Posted on 06/27/2011 5:14:17 AM PDT by tobyhill
I emailed them and asked that very question. Not that I received a reply or anything.
I am a huge Reagan fan, and he was my first two presidential votes. I was critiquing what I still think is a flawed analogy and you’ve invested a lot of personal baggage into it. I’m out. Gday...
I'm sorry, but I must disagree. Wallace went further than anyone would expect from an MSM talking head. He flatly admitted he was wrong to do what he did. The fact that Bachmann was not gracious in accepting his explanation and "apology" is a mark against her in my book.
Christians are held to a higher standard than socialist humanist liberals. Bachmann has used her faith as part of her resume. By refusing to accept whatever apology was offered and turning the other cheek and then whining about how insulting it was for anyone to saying that a presidential candidate is not a serious candidate, when her principle political advisor did the exact same thing to Sarah Palin is simply not acceptable in my book.
She needs to go out in public and tell the world that she holds no animosity to Wallace and that she appreciates the fact that he saw the error of his ways.
It is the right thing to do.
I would prefer to see Bachmann rise above and accept whatever sort of apology Wallace is giving here (and no, I don’t think it was to her). And I’m a Palin guy.
However, the talk I’m reading about how this incident would ruin her candidacy is silly. Nobody has cast a vote yet and someone who bases their choice for President on whether Michele Bachmann accepts a faux apology from Chris Wallace is probably too partisan to debate.
Further, people are attempting to judge her Christianity, which is even more dangerous. Remember two verses: John 7:24 for Bachmann, and Matthew 7:1 for the rest of us.
Enjoy.
I disagree. That would have made Bachmann seem petty and defensive rather than appearing confident and in control.
It wasn't a bad question because that's exactly how she gets portrayed by many in the media, and by political opponents. It's a question she must think about, and for which she must have ready theme/answer for her response. It's not fair, but that's the reality with which she needs to deal because that is how she is portrayed.
I think the best response would have been to laugh, and say something like:
"Labels like that are a weapon the liberals use to silence debate on issues they'd rather keep quiet. To paraphrase the children's story, too many people are afraid to speak up and point out that the Emperor has no clothes. I'm not. We're running deficits of nearly a trillion and half each year, which is less than the total cost of the Bush tax cuts over ten years. Yet, they want to blame those tax cuts for our deficits. Ridiculous. The Democrats don't want people to talk about out of control spending, or their job-killing agenda, and they want to spend hundreds of billions more while calling "investments" to make it sound pretty. Well, I'm going to keep calling them on this, keep pointing out that their agenda has no clothes, and if they want to call me a flake, so be it."
You use the question as an opportunity to point ouch the flakiness of the status quo.
The difference is that W was the POTUS. He was in a position of authority and should have used it to combat the MSM’s narrative. Bachmann is merely a candidate. To begin her campaign with a combative attitude will only bring her more of the same type questions. She doesn’t have to kiss their rear ends but kicking them in the teeth isn’t going help at this stage.
You and I did not hear the same interview. Michelle Bachmann’s answer to Wallace’s snarky question was controlled, measured and very substantive. I thought she hit it out of the park and made Wallace look small.
>>Wallace went further than anyone would expect from an MSM talking head. He flatly admitted he was wrong to do what he did. The fact that Bachmann was not gracious in accepting his explanation and “apology” is a mark against her in my book.<<
Wallace got creamed by his audience. He apologized to them.
You are saying just what Kos and Huffpo are saying. Isn’t that strange?
I just dropped back and checked on this thread. Your analyses and observations are been both cogent and correct.
re: your “Enjoy.” response, you’re more generous than your correspondent merited. He made a claim for which he had no evidence which was refuted by a direct quote from Reagan. He then tried to weasel and spin his way out of it and then turned tail and ran.
He resembled the Black Knight in the famous scene from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” who, after King Arthus had cut off both his arms and legs declared “we’ll call it a draw, then”.
Which Republican candidate is pro-abortion?
As opposed to my proof-reading. Sheesh... /g
lol! Don’t be so hard on yourself when you’re going easy on me!
Thanks for the kind words. FR is a great sociological petri dish! I’m just a rhetorical septic swab.
Resorting to logical fallacies, I see.
Circustantial ad Hominem.
Someone at Huffpo says that Michelle Bachmann should have accepted the apology and because someone at Huffpo says that, then my arguments should be dismissed because I must be a Huffpo troll.
Frankly mom, I am a bit disappointed that you don't see how a Christian ought to act in this situation. Bachmann has all day today to try to salvage her campaign by being gracious. If she fails to do it, this event will haunt her for the rest of her short lived candidacy.
If she takes the high ground, then she may be able to undo the damage. I expect she has the same attitude as you. If so, then she will be going down in flames very shortly.
Pansy Christianity, all love, flowers and Kuybaya is from the left. Not us. We are warriors for Christ and not playing into the enemies hands is part of that.
I agree with you. What the media has been doing to GOP women needs to be answered. I always think of it as a gang assault. It's time the GOP party bigwigs get together and defend these women candidates, the way dems went all over tv to defend Bill clinton.
It's discrimination against conservative women, and democrats even get away with calling Sarah Palin four letter curse words.
It is also the right answer. She would then have more media time spreading the message across the nation that Wallace publicly stated he was wrong. You can't buy that kind of coverage if you think about it....a guy saying he was wrong about you.
I have to dissagree, it’s not a contentuous dissagreement, just a different take...
Comparing the outstanding Reagan answer to the “age” issue, I thought I reemmebr reading somewhere the Mondale even thought Reagan really got in a good lick there...
But it is the whole context of today’s political analysis and lines of questioning some “journalists” (for lack of a better term), the gotcha nature of their trade is what irritates me more than anything, and it is not related to any particular form of favoritism towards any particular political party a candidate may be affiliated with...
They got away with the “age” question with Reagan because it was a legitimate question, based upon tangible evidence of the candidates ages...And they both answered the issue by cancelling it out and not making it an issue in the end...
That question (issue) was nothing like the Chris Wallace ambush (if you could call it that) of Bachmann this weekend...
If someone asked you “Are you a flake?”, in what was supposed to be a legitimate interview, with questions and answers, what would you have said??? How would you have reacted...
I can understand that being President you have to be prepared for such nonsense, but on the same token, the people asking those questions should respect the office and those seeking that position during a campaign...
Seems to me that no one would ever ask Obama a question like that...Which proves one thing...
Even FauxNews is not exactly in the corner of right-wing politics as some people think they are...
They report, and I certainly decide where I fall based upon facts and my own analysis...
And there are a ton of people who participate on this website who do the same thing...
Like I said before, remember the whole “Boxer or Briefs” question???
Trying to make politics something the pop culture society amoung us take notice really dumbs down the quality of representation we get in politicians these days...And we certainly need some injections of maturity and seriousness of purpose in those people...
Sorry for the long rant, but thats just the way I feel...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.