Santorum’s Non-Gaffe

Joe is reading Santorum too deeply. This comes on the heels of Palin’s blood libel “slip-up” that generated tons of criticism — but also tons of media coverage. With Santorum’s presidential hopes failing, he obviously needed a boost of publicity. Say something outlandish that is offensive and attacks Obama, gin up the base, get media types like Joe to bite (and, surprisingly, defend him)…mission accomplished.
http://sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/

“….those who would describe his argument as racist are either purposely trying to distort what he said or they don’t know what they’re talking about”
.
What about him? I don’t think he knows what he’s talking about. Or YOU, for that matter?
.
Inner Santorum is propping up a campaign in inner-city (read: black) neighborhoods on the evils of abortion. The anti-abortion people miss the boat entirely: abortion is not a problem with African-Americans as much as TOO MANY BABIES BEING BORN TO YOUNG UNWED MOTHERS is. They never treat the problem, only the symptoms. As a church deacon, it saddens me.
.
“Kerfluffle…straitened….”
.
Back on the $2 word wagon aren’t we?

Rick Santorum, indeed, made a reasonable argument given the position that life exists at conception (which can be argued even easier from the position of DNA than by theology – and more relevant for a democracy rather than a theocracy or a monarchy where theology rules).
.
His disconnect, as I have seen in about 95% or more of the pro-lifers I have known (including pro-life atheists – yes, we do exist) is that conservative anti-labor and anti-environmental policies among others make the financial burden of parenthood far greater and is, even above it’s legality, a very significant cause of abortions.
.
The US ranks number 6 in the world for abortions per capita and except for Sweden, all five with higher rates have failed social service systems making parenthood a far harder choice.
.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_abo_percap-health-abortions-per-capita
.
“Socialist” Greece has less than one 40th as many abortions.
.
For a reasonable pro-lifer, one ought to believe in far, far more generous social services than what the US offers.

If you believe that a fetus is a person, then
-
… you are working tirelessly to have universal access to contraception, accurate information about reproductive health, and health care for pregnant and new mothers, while you’re working to ban in vitro fertilization because it causes thousands of embryos to be discarded.
-
Sorry, Santorum doesn’t count.
-
Indeed, there is an internal logic to Santorum’s remarks
-
A condescending and baseless logic, but logic, I suppose.

His argument isn’t racist, it is idiotic.

Does Santorum’s “perfectly reasonable argument” for fetal rights conflict with his position on equal rights for homosexuals? Is it hypocritical? Or does it reflect his rejection of both reproductive rights and universal civil rights?

Joe Klein:
.
I’m in complete agreement with you.
.
It also seems important to point out how commendable it is that you’ve restated your rightist political opponent’s position fairly and accurately.
.
Now, if you would only replicate that fairness and accuracy when restating the arguments of political opponents to your left, i.e. movement liberals, you would have more reason to be admired than virtually the entire centrist political press corps.
.
Someday I hope to read proof that your rhetorical generosity extends not only to movement conservatives struggling for dominance of the GOP, but also to those of us who compete with your faction for control of a major political party, Joe Klein.

Yes it was a clumsy statement, but so what, when his beliefs stand in stark contrast to what he says. Where does he stand on Health Care, minimum wage, SS. If one is going to protect life, then one must protect policies that will sustain life.
.
In short his stance on abortion is nothing more than a political one, meant to fire up the base and diminish the opponent.

You’re completely wrong about what’s offensive about Santorum’s comments. It’s not the fact that he analogized abortion to slavery. I don’t think many people would be offended by that, whatever they thought of the merits of the comparison. What’s offensive is his comment that he found it “remarkable” that Obama, as a black man, would make a certain comment. Basically, he tried to tell Obama what Obama ought to think about an issue as a black man. That’s offensive.

I’m black man myself. I ought to be free to think whatever I want about the political issues of the day, and I don’t need a white man telling me what a black man ought (or ought not) to be thinking.

Consider the same point in a different context. What if Santorum had been commenting on a Jewish speaker and said that he found it “remarkable” that XYZ, as a Jew, would make a certain comment. That’s just as offensive, and maybe it illustrates the point better for some people.

Thank you for pointing out the real problem with his remark. Had it not been for that, he would not have felt the need to walk it back as he has had the same position on abortion for years.

Tuesday: Rep Cohen compares GOP to Nazis.
>>>Uproar, apologizes
.
Yesterday: Sen Santorum compares abortion to slavery.
>>>Meh, logically valid, nothing to see here.
.
I don’t believe these two situations are all that different.

First, you must understand that Santorum truly believes that abortion is murder
.
Really?
.
He also supports the death penalty for premeditated murder, doesn’t he? So he is an advocate of the death penalty for both the woman having the abortion, and the doctor performing it?
.
Really?
.
And he is talking about running for President?
.
Fact check:
.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05081/475366.stm
.
Can’t really tell from this whether his vote (or possible veto) has changed. But he recognizes the existence of an inconsistency in his following the Church’s teaching on abortion but not on the death penalty. He doesn’t resolve the inconsistency in this article–the Church doesn’t object b/c DNA evidence shows that innocents have been put to death. It objects to putting people to death.
.
But I do stand by my belief that he would not advocate treating abortion in the same way as a pair of people conspiring to kill a four year old.

For those who may have not bothered to click through, or who were not aware of the original statement, here it is. As jacoxnet said above, Santorum had no business bringing the President as “a black man” into it.

“The question is, and this is what Barack Obama didn’t want to answer — is that human life a person under the constitution?” he said. “And Barack Obama says no. Well if that human life is not a person then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.’

Sorry to disagree–but “as a black man” is entirely appropriate when it comes to slavery references. Just as “as a Jew” would be entirely appropriate when it comes to genocide or blood libel references. I’ve spent much of my life listening to, and agreeing with, African-Americans who told me that “as a white man” I couldn’t possibly imagine what it was like to be black. Again, Santorum was trying to unite two types of people he believes have been severely discriminated against–fetuses and blacks. You may not agree with his belief that black people should be more sensitive to the rights of fetuses–I certainly don’t–but it is neither insensitive nor nefarious.

Yep. Once you start introducing the concept of consistency and logic to the anti choice position, you’re left with a tangled mass. As you point out here, it is not really about abortion.it’s about controlling women’s lives. They focus on abortion because it is the ickiest part of managing your reproductive life, and they also try to focus on the ickiest abortions.
.
As you say, when he starts calling for the termination of all in vitro fertilization services, Joe would be justified in citing his “internal logic.”
.
Fortunately Dan Savage ended Santorum’s political career.

Um, Joe….
.
Like many American blacks, Obama is not descended from slaves.

But if you don’t believe that a fetus is a person, then Santorum is very clearly saying that people of African descent are somehow less than people.

See, it’s not what he believes that’s what necessarily paramount here.

I’ve spent much of my life listening to, and agreeing with, African-Americans who told me that “as a white man” I couldn’t possibly imagine what it was like to be black.

.
You’ve missed jacoxnet’s point entirely. The analogy would be if African-Americans told you what you should think as a white man. That would be arrogant, condescending and a bit racist, don’t you think?

Why didn’t Inner Santorm appeal to the president’s Caucasian side then?

It’s only mean-spirited, I guess, if you push the mother of all hot buttons – anti-Semitic – versus a black, Hispanic, Indian or gay one.

Hope you saw 9.5
Thanks, Joe, for your viewpoint.

I’m all for fairness in reporting what people say, even when they have to re-explain what they were saying.
.
But…I agree with others, especially jacoxnet (#9) that the comment was clumsy and inappropriate.
.
That being said, in my mind Santorum has already long gone off the cliff as to reason and logic, and I don’t pay any attention to anything he says, ever.

Joe – Let me see if I can explain why the two kinds of comments you discuss are completely different.

- A member of a group that has experienced unusual and different treatment tells outsiders that they “can’t undersand” what it’s like to belong to the group and go through those experiences. This is a factual assertion that is maybe right or maybe wrong, but it’s not likely to be offensive.

- Outsiders tell a member of a group that has experienced unusual and different treatment how that unusual and different treatment ought to affect his political views. This is a normative assertion, neither right or wrong, but one that (depending on the sensitivity of the issues) could easily cause offense to the listener.

I read the article & comments. I would like to add my comments as a Registered Nurse. Point by point, they are:
1) Anyone who has ever studied anatomy & physiology and or obstetrics knows a human in the womb is human.
2) Anyone who has ever studied genetics knows that a species for instance HUMANS could only reproduce humans and not cats,dogs,or plants.
3) Those who argue that a human in the womb is not human or not a person is ignorant of sciences.
4) Rick Santorum is spot on with his analysis of the situation. Blacks who were defined before Civil War as not human or subhuman for the purposes of legal standing and rights should have tremendous compassion for preborn humans who suffer the same fate currently.
5) Humans have human DNA that is distinquishable from any other species and from plant DNA. Humans are unique on the earth.
6) Human persons in the womb should be protected by governments. There is no other purpose of gov’t but to protect the innocent.
7) there is a huge difference in protecting the innocent but not the wicked. Protecting th assassins of the innocent is not the purpose of good government. Nor is in the plan of GOD.

More misinformation from the left wing state run media. The 3/5 ths compromise wasn’t a defining of a slave as three fifths of a person. It was an enumeration of the population of “all other persons” for the purposes of tax distribution and apportionment.
Delegates SUPPORTING slavery actually wanted to count all the slaves as a whole population. Free state representatives didn’t want to count them at all.
In short, slavery was an evil and abhorrent practice but the continuing misinformation and misrepresentation by those that would use it a s a means to their own personal ends should be corrected. Not all Americans in the South supported it and many in the North did. And remember that the Klu Klux Clan was first and foremost an organization of Democrats. Remember Senator Byrd (D., WV)?

I’m really surprised that a guy like Joe, who is so smart, would undergo such rigorous mental gymnastics to get to this:

“Again, Santorum was trying to unite two types of people he believes have been severely discriminated against–fetuses and blacks.”

Don’t you see that the equivalence of fetuses and black people is inherently offensive?

GP, thanx for your perspective. Please refer to my post @ 2.0 and see if you don’t agree.

Maybe you can take YOUR three-fifths and join up with 2/3rdsrocks. Maybe then you’ll have a combined one and four-fifteenths brain.

“More misinformation from the left wing state run media. The 3/5 ths compromise wasn’t a defining of a slave as three fifths of a person.”
.
Did you know that you are posting on Swampland regarding a comparison of abortion to slavery by Rick Santorum?
.
If so, do you wonder why I call you Retardomax?
.
You are way off in left field here, retardo.

Delegates SUPPORTING slavery actually wanted to count all the slaves as a whole population. Free state representatives didn’t want to count them at all.

And do you know the actual reason behind this? It isn’t because those in favor of slavery were such upstanding people. They wanted slaves to “count” as a full person because it would increase the effective populations of their states, giving them an advantage in the legislature and for elections.

But those who would describe his argument as racist are either purposely trying to distort what he said or they don’t know what they’re talking about.

I linked about this yesterday. There’s a few problems with Santorum’s remarks:

1) Black people all think the same, or at least should.

2) [link] “…he finds it remarkable that pro-choice policymakers want to ‘decide who are people and who are not people,’ but thinks it’s fine for Rick Santorum to ‘decide who are people and who are not people.’”

Because it’s aimed at a minority it has the appearance of racism, but that’s not exactly right…it’s more evidence of Santorum’s theologically-limited view of things, which causes him to make ‘foolish consistencies’ of logic in order to fit his beliefs into the world we live in…as seen in #1, or apply it inconsistently, as seen in #2.

Poor qualities in a presidential candidate, to be sure.

I’m no fan of your’s Joe Klein…but thank you for sticking up for Rick Santorum.

I’m not even going to say Rick Santorum is the greatest thing since sliced bread….but what he said was not racisit.

And if Jesse Jackson made the same argument in the 1970′s then this is truly hypocricy of the left.

And, I had to sign up to make this comment….so that’s true love and support for your column

Whenever the discussion of abortion comes up, I post one of the weekly links in the Philadelphia Inquirer of already born children who need to be adopted, so those who are concerned have an opportunity to do something for a living child instead of just an unborn child.
.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/20100830_Monday_s_child__Joseph__a_teen_who_wants_to_help_others.html

Megynkellyfan:
Yep, that explains a lot.

More specifically, the NAME Megynkell[e]yfan explains a lot.

I’ll only comment on the abortion perspective, because to me the race issue involves much more speculation and subjective opinion.

I believe that both sides of the issue make a valid point. Abortion transcends (or at least should) political perspective. I know liberal lifers and conservative choicers. The issue is that the state is charged with protecting the health and life of the woman who is pregnant, and also the fetus/baby. I believe that a fetus is a human being, but I also thing abortions should be available for women whose lives are in danger and in vitro-fertilization should be allowed. The race point seems somewhat irrelevant.

jacoxnet is 100% correct and 0% wrong. Joe, as a rich white guy, you have white privilege. As a white middle class guy myself, I have white privilege, too, but I know enough to understand that telling black people what they should think about the experience of being black in America- and then connecting it to another issue- is totally inappropriate.

Racist or non-racist…whatever. What’s the real point here? Rick Santorum is trying to come up with another Republican style reason why Obama is no good. And he’s making some connective stretch here to do it because it helps make the point that Obama is no good.

It’s not a social or philosophical statement. It’s a political statement. But for it to be truly effective it needs to be a clean hit…not some bumbling connection that’s likely confuse or alienate independent voters (ala Sarah Palin’s ‘blood libel’ reference).

Net result: Rick Santorum proves once again that political dialog rises if he and others like him aren’t in it.

It would appear to me the abortion debate is one mostly concerned with philosophy (and by extension semantics), not biology.

“Again, Santorum was trying to unite two types of people he believes have been severely discriminated against–fetuses and blacks.”

I wonder what he thinks of zygotes. Surely, the black community should unite with these microscopic single cells, the latter so obviously oppressed. (Cells, persons, whatever.)

I agree with jacoxnet, one of the main gaffes here is suggesting that race determines an individual’s political and ethical values. Another is using the history of slavery to justify his own political position on a different issue. He may not know the logical implications of his argument, due to his own intellectual limitations, but that is the crux of what he is saying. That is the underlying hypothesis and I believe that type of argument does not hold up in light of the facts.

Dear gloria, your position as an RN is overridden by your obvious religious beliefs. Religion and science don’t mix, and you present lies in the name of religion, not science.

Let’s cut to the chase here. Santorum is all about religion, specifically that of the Roman Catholic variety. In 100 years, assuming our free society evolves as I hope, nobody will know of him, and I would expect that there would more likely be a memorial to Madelyn Murray on the mall in DC. If I am wrong, there will be a memorial and chapel to St. Pope John Paul II. If that is the case, I will be happy to be rotting away in the earth.

Several of your statements are misleading and others are just plain incorrect. I don’t know if you are lying or if you truly believe what you are saying. However, if you are really a nurse, you would know that the human DNA is not unique– we differ from ape by only a few chromosomes, from all other mammels by a only a few more and from all life on this planet by less than 10%.
.
You say that the role of the government is to protect the innocent. But republicans have little interest in spending money for the living innocents who are currently suffering due to poverty, neglect, pre-existing conditions, mental illness, education, school lunches… The fact of the matter is, there were abortions being performed before roe v. wade and if it were overturned, abortions will continue to be performed though at considerable risk to the life of every woman seeking one. It always amazes me that the pro-life community is go vocal about abortion and overturning roe v. wade, yet they are the first to deny the suffering living government aid and the first to espouse the benefits of the death penalty.

Keep posting that link Ivy.

Joe, maybe people have a dim view of Santorums ability to be nuanced and avoid dog whistles. After all, this is the man who claimed gay marriage would bring man on dog sex.

“Now, once again, you may not believe that a fetus is a person–but if you do, as Santorum does, this is a perfectly reasonable argument, an argument against limiting the civil rights of anyone according to race or life status. (It also, I’d argue, compels Santorum to support fully equal rights for homosexuals–which he doesn’t, a sad consequence of his rather straitened ideology).”

Only if you believe that homosexuality is a genetic, inborn quality of the individual, as opposed to a choice or socialized behavior. Santorum almost certainly believes the latter, so no compulsion exists.

41% of NYC pregnancies are ended in abortion. The majority of the lives aborted are black children. Who speaks for them?

Blacks who were defined before Civil War as not human or subhuman for the purposes of legal standing and rights should have tremendous compassion for preborn humans who suffer the same fate currently.

Are any of these said “blacks” still among us? No? Then precisely how is Santorum correct? Your entire position is ridiculous, as is Santorum’s. No one alive in America today has been a victim of slavery or counted as 3/5s of a person for purposes of apportionment. Santorum’s commentary is, as per usual, stupid and inflammatory

Joe: This is mildly off topic, but I would love to see a blog post (or even article) on this guy. As far as I can observe, he’s a professional presidential candidate. You never hear about the guy except when he’s running.
.
What exactly is his argument for getting into office. Given the Republican field is pretty much a free for all, I’d be honestly interested to see some reporting on what some of the guys so blatantly running are all about.

How do you know this? Divine revelation, a la Santorum?
.
Above in #15, I applied the term, “lied”, to gloria’s religious beliefs. That was wrong because, like you, she believes this inherent fabrication by religion. But your statement is even more disgusting and revolting than Santorum and gloria combined. I ask again, how do you know of what you speak? Fact is, you don’t.

Apparently, not you, at least in any convincing way.

formerlyjames,

How would you know? Are you an advocate for the black babies whose lives are being snuffed out?

If he wants to force his religious views on an entire country, he needs to think about running for pope and not president. The majority of this country isn’t Roman Catholic and if he wants to make his religious views an issue, he can kiss the south good-bye. The Baptists here spend one Sunday a month preaching against Catholics (by inference, the Episcopalians and Lutherans) and another preaching against Mormons (good-bye Mitch!). And this is the Nixon Republican base.

Katherine Jean Lopez of NRO just loves him. That is enough.

If a fetus is a person with civil rights can mom and pop get it a Social Security number while it’s in-utero?