'Flakes,' Feinstein and Fox News Sunday by Jeannie DeAngelis 27 Jun 2011 post a comment Share This: Every person who speaks eventually makes stupid comments – that’s a given, especially for individuals on the public stage and more specifically politicians who are required to have their facts straight all the time. Yet, there seems to be a disparity between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to so-called unbiased journalists putting the spotlight on gaffes. Moreover, the chasm gets wider if an opportunity arises to repeat misstatements made by Republican women. The liberal media conveys a tacit attitude that those on the right are intellectually challenged. The unspoken question: Other than being a victim of a comprehension deficit, what other reason could there possibly be for a person to choose to be a conservative? For years, the public has been subjected to the media bestowing accolades upon liberal women for superior intellect ranging from Hillary Clinton, who successfully dodged sniper fire in Bosnia, to Nancy Pelosi, who cited “500 million Americans” who lost jobs monthly prior to the stimulus. Not every woman can be as astute and articulate as pseudo-intellectual leftist mouthpiece Janeane Garofalo. So, when a Republican woman misstates a fact, gets confused, or is quoted out of context, as a public service the media pounces on every word in an effort to reconfirm the fact that conservative females, as a whole, are an intellectually-challenged group. Ever since accomplished lawyer, businesswoman, Minnesota Congresswoman and presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann joined the Republican field, attention has somewhat shifted from spending inordinate amounts of time convincing Americans that Sarah Palin is an idiot. The newest pastime is scoffing at Michele Bachmann’s foster parenting claim and her perceived inability to look directly into a television camera. Much to the delight of the left, a mother lode of fodder has also been gleaned from Michele’s faith-based and social issue statements having to do with homosexuality, intelligent design, abortion rights, and her desire to return to the nation’s founding principles. While smarmy sarcasm demeaning conservative women is expected from the media, what was not expected was Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asking Michele Bachmann if she’s a “flake.” The definition of “flake” is a ditz; a “ditz” is a silly, scatterbrained person. Despite being neither, while a featured guest on Wallace’s Sunday show Michele was confronted with the following statement: I don't have to tell you that you have -- the rap on you here in Washington is that you have a history of questionable statements, some would say gaffes, ranging from -- talking about anti-America members of Congress -- on this show -- a couple of months ago, when you suggested that NATO air strikes had killed up to 30,000 civilians. Are you a flake? A question like “Are you a flake?” would be justified if Wallace presented all his guests who’ve misspoken with a similar inquiry but, hailing from a liberal media gene pool, he hasn’t. Chris Wallace did apologize to Mrs. Bachmann, as well he should. But God knows if the criteria for being considered a “flake” was mixing up the facts, then based solely on confusing living Medal of Honor winners with dead ones and visiting “57” of the United States (with one left to go not including Hawaii and Alaska), Barack Obama would be off the charts on the Chris Wallace flake-o-meter. Moreover, if the woman who Chris called a “flake” was Nancy Pelosi (D-California), Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein (D-California), Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Florida) or Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Wallace wouldn’t just be apologizing, he’d be seeking a summer internship at MSNBC purely on the sexist nature of his innuendo. Nevertheless, one wonders if Chris Wallace is actually onto something. In an effort to alert America to ditzy public servants, specifically of the female kind whose mental acumen leaves a lot to be desired, Chris could be pioneering a find-the-flake mission. Forging ahead on that quest, Mr. Wallace could start the journalistic expedition with the former Speaker of the House. An interesting question to ask Ms. Pelosi would be, “Nancy, are you a ‘flake?’ After you were briefed on water boarding, you claimed you didn’t know about it. Is that because deep down you really are somewhat ditzy?” Moving along in the spirit of fairness and unbiased reporting, Chris Wallace could ask the smartest woman in the world something most people wonder but never ask: “Hillary, are you a ‘flake?’ How many years are you going to continue this farce you refer to as a marriage?” Playing no favorites and unearthing female flakes wherever they reside, Chris Wallace could then ask Dianne Feinstein, “Dianne, are you a ‘flake?’ Did you actually say we should ‘go in and arrest’ Gaddafi and could accomplish that goal without boots on the ground?” While he’s at it, someone on the left should ask Mr. Wallace to see if he could get DNC Chairperson/gender-neutral mama grizzly Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Florida) to explain what she was thinking by asking: “Deb, are you some kind of ‘flake?’ When you said the Democrats ‘own the economy,’ what possessed you to assume full responsibility for such an abysmal financial climate, which currently includes 9% unemployment?" The “flake” inventory is never-ending, so amongst minority female politicians, Chris Wallace would have to include Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) and ask her: “Sheila, are you a ‘flake?’ Did you really ask a guide at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California whether the Mars Pathfinder took a photo of the flag Neil Armstrong planted on the moon?” It’s easy to predict a liberal woman’s response to the “flake” question, and it wouldn’t be pretty. On the other hand, after being asked if she was a “flake,” Michele Bachmann, who always comports herself as a lady, responded with both grace and aplomb. The presidential hopeful acknowledged a history of controversial statements and admitted that “a person has to be careful what statements they make.” Regardless of Chris’s ulterior political motives, and despite his apology, in the end it was Michele Bachmann who provided an unintended public service for liberals with her “be careful what statements” response. Mrs. Bachmann’s genial comeback provided valuable cautionary advice for the Maxine Waters and Barbara Boxers of the world. If by some chance, on a cold day in hell, Chris Wallace actually decides to be “fair and balanced” and ask liberal women to explain their decades-long litany of ditzy remarks and strange behavior, thanks to Michele Bachmann’s warning even human-global-warming-sensor Debbie Stabenow of Michigan could actually come across a tad less flaky.