March 26, 2012

"You don't care at all about the truth."

Santorum to reporters.

63 comments:

Andy R. said...

He's a parody of Newt Gingrich, which is funny because Newt Gingrich is a parody of a presidential candidate.

edutcher said...

No, Santorum's been caught and had the truth shoved back in his face and now he's trying to weasel his way out of it.

The best part is that he's also trying to promote himself as the Romster's running mate.

There's a marriage made in Hell.

Andy R. said...

He's a parody of Newt Gingrich, which is funny because Newt Gingrich is a parody of a presidential candidate.

The only parody of a Presidential candidate is the one selling us out in South Korea.

Andy R. said...

Also, I strongly suspect that any attention paid to Santorum is causing long term damage to the Republican party, so I love how frequently he is in the news for all the dumb and embarrassing things that he does.

Frothy is the joke that keeps on giving.

If only Republicans weren't so opposed to making Romney the nominee they could have ended this a long time ago. The rubes have really been putting up a fight about Romney, and although it was doomed to fail, it's fun watching them stamp their feet and tell the elites how much they dislike Romney.

Kirby Olson said...

I think Santorum is dead right on every topic. I must be nuts.

MadisonMan said...

Knowing that gotcha journalism is a way of life, Santorum nevertheless says something that can easily be misinterpreted to the maximum damaging effect.

Then he complains when it happens.

Thin-skinned whiner.

I cannot say I'm disappointed.

yashu said...

Hate to agree with Andy, but this does seem like an attempted remake of Newt's altercation with John King-- very ostentatiously picking a fight with an MSM journalist-- which at the time gave Newt a big boost.

But when it comes to tussling with the MSM, Santorum's a poor man's Newt.

m stone said...

No dem is going to touch the "selling out" we've witnessed today.

Inexplicable.

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

Also, I strongly suspect that any attention paid to Santorum is causing long term damage to the Republican party, so I love how frequently he is in the news for all the dumb and embarrassing things that he does.

Frothy is the joke that keeps on giving.


Hatman needs to get his face out of his froth and remember nobody sees it his way.

rcocean said...

He's just telling like it is. Sadly, for him Republicans only nominate people when its "their turn". You need to lose at least once or be the son of a President to be nominated for POTUS.

They aren't called the "stupid party" for nothing.

Penny said...

Here's the good news...

"Truth" isn't a four-letter word on Twitter, YETI.

Stand your ground. Bigfoot!

Revenant said...

I strongly suspect that any attention paid to Santorum is causing long term damage to the Republican party

If Bull Connor didn't do long-term damage to the Democratic Party's appeal to non-white voters, I doubt Rick Santorum will do much lasting harm to the GOP. :)

Our winner-take-all system means we will always have exactly two major parties. You can only weaken one in the short term; in the long term the weaker party always adapts to lure in votes.

ricpic said...

Truth? The truth is for suckas, right hatboy? It's the agenda that counts. The Agenda. THE AGENDA!

Rabel said...

Santorum:

"He is the worst republican in the country to run against Obama."

Ny Times reporter:

"You said that Mitt Romney was the worst republican in the country. Is that true?"

Santorum missed an opportunity by losing his cool.

The CBS interview of the reporter (Zelaney) was one Baghdad Bobish.

They really have no sense of honor or integrity.

All the news that's fit to whatever.

DADvocate said...

No matter what you think about Santorum, Gingrich, Romeny, Obama or any other politico, Santorum's largely correct. Just look at the MSM's handling of the Trayvon Martin case.

edutcher said...

rcocean said...

He's just telling like it is. Sadly, for him Republicans only nominate people when its "their turn". You need to lose at least once or be the son of a President to be nominated for POTUS.

They aren't called the "stupid party" for nothing.


If that's the case, where's Huckleberry?

He's the one that stayed to the bitter end. It should be his turn.

Luke Lea said...

The original snippit from Santorum's speech made it sound like he was saying Romney was the worst Republican candidate to put up against Obama period. Later, with the NYT reporter, he makes it clear that he was talking about Obamacare. My question: was the original snippet taken out of context?

Because something similar seems to be happening with regard to Zimmerman, the "white racist who shot an unarmed youth because he was black" to summarize the news coverage.

Below is a link to an un-redacted copy of the complete 911 call. You be the judge. Do the news media do this because it sells?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321817

Bruce Hayden said...

He's just telling like it is. Sadly, for him Republicans only nominate people when its "their turn". You need to lose at least once or be the son of a President to be nominated for POTUS.

The reality is that Santorum is not ready for the prime time yet. Maybe next time.

The problem is that he has not shown that he can keep his temper and keep on message. And, if he thinks that Romney and his people are mean, just wait until he'd be against Obama and his people. We are talking potentially another billion dollar war chest, combined with the MSM pulling out all the stops again. Which means that they, and not the Republican nominee, are going to be calling the shots. Plus, Obama, and his people, have shown that they will do anything. Anything at all, legal or not really legal, to win reelection. They know that, for them, winning is the only thing that matters. And, to the victor go the spoils, and means the legal apparatus that could be used to investigate any illegalities.

Yes, life is unfair. But, moaning about how unfair everyone is being to you, is no way to win the Presidency. The opposition is going to be viciously tough against whichever Republican gets the nomination, and if Santorum can't handle the heat from Romney, Gingrich, etc., then he would likely totally flame out when attacked by Obama, his people, and the MSM, day in, and day out, mischaracterizing his record, his religion, etc.

And, yes, I am contrasting Santorum here with Romney, who is looking more and more viable as a candidate. He stays on message, and rarely gets flustered. He side steps some of the land mines left by the MSM that Santorum stepped onto. And, he is far better organized.

Finally, I don't think that Gingrich is any readier for prime time than is Santorum. And, I think that he would be an even bigger disaster as the Republican nominee.

Penny said...

"Our winner-take-all system means we will always have exactly two major parties. You can only weaken one in the short term; in the long term the weaker party always adapts to lure in votes."

Revenant's "mouthy" ECHO, here.

Always loved "Heidi", but please don't make me go to the Alps, Goat Peter. I love America.

What is your suggested "therefore"?

Andy R. said...

He stays on message, and rarely gets flustered. He side steps some of the land mines left by the MSM that Santorum stepped onto. And, he is far better organized.

Yes, robot candidate is robotic.

Penny said...

"The reality is that Santorum is not ready for the prime time yet. Maybe next time."

Bruce Haydon, I used to think YOU were prime time, at least here on Althouse.

Maybe next time?

MadisonMan said...

"You said that Mitt Romney was the worst republican in the country. Is that true?"

Santorum missed an opportunity by losing his cool.

Yup. All he had to do was say No, I said that because he authored RomneyCare in Massachusetts, Romney is the worst Republican to campaign against ObamaCare.

So not ready for Prime Time.

Penny said...

Is this next election about WINNING, or about VALUES?

Writ Small said...

Santorum strikes me as a man on the edge, not planning a Newt-like media assault. Of course, he was right that the reporter was distorting, but a president must keep cool under pressure.

I like how Charlie Rose asked the following question to the Times reporter: "Do you think he actually feels that any other Republican would be better than Mitt Romney?" Amazing.

Revenant said...

Is this next election about WINNING, or about VALUES?

Winning. These are politicians; if you're looking for values from them you're not all that bright. :)

traditionalguy said...

Poor Saint-orum preaching to the choir but using a valid decriptive word "bullshit" only to be reminded that his choir are kindergarten level religious legalists who revel in using the guilt weapon.

It would improve his delivery 100% if he learned to quit pointing an accusing finger at everyone he speaks to. It only makes people point one back.

Dante said...

I suppose politics is a higher form of being were the truth takes a back seat to more powerful forces. The top 10% to 2% of voters will make the distinction between republicanism and suffocating, politically driven centralized control in health care. The top 2% will see Romney's position for what it is: an acceptance of the meddling, controlling on high role of government in this most intimate part of our lives.

So yes, Santorum is absolutely right. Romney is the worst Republican candidate possible. Let's take away the distinction of the role of government in our lives as a debate between Republicans and Democrats. Romney's for it.

Given these circumstances, you are faced with the following. If you believe government is destroying Western civilization, by imposing dependency solutions on the populace, magnifying the problems by encouraging the individual behavior that got us here in the first place, subsidizing it, the only solution is to vote for Obama.

The country needs the temperature on the pot with the frog in it to be turned up. Obama will do that. Romney will too, but not as much and confuse people as to what's going on. So we need Obama.

Maybe, then, the frog will jump out of the pot, and realize why it feels so cooked.

Dante said...

Andy,

Are you gay? I've read instances indicating you are. If so, do you have kids?

If you don't have kids, why do you care so much? It's not as if you have a skin in the game.

John Stodder said...

Santorum is out of control. He is too crazy to be president irrespective of ideology or party.

Penny said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Penny said...

See how that works?

Revenant said...

Santorum is absolutely right. Romney is the worst Republican candidate possible.

Two obvious problems with that claim:

1. Santorum endorsed Romney for President in 2008. Everything Santorum says disqualifies Romney from the Presidency happened *before* Santorum's 2008 endorsement. This tells us that Santorum has lied his ass off about Romney -- the only question is whether he did it now, four years ago, or both.

2. Santorum himself is an enthusiastic advocate for government meddling in private lives. If he differs from Romney at all it is only in the *manner* in which he wants the government to meddle. They only anti-meddling candidate left in the race is Ron Paul.

Revenant said...

Bright enough to tarnish you on Althouse tonight.

I hadn't noticed. Who are you, again?

Penny said...

Apparently, no one you care to know.

Penny said...

Penny said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
3/26/12 11:00 PM
Penny said...

See how that works?

Penny said...

SELF censoring here.

And you?

Penny said...

Let me teach you something, Revenant.

When you want to "win" an election, you self-edit for the occasion.

The "occasion" is the Republican Primary.

Phil 3:14 said...

Andy;
He stays on message,

"On all these issues, but particularly missile defence, this, this can be solved – but it's important for him to give me space....This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

Be assured Comrade Vladimir will get the message

Penny said...

No comment?

Then let me continue.

When you can't pick a party favorite in the first 30 days, you really don't care about the "win".

At least as much as you say you care about "the win".

Penny said...

It's about values!

And not just anyone's values.

It's about YOUR values, dammit.

Penny said...

And then we line up for our values...

Against abortion?

First line to the left.

You're fucking infantry!

John Lynch said...


You can't handle the truth!

Penny said...

Statistically, we can expect losses on this front.

Get a grip!

Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Saint Croix said...

My question: was the original snippet taken out of context?

It's obvious that Santorum believes they are intentionally taking his comment out of context.

I was actually irritated by the clip itself because I wanted to hear Santorum's next sentence. His remark is provocative and I wanted to hear the context. They abruptly cut it off. I had the feeling I was missing something.

I had this feeling before I heard Santorum's remarks. Once I heard them, I really, really wanted to hear the next sentence in his speech, the one the network cut out.

You expect in a campaign the opposition to run commercials like this. Quote your opponent out of context in order to make him look bad.

You also hope the media can be relied on for the truth.

Quoting somebody out of context, using a short clip so they appear to be saying something they are not, can be intentionally dishonest. (Michael Moore does this all the time).

If Fox or somebody else wants to expose the MSM as dishonest, they might be able to use the longer clip and show how the media and the reporting is slanted against Santorum.

To me, that's the story! Is the media being dishonest in its coverage of Santorum? Run the longer clip, and let us make up our minds.

Give us more information.

Once Santorum makes that charge, then the media is the story. We have to see the context of the remark.

Right now we simply don't know whether this is a "gotcha" moment, or whether the media is intentionally distorting what Santorum is saying.

Penny said...

John Lynch quoting Colonel Jessup in "A Few Good Men".

One fewer good men than I thought, but hey!

Never got in my way before.

rcommal said...

Santorum as Jack Nicholson (except, he didn't get the quote right)?

Michael K said...

"I think Santorum is dead right on every topic. I must be nuts."

Yes, you are. No offense.

Penny said...

True, rcommal.

But Santorum does seem to consistently speak out of the right side of his mouth.

Freakish how the other side never moves?

Birth defect?

Michael K said...

"And, yes, I am contrasting Santorum here with Romney, who is looking more and more viable as a candidate. He stays on message, and rarely gets flustered. He side steps some of the land mines left by the MSM that Santorum stepped onto. And, he is far better organized."

I actually like some of what Gingrich says. He is fast on his feet but too fat and looks too unhappy. Americans don't elect mean or nasty people president. That is why Obama will lose and Romney win.

Santorum is one of the nastiest GOP figures in a long time. Even Ron Paul has learned better. I could see Gingrich as UN ambassador but Santorum will be giving speeches to angry anti-abortion groups until he dies. And he jumps on land mines and stomps around until they explode.

Andy R. said...

Are you gay?
Yes.

I've read instances indicating you are.
You seem to be quite the detective.

If so, do you have kids?
Not yet.

If you don't have kids, why do you care so much? It's not as if you have a skin in the game.
What does this mean?

rcommal said...

Well, Santorum really has become sort of a Fanny Brice character as sung this way. This surprises even me, who has followed Santorum's political career from election one, way back when. But there you go. So it is.

Saint Croix said...

Santorum endorsed Romney for President in 2008. This tells us that Santorum has lied his ass off about Romney

No. Santorum is making a pragmatic argument here. He's saying, "The #1 issue in this campaign is the repeal of Obamacare. And Governor Romney is the worst Republican to wage that fight. Because of Romneycare, he would be the weakest person we could nominate."

He's not saying Romney would be a bad President, or that Romney ls lying when he says he would repeal Obamacare.

What he is saying (I think) is that this election is about attacking Obamacare, and Romney is the weakest Republican to fight on this issue.

It's hardly a scandal to make that argument. I've made that argument. I don't know if it's actually true (I think Romney is a stronger debater than Santorum), but it's hardly a scandal to say that Romneycare makes Romney the weakest Republican in any attack on Obamacare.

Obama: "We based our health insurance plan on what Republican Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts."

If that's what Santorum said/meant, it's not a scandal at all.

Nor is it a scandal to say that the liberal media is dishonest in its coverage of right-wing Republicans. Is the New York Times interested in truth? "All the news that's fit to print." What a pompous, dishonest thing to put on your newspaper every day.

Penny said...

Precisely! And me too!

Course it's "clear", to at least the two of us, if no one else, exactly WHY Santorum wears a slicker.

I mean it honestly isn't as if that slicker was his condom.

Except maybe it is?

Not really, but maybe metaphorically?

Anyway.

I had a friend who was left out in the rain eating cake at McArthur Park.

Sad story that I won't go on about.

Just learned there and then, never trust a man who doesn't put up his umbrella.

SGT Ted said...

Well, he's right, they don't care about the truth.


Example: See Zimmerman, who is belongs to the heretofor undiscovered category of Hispanics, called "White People", that can be safely called racists for political purposes.

Example: See Duke Lacrosse Team.

Example: See Barack Obama.

SGT Ted said...

Yes, robot candidate is robotic.

You talking about Obama, who stutters as if his Hard Drive stops when his telelprompter fails, right?

Matthew said...

"Yes, robot candidate is robotic"

-- Republicans are robotic, Democrats are disciplined.

TMink said...

Andy, you just keep suspecting. I suspect you will have an interesting morning in November where you have to come up with a new grand plan to explain how wrong you have been.

But that is just what I suspect.

Trey

~N. said...

Gingrich and Santorum are proving themselves to be spectacularly narcissistic and ego-centric.

They cannot win the primary. Cannot. Win.

Yet they continue these attacks on Romney, weakening the guy who is going to be the Republican candidate.

They are happy to have another four years of Obama to run on in 2016. They don't want a successful four years of Romney because Gingrich will probably be dead by 2020 and Santorum will be so irrelevant by then he won't be able to scrape together $10.00 in campaign financing.

Santorum took the reporter's question "out of context" every bit as much as he attacked the reporter for doing to his comment.

As someone said, he lost his cool, and chose to showcase his the thing people dislike most about him rather than explain what he meant.

Santorum needs to go, as does Gingrich. This is not making anyone stronger. No wonder Obama is feeling cocky about his second term.

Robert Cook said...

"I think Santorum is dead right on every topic. I must be nuts."

Yes.

I Callahan said...

Santorum is one of the nastiest GOP figures in a long time.

Dear God, what planet are people living on? Romney runs gazillions of dollars of nasty ads in EVERY state so far, and Santorum is the nasty candidate? For holding to his values? As Tank would say - Dead Country Walking.

I think there is a cult of personality running through Althouse's threads lately. People were snookered by Obama because they wanted to believe things about him that weren't true. The irony is that a lot of commenters here are guilty of the exact same thing regarding Romney.

You have to go through major mental contortions to justify voting for a guy who was in favor of state-run health care, TARP, stimulus, Cap-and-Trade, federal minimum wage increases tied to inflation, the necessity of higher gas prices, and the right of a state bureaucracy to overrule religious conscience among other leftist ideas.

Winning. These are politicians; if you're looking for values from them you're not all that bright.

What is the point of winning if the candidate in question isn't going to do what he hope you do? Isn't that what some liberals got when voting for Obama?

Then he complains when it happens. Thin-skinned whiner. I cannot say I'm disappointed.

Would you be any less disappointed if he weren't a whiner? Or is this just confirmation bias?

You want to believe what you want to believe, the facts be damned. Do take solace in this, though, because although human beings are the only species capable of logical reasoning, it seems that most people aren't capable of it. So at least you're in the majority.

Dante said...

Andy:
If you don't have kids, why do you care so much? It's not as if you have a skin in the game.
What does this mean?

What it means is if you aren't procreating, and aren't worried about the future of your offspring, why do you care so much about politics?

I care because I'm worried the future is going to be pretty screwed up for my kids. But if you don't have kids (or intend to have them), it would seem the road stops for you.

So why do you care so much? What's the impetus.

Dante said...

Revenent: You can have your Santorum is a liar and big spender, and Romney is still the worst person to lead republicans against Obama and his big health care mandate.

See, it takes off this big huge new mandate, since Romney's a whore for it, at best (at worst, he's for subjugating people to government).

See, if Republicans and Democrats are on the same side as this, what do they disagree on? It seems only Defense is left, but Democrats seem to love shooting 'em up too.