Skip to main content

Michele Bachmann Totally Mishandles Chris Wallace "Flake" Question / Apology

Michele Bachmann, who formally entered (m) the 2012 presidential race today, threw a fit when asked by Chris Wallace "Are you a flake?" Contrast this with the kind of calm and self-assured response that Ron Paul has given interviewers for years now as they've consistently maligned him with unserious and insulting questions.

And now that Chris Wallace has apologized-- which is absolutely absurd; the sky will fall the day a news anchor is bullied into apologizing to Ron Paul for being rude, and honestly Wallace's question wasn't rude at all-- Michele Bachmann is refusing to accept his apology (m). Critics have asked it about Sarah Palin, and I'll ask it about Michele Bachmann... if she's really that thin-skinned does anyone actually want Michele Bachmann to have the nuclear football?

Someone as sensitive, emotional, and vindictive as Michele Bachmann is frankly-- pretty flaky, and lacks the poise, self-assurance, and magnanimity necessary for someone in such a critical executive role as President of the United States. Over at MichelleMalkin.com, Doug Powers gives an excellent example of any number of good answers Bachmann could have given: "I’m the least flaky person in all 58 states, Chris." Too bad we haven't had a presidential candidate that clever, quick, and funny since Ronald Reagan.

The absolute best analysis of the whole Wallace interview and "flake" question, comes from Ann Althouse, who summarizes it thusly:

Chris Wallace throws a softball question at Michelle Bachmann, then is bullied into apologizing... and Bachmann won't even accept the apology!

When did people become so humorless? Wallace — who seems like a sweetheart — asked "Are you a flake?" Obviously, he was saying, in a cute and pithy way A lot of people would like to portray you as some kind of flake: What do you have to say to them?

It was an easy set up for her to attack those people who say things like that. Why pillory Wallace?

Althouse is absolutely correct here. Wallace was clearly not asking the question to beat up on her, but giving her a chance to respond to her critics, a chance she took and used to list off her tall list of credentials. It was a soft ball question. (Contrast Wallace's interview with George Stephanopoulos' treatment of Ron Paul in the 2008 election.)

Interesting that it should take Ann Althouse, a woman to point this out. In all the sanctimony over Wallace's question, calling it condescending and insulting, I can't shake this feeling that it's all colored by a subtle undercurrent of paternalism-- the media and supporters jumping in to "save" Michele Bachmann, a vulnerable damsel in distress, from that mean old Chris Wallace.

As Althouse suggests, Wallace is quite obviously a sweetheart. Michele Bachmann is quite obviously a flake.

Popular posts from this blog

Obama keeps pushing the bipartisan religion of interventionism

Michael Scheuer is deadly accurate - foreign interventionism is a bipartisan religion (or disease, whichever you prefer). Too often, I believe, Americans think about Washington’s interventionism only as the actual physical intervention of U.S. military forces abroad in places where no U.S. interest is at risk. That activity certainly is intervention, but President Obama’s despicable decision last week to have his administration leak intelligence claiming that Israel has concluded an agreement with the government of Azerbaijan to allow its use of Azeri airfields for an air strike on Iran is just as much an unwarranted intervention by the United States government. Readers of this blog will know that I carry no brief for Israel, that I believe it is a state that is irrelevant to U.S. national interests, and one whose U.S.-citizen supporters are disloyal to America and involved in activities that compromise U.S. security and corrupt the U.S. political system. That said, Israel — l...

How Thorough a Brainwashing

Saw this on Facebook: Left this comment: It's more thorough of a wash job than that. They don't just believe they are not brainwashed, the question has never occurred to them and as long as they keep reading TIME and watching MTV, it's *impossible* for the question to occur to them. Oh brave new world, that has such people in it. EDIT: And one more thing-- don't ever stop considering what questions it is currently impossible to occur to you . This is what I've been thinking about a lot lately and I'm worried just how large and numerous my own blindspots are. The only solution is to be as intellectually curious as possible. To learn voraciously. To read things that challenge us. To read things that are hard for us to understand and then try to understand them. To expose ourselves to ideas far removed from our present culture and place on the timeline. Read old books. Read foreign books. Turn off the TV. You have already absorbed its biases and blindspots. ...

How To Gain More Twitter Followers

Earlier today, I wrote : "My goal is to write a book before the end of March. My goal is to spend no more than a week from start to publication, spending as much time as I need in order to get it done during that week. My goal is to give it away to you for free here on HumbleLibertarian.com. What's a goal you have? Something you may have been putting off for years? Something you could accomplish in one month if you were determined? If it's near-term enough of a goal, and specific enough of a goal, and you share it in the comments below, feel free to tell me how I can help you and I'll do whatever I can. If it's a libertarian / news / politics-related goal, my manner of help would be easy to determine. I could promote it, introduce you to someone via email, (etc.). If it's something apolitical like quit smoking cigarettes, start exercising, learn guitar, start a business, gain more Twitter followers, learn another language, eat a paleo diet, or...
–––As Featured On–––