On Friday, I scribbled up a storm on the first part of Charles Gibson’s interview of Sarah Palin. This was over at the Corner. And I’d like to do just a little more scribbling now — on the 20/20 business, aired Friday night. In fact, I’ll do a series of quick points.

1. I thought Palin was poised, serene, and bright. I thought she gave a good sense of who she is: what she believes (on a variety of issues) and what sort of person she is. I thought she was amazingly unflappable. Her interviewer was often an attack dog; she refused to be prey, or a victim.

2. The lead-in piece by the ABC News people was appalling — appallingly slanted, appallingly wrong. The most glaring example: Palin gives a stump speech, like every other politician. Consequently, she says the same things in different cities. ABC showed her saying these same things, in the different cities — making her look dumb and repetitive.

Appalling.

By the way, I had a memory of Mike Deaver. In the late ’70s, Reagan was going around the country, giving his classic speech. Deaver approached him and said, “Governor, maybe it’s time for a new speech.” Reagan answered, “Mike, I like this speech. Why don’t you get me new audiences?”

3. ABC made sure to say that Wasilla, Alaska, “shaped” Palin’s views and persona. And it sounded like they wanted you to understand: “She’s just a narrow, provincial gal.” Like hell.

4. Charlie Gibson was, again, rude, condescending, and obnoxious. I believe he was largely out of character. If he ever watches the tapes, I hope he feels at least a little chagrin.

5. It seemed to me that he was trying to get Palin to say that she was frightened by her new situation — overwhelmed, dazed, and all that. Palin said, “No, actually” (I paraphrase). That brought a smile to my face.

6. She was droppin’ g’s like crazy — as in, “I think he’s regrettin’ not pickin’ her now.” I like it, frankly. Others will say, “Hick.” But they would anyway — wouldn’t they? — given that Palin’s a conservative.

7. She said several nice things about Hillary Clinton. I wasn’t sure whether to believe her — whether her statements were more sincere or more political. Not sure.

8. Gibson said to her, gravely, “We’ve got a very sick economy” — as though he were a doctor announcing a terminal illness to a patient’s relative (and a particularly dim relative at that). Oh, come off it, Charlie. If you want to see “very sick” economies, go elsewhere in the world. And grow up.

Moreover: Aren’t these straight-news types supposed to go easy on the editorializing? Who does he think he is, Milton Friedman?

9. You may recall the “1-2-3” moment: when Gibson snapped at Palin, “1-2-3.” He was like a peeved parent, demanding something of his child. I talked to a woman who said that, of everything in the interview, that is what most offended her (I guess along with “Exact words” and “hubris”). “He wouldn’t have done that to a man,” she said. Maybe she’s right — I don’t know.

10. He simply couldn’t stop interrupting — and not because the interviewee was going on too long, or veering off course. He just couldn’t stop interrupting. Unless it was my imagination, he especially interrupted when Palin was hitting a stride.

(I’m sure it was my imagination — semi-sure.)

11. And how nasty he was! My goodness! You might have thought he was interviewing Bashar Assad (although he would have been far more polite and respectful to him — they always are). Our friend John Steigerwald, a radio host in Pittsburgh, sent us this note (and when I say “us,” I mean NRO):

Last night, I got a call [on air] from a psychologist who has appeared on Good Morning America about 75 times. He heard me talking about how condescending and dismissive Gibson was with Palin. And he said he had to call because he knows and likes Gibson, but had agreed with me 100 percent. He went on to say that he couldn’t believe he was watching the same Charlie Gibson he knows. So, it’s not just Palin partisans who remarked Gibson’s nastiness.

No.

11.5. I want to slip in a wee language note: The lack of a comma in that morning-show title — Good Morning America — has always bugged me, a little.

12. Palin, and lots of other people, say, “We can all agree there should be fewer abortions in America. Everyone agrees on that.” I don’t believe that, for a minute. I think it’s baloney. There are plenty of people who don’t agree there should be fewer abortions. And why should they?

Plenty of people don’t regard abortion as murder, or tantamount to murder — they don’t even regard it as wrong. They think it’s akin to an appendectomy: You want or need something removed, and you have it taken care of. I don’t hear anyone calling for fewer appendectomies.

When I was growing up, there was a feminist slogan: A baby in its mother’s womb has no more standing than a hamburger in her stomach.

Later on, I never understood this “safe, legal, and rare” business — the line that Clinton put out. Safe, I get — safe for the mother. Legal, I understand entirely. But rare? Why rare? If abortion is not the wrongful taking of innocent life — who cares whether it’s rare or common? Whether there are 10 million abortions a year or ten?

In pre-abolition days, did they call for fewer slaves? Maybe they did: “Let us hope there is less slavery in 1847 than there has been in 1846.” But the arguments have to do with fundamental principles, do they not?

Anyway . . .

13. I liked very much that Palin stood her ground on ANWR — McCain is simply wrong, in her view (and mine, for what it’s worth) (and the opinion of Alaska’s governor is worth a lot more).

14. Gibson demanded a yes-or-no answer at least once. I wish Palin had said, “Actually, why don’t you ask the questions, and allow me to answer them the way I see fit? And then, if you hate those answers, you can denounce me later.”

15. Bear in mind that Gibson was under tremendous pressure: He was standing in for all the establishment media. And, it’s pretty clear, they hate her guts. Plus, by selecting Gibson, for this first interview, the McCain campaign semi-insulted him — or challenged his manhood. The campaign could be interpreted as saying, “We think we’ll have a relatively easy ride with Charlie.” Therefore, “Charlie” had to be — well, you know how I thought he was . . .

There are many, many other points to be made, but 15’s enough, certainly for the top of Impromptus, don’t you think?

‐Do you remember Mike Gravel? He made a quixotic run for this year’s Democratic presidential nomination. And he was a senator from Alaska, for two terms. Well, he was interviewed by some lefties on the radio — who wanted him to slam Sarah Palin up and down. They opened with, “So, first, tell us what the Republicans are not telling us about Sarah Palin.” And Gravel spent most of the interview defending her against absurd attacks. The interviewers grew more and more frustrated. It really wasn’t going the way they expected!

Wonderful. Listen to it, if you like, here.

‐A reader made a suggestion to me: Palin is the governor of a nothing state with no population. Did we ever hear that about Howard Dean?

‐Somewhere on the Internet, I watched a good bit of John McCain on The View. And I want to make just a couple of points. First, boy oh boy, do they hate her — I mean, really, really hate Palin. Barbara Walters has such a nasty look on her face. Why? Is it merely abortion — merely the fifth child? Second, McCain handled himself very well (in the portions I saw). It was amazing how he could keep his cool, in the midst of multiple inanities.

And isn’t he famous for popping off? Or is that just at conservatives?

I am fairly certain that I could not run for president. (Relieved, are you?) For example, this is what happened to McCain: Whoopi Goldberg asks whether he believes in the separation of church and state. He answers, “Yes” (with a tone that says, “What in the world is coming next?”) Then she asks how, if that’s true, he can have Sarah Palin as his running mate.

I’m not sure what I would have said. I’m afraid I would have sat there, dumbfounded — speechless. Or I would have said something insulting: “I’m sorry, but I don’t think a conversation between us about politics and government would work. Can we talk about something you know — like movies?” And that would have been the end of me — the end of my campaign.

So — everything’s safe!

Hang on, I’m reminded of a conversation with a famous Oxford don, a couple of years ago. I wrote about it in Impromptus — I’ll fetch it, and paste it. Okay, here goes:

British people — even the brightest — not infrequently get America wrong. I’ll give you a couple of examples. . . .
I was speaking in London last week with a very, very distinguished historian — knows more than I ever would in five lifetimes. He says to me, “I don’t understand your country, how religious it is. How can it be so religious? I myself am an atheist. I mean, think of the Founders — Jefferson and so on. They wanted separation of church and state, and here you have a born-again Christian in the White House!”
Um — what do you say to something like that? That we live in a democracy, and cast votes? That even born-again Christians can stand for office? That the Founders wanted to protect religion from the state, not the state from religion? That it is Britain, actually, that combines church and state?
Anyway . . .

So the Whoopster’s in damn good company!

‐You hear a lot of “Yankee, Go Home!” (whether it’s sincere or not — sometimes they say it knowing that Yankee won’t go home, and that they’ll remain safe and sound). Would you like to read the opposite kind of story? Here’s an AP report out of Tokyo:

Japan’s government welcomed Friday the announcement that the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington will arrive later this month at its new home base south of Tokyo.
The George Washington, which can carry a crew of up to 5,600 and 70 aircraft, will replace the USS Kitty Hawk as the U.S. Navy’s only permanently forward-deployed aircraft carrier. It is to arrive on Sept. 25 at the port of Yokosuka.
“The government of Japan welcomes the arrival of the USS George Washington, as the continuous strong presence of the U.S. Navy will contribute to the security of Japan and the maintenance of peace and security [in] the region,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Oh, yeah. North Korea — and China — can concentrate the mind, somewhat.

‐Last June, I wrote in this column about the issue of President Bush, golf, and war. I want to republish that — and bear with me, please, because it’s leading to something:

Last week, went to the grand opening — or reopening — of the USGA Museum. That’s in Far Hills, N.J. (very horsey country). What’s the USGA, you ask? Oh, sorry: the United States Golf Association. The museum was closed for three years. And now it’s new and spiffy.
The USGA Museum — we used to call it “Golf House” — is golf’s equivalent of the Smithsonian. It has the game’s treasured artifacts. For example, you’ll see Bobby Jones’s putter, Calamity Jane (but you can no more putt with it than you can fly the Spirit of St. Louis).
Anyway, I’ve written about this day — the grand reopening — for the next National Review. Is your subscription up to date? I certainly hope so. But I wanted to say just a couple of words here.
Many readers have written to ask what I make of President Bush’s decision not to play golf. (This will relate to the museum, I swear.) A few weeks ago, he revealed that he has not played golf since 2003 — that was a dog not barking. His reason? He believes it would be unseemly for the commander-in-chief to be seen playing golf while we are at war.
I understand the president’s motivations; they are utterly honorable. And one has to be concerned with image and PR. Bush’s father took some grief in the Gulf War for zipping around in his cigarette boat. (I first learned the term “cigarette boat” during 41’s presidency. I don’t think I’ve heard it since.) Nonetheless, I believe 43 is deeply misguided.
For as long as anyone can remember, our boys at war have played golf — when they can. It is part and parcel of the American tradition. They have usually played in a makeshift way — I mean, this is not teeing it up at Olympia Fields.
And I was reminded of all this when looking at the USGA Museum’s World War II exhibit. There were many striking items — and I was especially interested in some golf balls. They were homemade, fashioned by American POWs.
Golf is wrongly stigmatized as some privileged affair, and I’m afraid that President Bush has bowed to the stigmatization. And it’s not as though he denies himself recreation. I mean, he bikes around in those dorky tight-fitting shorts.
I wish the president would tee it up unabashedly. But I know what he means. Let me say, too, that I bet desert golf is played with abandon by our troops in Iraq. That’ll be a good piece to write someday. I might even do it my own bad self.

Well, after I published that Impromptus, I received a good deal of mail from Iraq, saying, “Of course we play golf!” And just yesterday afternoon, I received a picture, from one of my correspondents. You want to see it? Our man says, “I finally played today” (after a long period of being distracted by — duty). “It’s not much of a course, but it was great to be able to get out and play. Where else can you find concrete walls, barbed wire, and a guard tower on the 5th tee? A nice walk through Baghdad spoiled by a little white ball.”

And that photo is here.

‐Do you know much about Carol McCain? She is the first wife, and first wives, of course, tend to be not very well-known. I stumbled across a CNN piece about her — or rather, a piece that includes her (here). What a beautiful woman (a former model). And McCain was not the only one of the pair to endure physical and mental agony.

I should note that Mrs. McCain supports the senator’s run for the presidency, as she has all his political races. And I registered something McCain said in that Saddleback forum, some weeks ago: “My greatest moral failing — and I have been a very imperfect person — is the failure of my first marriage. It’s my greatest moral failure.”

I suspect that made many people feel better about him.

‐May I leave you with a little squib from April 2006 — something from Impromptus?

Was in Galveston the other week, after mingling with the NR throng at our fundraiser in Houston. (Again, thank you, one and all.) Not unlike Washington, D.C., and other places, Galveston has streets known by letters: Q Street, R Street, and so on. But they also have 1/2 streets, as in Q1/2, R1/2. Extraordinary. Perhaps unique in all the world.
And, may I say, I was terribly moved by the memorial to the storm victims. That storm hit in 1900, killing over 6,000 people. The sculpture, down by the sea, is by David W. Moore, and it depicts a family: father, mother, and child. The father’s arm is outstretched, and he is looking heavenward, both fearful and defiant. The mother is cradling their child.
I was reminded of something that E. H. Gombrich said, in his famous book about art: A work doesn’t have to be particularly refined to be moving. Sometimes basic, or blunt, expression will do it.
And it’s true.