January 3, 2012

What if Alan Colmes — calling Santorum crazy for "playing" with his dead baby — secretly intended to boost Santorum?

This is a conspiracy theory. I'm not saying I believe it. I'm just going to spin it out for your consideration. Everybody's talking about what Alan Colmes said about Rick Santorum, and... ah! Looking for a link, I see that Allahpundit has already articulated the conspiracy theory:
You’d think liberals would want to pull their punches against Santorum until he’s built up enough momentum nationally to complicate life for Romney, yet here’s Colmesy throwing an uppercut straight to the groin.
Uppercut to the groin? How short is Colmes?
Pure instinctual ideological bloodlust? Or … is this actually a sly bit of jujitsu in which AC, through a calculated display of jerkiness, forces the viewer to sympathize with Santorum, thus giving him another little boost before tomorrow night? It’s good cop/bad cop co-starring Rich Lowry. Fiendishly clever!
More here from Allahpundit, demonstrating how effectively Santorum and his wife Karen — the neonatal nurse! — have been able to parlay the Colmes attack into some incredibly positive media that goes straight to the hearts of the Christian conservatives of Iowa.

But Allahpundit, at that first link, says "No, I kid. Obviously, it’s bloodlust." Is the conspiracy theory obviously too far-fetched? I think boosting Santorum really is some a devious hardcore liberal would want. Promote somebody who can slow down Romney and keep the Republicans fighting each other. You might think it hurt Colmes too much to appear so callous, but did it? He's got us saying his name and associating it with lively talking-heads TV.

Did Colmes secretly intend to help Santorum?
Yes. It probably was a devious plot to hurt the Republicans.
No. It's too evil and too weird a combination of smart and stupid to be believed.
  
pollcode.com free polls 

51 comments:

traditionalguy said...

Colmes can keep his head most of the time so that he doesn't get thrown out of the game for unsportsmanlike conduct.

But over the top reactions that public Christian Morality evokes from "liberals" is an unfiltered knee jerk reaction.

We give liberals and reptilians too much credit for possessing wisdom. What they possess is sneaky deceptiveness that slithers in through small, undefended places.

But caught out in the open, a snake is a snake.

Scott M said...

Alan Combs is James Carville's dead baby. There's a conspiracy for you. Disprove that if you can after looking at them.

Bob Ellison said...

Colmes has long seemed like a fairly honest liberal: a foolish but generally fair person. No Juan Williams, but no E.J. Dionne, either. So the KISS principle applies: he was just saying what he thinks and hadn't thought through the ramifications.

machine said...

Maybe he was just stating the obvious: It is unusual for a family to bring a dead baby home for the other children to see.

maybe...

Hagar said...

Alan Colmes is just naturally stupid and obnoxious. Use the remote.


Wv: ptingum - Alan Colmes

J Lee said...

No secret strategerie -- what Colmes did was simply to repeat a liberal talking point about Rick Santorum, as if the Santorums were simply a generic conservative "thing" with no feelings or suffering of their own, so that he death of their child is just more grist for the mill.

A dead baby in the left's eyes (or a Down's Syndrome child in the case of Sarah Palin and the 2008 election) might as well be Bain Capital or Newt's divorcing of his wives. It's just another attack point hey throw out there among each other, secure that thry'll never be called on it. Colmes' gaffe was doing it on Fox News where he could be called out on it by Rich Lowery.

toby said...

Conspiracy theorists often see darkness or light depending upon if they're in a manic or depressed state of mind. But please, don't let this influence your vote. You didn't posit this conspiracy, you're merely reacting to it.

Joe Schmoe said...

To me it does seem weird what Santorum did, but I don't begrudge him for doing it. I can't imagine losing a child like that and honestly couldn't tell you how I'd react. And it shouldn't even have come up on TV. I echo what others have said: Colmes got caught repeating something on TV that is routinely said in private by lefties.

campy said...

The libs don't want to slow down Romney. He'll be easy to beat.

machine said...

Uh Joe, you just said it too...

No one "begrudges" him...just pointing out the weirdness...

It is weird...but I hope I wouldn't bring it up on TV...

The Crack Emcee said...

This is a conspiracy theory. I'm not saying I believe it. I'm just going to spin it out for your consideration.

toby,

Conspiracy theorists often see darkness or light depending upon if they're in a manic or depressed state of mind. But please, don't let this influence your vote. You didn't posit this conspiracy, you're merely reacting to it.

Ha! I just mentioned, yesterday, how depressed Althouse can seem underneath that cheery exterior - which makes me depressed. There's so little honesty - it's all imagery - and easily seen through for those with eyes to "see."

For instance, this is the second time I've noticed Ann's engaging in conspiracy theories (I don't remember what the first time was, except that it caught my eye) and everyone just goes along with it, tra-la-la.

I, on the other hand, DON'T engage in conspiracy theories or cultism - except to point them out - yet Ann, and some of her readers, have repeatedly accused me of doing just that in a persecutory tone. They've INSISTED on it; all of which I find to be very strange behavior:

Mental projection is a motherfucker,....

Jay said...

It's too evil and too weird a combination of smart and stupid to be believed

Mostly this.

If only they would have aborted the baby and Colmes and his ilk could have praised Santorum...

Joe Schmoe said...

Colmes acts like a complete ass-wipe in that whole interview. Once Lowry calls him on putting both feet and most of his lower half in his mouth, he sits back like a petulant kid and carries on like he's the aggrieved party.

Colmes did offer one good line before self-destructing. I paraphrase from memory, but he basically says people are looking at Santorum now because "Republicans have speed-dated every other anti-Romney candidate at this point." That was pretty good.

The Crack Emcee said...

Oh - and one last thing:

Any immediate family member "playing" with a dead child one last time is NOT strange behavior.

It's delusional, yes, but, under the circumstances, also a profound statement of love and perfectly normal.

I've seen much, much worse,...

Chip S. said...

You're not thinking deeply enough, Althouse. The actual plot was by the Santorums, who brought their dead baby home in order to get Alan Colmes to say something incredibly stupid about it on national tv, thereby giving Rick's campaign a much-needed boost.

Joe Schmoe said...

It is weird...but I hope I wouldn't bring it up on TV...

machine, people talk about their own traumatic life events on TV a lot. But it's up to them to discuss it, and it's bad form to hit them over the head with it later. No?

paminwi said...

Alan Colmes is an ass! When he said they brought the baby home to "play with" he showed his true colors and no political "massaging" of his words is going to help him out in this situation.

I personally know two friends who did the same thing and it helped their complete family (children who were at home - not just the parents who were at the hospital)be able to mourn as a family unit.

To repeat - Alan Colmes is an ass!

toby said...

The Crack Emcee, I have read your comments and you are a breath of fresh air. In my profession of a psych social worker I dealt with parents who had children die At birth. The loss is profound. This behavior of Santorum can be seen as bizarre by those without empathy. When a parent loses a child it is a loss that only those who have experienced can fully comprehend.

The Crack Emcee, thanks for the link and keep speaking truth. I am a fan.

craig said...

This is how the left really thinks.

This is just one more artifact of what John Paul II correctly identified as a 'culture of death': a zeitgeist that rejects any aspects of human life that are not comfortable, pre-planned, and sanitized for your protection. Any unexpected intrusion of real life upon this utopian worldview must be disposed of, hidden, or avoided. It's the same mindset that causes the North Korean press to Photoshop out any individuals not in lockstep to mourn Dear Leader. It's the same reason the left hated Sarah Palin for not aborting Trig; for anyone to be thankful for his existence is a rebuke to their worldview.

Scott M said...

It is weird...but I hope I wouldn't bring it up on TV...

If machine were in charge, the entire reality TV industry would be dead. Come to think of it, machine, can you please get a job in reality TV asap?

Rumpletweezer said...

Alan Colmes lives in a dark place of the soul. It's hard to fathom that anyone with any sense at all would even go near that subject. Look, I just explained Alan Colmes in the previous sentence.

WV: dialm--for murder?

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Bottom line-- Fox News should get rid of Colmes. Colmes intended to be offensive, and he succeeded. It was bad enough to broach the subject, but then he compounded it by his reference to "playing with" the baby. My brother and his wife lost a baby boy at about the same point in her pregnancy. They gave him a name, a funeral, and a gravestone. To them he was a person that they loved. On top of everything, Colmes then leaned back, folded his arms and pouted like a middle schooler being berated by the assistant principal. Colmes is an evil creep, and Fox News should end its association with him.

machine said...

You mean like Jim Bob Duggar and the rest of the Duggar clan?

Bruce Hayden said...

It will be interesting. My guess right now is that Colmes won't have a job with Fox in a year. when his contract comes up, it won't be renewed. That sort of thing.

I don't see him much on TV any more, now that Hannity has gone out on his own. But do on occasion, and he has a Fox News talk show at a very inconvenient time for me. I refuse to listen to the smug and slimy jerk, who constantly takes things out of context to twist any story against his Noble Leader in a positive light. Fox has some good liberals aboard, who can argue honestly. Colmes just isn't one of them.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Maybe he was just stating the obvious: It is unusual for a family to bring a dead baby home for the other children to see.


It is NOW. However, in the olden days....like when my grandmother was born...people didn't usually go to a hospital to have their children.

Women generally gave birth at home with a midwife or with other experienced women in attendance, rarely with a doctor present or in a medical setting.

If the child was born alive good. If the child was born dead or died shortly afterwards there was generally a ceremony or a wake at home before the actual funeral. Other children in the house were not excluded from the grieving process, including washing and dressing the dead child.

It was quite common in those days to take photos of the dead child or dead baby, often in the mother's arms, for remembrance.

What is strange is to pretend that the pregnancy, birth and death never happened and to exclude the other children from the process of life AND death.

edutcher said...

Colmes never struck me as nasty, but he always toed the party line.

The Lefties hate Santorum with a passion (not sure why, he's never been much of a threat) and Colmes did what he was supposed to do, but, in more-Catholic-than-usual-in-the-Midwest IA, it ended up being a big favor.

Triangle Man said...

If John Scalzi is any indication, the left would like to see Santorum win with Paul in second place...for maximum lulz.

Jason said...

Don't know how to add a link, but this would make Holmes's head explode.

http://collegetimes.us/a-memento-of-life-once-lived-victorian-death-photography/

One thing that amazes me is how much sympathy libtards have for theoretical constructs - the poor, the gay community, womyn - and how little regard or empathy they have for actual people.

Mark O said...

Any parent who loses a child should have a free pass. Colmes should be shunned and permitted to work only with Keith Olberman.

He is a foul human being.

Jason said...

More examples of death portraiture.

http://users.telenet.be/thomasweynants/post-mortem.html

Hell, most people I know who have pets and a suitable yard take their pets home to bury them where they were loved. Their pets! Colmes can't even understand that, it seems.

This shit reminds me of those twits who got icked out by looking at Piper Palin smoothing Trig's hair at the GOP convention.

They love "the children" and can't stand actual kids.

It's like a personality disorder.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

They love "the children" and can't stand actual kids.


Another reason to take the dead baby home to the children is that it reassures the other children of their place in the family and that they TOO are loved and would be missed.

Children don't think in quite the same way as adults.

If we pretend that the pregnancy and dead sibling never existed. As if the "baby" that everyone was excited about and anxious to see was a nothing. No name. No identity. Erased and as if it didn't exist. Not missed in the family.....

Then (thinks the child) what about me?!? What if I am gone/dead would no one care? Am I a nothing also? So easily erased and not missed?

By bringing the child into the grieving process and introducing them to their dead brother, who has a NAME, has a face, has an identity, who was and is still part of the family, and who is loved and missed, the living child is assured of their position as being also cherished, loved and part of the family.

What is strange is the current trend to totally divorce ourselves from life and death. Pretend it doesn't happen.

Even in the level of where our food comes from. Steaks and chicken breasts don't just magically appear in plastic wrapped styrofoam packages. There is life and death involved.

To pretend otherwise is unhealthy.

virgil xenophon said...

Jason@10:04anm/

Yes about the theoretical vs the live individual: it is widely commented upon (even by lefty members of the MSM) that the Capitol Staff "little people" (barbers, doormen, cafeteria workers, security police, etc. ) are FAR better treated with respect, courtesy and dignity (inquiring about the health of their families, etc.) by the GOP than by Democrats on the hill, who more often than not are described (even by a press otherwise sympathetic to their cause) as brushing by them daily with haughty disdain..

Dave said...

@Craig

That's exactly what I was thinking when I responded at another blog earlier. Didn't know I was echoing the Pope. I said "I don't know why anyone is surprised. Colmes not only has a track record of this kind of stuff (attacking Palin and Trig, worshiping at the bloody alter of abortion), but is perfectly indicative of the left's mindset. I'm sure he's confused as to what the fuss is about, but he's playing the apology game because he's expected to. To people like Colmes, babies aren't people, they are things. Thinks to be avoided, things to be disposed of, things to be manipulated as needed. Peter Singer is a god to these people, and he's so putrid I hope I never meet him because I'm literally not sure I could contain myself. Deep in his heart of heart Colmes probably thinks that the Santorums got lucky. Hey, they already had 3 yammering rug rats at home, man, they just dodged a bullet there! Disgusting, every one of them. "

The Pope said it better

craig said...

Dave, thanks. The late Pope coined the phrase in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life):

"...we are confronted by an even larger reality, which can be described as a veritable structure of sin. This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable "culture of death". This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favoured tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. ..."

The Crack Emcee said...

Toby,

Thank you!

DBQ,

What is strange is the current trend to totally divorce ourselves from life and death. Pretend it doesn't happen.

Even in the level of where our food comes from. Steaks and chicken breasts don't just magically appear in plastic wrapped styrofoam packages. There is life and death involved.

To pretend otherwise is unhealthy.


As I was getting divorced, I was totally blown away by the reaction of everyone - my wife, my friends, lawyers, courts, society, everyone - that they were all so intent on distancing themselves from the issues at play because it was difficult. To this day, when I see the words "irreconcilable differences," the lie stings. The issues are only "irreconcilable" because no one can be bothered - especially to judge (You must not judge)! The idea of any right and wrong, or responsibility, is irrelevant - the unhealthy route is where everyone makes a mad dash, leaving someone as roadkill by the side of the road.

I blame NewAge liberal baby boomer hippies, of course,...

Fr Martin Fox said...

"Weird"? I don't know...

Depending on how you look at it, people do a lot of "weird" things around death.

When someone dies, people continue touching and kissing the body of the person who died. For awhile.

People frequently want the priest to come and do something--even after death. It can be awkward if someone wants me to baptize or anoint a dead body; but praying is no problem.

One time I came to the funeral home, because a parishioner had died at home, but not been found for a day or so. I said prayers over his body; it wasn't as bad as I thought it might be; but I thought it best if I actually saw his face rather than pray over the body in the bag. Why did I do that? I don't know.

When my mother and my father died, I thought it was important to be present when the casket was closed. I seem to recall, in the first instance, the funeral director suggested the pall bearers be present. Made sense to me.

We have all been to the funeral home, when the body of the person who died is carefully prepared for us to view.

Even at the funeral home, folks feel the need to touch and kiss the body.

But then, not many feel the need to keep vigil with the body of the deceased, which makes more sense to me, but is not easy to do.

So we have rituals with the body, even talking to the body and acting as if the person is still alive--but then we leave the body (which we were just treating very special) alone rather quickly.

Folks have their loved ones cremated, and then they do various things with the ashes: burying them in one place, scattering them, keeping the ashes on a mantlepiece, dividing the ashes into several urns among family or friends, or even creating jewelry.

Those are just the things I can think of. I bet quite a book could be written about "weird" things people do around death.

And in fairness to Mr. Colmes, he apologized to Sen. Santorum.

(FYI, for Catholics, the remains of the deceased remain sacred and thus burial, in the ground or at sea, is the norm. Even if one is cremated, the ashes should still be buried in one place, in the ground or at sea.)

Chip Ahoy said...

There is something wrong with the man, deeply wrong. I have not once heard him communicate to create understanding, and that is my problem with him. His mouth is a weapon and a weapon only, as far as I have seen. He mumbles continuously and annoyingly over his interlocutor, attempting to be clever, attempting to distract, attempting to express unedited every single barb that flies across his cranium to inflict maximum damage no matter how irrelevant, and that displays a roiled and disturbed mind. He has not once expressed anything other than a cartoon version of his opponents view. He is antagonistic for the sake of antagonism. He is not to be endured at a party, at a bar, at a private club, at the marijuana dispensary, in an elevator, anywhere at all.

He spoils every panel he's on. Fox is debased by his presence on the network, but what can Fox do when it develops their pet monkey only flings poo? There is a hard and fast rule around here: Colmes on, Fox off.

Fr Martin Fox said...

From what I've read, I wasn't clear how long the pregnancy had gone before the Santorum child was born. Many times, of course, a child will be born early, and be very tiny. When the child is stillborn, it's not always clear to the family what they are supposed to do.

I've gotten calls where the father asks, can we have a funeral? What do we do? Apparently, hospitals have flexible policies, meaning they will...deal with the child's remains. I haven't asked how they do that, I don't want to know.

My answer was, yes, have a funeral. Thankfully, a local funeral director helps with that and keeps it from being costly. I've done it several times.

I have also suggested, whether a child is stillborn, or there is a miscarriage, to give the child a name; and if there are no remains, we can still have prayers if the family wishes.

I don't know how it used to be; maybe we have new situations because technology makes it possible to see into the womb, and to attempt to save a child earlier and earlier. Maybe it's because the same child who is to be treasured can, at the same time, be disposable.

In any case, from my own, limited, experience, many parents feel lost in these situations. I am hopeful that at least some hospitals have skilled people to help parents make decisions that will be best for the long run, but it's not clear to me those folks are always available at that moment.

DADvocate said...

In this old picture of Colmes with Hannity, Colmes always looked evil. Now we know for sure.

Scott M said...

Colmes always looked evil. Now we know for sure.

When James Carville is your father, what do you expect? And don't give me relative ages and impossibilities of puberty. Carville has been alive A LOT longer than his public bio. Look very closely at "Napoleons Last Grand Attack" by Ernest Crofts and tell me the guy isn't a Nospheratu.

Christopher in MA said...

I note none of the usual suspects have come out to defend Colmes. Not because they actually think Colmes' words were dreadful, but simply because they haven't been force-fed the appropriate Democrat spin yet.

But honestly, why be surprised, either at what Colmes said or that he did say it? Abortion is and remains the bedrock of the Democrat party. I guarantee that, if you told the left that they could win every election in perpetuity so long as they agreed to restore slavery, child labor and public execution, they'd cheerfully agree. But say that, in order to never lose an election, they have to abandon abortion, they would refuse.

Abortion is the ultimate non-negotiable to a Democrat.

mccullough said...

What's worse, what Colmes said or that Santorum's using his dead child as a political prop like John Edwards did?

Dave said...

Aaaaand there's the spin.

Methadras said...

Alan "The Creature' Colmes looks like a dead baby all grown up. Colmes isn't fair, he isn't even smart. He just hides his leftardism behind the facade of being Mr. Milquetoast.

Cedarford said...

mccullough said...
What's worse, what Colmes said or that Santorum's using his dead child as a political prop like John Edwards did?

=================
A fair question.
While it was definitely the Santorum's prerogative to do as they did...15 years later Santorum is trumpeting his unusual decision as a political asset. "The others say they love unborn babies and oppose abortion but you need to vote for me based on what I and my wife did that gets us the fetus-loving award above all other candidates."
"You Right To Lifers just cant vote for Romney, Newt, Perry, Bachmann or Paul once I tell you my Certified as True Dead Baby Tale!!"

Perhaps Colmes was reacting to the blatant exploitation of the dead baby tale and a family tragedy as a political asset. As McCullough said, Edwards milked his dead son and his wife's fatal illness remorselessly in 2004 and 2008 as a political asset.
But Colmes stepped in it bad. Said it the wrong way.
There is room for criticism of the Dead Baby Tale, of Michelle Bachmann saying as a woman and mother of 23 that he has Absolute Moral Authority No Man Could Ever Have on abortion. Or Rick Perry's descent into new pandering levels of the RTL zealot vote. He recently said in Iowa he is soooooo anti-abortion he now opposes all abortions in cases following rape or the health of the mother.

toby said...

ChipAhoy, Very astute observation. Sit in a coffee shop in a liberal area and you here that condescending just plain stupid banter you described so well. They think it's a race to be witty and there's not an ounce of wit, just idle and random stupid comments. Like some you read here. But it's rapid fire, so it must be witty!

Cedarford said...

Chris in Mass - "Abortion is and remains the bedrock of the Democrat party."

I agree. And the pandering on the Dem side to that vote is knee-jerk and venomous to any challenge to restrict "a woman's right to snuff" in any way.

What is also true is most Americans are in the middle and Roe v. Wade remains the worst historical example of a supreme judiciary overreaching and doing something that should have been left to voters in the States. Kelo is nothing compared to the corrosive effects of Roe v. Wade.
But because lawyers dressed in robes meddled, the extremists won. What should have happened would have been about 30 states would have voted laws in that legalized most common abortions in the 70s, restricted 3rd trimester ones. Other states would have only had it in rape, life /or physical health of the mother. Laws would have then been tweaked by pro-life and pro abortion factions without extremists ranting about "The Constitution and Rule of Law" being shredded in the process.

Cedarford said...

Chris in Mass - "Abortion is and remains the bedrock of the Democrat party."

I agree. And the pandering on the Dem side to that vote is knee-jerk and venomous to any challenge to restrict "a woman's right to snuff" in any way.

What is also true is most Americans are in the middle and Roe v. Wade remains the worst historical example of a supreme judiciary overreaching and doing something that should have been left to voters in the States. Kelo is nothing compared to the corrosive effects of Roe v. Wade.
But because lawyers dressed in robes meddled, the extremists won. What should have happened would have been about 30 states would have voted laws in that legalized most common abortions in the 70s, restricted 3rd trimester ones. Other states would have only had it in rape, life /or physical health of the mother. Laws would have then been tweaked by pro-life and pro abortion factions without extremists ranting about "The Constitution and Rule of Law" being shredded in the process.

PackerBronco said...

What's worse, what Colmes said or that Santorum's using his dead child as a political prop ... ?

1/3/12 1:53 PM
=======
Cheap shot and one that you need to either back up or retract (that is, if you're a decent human being.)

As far as I know, Santorum's wife wrote a book about it. She's a neonatal nurse and she felt her experience in a similar situation, cope. Santorum, being a US Senate was naturally interviewed on the subject and he also was very frank and honest the experience.

So, if other people ask him about it, should he opt to not answer those questions? And if he does answer, does that constitute in your mind using his dead child as a political prop? Why?

Really in all seriousness, do you actually have a legitimate point to make here, or were you just mouthing a liberal talking point, with no facts to back it up, because you thought it would be an effective counter-attack?

Paul Kirchner said...

I would have tried to put together some thoughts on why I dislike Alan Colmes so much, but Chip Ahoy said it all.

I don't believe Colmes is "a fairly honest liberal: a foolish but generally fair person." He comes off as a miserable creep. BTW, does he have children?

DEEBEE said...

Uppercut to the groin? How short is Colmes?
=====================
That was intellectually speaking, in which case totally!