Ten reasons not to watch the Gibson interview of Sarah Palin
Because he won't ask a single one of Jack Shafer's questions, at least not in the right way. The Anchorage Daily News also had some decent suggestions, but Shafer really nails it.
Sadly, FDL's lineup is more realistic.
Obviously, I'd want Gibson to ask if she really pees in the woods. And a follow up: since we can't trust a word out of your "bridge to nowhere" mouth, prove it for the camera.
You?
Comments
3 Questions that should be asked:
- Why should creationism be taught in science class? Isn't it more appropriate for a history lesson?
- If making rape and incest illegal didn't stop them from taking place, what are the benefits of outlawing legal abortions?
- Do you anticipate God requesting any more wars in the next 4-8 years?
Posted by: Richard H | September 9, 2008 11:46 PM
Overall the Shafer piece is good enough, I guess, but there are some howlers...
Gibson will surely approach this interview on tip-toe lest he become the story again.
Riiiiight, because his approaching the interview on tip-toe hasn't already become the story, like, from the moment he was announced as the interviewer.
Gibson will wisely avoid the "gotcha" questions designed to prove that she's an ignoramus because she can't name all the capitals of the now-independent Soviet republics
Yeah, or because as someone potentially stepping in as president of an economic crisis, she has no idea what Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were or will be.
She'll evade with gracious words about how she differs from Clinton, but Gibson can guide her toward self-reflection by noting the similarities (ambitious, underrated, cracker, juggler)
See, now, I didn't know they even had crackers way up in Alaska, much less that Palin herself was one.
...she'll call [The Bridge to Nowhere] the biggest mistake of her political career and one from which she's learned many valuable lessons. Gibson's follow-up should explore the libertarian socialist paradise that Alaska has become...
Well, that's cute, but more urgently, Gibson's follow-up to a Palin admission that she fudged the facts on this, and has continued to do so after being called out, should be "why did you characterize this, in your acceptance speech and afterward, in a way that was so completely at odds with what you knew to be the truth?" And then for good measure, "So, what's the point of the Road to Nowhere that is now being built to connect to this non-existent bridge? Is it true you're only moving ahead on that project because unlike the bridge, you would otherwise have had to give the money back?"
All in all, there's too much overlap between Attaturk's predicted questions and Shafer's suggested ones (most explicitly, Shafer's #10 and Attaturk's #5) for me to put much stock in his overall analysis.
Posted by: Vance | September 10, 2008 1:38 AM
what in god's name is a libertarian socialist paradise?
Posted by: Jessica | September 10, 2008 3:56 AM