20/20 "Interview" Sarah Palin Lies to Sexist Gibson

The more we find out about Sarah Palin of Alaska the less suitable she appears to be for a position a heart beat away from the Oval office. As a mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, she seemed to be something of a corrupt official, seeking to ban books and get family enemies fired. Sarah Palin denies these facts it in the interview. Unfortunately Gibson and ABC have made no apparent effort to get to the bottom of these stories.

Charlie Gibson does document, and Palin is compelled to defend her own pursuit of earmarks and federal funds as mayor and governor. Of course the lying nature of her behavior, its two facedness and hypocrisy never come up in the interview or the so-called examination of the interview that follows.

As governor Palin might have grown into the position. She became governor mainly due to the sinking of her former Republican mentors and associates in a quagmire of their own corruption. She, of course, opposed their corruption since it was an opportunity for herself. Now she tells it as if she never worked with these other corrupt officials.

When I saw Sarah Palin on 20/20 she was talking about finding "efficiencies in agencies" as the only way she could actually think of to change our economic policy. Palin had already stone walled Charlie's repeated questions about how her and McCain's economics would be any different than Bush's. After all, McCain/Palin tell us they are running against the Bush economic policies!

Interviewer Gibson never asked, "which efficiencies", "which agencies". Sarah Palin is probably almost totally uninformed about the fundamental federal agencies. She didn't name a single one.

To Gibson's credit he pointed out that most of the federal budget is outside the budget for governmental agencies. She stuck with the same "efficiencies" answer, because she doesn't even understand the question.

Palin is clearly out of her depth. No wonder Palin is sequestered from the press!

Sarah Palin was personable but she didn't answer Charlie Gibson's question about how she and McCain lie about Obama wanting to raise taxes on everyone. That is the backbone of McCain's Gobbels-like propaganda ads saying Obama will raise taxes. Of course, its similarity to fascist lies were not mentioned, let alone condemned.

Charlie Gibson did explain that 91 percent of the U. S. citizens would see a tax cut under Obama. At this point Sarah could have apologized for lying. Charlie the interviewer could have asked her to stop lying or to apologize. It didn't happen.

As for Palin's lies about opposing the bridge to nowhere Gibson took her on a tour of many of her contradictory actions and statements about the bridge to nowhere. OK, Charlie did drill down to reality here noting that Palin kept the money for the bridge to nowhere. He documented the lies and then that she actually supported that bridge until the issue was decided without her input. Clearly, Palin was caught with her pants down. Charlie let it go without any comments. He could have said, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" Charlie didn't and Palin didn't blush!

Sarah Palin didn't seem to notice her obvious lack of candor, she is, after all, above any demand for moral consistency. Gibson did not object to this example of the divine right of Republicans to be pure venal hypocrites and to never be called on it. Yes, there was only one pit bull in the room and it wasn't Charlie Gibson!

Palin actually defended earmarks in the interview! I doubt her lies about opposing earmarks will change. Palin hates earmarks you know and she loves them and hates them. I suppose few mindless supporters of evangelical Republicanism will care about this hypocrisy. It is just like their own hypocrisy in their own hypocritical lives.

As I looked at this interview I wondered if there was an agreement to let Palin censor the footage. It looks like parts of it are heavily edited to keep Palin from looking like an all too obvious fool.

Gibson really is superficial about all the sex related questions. Is he a patsy for McCain's patsy, Palin?

Sarah has become a leader of the far right without noticing that social conservatives do very much want to keep women in the home. Palin defends her position as a career politician and mother in strictly feminist terms, as if this is not what the evangelical right has traditionally opposed. It is all pretty incomprehensible. How do you oppose abortion in all cases (including rape and incest) and then oppose a woman caring for her own kids? Palin does.

Gibson asks Palin if she is ready to be President. Of course she is, she says! End of discussion! No facts, policies or anything else are really discussed.

Ultimately Sarah Palin's only answer to Gibson's question about her national security policies and experience was to drill, drill, drill! She seems rather
ignorant about the whole of foreign policy.

Charlie Gibson calls himself a "maybe sexist", for Sarah's and the Republican Party's benefit, and skips from one potential scandal for Palin as VP Candidate to another. He asks superficial questions, mostly. Palin hardly answers the few questions of merit that he does pose. She gets away with not answering.

Charlie Gibson's definition of sexism must be that sexism is asking asking a Republican career woman why she isn't at home with the kids, the way Republican women generally say it must absolutely be!

Will this interview help make the many scandal stories of Sarah Palin more legitimate? Now, will mainstream media really look into Palin's record or is this an effort to put the dozen or so negatives swarming around Palin to bed?

Of course this interview made me wonder, "Is ABC, in bed with the Palin campaign?"

Then the format of the program was for this modest interview to be put under a microscope. Of course it is a ridiculous discussion about whether Palin is "in trouble or not". They all say Palin is "not in trouble".

Torie Clarke, the Republican lens of the so-called microscopic discussion seemed to be saying more liberal things than Dee Dee Myers, the Democratic lens. It is a tribute to the reactionary nature of the Democratic Party that Dee Dee and Obama can sound even more reactionary their Republican opponents.

The interview did document that Sarah Palin is lying about opposing earmarks and the bridge to nowhere. Still, Gibson didn't ask, "Sarah, aren't you a liar?" You see, for Charlie, being a feminist means never demanding that a Republican woman tell the truth. That would be sexist because no employed journalist would never demand that a Republican man tell the truth. Charlie Gibson doesn't want to discriminate!

Of course any conscious citizen wants real answers and more probing questions. The working class as a class for itself must obviously deal with facts and never accept capitalist lies no matter who tells them, man or woman, interviewer or interviewee, Democrat or Republican.