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

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 2 3 4 5

Santorum’s 2 senate elections were wave year flukes, and he lost his last bid by 18 points. Romney wants this guy as #2 so as to muck it up for those that actually may have a chance at the nomination.

Made fun of on SNL as a loser, we all know that Santorum is a lightweight with a tendency to say dim things like he’s “for inequality” or he wants a ‘petri dish of economic growth.’

But did we know Santorum is an anti-freedom / anti-Tea Party statist? Yes: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/rick-santorum-v-limited-government/

Look before you leap on this one. Even Romney is better as far as big govt is concerned. Big govt is the big issue now, not social issues. Drop this one like a hot…

anotherJoe on January 3, 2012 at 2:35 PM

A Split in the Santorum Clan

JohnGalt23 on January 3, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Wow, one nephew is a spilt in the Santorum Clan.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 2:02 PM

And my point is that we have a system in place to help the uninsured to get medical help which is great but why in the world would the federal government fine a state for not having enough people on the rolls? At one time in our early family years the children qualified for reduced lunch at the school, based on our income. For me to have taken advantage of that would have been a sin since our net income told zero of the true story of our financial situation but if I understand your view, I should have availed myself of the opportunity because the more free and reduced lunches the school “sells”, the more money they get from the federal government. I believe it is counter productive for people to be made wards of the state if they don’t need to be and fining people for having a self reliant populace is not a good policy.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Ah, oh, someone’s polls must not be tanking, the pot must be stirred.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 2:43 PM

TheTownsman on January 3, 2012 at 2:31 PM

[Rick] is a rock-solid person – which is to say that he clearly loves everyone and wants only the best for people, black, white, gay, muslim, etc.

Well now … that’s not strictly true, is it?

If you need any quotations from Mr. Santorum in this regard, please don’t hesitate to drop me a line.

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Oh please. No one on a campaign trail actually remembers offhand which things they did and didn’t say off the cuff. If someone told me I had said something like that, and they said it was a direct quote, I would figure its more likely that they took it out of context, rather than just made it up. The media does sometimes do the latter, but the former is the more common modus operande.

The lack of a denial is meaningless in this case.

RINO in Name Only on January 3, 2012 at 1:33 PM

When asked about it, he said he was familiar with the quote, but doesn’t remember the context.

ButterflyDragon on January 3, 2012 at 2:45 PM

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Ah, oh, someone’s polls must not be tanking, the pot must be stirred.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Yep, Santorum was insignificant to be bothered with before.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 2:02 PM

And I am not a Santorum supporter.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 2:48 PM

If you need any quotations from Mr. Santorum in this regard, please don’t hesitate to drop me a line.

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM

I’m a “Santorum nut” too, so let’s have some.

listens2glenn on January 3, 2012 at 2:49 PM

@levinfan – How does my argument fail for context? Context makes my case. He was making a point about the government creating dependency in order to get peoples votes and he then in the next sentence he references blacks to illustrate his point. That is a common talking point on the right, that blacks are dependent on government, that democrats actively use government policy to get their votes by making them dependent. Why would it be surprising for Santorum to say that? The out of context argument is very weak. Try something else.

@hardcover – your facts are not straight. My post is online. Quote me. Quote where I say “Santorum is a racist”. You can’t because I don’t. Your problem along with the other Santorum apologists, is that because black folks have alleged racism so indiscriminately, whether warranted or not, now any criticism which has a racial dimension to it is interpreted as though you are calling someone a Klansman, a cartoon almost. Since it would be absurd to say that Santorum bears an irrational hatred against blacks, it gives you license to dismiss the racial dimensions of a valid criticism, because you want to interpret it as me calling him a Klansman. That lets you duck addressing the assumptions behind his words, which you are doing.

Santorum is NOT a racist. I don’t believe that for a second. I AM saying that the assumptions behind his statements about blacks on welfare in Iowa yesterday are more informed by racial stereotypes than they are by the actual facts about which racial group receives more welfare benefits (whites).

As to your charge that I allude the Tea Party is racist, I do not. What I state clearly is that if you are a tea party member or conservative and you agree with his statement about blacks, it means you agree with the flawed racial stereotypes implied in his statement (lazy blacks are taking money via the government from hard working white folks, we are more dependent on government than whites and don’t work to take care of ourselves) and therefor your views about blacks and welfare are more informed by racial stereotype and prejudice than they are by the facts.

My post is online and can be read by all and I’m happy to defend every word. Unlike you, I won’t try to deny away racial issues when they are smacking you square in the face. “He didn’t say it”. Unbelievable.

Political Season on January 3, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Who’s hardcover?

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Political Season on January 3, 2012 at 2:49 PM

You don’t think it is just a touch crass to be promoting yourself and your blog here? Most people suffice with the link with their name?

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 2:57 PM

I’ll take my lying ears over your lying ears, after evaluating the context of what he said, when he said it. He said it in front of a group of white people, referring to them as “you.” YOU have to ignore that, in order to continue to believe what your lying ears heard.

JannyMae on January 3, 2012

Don’t be daft.

“I don’t want to make [_____] people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families.”

Random on January 3, 2012 at 2:57 PM

The unfortunate thing about this is that, even though the ‘correction’ has been put out there, those who want to believe that all Republicans are virulent racists will cling to the original version of the story. InkLake has proven this beautifully in the comment thread. Context doesn’t matter. Listening to the entire argument doesn’t matter. If you are not willing to give handouts of other people’s money to anyone who signs up, you are a racist, homophobic, elderly killing, woman hating pig.

And yes, I’m Black, and no, I don’t think that an expansion of the Nanny State will help uplift my people, or any people for that matter. It breeds a sense of entitlement; that I’m owed something I didn’t work for.

And while I’m on my soapbox…can you please show me a Democratic Pesident (or member of Congress for that matter) that has EVER helped make things better for the droves of Black folks who vote for them? How many broken promises can you bear and still be loyal?

Okay – tirade over…as you were…

mlewis7299 on January 3, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Cindy, does a hardcover comment here that you know of?

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 2:59 PM

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM

It is precisely because he loves people that he challenges them on their destructive behaviors. I’d venture to guess you have, and I know I have, made some strong statements to people you love in my your own life when they are headed off of one of life’s cliffs or leading others over the edge. Truth-telling can sound challenging sometimes, especially with those we love and care about, but it is also the courageous and loving thing to do.

TheTownsman on January 3, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Okay – tirade over…as you were…

mlewis7299 on January 3, 2012 at 2:58 PM

So far, I like your tirades. More please.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 3:01 PM

LevinFan on January 3, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Hey Clueless…Palin isn’t running

workingclass artist on January 3, 2012 at 3:01 PM

workingclass artist on January 3, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Do you at all have it within your capacity to comment without asserting someone is unintelligent or without insulting or name-calling?

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 3:02 PM

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Not that I know of, maybe he is confusing the names of commenters on his blog and those of HotAir. Juggling is hard.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Must be.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Santorum is NOT a racist. I don’t believe that for a second. I AM saying that the assumptions behind his statements about blacks on welfare in Iowa yesterday are more informed by racial stereotypes than they are by the actual facts about which racial group receives more welfare benefits (whites).

I think you’re on to something, but I believe Santorum was thinking about areas other than Iowa, and almost but not quite caught himself at the last moment, and then completed his sentence.

Also, I think the charge racist is overblown. I love people of all races, literally. Short and tall people, smart and not so smart. Older and younger.

But nature truly does diversity; it doesn’t do equal. And if one says there are differences among the races other than skin color, well guess what? They’re right.

Of course, it doesn’t behoove a politician or even someone who “merely” wants employment and social approval to say that. But it’s true anyway: race is biological and there are differences.

I may wish otherwise, and then my state of knowledge could match the ideology with which I was raised. However, natural selection/God doesn’t seem to care what my preferences are.

And, for the record, not that those inclined to attack in a politically correct herd must fit in with the great American taboo mentality will care, I don’t claim to have extraordinarily good genetics or anything. But I can think and look at the evidence objectively.

Random on January 3, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Must be.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM

I hear that people who juggle sockpuppets get very confused about what they’re writing too.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Thanks to Cindy Munford for making the effort.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM:

We have a system in place to help the uninsured to get medical help which is great but why in the world would the federal government fine a state for not having enough people on the rolls? At one time in our early family years the children qualified for reduced lunch at the school, based on our income. For me to have taken advantage of that would have been a sin.

If I understand your view, I should have availed myself of the opportunity because the more free and reduced lunches the school “sells”, the more money they get from the federal government.

Dear Cindy,

No. You don’t “understand my view”. I didn’t mention “the uninsured”. Importantly, I didn’t mention “sin”. I didn’t say anything about school lunches.

I simply made the completely irrefutable point that, in the United States, financial transfers happen every single second of every single day. If that were untrue, the schools in the United States would not exist. Also non-existent would be all the roads and all the dams and all the national parks and the agencies that prosecute drunk-drivers, and all the Medicare and all the Medicaid, and a large part of the Hollywood movie industry that provides such a countless number of jobs for Americans.

I made the other point that any aspiring politician of national stature who claims that these financial transfers don’t happen every single second of every single day (it’s “our money”) is either a dunce or a cynic. Either way, that person is unelectable

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 3:09 PM

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 3:09 PM

God are you snotty. I’m reading your comment reply to Cindy and you’re telling her you didn’t say things, that she didn’t say you said.

I just make an irrefutable point so don’t bothering commenting back.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 3:20 PM

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Really? That’s what you took out of his speech? Interesting.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Don’t be daft.

Random

He said YOU, referring to the audience he was speaking to, prior to making the statement that you claim contains the word “black.”

This is the full quote, which includes what he said PRIOR to your carefully clipped version.

“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. “I don’t want to make [pause] lives, people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.” I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families.”

He was speaking to his audience, and he was talking about people on welfare, in general, but please, by all means, continue to tell me he referred to his white audience (that he was speaking to) as “black.” It ain’t workin’ but it’s keeping you busy.

JannyMae on January 3, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Yeah, JannyMae, he switched to “them” and “their” after saying “black”. And then he never even denied saying it during a softball interview on Hannity.

Try again.

Random on January 3, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Silly me who thought it was up to black people to make their own lives better.

jeanie on January 3, 2012 at 3:32 PM

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 3:20 PM

God are you snotty.

Ah, the heartland finds its most vivid expression.

Excellent. Plus: awesome.

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Gee. The press being dishonest. What a surprise.

kim roy on January 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Silly me who thought it was up to black people to make their own lives better.

jeanie on January 3, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Careful now or you’ll be called a racist.

/sigh

kim roy on January 3, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Gee. The press being dishonest. What a surprise.

kim roy on January 3, 2012

The “press” isn’t being dishonest: Ed Morrissey is — or is at least wrong to claim this level of certainty when Santorum himself hasn’t denied that’s what he said.

Random on January 3, 2012 at 3:41 PM

jeanie on January 3, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Silly me who thought it was up to black people to make their own lives better.

Free T-shirts to celebrate the New Year of 2012 in the great republic of the United States!

These T-shirts are free!

Your choice of two models! Both available in three sizes: extra-large, clinically obese, and autopsy.

Model 1 (white shirt, black lettering) says this in large letters on the front:

“Silly me who thought it was up to black people to make their own lives better”
Jeanie at Hot Air

Model 2 (black shirt, white lettering) says this in large letters on the front: “Silly me who thought it was up to black people to make their own lives better”
Jeanie at Hot Air

To order one of these FREE T-shirts for yourself or a loved one, please contact JackieB via Hot Air.

You KNOW it makes sense!

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Ah, the heartland finds its most vivid expression.

Excellent. Plus: awesome.

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 3:34 PM

You didn’t speak to the other part of the comment, so I’m right?

BTW, Dear JackieB, you don’t have a clue where I live, but you’re arrogant enough to slap a label on me. Do you not understand what you assert or purposely try to be vague because you think it makes you look even more aloof?

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 3:57 PM

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 3:54 PM

The only thing I know is that is one creepy post.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 3:57 PM

You didn’t speak to the other part of the comment, so I’m right?

Yes, right. Obviously. You are right. No question. Absolutely.

This really is what you do with your life, right?

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 4:16 PM

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

It’s probably just too deep for us “heartland” rubes to understand.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 4:16 PM

The only thing I know is that is one creepy post.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Now can we have the banhammer? Please?

di butler on January 3, 2012 at 4:21 PM

di butler on January 3, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Based on the fact that it makes zero sense?

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 4:16 PM

It’s probably just too deep for us “heartland” rubes to understand.

It’s “we”, Cindy.

It’s “just too deep for we ‘heartland’ rubes to understand”.

Just trying to help.

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 4:31 PM

This really is what you do with your life, right?

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Well, while I’m taking three months off from my position I have a good deal of time. That’s true. Today I’ve been to my in-laws to send off my BIL back to San Diego and then paid some bills. While commenting with you I’ve contracted a company to drill a well on my property. Same ole heartland stuff, ya know?

What are you doing while you simultaneously act snotty to one of the nicest and most respected commenters, Cindy, on this thread?

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 4:32 PM

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 4:31 PM

‘preciate it!

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Nowhere in there can you here “-ack”…. he almost says “blives”, instead of “lives”, and sounds like he’s having stoke, switching up where it belongs in the sentence….but if you’re a bigoted liberal repressing how you feel about Black people, you most certainly will imagine he said “Black”. They do equate welfare with color.

contrarytopopularbelief on January 3, 2012 at 4:35 PM

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 4:32 PM

It’s okay, think of the comment count!!!!

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 4:35 PM

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 4:31 PM

lol,

Is it hard to sit with that arboreal appendage so solidly inserted into your forth point of contact?

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Or is it arborous appendage?

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Cindy,

Arboreal or Arborous?

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Based on the fact that it makes zero sense?

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 4:23 PM

General purposes. It could be very tired after all it’s workings here.

di butler on January 3, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Well, JackieB would probably be the better person to ask but it looks like either would fit (so to speak).

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 4:42 PM

@hardcover – your facts are not straight. My post is online. Quote me. Quote where I say “Santorum is a racist”. You can’t because I don’t. Your problem along with the other Santorum apologists, is that because black folks have alleged racism so indiscriminately, whether warranted or not, now any criticism which has a racial dimension to it is interpreted as though you are calling someone a Klansman, a cartoon almost. Since it would be absurd to say that Santorum bears an irrational hatred against blacks, it gives you license to dismiss the racial dimensions of a valid criticism, because you want to interpret it as me calling him a Klansman. That lets you duck addressing the assumptions behind his words, which you are doing.

First, to “engage” me, would you mind using my real screen name? I know they’re fun to make fun of, but it makes it confusing as to who you’re talking to. Or maybe you were confused. I’m answering because I’m assuming by the context of your comment, you were talking to me. If I’m wrong, ignore my comment. Or not.

For you to use this title …

Rick Santorum Surges in Iowa with Stereotypes of Lazy Blacks Taking Welfare Out of White People’s Pockets

is strongly asserting that Rock Santorum is a racist. That was your title. To come up with that title based on even assuming he did say “black” is injecting a lot that never happened; that was never said. You went on giving your opinion as to what he did say and further, invented an entire conversation and Santorum mindset out of it. You said you were ready to support him in one paragraph and then said this in one that followed…

He wants to give us “blacks” the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for ourselves, I guess because all us shiftless lazy Negroes don’t work to take care of ourselves.

What? Really? Are you that thin-skinned to derive all of this out of what “in your opinion” he said?

Santorum is NOT a racist. I don’t believe that for a second. I AM saying that the assumptions behind his statements about blacks on welfare in Iowa yesterday are more informed by racial stereotypes than they are by the actual facts about which racial group receives more welfare benefits (whites).

You should have considered this type of dialogue to begin with. I don’t agree with it, but it’s a whole lot less hyperbolic. Such as this. Are you saying he said this?

His statements and the assumptions behind them are pretty offensive. “Blacks” are on welfare. All of us.

As to your charge that I allude the Tea Party is racist, I do not. What I state clearly is that if you are a tea party member or conservative and you agree with his statement about blacks, it means you agree with the flawed racial stereotypes implied in his statement (lazy blacks are taking money via the government from hard working white folks, we are more dependent on government than whites and don’t work to take care of ourselves) and therefor your views about blacks and welfare are more informed by racial stereotype and prejudice than they are by the facts.

No, you clearly said this.

Rick Santorum is a darling of the Tea Party, regarded as a consistent conservative after their own hearts. He’s the darling of aTea Party that vehemently denies any allegation that it is racially biased in any way whatsoever. Well, here is an opportunity for the Tea Party to actually demonstrate its regard for African Americans as equal citizens worthy of the basic consideration of not being blanketly described as lazy, welfare parasites leeching the money of hard working white folks.

You are again asserting racism on the Tea Parties’ part and declaring to get past the charge they need to renounce the assertion that you made of what Rich Santorum said. It’s worse than trying to disprove a negative. You’d be asking them to disprove things you wrote and that you assert he said.

My post is online and can be read by all and I’m happy to defend every word. Unlike you, I won’t try to deny away racial issues when they are smacking you square in the face. “He didn’t say it”. Unbelievable.

Political Season on January 3, 2012 at 2:49 PM

You’re wrong right straight through the end. I never said, “He didn’t say it.”

It’s not obvious he said blacks. I don’t know. It sounds more like a mid-sentence stumble like both Ed and Christopher asserted.

The bigger point is the context in which it was said.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 8:49 AM

I said I wasn’t sure what he said above. I didn’t inject any of his other policy views into it. I support a fair hearing for all of our candidates.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Your blog is not worth the time if that fantasy piece is indicative of it’s content.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 4:43 PM

di butler on January 3, 2012 at 4:38 PM

I’ve seen some real tight rope walking since the open registration and apparently the only remark to disappear was an attack on Tina. I’m pretty easy going on requesting the ban hammer. I guess when it reflects on the site the hosts will react.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 4:45 PM

but it looks like either would fit (so to speak).

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 4:42 PM

I see what you did there, you hayseed.

Oh geez, Cindy. I am so sorry. They’ve got me name-calling now.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 4:33 PM

‘preciate [sic] it!

Welcome. No doubt. Indeed.

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 4:50 PM

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 4:45 PM

As a former equestrian, I have no problem with hay.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 4:50 PM

‘preciate [sic] it!

Welcome. No doubt. Indeed.

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 4:50 PM

OCD?

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 4:54 PM

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 4:50 PM

OCD?

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 4:54 PM

You know what the B stands for, right?

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 5:02 PM

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 5:02 PM

*With my eyes as wide as humanly possible* I have no idea.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 5:05 PM

di butler on January 3, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Now can we have the banhammer? Please?

The true voice of the born follower. Beta-male redux.

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 5:06 PM

*With my eyes as wide as humanly possible* I have no idea.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Rhymes with Yakkastyvitch.

BTW, who was it that used to call us “NASCAR fans” before she got banned. I used to call her crappytitless because her screenname was too hard to speal. But it was Capitulous or something like that.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Hey Clueless…Palin isn’t running

workingclass artist on January 3, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Nice job deflecting. It’s a shame Sarah isn’t running, but I’m supporting the best conservative that can win.

Just look at the numbers. It proves that spending has increased under Perry.

I went from Bachman to Santorum.

I’d probably pick Perry over Newt.

As a last resort I’d take Mittens over RuPaul.

LevinFan on January 3, 2012 at 5:18 PM

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 5:11 PM

I vaguely remember, it’s hard to believe that someone with the imagine to call people “NASCAR fans” would have the imagination to come up with something harsh enough to get banned. We need to leave JackieB alone now, she is new and I am sure she will have more cogent arguments in the future.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Anyone else hear Rand Paul on Hannity attack Santorum and defend RuPaul over the newsletters right now? He had the incredible nerve to say that RuPaul has been asked repeatedly about the newsletters and you can see how it would get annoying.

Ummm Rand, your crazy dad is running for President, he’s going to have to defend and be vetted for everything. Who do you and who the heck does he think he is to be above getting scrutinized for having his name on a bunch of racist and anti semitic newsletters??

Any other candidate wouldve been knocked out of the race from this. Then again, the LSM is treating RuPaul with kid gloves and would rip him apart in the general (they have the same strategy with Mittens).

Don’t forget this, PRIMARY RAND PAUL!!

LevinFan on January 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM

We need to leave JackieB alone now, she is new and I am sure she will have more cogent arguments in the future.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Her talk in code.

Hawk no understand.

Hawk mad.

Hawk smash studio.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM

LOL….won in 2 wave elections …well he did lose and by 18 points …..in a wave election….in a state that is about 2 to 1 democrat

Santorum’s 2 senate elections were wave year flukes, and he lost his last bid by 18 points. Romney wants this guy as #2 so as to muck it up for those that actually may have a chance at the nomination.

Made fun of on SNL as a loser, we all know that Santorum is a lightweight with a tendency to say dim things like he’s “for inequality” or he wants a ‘petri dish of economic growth.’

But did we know Santorum is an anti-freedom / anti-Tea Party statist? Yes: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/rick-santorum-v-limited-government/

Look before you leap on this one. Even Romney is better as far as big govt is concerned. Big govt is the big issue now, not social issues. Drop this one like a hot…

anotherJoe on January 3, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Aggie95 on January 3, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Santorum said “pligh.”

Of course, those who are aware of the problems between the races know that “pligh” is a code word used by Klan and Aryan Nation types, so Santorum was really sending those folks a signal, i.e. “I’m with ya, fellers.”

Examples;
That’s an all-pligh area.
Them plighs are sure uppity these days.
Don’t need no half-pligh in the White House.
Send them plighs back to Africa.

Used to hear it all the time at the meetings when I was undercover for the FBI in Mississippi back in the day.

Jeez! 350-plus post over a word stumble with absolute certainty by some that Santorum said “blacks” and none of them were even there.
Buncha nonsense.

Horace on January 3, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Buncha nonsense.

Horace on January 3, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Yes, your comments really are. Everything you just posted is liberal opinion.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

THAT’S IT, I swear there is no redeeming value to watching the mainstream media anymore.

Are they really REALLY that arrogant that they think they can manipulate people by race that bad to promote their agenda?

Or do they just prefer to live in smug satisfaction that they are an unelected, centralized clique of Stepford Wives parroting inane, playground Hollywood BS?

I may watch CBS shows; but I’ll be damned if the news outlets will see any of my ad dollars…along with NBC.

I cannot STAND manipulative, race hustlers .

BlaxPac on January 3, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Silly me who thought it was up to black people to make their own lives better.

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 6:07 PM

The “press” isn’t being dishonest: Ed Morrissey is — or is at least wrong to claim this level of certainty when Santorum himself hasn’t denied that’s what he said.

Random on January 3, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Like I said already, not denied now equals “admitted.”

I hope I never end up in a courtroom with a clueless fool like you on the jury.

JannyMae on January 3, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Actually, I was mainly joking. I don’t post enough here to care what they decide to do with the new problems, that’s their decision, alone. As for it affecting the site, it already has. The topic of “The decline of HA” has been the subject of several conservative blogs, FB and Twitter for awhile now. No one seems sure what precipitated the beginning, some think it has to do with MM giving up the reigns. Most of the distraction that’s going on now will die down after the election. Could be a looong yr. BTW, I learned today your hubby is one of my FB friends on the AoS page. UPINAK told me.

di butler on January 3, 2012 at 6:20 PM

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 4:31 PM

No, Cindy was correct:

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 4:16 PM

It’s probably just too deep for us “heartland” rubes to understand.

It’s “we”, Cindy.

It’s “just too deep for we ‘heartland’ rubes to understand”.

Just trying to help.

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 4:31 PM

It’s “us” because ‘”heartland” rubes’ is the object of the preposition “for,” and thus the pronoun must be in the objective case. not the nominative case.

goddessoftheclassroom on January 3, 2012 at 6:21 PM

BlaxPac on January 3, 2012 at 5:41 PM

I cannot STAND manipulative, race hustlers.

Doubtless this is good to know, BlaxPac.

But in the grand scheme of things, what you can or cannot stand doesn’t really matter very much.

A million thanks for your input on that, BlaxPac. Really.

JackieB on January 3, 2012 at 6:21 PM

goddessoftheclassroom on January 3, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Hawk mad.

Hawk think so too.

Hawk no say intelligent wordy teacher words.

Hawk smash!

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 6:24 PM

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Now can we have the banhammer? Please?

di butler on January 3, 2012 at 4:21 PM

I understood ya.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Dextrous, I have to ask, though, if you thought I was Catholic, why does that automatically mean that I would not hear “black” in this tape? Would all Catholics hear “mumble” instead of “black” in this clip? That’s all we’re arguing about here in this thread and I don’t see what one thing has to do with another.

Aslans Girl on January 3, 2012 at 6:33 PM

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 6:24 PM

You use your sledgehammer, I’ll use my rapier… :)

goddessoftheclassroom on January 3, 2012 at 6:33 PM

You use your sledgehammer, I’ll use my rapier… :)

goddessoftheclassroom on January 3, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Only if you teach Hawk to use wordy teacher words so Hawk can bash liberal troll people when they act snotty and try make correct Cindy.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 6:38 PM

I think Ed would have been better served here by just admitting that Santorum did indeed say “black” by posting something like: “so he said ‘black’, so what?” Then those who definitely hear “black” would not be getting called liars from the admin of HA (who you going to believe, Santorum-supporting Ed or your lying ears?) and all we’d be talking about is that while what Santorum said was true, it’s very unhelpful for a GOP candidate to have said it.

Aslans Girl on January 3, 2012 at 6:40 PM

redmama on January 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Then why didn’t Santorum deny that he said “blacks” when Pelley asked him? Santorum even came up with a reason for maybe having said it: he’d just watched a movie that in his own words was about “black children”. Santorum even thinks he said “blacks”. We can argue about this til the cows come home, but the man who made the statement in question here is not denying.

Aslans Girl on January 3, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Thats not sloppy reporting, its libel and slander.

In a just society, the people responsible for such remarks would be fired and fined.

KMC1 on January 3, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Then I wonder why Santorum didn’t deny it? Hmmmmm. He even gave an excuse as to why he may have said “black”.

Aslans Girl on January 3, 2012 at 6:49 PM

workingclass artist on January 3, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Santorum also made fun of Perry’s “oops” moment yesterday, I saw a clip on the news — very immature and juvenile. Perry has never gotten personal with Santorum, Perry has kept his attacks on policy; obviously the same cannot be said of Santorum.

Aslans Girl on January 3, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Why is it that some totally ignore that fact even though it has been pointed out over and over and over and…………?

CW on January 3, 2012 at 11:44 AM

And why is that some are ignoring the fact that Santorum did not deny that he said “black” when he was asked, even though that’s been pointed out over and over and over……?

Aslans Girl on January 3, 2012 at 7:01 PM

I think Ed would have been better served here by just admitting that Santorum did indeed say “black” by posting something like: “so he said ‘black’, so what?”

There’s a thin argument for the contrary, and note I said thin. So a person could cling it in good faith. But since Santorum wouldn’t even deny it, Ed’s disingenuously feigning certainty when there is no certainty he didn’t say ‘black’. Ed should update the damn post and admit that, at a minimum, the candidate has done not a damn thing to clear this up in the direction Ed interprets it.

Random on January 3, 2012 at 7:03 PM

di butler on January 3, 2012 at 6:20 PM

When he mentioned your “real” name I knew immediately who he was talking about. I wish the craziness didn’t push away so many of our commenters. I realize that I have a very odd way of looking at most things so I am more entertained than annoyed but some sanity would still be welcome

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 7:11 PM

The “press” isn’t being dishonest: Ed Morrissey is — or is at least wrong to claim this level of certainty when Santorum himself hasn’t denied that’s what he said.

Random on January 3, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Like I said already, not denied now equals “admitted.”

I hope I never end up in a courtroom with a clueless fool like you on the jury.

JannyMae on January 3, 2012

not denied now equals “admitted.”

I never said that. You are a disingenuous liar, JannyMae.

Note I said this: “or is at least wrong to claim this level of certainty when Santorum himself hasn’t denied that’s what he said.”

Not denying leaves room for doubt, and for you to claim that a defendant, to use your analogy, NOT denying a crime when agreeing to an interview, isn’t somewhat probative, is ridiculous.

Also this isn’t a trial and beyond a reasonable doubt isn’t the standard. This is politics and individuals forming impressions. Someone not denying something — and Santorum has had ample time to review the tape and refresh his memory — in politics that looks racist and bad (even if it isn’t really) is interesting, to say the least.

While my opinion is that he said black, it is at least true that Ed overstated his case when he said full stop that CBS misreported it and Santorum never said it.

But you are a liar to imply I said not denying someone proves guilt. It does, however, not clear things up, now does it?

Random on January 3, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Aslans Girl on January 3, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Knowing your comments, I’m not understanding what you’re trying to accomplish on this thread. As I recall, you were very sympathetic of Perry the night he bombed in the debate. I don’t recall you divining some evil intend in his answers. I like Perry a lot but wonder is he the only one you give the benefit of the doubt to?

I’ve listened to it a bunch of times. I’m not sure what Santorum said and black doesn’t make sense in the context of what he was saying. Sorry, it’s still your opinion of what he said. And him not committing to what he said to Pelly is certainly not an admission that he did say it. With all due respect, Aslans.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Random on January 3, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Dude. Two words. Nerve tonic.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 7:15 PM

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Mmmmmmm, nerve tonic!!!

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2012 at 7:18 PM

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 7:13 PM

The night Perry had his brain-freeze, I NEVER denied that he had one. I never pretended that he didn’t say “oops” when he CLEARLY said “oops”. That’s what irked me with this post from Ed. He denies it when even Santorum himself does not. Ed is telling us to believe him, not our own lying ears. That’s why I said Ed would have been better off admitting that Santorum said “black” and then saying, “so what?” But pretending he didn’t say what he did is disengenous.

Aslans Girl on January 3, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Any chance he was talking about something specific to Iowa? I looked up Bligh and came up with a construction company in Sioux City, which is where this was. He mentioned manufacturing within the clip. I thought there was a city or county or local lingo for an area since he says people. Was it a question from a person or a speech?

I’m not in the tank for anyone. It sounds like black and it would make sense in context but there are other plausible words. Either way it’s not a scandal or a slur, except to that Aryan State per Andrea Mitchell.

John Kettlewell on January 3, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Aslans Girl on January 3, 2012 at 7:20 PM

My point was you excused his overall performance with something like, I hope he gets better or some such. Even if Santorum did say black, other than being a gaff, how is his gaff worse than what you appear to let pass with Perry? It seems like you got this one by the teeth, you’re not letting go, and it writes Santorum off for you.

Am I wrong?

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 7:28 PM

But pretending he didn’t say what he did is disengenous.

Aslans Girl on January 3, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Not everyone believes he said it.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 7:31 PM

The only people who can make black peoples’ lives better are black people.

scboy on January 3, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Any chance he was talking about something specific to Iowa? I looked up Bligh and came up with a construction company in Sioux City, which is where this was. He mentioned manufacturing within the clip. I thought there was a city or county or local lingo for an area since he says people. Was it a question from a person or a speech?

The candidate should clarify.

I’m not in the tank for anyone. It sounds like black and it would make sense in context but there are other plausible words.

Thank you for admitting that.

It’s annoying that Ed slagged others’ reporting and blanket said they are wrong, when he knows the candidate hasn’t admitted that, Santorum has talked about blacks in similar ways in the past, and he shifted from “you” to “them” grammatically in that sentence.

But maybe he meant Bligh, or whatever? Santorum should explain.

Either way it’s not a scandal or a slur, except to that Aryan State per Andrea Mitchell.

Yes, fair enough. I think people should be able to talk about race without the great small p party-line groupthink taboo hanging over their heads.

Random on January 3, 2012 at 7:33 PM

The only people who can make black peoples’ lives better are black people.

I think that’s too blanket to be true. They have primary responsibility for their lives, but clearly others can help in various ways, as they can help non-blacks. We live in a synergistic community, a society, and individualism — while it’s good for some things — is not a law of nature. Far from it. We’re a social species who band together in tribes and groups and now nations and causes and so on.

I don’t see anything with non-black people thinking about ways to help blacks who aren’t doing so well for whatever reason, even if it’s simply teaching or providing a local example to them of capitalist business principles, the virtues of self-reliance, and, for that matter, a cohesive family unit with two parents.

I don’t mean to be all paternal, but I don’t buy that they are the only ones who can help themselves, just that since it directly affects them, they should be the main ones to do so.

Random on January 3, 2012 at 7:37 PM

* I don’t ^wrong see anything with non-black people thinking about ways to help blacks who aren’t doing so well for whatever reason, even if it’s simply teaching or providing a local example to them of capitalist business principles, the virtues of self-reliance, and, for that matter, a cohesive family unit with two parents.

Random on January 3, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Can’t even fix a typo. Must be getting tired.

Trying again:

* I don’t see anything ^wrong with non-black people thinking about ways to help blacks who aren’t doing so well for whatever reason, even if it’s simply teaching or providing a local example to them of capitalist business principles, the virtues of self-reliance, and, for that matter, a cohesive family unit with two parents.

Random on January 3, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Good summation, Ed. Unfortuneatly. I, too, hope Perry gets a coach for these things. Debates are not the be-all-and-end-all but a candidate still has to look good in them.

Fred! was a pretty good debater but an awful campaigner. Perry so far has been a wonderful campaigner, but he has to up his game in the debates.

In fact, if he had just left out the “don’t have a heart” last night, conservatives would be more willing to overlook the flip-flop fumble. Maybe it’s all just as well to happen now and not later; it’ll hopefully be a dash of cold water for him.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 23, 2011 at 5:40 PM

I looked at the thread Aslan. I wonder that you couldn’t apply the same understanding to whatever this turns out to be for Santorum. No?

You were also more understanding of Ed’s commentary back then also.

hawkdriver on January 3, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5