Alan Colmes: The way Santorum dealt with the death of his child sure was crazy

posted at 4:45 pm on January 2, 2012 by Allahpundit

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. 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!

No, I kid. Obviously, it’s bloodlust. That’s the first clip; the second clip, via the Right Scoop, has Santorum talking about his son’s death a few months ago in an interview with Piers Morgan. I don’t know where Colmes is getting the idea that they brought the baby’s body home to “play with it.” They brought him home because they wanted his siblings to understand that they had had a brother who’d lived and died. Seeing him with their own eyes and having a few hours together as a family would bond them to his memory in a way that nothing else would. It’s not what most parents would do, but it’s not “crazy.”


Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

This just points out how ridiculous it is to have a government attempt to legislate based on morality.

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 12:00 AM

What laws are acceptable to you that are NOT based on morality. Theft? Murder? Most laws have a basis in morality.

And it’s the homosexuals who are trying to get laws passed about same-sex marriage. It’s already against the law in the United States. They are trying to force THEIR IMmorality on the rest of society. They can already do whatever they want, in the privacy of their own homes, but that’s not enough for them. They have to parade down mainstreet humping one another in public.

They can have civil agreements and even have a “marriage” ceremony if they want to, yet that’s not enough for them. They want to force society to condone their “relationships.” Disagreeing that homosexuality should be condoned by society doesn’t make me a bigot. And equating the PERVERSION of homosexuality with bestiality and incest doesn’t make me a bigot, either, whether you like it or not.

JannyMae on January 3, 2012 at 12:09 AM

I personally have nothing against polygamy and believe banning it is a violation of the first amendment.

Where does the first amendment guarantee the right to polygamy?

JannyMae on January 3, 2012 at 12:10 AM

In 1774 my wife and I buried a three month old SID baby boy.

If I EVER get to meet Alan Colmes I’d rip has throat out.

He’s another Bill Maher but with rolling eyes and much less
witt.

May he get his due.

Texyank on January 3, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Good for Rich Lowry for going after Colmes and keeping at it.

sDs61678 on January 3, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Correction . . .1974 I’m pissed.

Texyank on January 3, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Santorum’s plan to bond his kids to dead fetus is at best no different than bonding with a corpse
you encounter in a funeral home which you wondered into thinking it was a dry cleaners.

thuja on January 2, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Gabriel was born, and lived for two hours after birth. For you to refer to his child as a “dead fetus” is downright evil.

dominigan on January 3, 2012 at 12:12 AM

There’s a very distinct difference between them that you’re failing to realize. Homosexual acts are between two consenting adults.

I did not fail to realize it at all. It just makes no difference. All four are about ‘legislating morality.’

A child doesn’t have the maturity to make such a decision.

Perhaps (I could argue few 20 year olds in our culture have the maturity to make such a decision, and I think our current cultural breakdown proves it), but what we define as a ‘child’ is a purely cultural decision. Muslims think it was perfectly okay for Muhammed to have sex with his 9 year old bride.

An animal is unable to communicate consent. However, in the case of two men or two women, there is clear consent.

So what? We kill and eat animals. They don’t consent to that.

I personally have nothing against polygamy and believe banning it is a violation of the first amendment.

Then you should exclude it when you make the argument.

This just points out how ridiculous it is to have a government attempt to legislate based on morality.

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Your argument shows that you do not think the culture should be defining any behaviors as ‘immoral’ unless there is an immediate and easily defined victim of the behavior.

That is the naive viewpoint of most libertarians. Conservatives think otherwise. Conservatives believe there are behaviors that have a corrosive effect on the society and create victims who are not immediately apparent, and that those behaviors should sometimes be discouraged by the force of law.

fadetogray on January 3, 2012 at 12:14 AM

You know Iran, and North Korean feel the same way about homosexuality as “evangelicals” in this country do. Funny thing.

9.6% unemployment rate, untold amounts of debt and out of control government spending and the thing that most gets them frothing at the mouth is the thought of 2 dudes making out. Unbelievable.

Keep the government out of marriage.

1984 in real life on January 3, 2012 at 12:19 AM

IMO, this site doesn’t need any more open registrations. If anything, it needs a long cleansing bath. I have previously made fun of several lefty sites that make you “audition” or have you on a probation, as part of being allowed to post on the site. I now have a totally different opinion. I’ve also noticed that more and more of the older and good posters are disappearing from here, is this in reaction to the nastiness of the discussions, or the insane comments from some here? Something the folks in charge need to take a long look at, I think.

di butler on January 2, 2012 at 6:33 PM

+1000 I completely agree. Some of the comments here are just plain disgusting.

dominigan on January 3, 2012 at 12:20 AM

fadetogray

You aren’t a Conservative. What you’re advocating is communism.

corrosive effect on the society and create victims who are not immediately apparent

Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, etc. Same old Marxist rhetoric.

1984 in real life on January 3, 2012 at 12:21 AM

JannyMae on January 3, 2012 at 12:09 AM

Outlawing prostitution, for example, is legislating ones morality. Two sides agree to have sex in exchange for money. Nothing wrong with that, even though that’s not something I have any desire to take part in. Same with polygamy. Multiple sides enter a contract among themselves. Nothing wrong with that, and, again, I have no desire to take part myself.

Theft and murder are quite different from polygamy or prostitution. In both cases, there is damage done to the private property of another person without consent.

Like I said earlier, get the government out of marriage and the entire problem disappears.

JannyMae on January 3, 2012 at 12:10 AM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Go look up the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 12:25 AM

You aren’t a Conservative. What you’re advocating is communism.

corrosive effect on the society and create victims who are not immediately apparent

Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, etc. Same old Marxist rhetoric.

1984 in real life on January 3, 2012 at 12:21 AM

As I said, most libertarians appear to be profoundly ignorant about what conservatism is. You just proved it again.

fadetogray on January 3, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Then you should exclude it when you make the argument.

I agree. I wrote it out and hit submit, 3 seconds later I wanted to take it back.

Your argument shows that you do not think the culture should be defining any behaviors as ‘immoral’ unless there is an immediate and easily defined victim of the behavior.

The culture can define immoral all it wants, that’s an inevitability. But, what’s in question is should the government be legislating based on that cultural immorality?

I argue that it shouldn’t. Legislating based on morality just leads to Jim Crow laws and sodomy laws (things that restrict freedom). The only way to govern while maximizing freedom for all individuals is to elect politicians that abide by the non-aggression principle.

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 12:39 AM

CBS News has posted a cleaner version of Santorum’s remarks, and it seems as though Santorum did not actually say “black people’s lives,” but rather, that he stumbled in mid-sentence with a verbal tic that sounded like that.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 2, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Are you saying he has a verbal tick that makes him say the word “black” randomly?

That’s pretty darn weird.

ButterflyDragon on January 3, 2012 at 12:40 AM

fadetogray on January 3, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Personally, I view conservatism as small government, in a nutshell.

A lot of this discussion is centered around increasing the size of government to impose certain morals on others. It’s something I cannot view as conservative.

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 12:42 AM

I argue that it shouldn’t. Legislating based on morality just leads to Jim Crow laws and sodomy laws (things that restrict freedom). The only way to govern while maximizing freedom for all individuals is to elect politicians that abide by the non-aggression principle.

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 12:39 AM

Muslim’s believe the age of consent is nine years old. Do you agree, or would you prefer to legislate your own moral view?

Muslims believe that a woman is worth half that of a man. Do you agree, or would you prefer to legislate your own moral view?

sharrukin on January 3, 2012 at 12:43 AM

As I said, most libertarians appear to be profoundly ignorant about what conservatism is. You just proved it again.

fadetogray on January 3, 2012 at 12:31 AM

I know what conservatism is and I consider myself a conservative. I want to conserve my freedom as an individual, my finances, and my right to worship/not worship whatever deity I choose. The root of all conservatism is a basis in small government, and personal freedom.

Conservatism is not a vessel of the hardline, religious fundamentalists. That is a more recent development, perhaps, in part fueled by the backlash towards the progressive, leftists of the 1960′s era.

1984 in real life on January 3, 2012 at 12:43 AM

The culture can define immoral all it wants, that’s an inevitability. But, what’s in question is should the government be legislating based on that cultural immorality?

I argue that it shouldn’t. Legislating based on morality just leads to Jim Crow laws and sodomy laws (things that restrict freedom). The only way to govern while maximizing freedom for all individuals is to elect politicians that abide by the non-aggression principle.

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 12:39 AM

Any behavior the government does not legislate against and becomes a common part of daily life will gradually be accepted as not being immoral. That is human nature.

And, yes, legislating morality does restrict the license to do whatever you want (political freedom is something quite different).

However, no, it does not ‘lead’ to Jim Crow laws. Legislating morality leads to wherever the morality behind the legislation leads. The ‘morality’ behind the Jim Crow laws was itself corrosive to the society.

fadetogray on January 3, 2012 at 12:47 AM

You know Iran, and North Korean feel the same way about homosexuality as “evangelicals” in this country do. Funny thing.

1984 in real life on January 3, 2012 at 12:19 AM

You’ve disqualified yourself from this any claims of intellectual honesty. When people like you calls someone else a bigot (or implies as much), they’re only exhibiting their own issues. It’s textbook psychological projection.

CanofSand on January 3, 2012 at 12:50 AM

Personally, I view conservatism as small government, in a nutshell.

…………..

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 12:42 AM

I know what conservatism is and I consider myself a conservative. I want to conserve my freedom as an individual, my finances, and my right to worship/not worship whatever deity I choose. The root of all conservatism is a basis in small government, and personal freedom.

……..

1984 in real life on January 3, 2012 at 12:43 AM

As I said, most libertarians think libertarianism is exactly the same as conservatism. It is obviously not.

fadetogray on January 3, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Conservatism is not a vessel of the hardline, religious fundamentalists. That is a more recent development, perhaps, in part fueled by the backlash towards the progressive, leftists of the 1960′s era.

1984 in real life on January 3, 2012 at 12:43 AM

You are correct. Religious fundamentalism is not the same as conservatism. Many religious fundamentalists are much better described as religious radicals, not conservatives.

However, like with the libertarians, there is a significant amount of overlap. Fundamentalists are often traditionalists, and conservatives generally understand the value of tradition.

fadetogray on January 3, 2012 at 12:55 AM

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 12:25 AM

You didn’t answer my question. My question was “What laws are acceptable that are NOT based in morality.”

Laws against theft and murder are based in morality. Your justification for laws extends to “doing harm to other people,” in these instances, but it’s still morality. Your morality states that it’s “wrong” to do harm to other people. The first amendment does not prohibit laws based on morality. Laws, based on morality, are not an establishment of religion.

Prostitution is a very poor example of a victimless crime. If a man has sex with a prostitute and takes a disease home to his spouse, then she’s a victim. There are logical reasons for most morally based laws, even if you choose to reject them as “legislating morality.”

You see nothing but black and white.

JannyMae on January 3, 2012 at 1:00 AM

sharrukin on January 3, 2012 at 12:43 AM

Your second case is very easy so I’ll deal with it first. Inside the Muslim culture, they can treat a woman as half the worth of a man. But, as far as legislation is concerned, that would be restricting the rights of women. So, of course that’s something to oppose. Not sure why you bring this up.

The second is much more difficult one, however. Should there be an age of consent? Or is that restricting the rights of a mature 15 year old? Libertarians generally agree that children do need protections but, there is a lively debate on where and how the line is drawn.

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 1:03 AM

You’ve disqualified yourself from this any claims of intellectual honesty. When people like you calls someone else a bigot (or implies as much), they’re only exhibiting their own issues. It’s textbook psychological projection.

Perhaps I should have been more clear, I was referring to the following post by that comment, and merely drawing a ridiculous parallel between two lines of thought that are equally as ridiculous.

They are trying to force THEIR IMmorality on the rest of society. They can already do whatever they want, in the privacy of their own homes, but that’s not enough for them. They have to parade down mainstreet humping one another in public.

How you could NOT think that above comment was bigoted is disturbing, and this seems to the the common train of thought for most religious extremists. Replace gays with Blacks, Chinese, Fat people and any other minority group and the message still applies. The point is, legislating moral beliefs is never a good idea.

1984 in real life on January 3, 2012 at 1:03 AM

fadetogray on January 3, 2012 at 12:47 AM

That’s not at all true. Culture moves completely independent of the government. As evidenced by the changing views of slavery in the south before the civil war. As evidenced by the continued acceptance of gays.

The rest I’ll just politely disagree with.

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 1:07 AM

In reading some of these responses it saddens me to hear what ppl believe.

We lost one of our twins during childbirth 3 years ago and it was a pretty heart-wrenching ordeal. Even though our hospital was very respectful – I’d give anything in this world to have spent just a little more time with our son during our time of mourning. I think of him everyday.

We’ve been blessed that his identical brother survived and we have his resemblance to remind us what he may have look liked but for some of you to criticize Santorum for deciding to honor the passing of his child in terms appropriate to his family is galling, to say the least.

This is not “fair-game” nor a decision point relevant to judge someone for holding the office of the Presidency.

Colmes should apologize as well as some of the posters here in this thread.

rgrovr on January 3, 2012 at 1:07 AM

Your second case is very easy so I’ll deal with it first. Inside the Muslim culture, they can treat a woman as half the worth of a man. But, as far as legislation is concerned, that would be restricting the rights of women. So, of course that’s something to oppose. Not sure why you bring this up.

Sharia law says she has half the value of a man.

Where do you get the idea she has the same rights as a man?

Why does your moral concept trump that of the Muslim moral concept?

The second is much more difficult one, however. Should there be an age of consent? Or is that restricting the rights of a mature 15 year old?

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 1:03 AM

We are talking about a mature nine year old.

sharrukin on January 3, 2012 at 1:08 AM

Colmes’ “apology” was dishonest. He is still slandering the Santorums on his website: http://www.alan.com/2012/01/02/santorum-flashback/

I say boycott Fox until they fire this piece of s*it.

Kane Rogers on January 3, 2012 at 1:12 AM

JannyMae on January 3, 2012 at 1:00 AM

There’s the morality argument to it but, my argument comes from a respect for private property.

Prostitution is a very poor example of a victimless crime. If a man has sex with a prostitute and takes a disease home to his spouse, then she’s a victim. There are logical reasons for most morally based laws, even if you choose to reject them as “legislating morality.”

Legalizing prostitution would do wonders to improve that hypothetical situation. The same works on similar arguments about legalizing drugs. Legalizing it would make both situations much better for everybody involved.

The first amendment does not prohibit laws based on morality. Laws, based on morality, are not an establishment of religion.

But, when your legislated morality infringes on the protected rights of another, it’s time for you to reconsider your stance.

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 1:14 AM

That’s not at all true. Culture moves completely independent of the government. As evidenced by the changing views of slavery in the south before the civil war. As evidenced by the continued acceptance of gays……

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 1:07 AM

If slavery had continued to be a common part of daily life in the North, it would have been continued to be accepted there as not being immoral, just as it continued to be accepted as not being immoral in the South (certainly not as immoral as taking away slaveowners’ ‘property’).

And the more the laws have moved to accepting homosexual behavior as ‘normal,’ the more homosexuality has been accepted as morally normal. That is the core reason homosexuals are so rabid about getting gay marriage.

Of course morality can slowly shift without the force of legislation, but the law just as obviously accelerates the process.

fadetogray on January 3, 2012 at 1:15 AM

I think you need to have a word with the Democratic strategists about that. Colmes is out there shooting his mouth off, and I really doubt that was an accident.

gryphon202 on January 2, 2012 at 11:54 PM

Neither, do I.

98ZJUSMC on January 3, 2012 at 1:20 AM

JannyMae on January 3, 2012 at 1:00 AM

There’s the morality argument to it but, my argument comes from a respect for private property.

Let me expound on that. You have a house and right next to you is your neighbor and his house. Now think of what you can do. Can you burn your house to the ground? Sure. Can you burn your neighbors house to the ground (without his consent, of course)? No. And it’s not because it’s immoral, it’s because you are directly infringing his rights.

You can consider it immoral to burn another person’s house down but, it has nothing to do with this argument.

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 1:21 AM

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Still at it? Get a friggin life.

CW on January 3, 2012 at 1:26 AM

fadetogray on January 3, 2012 at 1:15 AM

The government can fan the flames, so to speak but, it can’t start the process (trying to do so would be totalitarian). But, television, books, music, etc. (you know, culture) is a far more effective and moral method.

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 1:26 AM

No. And it’s not because it’s immoral, it’s because you are directly infringing his rights.

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Where do you think rights come from? What do you think they are if not moral arguments?

sharrukin on January 3, 2012 at 1:27 AM

CW on January 3, 2012 at 1:26 AM

You’re adorable.

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 1:27 AM

sharrukin on January 3, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Framing rights as moral arguments doesn’t change anything.

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 1:32 AM

I say boycott Fox until they fire this piece of s*it.
Kane Rogers on January 3, 2012 at 1:12 AM

I agree and will do my small part, as of now. I will also shun any network that may be foolish enough to hire him in the future.

OldChick on January 3, 2012 at 1:35 AM

gyrmnix

Hey, you have made it clear that you want to use the power of the federal government to advance the homosexual agenda.

Good for you and the gay mafia.

tom daschle concerned on January 3, 2012 at 1:39 AM

Framing rights as moral arguments doesn’t change anything.

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012 at 1:32 AM

Here’s a clue.

In the absence of legislated morality you don’t have any rights at all. You don’t have the right to life, to property, to be safe in your person, to even speak if the powerful decide that you should not. We have these sorts of rights because of legislated morality which we call the constitution. They don’t exist in places like North Korea. The argument you are making can only be made by someone who has been under the protection of others his entire life and cannot conceive of a world without that protection.

sharrukin on January 3, 2012 at 1:39 AM

Santorum’s plan to bond his kids to dead fetus is at best no different than bonding with a corpse
you encounter in a funeral home which you wondered into thinking it was a dry cleaners.

thuja on January 2, 2012 at 6:11 PM
Gabriel was born, and lived for two hours after birth. For you to refer to his child as a “dead fetus” is downright evil.

dominigan on January 3, 2012 at 12:12 AM

thuja…you are probably one who wipes both orfices when you take a dump…don’t you? First in the back…then, using the same tissues for your mouth.

KOOLAID2 on January 3, 2012 at 2:00 AM

That’s a great bunch of BS. Hope it works out for him. By the way…if he wasn’t saying blacks, then what was he saying?

rubberneck on January 2, 2012 at 7:16 PM

I listened to the video from two different posts. The first time, I honestly thought he said “black people.” The second time was from the link in your post, and it sounded more like he started to say “lives,” then backed up and said “people’s lives.” As in, “I don’t want to make li– people’s lives better by giving them money.”

The context, as Cindy Munford pointed out, was that he preceded it by saying, “all of you.” So by context, it’s more likely a verbal stumble than anything else.

BTW, Cindy Munford also thought he said “black people” when she first heard the video. It may be that you posted a cleaner version of the video that actually clears Santorum from what initially sounded like it could be a racist remark. I suppose he should thank you.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 3, 2012 at 2:02 AM

This so-called discussion has devolved into something completely sad. My wife and I lost a child under very similar circumstances, at 21 weeks. When the nurse asked if we wanted to hold him, I thought it was weird, but it ended up being a moving and spiritual experience. I will always remember it as a beautiful moment. In the context of my personal circumstance, I feel Colmes was a douche for trying to play politics with the death of this child, and the comments on his website are vile beyond belief. Is there nothing off limits anymore?
Those trying to use the Santorum family’s horrible, gut- wrenching experience as an excuse to debate extraneous issues or score political points on this thread are just as disgusting, no matter which side of the political spectrum they reside. If there is no longer a place where decency dwells in our society we are lost, our culture debased to a point not worth defending. I pity those of you who have reached their intellectual bottom. You have my sympathy and my prayers…along with a heaping dose of disrespect. Sad.

Kenz on January 3, 2012 at 2:03 AM

tom daschle concerned on January 2, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Homosexuals are sexually perverse?

gyrmnix on January 2, 2012 at 8:42 PM

By definition. Though most people try to be polite and not bring it up.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 3, 2012 at 2:11 AM

tom daschle concerned on January 2, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Marriage was destroyed by letting government get involved in it in the first place.

I’ve got a very simple solution to the gay marriage debate. Get the government out of it. From my perspective as a christian, I view the government’s co option of marriage as a blatant violation of the first amendment. Let marriage return to the churches. Problem solved.

gyrmnix on January 2, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Marriage was not created by the churches or for the churches. It’s a human institution that occurs among Moslems, Hindus, and the irreligious. So the notion that it became distorted when the government “got involved in marriage” –whatever that means — has no real basis in fact.

Governments recognize marriage because people get married, and it changes their relationship in multiple ways, such as the beginning of families with children.

It appears what you’re advocating is for the government to get far more involved in marriage than it ever has before, to the extent of forcing everyone to recognize marriages between two men or two women. Such marriages never existed before now in this country, and they only seem to get created in other countries when the government gets involved in redefining marriage.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 3, 2012 at 2:19 AM

I had a miscarriage in 1994. I think about that child every single day. That happened 17 years ago, and yet I still think about it every day. I cannot imagine the grief over a baby that is born and dies right afterward. I know what I felt from going through a miscarriage. Alan Colmes is beyond despicable.

littlekittie on January 3, 2012 at 2:28 AM

You know Iran, and North Korean feel the same way about homosexuality as “evangelicals” in this country do. Funny thing.

1984 in real life on January 3, 2012 at 12:19 AM

That implies a certain historical ignorance. The fact is that very few cultures or societies through the ages have condoned homosexuality. In fact, it seems to be instinctive to be disgusted by the thought of two men or two women being “sexually intimate.”

I think the gay community has tried to convince themselves that it is only Christianity which rejects homosexuality, when the rejection of homosexuality seems to be far more widespread.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 3, 2012 at 2:33 AM

I really dislike Colmes, but I have to admit that I have never heard of anyone bringing a dead baby home to show there kids. Is this a very common practice, now?

claudius on January 3, 2012 at 3:01 AM

My sister’s second child was stillborn. The hospital dressed him, put him in a basket and in a private room. We visited him. I spent 30 minutes with him, grieving over him…his full-term, lifeless body. To this day his older sister and two brothers, born after him, talk about him from time to time.

I imagine they didn’t allow Santorum’s kids to visit or it was easier to do it at home. I’m so thankful we had time to spend with him to remember him. We didn’t do it the way they did but they did the right thing.

BTW – the memory is so strong that I cried the entire time I wrote this.

norcalgal on January 3, 2012 at 3:20 AM

You have to be a cryptic in all respects except for features people want in someone to run for POTUS,

Sadly, most of us are weird.

And the media selects only the few to endow with their faux perfection.

IlikedAUH2O on January 3, 2012 at 3:23 AM

In 1774 my wife and I buried a three month old SID baby boy.

If I EVER get to meet Alan Colmes I’d rip has throat out.

He’s another Bill Maher but with rolling eyes and much less
witt.

May he get his due.

Texyank on January 3, 2012 at 12:11 AM

1774?

(i will not take my own advice and say something personal)my wife had a similar situation, a miscarriage near the 3 months mark. i actually think that a miscarriage so early on is easier to overcome emotionally. scientific data says that early gestation miscarriages are very very common(many just seem a irregular period). the reason is the mix of genes during conception many times does not produce viable fetus and as such, our rationale, is that miscarriage is part of the process of trying to have a baby and better to have a miscarriage than a baby with very serious problems. me and my wife quickly overcome this episode of our lives and had 1 more child soon after. to bury a 3 month fetus for us its an incredible bizarre behavior.
on the babies we did have we took the whole battery of genetic tests and we would certainly would have an abortion if for example discovered our baby had down syndrome early in the pregnancy. its our rationale that bringing into the world babies with severe deficiencies when you can avoid them by screening and early month abortion, is cruel and wrong and maybe immoral.
this is to say that attaching oneself to unborn babies, especially in the first 3 months, and giving them a personhood can lead to great emotional stress. if you do it for religious reasons, then your religion is really not helping you on this.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 5:53 AM

my wife and I buried a three month old SID baby boy.
Texyank on January 3, 2012 at 12:11 AM

you mislead me, you are talking about a SID baby death, which is quite different from a miscarriage and not exactly on topic. at my knowledge no one is against grieving 3 month old babies.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 6:05 AM

you mislead me, you are talking about a SID baby death, which is quite different from a miscarriage and not exactly on topic. at my knowledge no one is against grieving 3 month old babies.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 6:05 AM

The description was very clear.

If you consider yourself “mislead” that is of your own doing, not the writers.

Not “on topic”? Perhaps you need to go out through the door and come in again, with a different attitude.

Yoop on January 3, 2012 at 6:18 AM

Alan Colmes is little more than human flotsam in a sea of extreme progressive ideology. His responses even to the most benign and inconsequential questions become a verbal nuclear strike against conservatives or anyone else who doesn’t agree with him 100%.

Fortunately, only a handful of people watch him and even fewer believe his rants.

BMF on January 3, 2012 at 6:22 AM

I love the smug holier than thou way leftists like Colmes feel it perfectly acceptable to pass judgement on others- as if the hypocrisy isn’t apparent. Bottom line, how Santorum dealt with the loss of his child is none of Colmes business. Never was and never will be.

Happy Nomad on January 3, 2012 at 6:49 AM

And those parroting Colmes and the “creepy” line of attack….

Long ago did I stop questioning how people deal with grief. Some people videotape the services and watch it later, some people turn it into a huge party, some people deal with it in their own unique ways. Unless they hung the child up like a chandelier in the dining room it’s not “creepy” it’s called grief.

You want to talk creepy?……..let’s talk about MITT and his MAGIC UNDERWEAR.

PappyD61 on January 3, 2012 at 7:17 AM

at my knowledge no one is against grieving 3 month old babies.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 6:05 AM

Why should anyone be “for” or “against” how people deal with children they lose? You don’t get a vote on how someone is supposed to deal with losing their child.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Alan Colmes is a demonic pile of crap, ’nuff said.

insidiator on January 3, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Kenz on January 3, 2012 at 2:03 AM

I agree, there no longer remains any decency in public discourse.

I have read a large portion of this thread, against my better judgement, and have yet to see anyone who mentions that Rick and his wife brought the baby home to have a funeral service followed immediately by a burial. How does this pertain to presidential politics? I am so furious I can barely see straight to type this. People need to mind their own damn business.

Free speech says we can say anything we want, no matter how vile.
Common decency requires, in some instances like this one, that we not exercise that right.
It appears the coarsening of society has removed the desired use of manners.
AP’s use of the term bloodlust to describe Alan’s comments is perfect.

HunkeredDownInMA on January 3, 2012 at 7:56 AM

As I said, most libertarians think libertarianism is exactly the same as conservatism. It is obviously not.

fadetogray on January 3, 2012 at 12:51 AM

No, they don’t.

Dante on January 3, 2012 at 8:07 AM

Colmes is a dirtbag. And like most liberals… he never seems to learn. I couldn’t help but notice that it wasn’t long after he went after Sarah Palin on the birth of Trig, intimating that she had somehow behaved irresponsibility while in labor, that Hannity & Colmes suddenly became Hannity.

Murf76 on January 3, 2012 at 8:21 AM

We’ve had laws guiding our morality that were given to us through Moses. Colmes is a bigger on the take lib scum bag than I thought possible. Don’t watch him or Beckel on FOX. Can’t the producers of these shows find someone else to portray the left’s crap for awhile.

Kissmygrits on January 3, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Liberals put their insanity on display every day, but it’s always the conservatives that are painted as such by the media. The liberal media is dying, but they continue to hang onto their wrapped ideology as if it’s catching on.

I mute the TV every time Colmes is on FOX, but his presence does serve a purpose for those who can stand to listen to him.

cajunpatriot on January 3, 2012 at 8:36 AM

Obviously, Colmes is still nothing but a liberal d-bag tool.

For those of you inciting Santorum as being creepy for this, best to just keep your silly thoughts to yourself.
The showing & handling of grief is a very private & individual thing.
We all do it differently.
It is really none of anyone’s business how this man handled this terribly sad situation with his family.
And honestly, he should not be judged on it at all.
I find it useless to go to funerals & view a corpse in a casket somebody dressed up to look ‘alive’.
I actually find funerals pretty horrendous.
I much rather like a wake situation.
And I don’t mourn with tons of tears for the people I’ve known.
I reflect upon the good times & smile after a few tears.
I’m sure people have judged me for being emotionless & harsh.
I really hate how our society is constantly judging someone in death situations, scanning them incessantly for any signs of emotion & instantly interpreting them on national news.
It’s ghoulish.

Badger40 on January 3, 2012 at 8:38 AM

Typical lefty thinking and speech reminds me of the desecration of the Palin family by the left with absolutely no remorse. The media went crazy covering every desecrating morsel and what really hurt was the family was used in monologs by the late night talk shows in their comic routines. This being a sick type of humor when innocent children are on the sacrificial alters.

mixplix on January 3, 2012 at 8:43 AM

We have all heard that old lawyer’s axiom: “When the law is on your side, argue the law; When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.”

I think what we are seeing this year from the liberal talking papers (and their sock puppets) is that this is a year when they can’t argue their case for their handling of the economy, the foreign policy, the domestic policy, unemployment … thus, ergo and hence: ‘Argue social issues and personalities’

Pecozbill on January 3, 2012 at 9:19 AM

on the babies we did have we took the whole battery of genetic tests and we would certainly would have an abortion if for example discovered our baby had down syndrome early in the pregnancy. its our rationale that bringing into the world babies with severe deficiencies when you can avoid them by screening and early month abortion, is cruel and wrong and maybe immoral.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 5:53 AM

I find it very disturbing that you would condone the murder of an innocent child simply because he/she had an extra 21st chromosome (Down syndrome). I am the adoptive mother of three such children who are the joy and delight of our family’s life, and I thank God every day that their birth mothers chose NOT to blindly follow society’s norms by aborting their precious babies. That America’s abortion rate for babies who have been pre-natally diagnosed with Down syndrome hovers around the 90-95% mark is to her shame. Did we learn nothing from Hitler’s attempt to create a master society through eugenics & ethnic cleansing?

ALL life is precious, ALL life is worthy, ALL life should be protected and valued, and anyone who would condone the systematic slaughter of an entire group of humans based on their future productivity or “worthiness” to society is “cruel and wrong and maybe absolutely immoral!”

mom29js on January 3, 2012 at 9:24 AM

This country is on the brink of financial collapse, can we stop making this election a referendum on Social issues?

1984 in real life on January 2, 2012 at 11:53 PM

But many would argue that these things are not independent of each other:

“…because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Admas

If we make the economy out god, to the detriment of concern for social and human values, I am not sure we’ll end up with a country we want to live in.

neuquenguy on January 3, 2012 at 9:37 AM

mom29js on January 3, 2012 at 9:24 AM

nathor fled this thread and is expounding, and getting pounded, in the “Colmes apologizes…” thread at this moment.

Yoop on January 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM

this is to say that attaching oneself to unborn babies, especially in the first 3 months, and giving them a personhood can lead to great emotional stress.

mark81150 on January 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM

I would not accept Colmes’ apology. He was given many chances during this interview to change his position and he never showed any remorse.

Libs should realize this behavior is so uncaring, apathetic, and heartless that they are showing their hypocrisy.

HellCat on January 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

I was glad when Hannity went solo but still don’t watch him much anymore as he’s a bit over the top for me. Colmes and Monica Crowley are related and I think that’s the only reason he still has appearances on FOX, they usually appear together on The O’Reilly Factor. While Monica is eye candy; Colmes just makes my sking crawl. To think he used to be a stand-up Comic; he must have been trying to outdo Bill Maher(?). Both sleaze balls. Everytime anyone or show on FOX parades this fool out for his opinion, I flip the channel – just like I do when Obama comes on the tube – Heh!!

Bob in VA on January 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Sorry, was writing a comment about this,

on the babies we did have we took the whole battery of genetic tests and we would certainly would have an abortion if for example discovered our baby had down syndrome early in the pregnancy. its our rationale that bringing into the world babies with severe deficiencies when you can avoid them by screening and early month abortion, is cruel and wrong and maybe immoral.
this is to say that attaching oneself to unborn babies, especially in the first 3 months, and giving them a personhood can lead to great emotional stress. if you do it for religious reasons, then your religion is really not helping you on this.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 5:53 AM

My wife and I refused the test nathor, wouldn’t have aborted either, but then,….

we aren’t waging a eugenics campaign either to manufacture perfect people.

So you’ve now called my wife and I immoral for not doing what you did,… our children were born normal, until the third was stillborn at 8 months… born.. held, loved,..

this is to say that attaching oneself to unborn babies, especially in the first 3 months, and giving them a personhood can lead to great emotional stress.

So tell me Mr. Spock,.. when are we allowed to feel emotions about the birth of our child?…. and you can forget the first three months, especially,…. we loved him form the moment we knew him to be alive. It wasn’t about church..

It was about the love which created him, the man and woman who wanted him, and the family he would have been taken into as a full member, imperfections and all.. it’s about being a human being nathor..

there’s something small, and very cold about your world.

You are either the least discriptive writer I’ve ever seen, or the coldest. I’m the golden child, 5 kids were given my mom and dad,.. 5, 3, were developmentally handicapped, a sister and brother mildly so, one profoundly. But he, they have no place on your world do they Nathor? They can’t speak for themselves well,.. no education they could use to overcome it…

Too bad they couldn’t screen for that in the 50′s huh?.. and abortion being illegal then,, mom couldn’t just have them killed either.. She could have gone the Kennedy route and dumped them ino the system to be forgotten, but she for some absurd reason,….

kept them, and raised them with every shred of love she had,…

Her life was shorter than most, but she lived, really lived, more than any supposed smart, enlightened person ever did, she chose love and life.. over the cold sterility of an emotionless existence where people are just tissue, to be discarded when imperfect.

You may think you’re intelligent, reasoned, but not on this…

not where life is concerned.

mark81150 on January 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Colmes’ “apology” was dishonest. He is still slandering the Santorums on his website: http://www.alan.com/2012/01/02/santorum-flashback/

I say boycott Fox until they fire this piece of s*it.

Kane Rogers on January 3, 2012 at 1:12 AM

I just checked the site myself and he still has it posted. Colmes is a low life piece of garbage.

Tomolena1 on January 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM

This country is on the brink of financial collapse, can we stop making this election a referendum on Social issues?

1984 in real life on January 2, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Social issues are the main cause of the financial difficulties. Even though a person may be “entitled” to sit on their ass, entitlements aren’t free.

BobMbx on January 3, 2012 at 10:31 AM

One of our wiser commenters referred to this scorched Earth aspect of some of our fellow HotAirians. There seems to be a belief that nothing is to awful to say about other candidates and in turn it will raise the viability of their preference. I am trying to convince myself that these types are few in number, this thread makes that harder than usual.

Cindy Munford on January 2, 2012 at 5:41 PM

What these people never seem to realize is that it often achieves the opposite reaction. They are taking a page out of the media playbook by letting people know who they really fear. Yeah, good luck with that — it just makes me ignore their candidate and research for myself the ones they are trashing.

PatriotGal2257 on January 3, 2012 at 11:07 AM

I would challenge anyone like nathor who believes children with Down syndrome should be aborted before they’re born to watch this video about an amazing young man who happens to be blind as well as have Down syndrome.

After you watch it, be honest enough to admit that if you condone the selective abortion of babies pre-natally diagnosed with Down syndrome, you think this musical genius should never have been born. Hard to do when you personalize your ignorance & bigotry, isn’t it?

mom29js on January 3, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Colmes is twisted but who takes a dead baby home to show the other kids they had a sibling? No one that’s who. So he is one of the front runners. The other is Romney who strapped his golden retriever in a cage on top of his station wagon for an 8 hour trip. Neither one sounds like they are all there.

wodiej on January 3, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Colmes is twisted but who takes a dead baby home to show the other kids they had a sibling? No one that’s who. So he is one of the front runners. The other is Romney who strapped his golden retriever in a cage on top of his station wagon for an 8 hour trip. Neither one sounds like they are all there.

wodiej on January 3, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Evidently you didn’t take the time to read the entire thread, did you? I’m not going to do your homework for you, but suffice it to say, it is standard and accepted practice for grieving parents to be given the option of taking their deceased babies home while they grieve their loss. Just because YOU wouldn’t choose to do this doesn’t mean someone else’s choice to do so is wrong. It is a highly personal decision and is none.of.your.business. Period!

mom29js on January 3, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Liberals put their insanity on display every day, but it’s always the conservatives that are painted as such by the media. The liberal media is dying, but they continue to hang onto their wrapped ideology as if it’s catching on.

cajunpatriot on January 3, 2012 at 8:36 AM

-
This would have been a career-ending moment for most anyone other than a loony leftist… It will work in AC’s favor with the mental case left though; the ones he plays to. They are already defending him and/or praising him for being man enough to apologize…
-

RalphyBoy on January 3, 2012 at 12:12 PM

I personally have nothing against polygamy and believe banning it is a violation of the first amendment.

This just points out how ridiculous it is to have a government attempt to legislate based on morality.

gyrmnix on January 3, 2012

Oh? How about polyandry? You okay with that too?
Your wife has FIVE husbands! Whoooopeeeeee …
/sarc

And what about the victims of polygamy, including the “Lost Boys”? I’m sure you’re informed enough (cough, cough), and have read the Book of Mormon to intelligently comment on this cult, er, “sect”?

Never Mind

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 3, 2012 at 12:41 PM

There’s a special place in hell for minds like Alan Colmes’.

I’ve not read all these comments – enough to see that for some reason there seem to be more psychologists/psychiatrists than the odds would dictate would be present on such a thread; just an amazing number of expert opinions as to how the Santorums “should” have reacted and behaved at the death of their child.

If you’re one of those who’ve never experienced the death of a child – whether by miscarriage/premature birth or from illness or accident later on – you need to carefully weigh the measure of your words, and consider what those words speak of about your self and your heart.

The loss of a child of any age – from conception on – is a wrenching to the heart which cannot be measured, a pain which cannot be adequately described, and an ache which is eased only by the knowledge that on our own Easter Day, we will again hold that child – children – in our [spiritual] arms.

To ridicule anyone who has suffered such a loss is the epitome of cruelty; that Allan Colmes would suck Santorums’ agonizing loss into his liberal agenda is the epitome of the defilement of one’s own soul. What Colmes has done is just breathtakingly vile.

If Fox keeps Colmes in its employ, they’re no better than he.

GGMac on January 3, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Yoop on January 3, 2012 at 6:18 AM

Thanks Yoop.

nahor , Back peddling isn’t helping. Sorry for your loss.
OT or not. Colmes deserves all the trashing he’s getting.

Texyank on January 3, 2012 at 1:46 PM

E.S.A.D. Alan Colmes.

Daikokuco
nathor
rubberneck
Capitalist Hog
TheBlueSite
thuja
wodiej

and everyone else who said this was creepy…if you could feel grief like this for one day without anyone getting hurt, I would wish that upon you.

cptacek on January 3, 2012 at 2:28 PM

we would certainly would have an abortion if for example discovered our baby had down syndrome early in the pregnancy. its our rationale that bringing into the world babies with severe deficiencies when you can avoid them by screening and early month abortion, is cruel and wrong and maybe immoral.

nathor on January 3, 2012 at 5:53 AM

I knew a woman whose child was diagnosed in the womb as having Down’s.
The child was born.
And did not have Down’s.
I also knew of a child born with Down’s, and their parents knew, and yet had her anyway.
She is in her mid-20s. Her name is Hope.
And she is a delightful, loving, awesomely wonderful human being.
Everytime I would go to her parents’ branding, she was there, eagerly visiting with everyone she could.
I loved going just so I could see her.
You are a person, if given your way, would have killed her before she could bring such joy to others.
What is wrong with you?
God help you. And the others like you.
You do not have the authority, or the monopoly on the definition if who is a ‘real’ person, worthy of life.
Your attitude, quite honestly, is nothing short of evil.

Badger40 on January 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Colmes will be sharing his vile liberal views on the channel carrying Olbermann before too long. Good riddance….

FireBlogger on January 3, 2012 at 5:49 PM

I’m sure you’re informed enough (cough, cough), and have read the Book of Mormon to intelligently comment on this cult, er, “sect”?

Karl Magnus on January 3, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Because the BoM advocates polygamy, right? The irony is almost painful.

CanofSand on January 3, 2012 at 6:29 PM

It’s not what most parents would do, but it’s not “crazy.”

It’s certainly what most families did when babies were birthed at home, until relatively recently, before life became sterilized into politically correct pigeon holes that deny “life” to unwanted embryos and infants unable to sustain independent life (as if any untended baby can remain alive without feeding and shelter at a minimum).

Colmes is as ugly an excuse for a person as anyone.

maverick muse on January 3, 2012 at 7:22 PM

This story about Santorum and his son has gained him my admiration and respect. Good guy.

Conservchik on January 3, 2012 at 11:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6