Are you a flake?

[Anonymous]

I think this question posed by Mike Wallace was incredibly sexist. No one would dare ask that question to a male candidate. I don't care for Bachman, but the question was out of line.

[Anonymous]

I may be wrong, but given the slant of Wallace's general coverage, it seemed to me that the intent of the question was to give her an opportunity to rebut a view that is common in the liberal media. She has made the rebuttal several times, so he was probably confident that she was prepared to do so again.

Ironically, she appeared more flaky (to me, at least) going into a tizzy and interpreting a question as an accusation, than she would have if she had made her standard speech about being a serious person, a lawyer, legislator, mother, etc.

[Anonymous]

It isn't sexist if it is true. You be the judge. Quote:

"This cannot pass. What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn't pass.''

[Anonymous]

8:02 back again. Just to be clear, I'm a liberal who thinks Bachmann would be a disaster as president and sees the only silver lining to her run to be that she may leave the House. But I think her coverage by the press overemphasizes the flake thing.

For example, she boasted of John Wayne's birth in her home town of Waterloo, Iowa. She was mistaken, since he was not born there and never lived there. However, the murderer John Wayne Gacy did live there for a while as a kid, so she is said to have mistaken John Wayne for John Wayne Gacy (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/bachmann-confuses-john-wayne-with-john-wayne-gacy-video.php?ref=fpc).

But Gacy was not born there either (in Chicago, actually), whereas Wayne was born in Winterson, Iowa, and his parents had once lived in Waterloo, so it's not such a big booboo. She got her facts a bit muddled, but it seems to me that it's a stretch to bring Gacy into it. I have no objection to anyone criticizing her, but I think it impugns their reliability when they go for cheap shots.

[Anonymous]

Slightly OT, but Chris Wallace is the only journalist on Fox I can stand. I think he goes after most people pretty fairly. I think the question was a bit odd, but it didn't strike me as sexist at all.

[Anonymous]

I thought it was sexist and, if he was trying to expose unfair criticism, he did so very poorly. If she is being called a flake by liberal members of the media or anyone else for that matter, there is certainly room for a conversation around that type of criticism of an elected official, especially by supposed "professionals". I just don't think Wallace handled the situation properly. And it would not have been hard to do so.

And, I will say as a disclaimer, that I probably can't find a single policy point I agree with Bachman on. So my "defense" of her in this case is based on my principals of right and wrong and not just political leanings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was sexist and, if he was trying to expose unfair criticism, he did so very poorly. If she is being called a flake by liberal members of the media or anyone else for that matter, there is certainly room for a conversation around that type of criticism of an elected official, especially by supposed "professionals". I just don't think Wallace handled the situation properly. And it would not have been hard to do so.

And, I will say as a disclaimer, that I probably can't find a single policy point I agree with Bachman on. So my "defense" of her in this case is based on my principals of right and wrong and not just political leanings.

8:02/8:46 yapping away again: I agree that Wallace, in retrospect, should have said something like "You've been called a flake by the media. Would you like a chance to respond to that?" But a pro should not have to be treated with kid gloves by an interviewer she knows is friendly. Even if he had meant it pugnaciously, she should have handled it as a friendly opportunity rather than going into a snit.

Although I'm a liberal, I don't think she should be treated as a flake. The fact that she's a crackpot is no reason not to take her seriously!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was sexist and, if he was trying to expose unfair criticism, he did so very poorly. If she is being called a flake by liberal members of the media or anyone else for that matter, there is certainly room for a conversation around that type of criticism of an elected official, especially by supposed "professionals". I just don't think Wallace handled the situation properly. And it would not have been hard to do so.

And, I will say as a disclaimer, that I probably can't find a single policy point I agree with Bachman on. So my "defense" of her in this case is based on my principals of right and wrong and not just political leanings.

8:02/8:46 yapping away again: I agree that Wallace, in retrospect, should have said something like "You've been called a flake by the media. Would you like a chance to respond to that?" But a pro should not have to be treated with kid gloves by an interviewer she knows is friendly. Even if he had meant it pugnaciously, she should have handled it as a friendly opportunity rather than going into a snit.

Although I'm a liberal, I don't think she should be treated as a flake. The fact that she's a crackpot is no reason not to take her seriously!

I was the PP you quoted and that was my first comment on this board; I was not 8:02 or 8:46.

I thought it was clear that Wallace was taking a jab at her. He didn't say, "What do you make of being called a flake?"; he repeatedly asked if she was a flake. He's a professional and should know better. If you are arguing that Bachman shouldn't be treated with kid gloves (agreed) then it would be ideologically consistent of you to also argue that Wallace should be expected to meet the professional standards associated with his role as an interviewer and not play the, "I was misunderstood" card. He is paid to use his words; to choose them as poorly as he did was showed either base incompetence or playing an angle. And we shouldn't assume that he is a "friendly" just because he is on the same basic side of the aisle as Bachman. With primary season underway, sides are being taken and it is very possible that Wallace would prefer another candidate and was taking advantage of an opportunity to knock Bachman back a few pegs.

It's not the end of the world, but he F'ed up and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjdeRHoSaeI

If you really think he comes off as friendly and she is going into a snit, you need to get your head examined. Again, I am no fan of Bachman, but I think she handled it quite well. She responded directly to the criticism in a rational, measured response. What would you have like her to done? She is running for president and she just got called a flake on a major news show.

[Anonymous]

She's also been called "bat sh@t crazy." I think nobody would think that set of adjectives was more feminine than masculine.

[Anonymous]

When I heard about it, I thought it was sexist. Then when I saw the clip, I changed my mind. Wallace didn't say he thought she was a flake. He said there was the perception out there and asked her to respond to it. He gave her an opportunity to address it directly and it sounds like it came out to her benefit. I don't know why he apologized.

[Anonymous]

It wasn't sexist when they said it about Kucinich and Perot. It sounds like a bit of political correctness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was sexist and, if he was trying to expose unfair criticism, he did so very poorly. If she is being called a flake by liberal members of the media or anyone else for that matter, there is certainly room for a conversation around that type of criticism of an elected official, especially by supposed "professionals". I just don't think Wallace handled the situation properly. And it would not have been hard to do so.

And, I will say as a disclaimer, that I probably can't find a single policy point I agree with Bachman on. So my "defense" of her in this case is based on my principals of right and wrong and not just political leanings.

8:02/8:46 yapping away again: I agree that Wallace, in retrospect, should have said something like "You've been called a flake by the media. Would you like a chance to respond to that?" But a pro should not have to be treated with kid gloves by an interviewer she knows is friendly. Even if he had meant it pugnaciously, she should have handled it as a friendly opportunity rather than going into a snit.

Although I'm a liberal, I don't think she should be treated as a flake. The fact that she's a crackpot is no reason not to take her seriously!

I was the PP you quoted and that was my first comment on this board; I was not 8:02 or 8:46.

I thought it was clear that Wallace was taking a jab at her. He didn't say, "What do you make of being called a flake?"; he repeatedly asked if she was a flake. He's a professional and should know better. If you are arguing that Bachman shouldn't be treated with kid gloves (agreed) then it would be ideologically consistent of you to also argue that Wallace should be expected to meet the professional standards associated with his role as an interviewer and not play the, "I was misunderstood" card. He is paid to use his words; to choose them as poorly as he did was showed either base incompetence or playing an angle. And we shouldn't assume that he is a "friendly" just because he is on the same basic side of the aisle as Bachman. With primary season underway, sides are being taken and it is very possible that Wallace would prefer another candidate and was taking advantage of an opportunity to knock Bachman back a few pegs.

It's not the end of the world, but he F'ed up and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.

I was 8:02/8:46 AND 12:42, and I was apologizing for the fact that I was yapping away for the third time. Now I am apologizing for my attempt at cuteness gone awry. I had defended CW earlier, and was tempering my defense a bit. But I still think MB overreacted in the first place, and should in any case have accepted the apology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjdeRHoSaeI

If you really think he comes off as friendly and she is going into a snit, you need to get your head examined. Again, I am no fan of Bachman, but I think she handled it quite well. She responded directly to the criticism in a rational, measured response. What would you have like her to done? She is running for president and she just got called a flake on a major news show.

He did not say "You are a flake", he asked a woman who is considered by many to be a flake whether the accusation is true. She reacted as though he had done the former, just as you have. At least she was not flaky enough to tell him to have his head examined, which is why I was only mildly critical of her.

As for his friendliness, I was referring to his generally conservative slant.

[Anonymous]

She said she thought it was insulting and then ran down why she thought it was inaccurate. If that is overreacting, what else would you like her to have done?