Did Santorum really say he didn’t want to make “black people’s lives better”?
posted at 8:40 am on January 3, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
This created an eruption on Twitter and in some of our comment threads yesterday evening, thanks to a CBS News transcript that put words into Rick Santorum’s mouth — or one word in particular. Santorum spoke to a crowd in Iowa yesterday about the fiscal sinkhole of Medicaid, and argued that government shouldn’t redistribute wealth to improve the lives of some at the expense of others. Santorum stumbled momentarily on the word “lives,” though, and that provided this Rorschach moment for CBS, who reported it thusly on their YouTube channel:
While campaigning in Sioux City, Iowa Sunday, GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said if elected he plans to cut regulations and entitlements and he doesn’t want to “make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”
Except that’s not what Santorum said at all. What he said was, “I don’t want to make [pause] lives, people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.” This makes sense in the context of what immediately preceded this statement: “It [Medicaid] just keeps expanding. I was Indianola a few months ago, and I was talking with someone who works at the Department of Public Welfare here, and she told me that the state of Iowa is going to get fined if they don’t sign up more people under the Medicaid program. They’re just pushing harder and harder to get more and more of you dependent upon them so that they can get your vote.”
In other words, Santorum’s point didn’t have anything to do at all about race; it had to do with creating a dependency class that includes a lot of Iowans for political purposes. Whether one agrees with this or not, it’s pretty standard fare, and it’s certainly a legitimate concern to raise at a time when ObamaCare will expand the number of people eligible for government subsidies to families who make 60% more than the average household income. Instead of listening carefully to what Santorum actually said, CBS just assumed that Santorum was a racist. Don’t they watch the videos before transcribing them at CBS News?
One person who did listen to what Santorum said was my friend Tommy Christopher, who I assume doesn’t agree with Santorum’s point or much else Santorum has to say. Tommy, however, is both honest and thorough, and says that CBS gave Santorum a bum rap:
A review of a clearer version of the video, however, casts serious doubt on whether Santorum actually said “black people’s lives.”
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.
“I don’t want to make…mmbligh…people’s lives better” is what it sounds like to me, although CBS News also transcribes it as “”make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”
Given the preceding context, in which he talks about the government trying to get more Iowans enrolled in Medicaid, the former explanation makes much more sense than the latter.
The Santorum campaign has still not returned our request for comment.
Here’s the CBS clip. The viewer can judge, but even as an LGBT-friendly liberal, I’m inclined to give Santorum the benefit of the doubt here[.]
“Lives” sounds pretty clear to me, but either way, Santorum wasn’t talking about “black people.” He was talking about all Americans, as the context of his remarks makes obvious. Shame on CBS for this unsubstantiated allegation, and for still not correcting their record.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Menendez – Looks like we don’t have the votes for that immigration bill after all
America in decline – Bars selling rubbing alcohol as “scotch”
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: « Previous 1 2
It isn’t “impossible heavy regulatory burden..” It is the same burden that ALL outpatient surgery centers have. Apparently they are able to stay in business, why can’t abortionist?
melle1228 on May 10, 2013 at 4:04 PM
I could turn that on you faster than a bootlegger with 50 lb weights in his fenders. The right to KILL CHILDREN is the only right that utilitarian libwits give a greasy brown shit about. And that’s not even enumerated in the constitution! So you’re equating my desire to own a gun, which our founding fathers explicitly sought to preserve my right to do, with a woman’s “right” to infanticide, which they said nothing about one way or the other?! And as I said upthread, I believe abortion should be regulated at the state level, not at the federal level (absent a constitutional amendment anyway, and that’s a whole separate issue).
Weaksauce, man. Weak weak weaksauce.
gryphon202 on May 10, 2013 at 4:07 PM
You are vapid and vacuous actually not a rarity for someone like you. You can’t intelligently discuss Gosnell, abortion, or regulations, because you rely on leftist platitudes and talking points to make your argument. I guess the kool aid tastes too good..
Exactly!
melle1228 on May 10, 2013 at 4:08 PM
The assertion that standard outpatient clinic inspections is somehow an “impossible heavy regulatory burden” seems to me to be an implicit administration that Kermit Gosnell is far closer to being the rule in re: abortion than these
pro-choicepro-infanticide ghouls would be willing to admit.gryphon202 on May 10, 2013 at 4:08 PM
What post are you reading?
Ed is lamenting the fact that the Gosnell case hasn’t moved the needle on the abortion issue.
But don’t let the facts stand in the way or your opinion…
chumpThreads on May 10, 2013 at 4:09 PM
Me: What is the constitutional basis for Obamacare?
Nancy Pe-louse-i: Are you serious? Is that a serious question?
Me: Would you be in favor of prosecuting everyone who does what Gosnell did?
Amin and his utilitarian buddies: That’s a stupid question. I refuse to answer it.
Looks like you infanticide apologists are in good company when it comes to piss-poor debating skills.
gryphon202 on May 10, 2013 at 4:12 PM
I’ve already established your intellectual dishonesty on this issue, melle1228. You’ve used up all the indulgence I’m prepared to offer you today.
But take heart…there’s always tomorrow!
chumpThreads on May 10, 2013 at 4:12 PM
You can’t get much more intellectually dishonest than refusal to answer a simple yes/no question on the basis that you find it “stupid.”
gryphon202 on May 10, 2013 at 4:13 PM
No, you really haven’t..
melle1228 on May 10, 2013 at 4:13 PM
I agree. If they had to regulate abortion clinics then abortion clinics would have to spend money to bring their clinics up to standards. That would cut into their bottom lines which would mean that they would have to charge more to make the same profits. They are afraid that the higher prices would limit abortion. It is all about the money. They don’t care about the woman. Drive thru abortions would be performed if they could.
Follow the money which leads to the lobbyists which leads to the politicians. I think it is sick that killing your child is less expensive than adopting. We live in upside down world.
melle1228 on May 10, 2013 at 4:17 PM
That’s not the complete question you asked, is it? See how dishonest you are and why neither Armin nor I would indulge you?
HAHAHAHAHAhahahaha!
Disregarding loaded, dishonest questions is actually quite a debate skill. Expertise at asking them is just intellectual dishonesty. YOU are an expert in that regard.
chumpThreads on May 10, 2013 at 4:18 PM
chumpThreads on May 10, 2013 at 4:09 PM
They are not covering it because of what I wrote. You’re obtuse only to divert.
Schadenfreude on May 10, 2013 at 4:20 PM
You know what? You are correct. There *is* always tomorrow. I read an analogy here and shamefully can’t remember who said it (apologies), but this (and Benghazi and the rest) is like a dam with holes.
The media has only so many fingers.
We have to keep fighting and telling people and reminding people that there are other sources of info. Most people have computers and smart phones.
Eventually they’ll run out of fingers and the dam will break.
So yes, there is always tomorrow. That’s what should frighten you and yours – there is nothing worse than a very angry citizenry who learn that they have been bullsh!tted and lied to for decades.
:)
kim roy on May 10, 2013 at 4:22 PM
Not opinion but fact. I’ve been after the righties to quit arguing this from the standpoint of abortion, from the beginning. It’s a losing argument.
You are diverting the murder/infanticide, on purpose.
The right and the left are good at being obtuse, for their own interests. Both sides are dishonest. You are never able to say this, never.
Schadenfreude on May 10, 2013 at 4:22 PM
Okay. Then explain to me how asking you a question that can be answered yes/no is dishonest? If you don’t believe that Gosnell is representative of the abortion industry, you are correct in asserting that your answer wouldn’t matter either way. In refusing to answer one way or the other, you leave yourself open to suspicion that you are being dishonest in asserting that Gosnell is not representative of the abortion industry.
Yes indeed, no matter how you answer, you get raked over the coals. That doesn’t make my question “dishonest” or “stupid.” It just says a lot about you and your refusal to own up to having supported infanticide all these years.
gryphon202 on May 10, 2013 at 4:22 PM
It is also a fact that if the case were covered even reporters would change their minds. The killing of women and babies is depicted in full blood. The one reporter who did cover it made it very clear that it is mind-altering to see the reality of it.
It’s a good thing people don’t see how sausages are made…and they are made from dead things…this is about the killing, the taking of human lives, all of you liars and obfuscators. May your souls never rest. May you dream, day and night, of these screaming human beings. May you feel their pain, on-going. May you be cursed with this, forever.
Schadenfreude on May 10, 2013 at 4:25 PM
Have you stopped beating your wife?
A simple yes or no will do.
Setup questions based on strawman assertions…
Seriously, do you really think you’re that clever?
Good lord! You don’t even know why your questions can be so easily ingnored!
School’s out for today gryph. Dismissed!
chumpThreads on May 10, 2013 at 4:37 PM
Okay. What’s the straw man? You’re in the “no one approves of what Gosnell did” crowd. You’re also pro-choice. So would you prosecute anyone for the same crimes if it was representative of abortion providers and risked shutting down the legal abortion industry? I as much as admitted it was a thought exercise. You refuse to answer one way or another…which says more about you than it says about me.
gryphon202 on May 10, 2013 at 4:41 PM
Why yes I have. I had no choice when I sent the poor thing to the hospital and she died there. But I paid my debt to society and I say an annual confession at the nearest Diocesan cathedral every year.
I answered your question. Now wanna answer mine?
gryphon202 on May 10, 2013 at 4:42 PM
I don’t answser the questions of WIFE BEATERS!
chumpThreads on May 10, 2013 at 4:46 PM
Wife killer. Or did you miss that part? I’m only free cause I won the case on appeal after serving a decade of hard time in the state clink.
Now tell me why a wife beater bothers you more than a child killer, ghoul.
gryphon202 on May 10, 2013 at 4:50 PM
Gosnell did many things including breathing, eating, and walking. You need to specify what exactly what you think should be prosecuted rather than asking vague questions. Only a person with no experience debating would even consider answering your question as it is.
thuja on May 10, 2013 at 5:20 PM
There is zero reason to believe that Kermit Gosnell was a major outlier in abortion. There have been multiple abortion clinics found recently with unsanitary conditions and poorly trained, unqualified staff. Live Action has released about 4 just recently.
Wishing it doesn’t make it so.
And given that abortion clinics are so rarely inspected any more, the only sensible position is to start with the assumption that all abortion clinics need to be inspected and cleared, and then go from there.
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 10, 2013 at 5:39 PM
I wasted my time watching three or four of those videos. Your characterization of them is inaccurate. Those videos are intended to make people disgusted with abortion because late terms abortions are alleged to be similar to infanticide. You should be more careful to make accurate claims.
thuja on May 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM
So as long as it’s a business, all conservatives are duty bound to ignore ethical concerns and support it.
Does this apply to contract assassins? After all, as long as they’re doing professional hits and it’s strictly business, then all conservatives have to support their right to earn a living…
The idea that conservatives have to support anything that calls itself an industry is absurd.
It’s also an attempt to distract from the real issue. Neither side claims to support unsanitary and unsafe conditions. But the pro-abortion side is perfectly willing to live with all the above, and a reasonable level of death and medical complications, as long as their precious right to abortion is protected.
And that’s exactly why Republican governor Tom Ridge stopped inspecting abortion clinics, and Democratic governors after him continued the policy. Abortion is sacrosanct. The death of a few poor black women, and infants that were delivered alive, is a small price to pay.
Schadenfreude is right that this is nominally about infanticide. You could be all for the prosecution of Gosnell without necessarily being against abortion.
But we all know that it’s also about abortion. The single reason why the media won’t cover the story is because it might make abortion look less safe and desirable. The reason governments won’t inspect and regulate abortion clinics while doing routine semi-annual inspections of any fast food place is that it might cause some abortionists to go out of business. Rather than say, “Good. Unsafe practitioners should be out of business,” they would rather whitewash the entire industry and pretend there is nothing to be concerned about.
We could subtitle this whole nasty business with Gosnell (for the media) as, “All for the love of abortion.”
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 10, 2013 at 7:08 PM
Infanticide is what Gosnell is charged with. Do you believe that LeRoy Carhart is uncomfortable with doing what the Pennsylvania legislature has determined is premeditated murder? Or do you think it begs belief that no one knew what was common practice at Gosnell’s
abbatoirabortion clinic?I guess we can no longer accept the talking point that “no one is defending Gosnell.” Sure sounds like you are, Thuja.
gryphon202 on May 10, 2013 at 9:10 PM
I am speaking of the things which Gosnell did for which he is being prosecuted. Whether he is guilty of a crime or not is to be determined by the jury.
gryphon202 on May 10, 2013 at 9:11 PM
And you would have supported slavery when it was legal. that is clear.
CW on May 10, 2013 at 9:31 PM
I guess to see the similarity between the videos and Gosnell’s clinics, you would actually have to pay attention. But I’m happy to clarify what I’m talking about, if you missed it.
Each of these videos focused on someone going to get a late-term abortion at an abortion clinic, and asking, “What happens if the baby is somehow born alive? Is it possible the baby might have to be rescued?”
It should be obvious how this is relevant to Gosnell, who actually killed a number of babies who were, in fact, born alive. In these 4 videos, the putative patient kept asking whether the baby would be left to die. In every case, they assured her a) it was unlikely the baby would be born alive, b) call us, because a hospital or ER might try to save the baby if it was still alive, and c) if the baby is somehow born alive, we can still make it unlikely the baby can be saved.
The videos demonstrated that Gosnell’s attitudes toward babies born alive after a failed abortion were not unusual. At these four locations, it was pretty clear that most of them were not going to turn around and try to save a baby they had tried to abort just because legally, it was past the point where abortion was allowed.
Now, as for your claim that I should be “more careful to make accurate claims,” I can do without your sham of “concern” for “accurate claims.”
I’ll say it again: there is zero reason to believe that Gosnell is some sort of a major outlier. Multiple abortion clinics have been found to have unsanitary conditions and unqualified staff. Multiple videos from Live Action have been released demonstrating that abortion clinics are not exactly going to jump up and try to save a baby that was born alive when they had been trying to abort that baby just moments before.
And really, is this even surprising to anyone? Did anyone honestly expect that an abortion clinic would reverse course in a heartbeat, when it’s so much easier to obfuscate whether the baby was really viable? It’s all too easy for that same clinic to move slowly to help the baby born alive, focus on the woman instead, and then fudge and delay until the baby is gone.
The only way to be sure that doesn’t happen would be for someone to be there who has an interest in keeping the baby alive. Everyone at the abortion clinic will perceive it to be in their interest to be unable to save the baby.
Your love for abortion and rush to defend it at all costs is frankly bizarre.
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 10, 2013 at 10:12 PM
AND IT’S NOT WORKING !
chumpThreads on May 10, 2013 at 3:37 PM
Yes, yes it is.
pambi on May 14, 2013 at 6:35 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2