Just as Charlie Gibson did in his interview with Sarah Palin, Katie Couric set out to humiliate the Republican vice-presidential candidate with a series of "gotcha" questions.

This tactic -- rarely employed with major liberal candidates -- could be used equally effectively against Couric, or most any other liberal member of the television news media. It would be highly instructive to have Couric asked questions in the same way in which she (and Gibson) asked questions of Palin.

For example:

Q: Critics of the war in Iraq argue that prior to the invasion of Iraq, America had never attacked a country that had no plans to attack it. How then do you explain the Korean War?

On my radio show, I have asked this question of some of the most celebrated names among liberal intellectuals, and they had little or nothing to say. One major editor simply admitted that he had little familiarity with that war. That is too bad because America invaded a country that had absolutely no intention, let alone ability, to attack the United States. The United States attacked Korea -- and sacrificed over 30,000 American lives -- solely in order to prevent Korea from becoming a totalitarian Communist state. We succeeded in the southern half, and over 50 years later, North Korea remains essentially a gigantic concentration camp.

Q: Many Americans believe that the most important way of understanding the effects of taxation on government revenues is the Laffer Curve. What is your opinion about this?

The Laffer Curve, which, unlike the "Bush Doctrine," is objectively definable, is perhaps the most important economic argument against tax increases -- because at a given point of increased taxation, the government will actually receive less tax revenue, not more. It would be quite surprising if many TV news people, including anchors, could define this economic theory, let alone intelligently discuss it.

Q: Is there any point in a woman's pregnancy at which you would call an abortion immoral?

Couric spent some time trying to show how immoral Palin's anti-abortion position is, since it even extends to cases of rape or incest. That was not necessarily unfair questioning. Even some who believe that human life begins at conception are prepared to allow abortions in the case of rape or incest. But it would be highly educational for Americans to see the tables reversed on pro-choice people: Are there any circumstances when a pro-choice person is prepared to make a moral judgment on killing a human fetus? How about during the third trimester (presuming, of course, that the pregnancy poses no threat to the life or health of the mother)? Or when an abortion is performed solely for convenience (for example, a married woman who was planning to start a new business or to take a long-planned trip abroad -- and the pregnancy therefore came at an inconvenient time)?

Some more possible questions: Continued...