More proof Gibson is a Dolt

[AllentownJake]

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/Charles_Gibson_gets_the_Constitution_wrong.html

Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos are taking a lot of heat today for the questions they asked in last night's Democratic presidential debate. And we understand why some people are angry at them. But we've uncovered's a factual problem with their performance.

In the first question of the night, Gibson asked Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton whether they'd agree to former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo's suggestion that the winner of the delegate fight should be the presidential nominee and the loser should be the running mate. Neither went along with that.

So Gibson pressed: Just to quote from the Constitution again, "In every case" -- Article II, Section 1 -- "after the choice of the president, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the vice president."

Alas, that part of the Constitution no longer applies. And it hasn't for more than 200 years. If it did, John Kerry would be vice president today.

It was superseded by the Twelfth Amendment, which was passed in 1804. The amendment says there will be separate elections for president and vice president. It was adopted after the mess the country went through as the result of the election of 1800, the first time we actually had two parties vying for the presidency.

We put this to an ABC News spokesman who directed us to what Gibson said after quoting the Constitution: "If it was good enough in colonial times, why not in these times?"

This, the spokesman said, indicated that Gibson and ABC knew that this section applied then but doesn't apply now. We can only wonder if the viewing audience could figure all of that out

[GodlessBiker]

1. A complete dolt.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Is this the guy with the brain damage?

[speedoo]

8. No. you're probably thinking of the correspondent wounded in Iraq.

Gibson's brain damage comes from spending too much time studying RW talking points.

The Iraq-wounded correspondent seems to be doing OK, healthwise.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. What was his name?

I thouhght it was something similar.

[speedoo]

16. Bob Woodruff.

He's doing some great work covering our wounded soldiers now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/02/wounded-iraq-journalists-_n_94641.html

[uponit7771]

3. They should both be embarrased but I've heard StephAhDickLess is being an ass

[ljm2002]

4. No he isn't...

...and the sooner we quit giving them a pass on this account, the better.

Oh, I know you are not trying to give him a pass; you are criticizing him.

But he does this sort of thing with FULL KNOWLEDGE that he is sowing confusion, and blurring issues, including Constitutional issues. They DON'T WANT US TO UNDERSTAND how our government is supposed to work, nor how it really works. They do it ON PURPOSE, and that is why we are in the dismal mess we are in today.

So no, I won't say he's a dolt. I'll say he's an evil fucktard, though.

(sorry about the caps -- these days I just have to shout sometimes just to get it out of my system)

[CreekDog]

5. wasn't slavery good enough for colonial times?

I didn't think so either. :eyes:

[PA Democrat]

6. Thanks for clarifying this. I thought I heard Gibson wrong

because I couldn't believe he would be that ignorant of the constitution.

[featherman]

7. For this he makes $8 million a year

Heck... I could do better for half as much... maybe I should contact ABC

[Tribetime]

17. that's why he relates the average voter so well

[Jersey Devil]

9. I was surprised both Hillary and Obama missed that one

They're both lawyers and should have known that. When Gibson was citing Article I I was scratching my head thinking, "WTF, doesn't he even know it was amended?"

My guess is they both were thinking so hard about ways to avoid answering the question they let it slip by.

[AllentownJake]

10. Either that

Or both were being polite and didn't want to come off as snooty for correcting the moderator on a constituional question that 75% America wouldn't understand what they were talking about.

[SoxFan]

11. Come on, it's only been 204 years.

Chuckles probably has fond memories of interviewing Aaron Burr, after all.

[Enrique]

13. this article itself is kind of dumb

this is a primary we're talking about, they didn't even have primaries in the Constitution so obviously Gibson wasn't talking about the Constitution being legally applicable, he was talking about the spirit of the thing.

[AllentownJake]

15. You'd defend anyone

If he was a superdelgate for Clinton or gave you even the slightest advantage.

[Enrique]

18. yeah, I guess I'm defending Charlie Gibson

I thought his bringing the Constitution into it was dumb, but not "wrong" as Larry Eichel, whoever he is, says.

If Gibson is "wrong" for citing the Constitution, then Eichel is just as "wrong" for citing the 12th Amendment, which does not apply to primaries.

[depakid]

14. That one also cracked me up

Along with the supply side economics bit, Gibson has proven himself to be (among other things) none too bright.