Charlie Gibson Gives Birth to Human Child During Palin Interview

Well, he was apparently giving birth, though no confirmation yet on the species. Has there ever been a man so clenched while giving an interview? He looked like he was afraid Palin would leap at him, skin him and start grilling Chuck Burgers.

Charlie's interview turns on the use of the phrase "Bush Doctrine." The news story from this hasn't gone away, but started with Palin seemingly not being familiar with Bush Doctrine. Suddenly he media says she didn't know that Bush Doctrine was "preemptively attacking countries that posed a threat to US security." That's how Gibson explained it and how others in the media have explained it since then.

Really? So that's Bush Doctrine? The left considers pre-emptive strike to be one of the 7 deadly sins. Thou Shalt Not. So no surprise that Gibson turned pop-quiz moderator tried to foist that opinion on Palin. The media continues to ask her about Bush Doctrine to remind viewers that she "didn't know". Isn't the real problem that the media has re-invented Bush Doctrine, and now defines it as whatever they don't like about Bush at the moment?

Some fact checking: I can think of two doctrines. We learn about Monroe Doctrine in school, but the fact is the phrase "The Monroe Doctrine" didn't come into use until 13 years after that president created the policy. In more modern times, Reagan and Bush both had doctrines. The media coins the phrase when they hate the president so much that they attach the doctrine moniker to some aggressive stance. Reagan Doctrine was, in part, about aiding anti-communist movements who were resisting the USSR. Central America and Afghanistan come to mind. It was about advancing technology to force the USSR to compete against america's super-charged economy. The left hated that. Papa Bush wasn't president long enough to get a doctrine named after him, but we can bet that if McCain wins, and is president for 8 years, hmmmmm, well he will have a doctrine named after him.

Bush Doctrine in reality is much more than Charlie Gibson's pretense. What about “unilateral action is okay when defending the US“. What happened to “if you’re not with us, you are against us”. These have been Bush Doctrine in the past. The fact is Palin could have answered the question better, but Charlie’s question was far more vague than he and the rest of he main stream media have been making out. Vague questions deserve vague answers.

In a presidential campaign, the media always casts one of the republicans as The Dummy. Never one of their candidates of course, always a republican. They need it so SNL and the Daily Show and armies of comedians can use the same jokes year after year. Reagan was cast as The Dummy and “crazy nuclear war starter“, Quail got it next, then they skipped the 96 campaign because Dole never had a chance, then Bush in 2000.

Gibson‘s interview question gives the official media “The Dummy” title to Palin, with media follow-up already working to build on that. The creation of the newest media mythology begins.

Chris Matthews Forced to Cover Topics Against His Will

See last week Chris took the middle of his show Hardball and gave a soliloquy on how terrible it was that the media was spending all it's time talking about lipstick, when they should be talking about "issues". He had just spent the first half hour teaming up with another Democrat to try to get Republican talking heads to admit that John McCain really believed that Obama called Sarah Palin a pig.

There is at least one online ad that makes the claim, and in fact the ad pretty much implies Obama called her a pig. The ad has appeared over and over on TV, being played for free by shows like Hardball. But Mathews wants to read their lips.... hear them admit that McCain really believes this. Both Republicans he dragged into the arena talked around the question, refusing to actually speak for McCain... and that really set off Matthews., he's yelling at them to confess!

So after that ordeal and then his denouncement of the coverage of lipstick, he brings on friends so they can spend the last half hour talking about lipstick, and whining... "when are we ever going to get to talk about the issues."

He is oblivious to his own irony.... it's his show! He can talk about anything he wants, but he cannot get off lipstick! He MUST talk about lipstick. It's not his decision you see, it's all the republicans' fault for making the accusation. Now he has no choice, and they have poisoned the conversation. I admit I was just watching because I was hoping to glimpse some of the msnbc Lord of the Fly's action Jon Stewart has covered. No such luck, but what I caught was equally bizaar. One entire hour about lipstick from a guy who decries the media talking about lipstick.

Oh by the way.... there is no doubt that the audience knew what Obama meant... they squealed like... well, you know.

Questioning Julie Roginsky

Julie Roginsky was on cnbc friday to discuss the Sarah Palin VP pick. CNBC called her a "Democratic Strategist". Roginsky insisted that Palin had been a small town mayor until two or three weeks ago. Even after being corrected by another guest she never seemed to acknowledge that Palin has been governor for two years. Later she even repeated her mistake, loudly and proudly. My question to the democrats is.... can I have a job?

As of now I want to be a highly paid democratic strategist. I can fiercely insist on air that 2+2 is 3 and the sky is purple, staring with big blanks in between each attempt to speak over other guests who are trying to correct me. Yes Al Gore invented the internet! 911 was an inside job! Bill Clinton took over a failing economy! Republicans eat children! Palin has only been Alaska's governor for 12 days! Hey this is easy!

Turns out Roginsky may be more disliked by democrats than republicans. Daily Kos took a poll last august where 71% of the respondents said she should be publicly shunned. I'm guessing she said something accurate a year ago, offending the rank and file.

I tried searching for "democratic strategist" on monster.com, but no luck. I guess they have all the help they need.

Debatable Wisdom

Now that we have the teams picked, the republican convention should be a total party. The only mystery will be whether any surprise speakers will be slipped into the mix next week. What always comes after the convention is the media excitement over the debates. When and where will they be held, how many, what's the format, and of course... who gets to moderate?!

So I'm getting out ahead of the narrative, the media will not be asking those questions this time. Obama will not be answering the call. No one thinks he did well against McCain in Saddlebrook, and the line has been that McCain wins a face-to-face, Obama wins the stump.

So Obama will stump. There will be, in the eyes of the media, perfectly plausible reasons given for not debating. Maybe something about "McCain not willing to come to terms", code for no format will be good enough for Obama. Even after Obama said he would debate McCain anyplace, anywhere. They will need a format that somehow gives Obama an edge. Basically, a debate format that involves no debating. It's just a prediction.

I have an alternate suggestion. Lets debate Biden v McCain, and Obama v Palin. Then we can have regular evenly matched contests. Lots more fun than listening to the media act like we don't need real debates this time.

Real Question about Biden

What is the real difference between Biden and Clinton? Obama's supporters were voting for him early this year because he was the anti-Hillary. No votes for the war and pulling out immediately. He was new and she was establishment. So she comes in a very close second to Obama, and he picks Biden who had about 12 votes.
The whole reason we heard he couldn't pick Hillary was she wasn't anti-war enough. They didn't want anyone who had voted for the war. Now he picks one of the most pro-war democrats.
So the real question has to be: if you can run with Biden, why can't you run with Hillary? History is loaded with candidates who ran with the runner-up as a VP candidate. But "why-not-Hillary?" was a topic from a couple months ago. So no one touches it now. Back then everyone knew the answer, but with the Biden pick, that answer is out the door, and Obama isn't being asked to provide a new answer.
Saturday the question should have been resurrected.

McCain's Housing Crises

The boys and girls over at the Daily Show seem to think John McCain doesn't remember where he lives.
This all starts with with a reporter asking McCain how many houses does he own. For some reason McCain's response has been frothed over all day. Why no interest in why the reporter asked the question?
Well any amount of research shows McCain and his wife own property through a trust. That includes condominiums, McCain believed. In fact it's a very good bet that neither the candidate nor his wife knows exactly what, or how much of what, is currently owned.
Answer: they own way more than one house. What is the reporter really after?
Answer: a reponse from McCain to counteract the the charges of elitism that are crushing Obama's poll numbers? To remind people that McCain is wealthy and therefor worse than an elitist?
My real question is this: when the reporter's job is to try to provide sound bites for the Obama strategists, do we have any place other than the Daily Show doing any real reporting?