowhere would have been wasteful spending, I’m not convinced that is so. In any event, her answer to this issue was adequate enough. However, she could’ve given better answers about the concerns about the $3.2 million for supposedly dubious research projects.

Topical grade: 2.5 RedEyes out of 4.

9. Abortion.

The situation: Gibson asked Palin if she thought Roe v. Wade should be reversed. Palin responded yes. Gibson asks if Palin did not think women should not have that choice (to have an abortion). Palin responds that she is pro-life but “respects other people’s opinions on this also.” She then offers a liberal-sounding plan for fewer abortions and more adoptions. Gibson also asks about the discrepancy between McCain and Palin in allowing exceptions for abortions. Palin stands by her stance of “only if the mother’s life is in danger” and carefully notes that it is her personal opinion.

My take: While I’m glad she supported a reversal of the murderous Roe v. Wade, I’m quite disturbed that she wasn’t more forceful on this issue. The better answer to whether women should not have the choice to have an abortion is “Absolutely not. Charlie, do you think people should be given a choice of whether or not to kill innocent babies?”

Topical grade: 2.5 RedEyes out of 4.

10. Embryonic stem cell research.

The situation: Gibson states that McCain is in favor of embryonic stem cell research. Palin asserts that she favors adult stem cell research. Gibson insists that embryonic stem cell research is more promising and asks whether Palin supports or opposes it. Palin insists that she personally opposes it but recognizes the administration may be different. Gibson states he doesn’t understand but later apologizes when Palin reiterates her stance.

My take: Again, not strong enough. She should have taken Gibson to task about his ignorant but common-believed remark regarding embryonic stem cell research being more promising. Adult stem cells have actually helped or cured numerous diseases while embryonic stem cells have not cured a single disease or helped improve anyone’s health. Not one.

Topical grade: 2.5 RedEyes out of 4.

11. Origins of homosexuality.

The situation: Gibson asked Palin if she thought homosexuality was genetic or learned. Palin said she didn’t know and wouldn’t judge.

My take: Weak again. She should have said, “At this point, no research has found any genetic link to homosexuality. In fact, some studies have shown that it is not genetic, based on studies of identical twins. Nevertheless, even if someday a so-called ‘gay gene’ is found, it doesn’t legitimize homosexuality. Some people are predispositioned genetically to drink or to commit violence but we as a society don’t excuse their behavior.”

Topical grade: 1.5 RedEyes out of 4.

12. Ban on semi-automatic assault weapons.

The situation: Gibson asked Palin if she was with the 70% of Americans who support such a ban. Palin stated she was not due to her belief in the 2nd Amendment. She added that such was the culture of Alaska. Gibson interjected that this is a health issue, citing “billions of dollars” spent treating victims of gun violence, and asked if there was nothing Palin thought could be done. Palin responds that the people who commit such acts of gun violence wouldn’t follow any banning laws anyway, reasoning that such bans would instead affect law-abiding gun owners.

My take: Excellent response…couldn’t have answered it better myself. The vast majority of criminals get these guns illegally anyway so they would laugh at such bans.

Topical grade: 4 RedEyes out of 4.

13. Sexist questions regarding Palin’s ability to manage a family of 7 and the vice presidency.

The situation: Gibson asked Palin if she thought it was sexist to ask such questions. Palin answered that she can certainly manage but said she didn’t know if the question was sexist.

My take: Palin seems to be leaving the question open so that such continuing questions can remain to be charged as sexist. Personally, the question certainly is sexist BUT NOT because women are equal to men. The Scriptures state that the sexes are NOT equal and that each gender has a different role. A woman’s family is her first priority and all other responsibilities are subject to that priority. In that light, Palin can certainly manage her family and the vice presidency but she won’t be able to manage her family as well as when her family is the priority instead of a co-priority. But Palin has bought into the culture’s lie that mothers should be able to do everything that fathers can do, so she answered the question according to that worldview.

Topical grade: 3 RedEyes out of 4.

14.Banning books.

The situation: Gibson asked whether she wanted books banned at the library. Palin said she never did nor did she ever have that desire. Gibson said the list was of “a couple of hundred” banned books, including Harry Potter. Palin said she got a chuckle out of the whole topic because Harry Potter wasn’t even written or published at the time.

My take: Handled well and with aplomb.

Topical grade: 4 RedEyes out of 4.

15. Troopergate.

The situation: Gibson asked if she welcomed the investigation into Troopergate. Palin answered, “Absolutely” and said nobody fired the trooper, who is in fact still a trooper today. Palin volunteered Commissioner Monegan was never pressured by her or her husband to fire the trooper and said she welcomed a subpoena to her husband Todd.

My take: Palin answered very adequately. But even if she didn’t, I think this is such an overblown issue. After all, this is a guy who is accused of threatening to kill her father and who Tasered (stun gunned) his own 10-year-old stepson (and later admitted it was “absolutely” a dumb decision)…and you’re telling me it’s “an abuse of power” if Palin wanted the nutjob off the force? Talk about grasping at straws.

Topical grade: 4 RedEyes out of 4.

That was the end of the interview. But Charlie Gibson felt Palin’s answers regarding her national security credential were inadequate so he re-broadcast them in case anyone missed it the first time. This was clearly unnecessary and was a blatant attempt to make Palin look bad. For that, I’ll throw in another topical 4 RedEyes out of 4 for blatant liberal media bias. That gives a final average of 3 RedEyes out of 4 for the third part of Gibson’s interview with Palin.

Palin wasn’t perfect but handled herself well against Gibson’s clearly liberal bias and even occasional attacks. According to ABC ads, Obama and Biden actually will be interviewing with Gibson as well and I’d be highly interested to see if Gibson is on the offensive with them as much as he was with Palin.