Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
Peter Robinson ·
March 27, 2012 at 5:36am
As Troy notes below, Sen. Santorum has already used the anger he directed at a New York Times reporter yesterday to get off the best line of the campaign so far, namely, "If you haven't cursed out a New York Times reporter...you're not a real Republican." Now we have the video below, in which Santorum gamely watches a video of his outburst with Wolf Blitzer.
Yes, I know. He shouldn't have used a pottymouth word. But you know what? This whole incident has endeared him to me. He's human, and he's willing to let the world know that. And he's right. If you can't get angry at the New York Times, you have to wonder why God endowed us with a capacity for anger in the first place.
That's what I make of this video clip, anyway. You?
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Mar '12
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
I think he displays in both instances exactly why he's unelectable. He is too combustible and he takes things too personally. He is a whiner. You may spin that as "being human." You had a different spin for Mitt Romney when he got testy with a journalist, as I recall. You may find this endearing. I think you are the minority. If he really wants to be endearing he needs to show a sense of humor and be self-deprecating about his mistakes. But he has no humor, he is all outrage.
Edited on March 27, 2012 at 5:50amJan '11
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
The whole electoral process is loaded with (h/t Troy Senik) bovine waste product. At some point, a sane person is compelled to resent it.
The Etch-a-Sketch story is a perfect example. Almost every commentator agreed that during the primaries, you tell the base whatever they want to hear, and in the general election, you pretty much disavow all of that, and whisper sweet moderation in the independents' ears. It's a ridiculous kabuki play, and everyone knows it. And yet, candidates claim they can't get much work done because they have to spend so much time fundraising ... so they can play this little charade that everyone knows is a charade.
You can't possibly be sane unless some voice in the back of your head screaming, "This is BS!"
Feb '12
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
All a storm in a Santorum tea cup. Shows he's real. A saint he ain't. Only so much BS even a saint can take. When the Pharisees refused to answer Jesus’ questions, “He looked around at them in anger, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts” (Mark 3:5).
Nothing new here..
Jun '10
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
As a Romney supporter, I suppose I should criticize Santorum. But there are few among us who hasn't used that particular word or something worse in moment of frustration (say, for example, when doing plumbing on a toilet or answering questions from a NYT reporter who has misrepresented your position--I have experience with the former, not the latter).
Further, as a farm boy, that particular word is not a potty word, but refers to a specific substance one is apt to step in if you don't watch where you step.
It's a minor event that should be ignored--this is no great revelation into the heart of Mr. Santorum.
Dec '10
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
Peter,
I think everyone everyday should seriously consider cursing out a NY Times reporter. What a wonderful change this would make in the intellectual climate of this country.
Wolfe Blitzer is a banal @#$%&^*.
There I feel much better don't you.
Regards,
Jim
Feb '12
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
Just to put it in Amharic, the language of Jesus.. aram.. yuo shi#@er
Goes back a ways..
Dec '10
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
If one of the kicks against Santorum was that he was too ramrod-straight and moralizing, then yes, using a mild obscenity tends to put the lie to that image.
Still, I recall the last story in Asimov's I, Robot: the Presidential candidate suspected of being an android hears that charge one too many times at a campaign appearance and punches his accuser. This means he has to be human - no robot could ever violate the First Law of Robotics by harming a human. Of course, as one of the characters observes after the candidate wins in a landslide, nobody bothered to check whether the guy who got punched was a human being....
Feb '11
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
Peter, I am not usually a fan of Santorum, but I admit he played this one well. As an aside, have you come around to Romney yet? I personally feel like the 'modern red hen,' I support conservative principles and yet I am told I must support the antithesis of those principles (Mitt Romney); the little red hen never again baked, for the same reason I will not be voting for Romney.
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
Horace: I think he displays in both instances exactly why he's unelectable. He is too combustible and he takes things too personally. He is a whiner. You may spin that as "being human." You had a different spin for Mitt Romney when he got testy with a journalist, as I recall. · 1 hour ago
Edited 1 hour ago
Ah, but there was a difference--a big difference. Whereas Santorum got testy with a reporter who was being tendentious, intentionally trying to bait the candidate by twisting his words, Romney got testy with Bret Baier when Baier asked him several entirely legitimate, innocent questions about his record--questions Romney should have known would come up.
Which isn't to say that I don't join you in wishing Santorum would lighten up some, using humor ten or twenty times, say, for each display of anger.
Jun '10
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
You can't get more Catholic than fighting evil spirits:
St. Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
and do thou,
O Prince of the heavenly hosts,
by the power of God,
thrust into hell Satan,
and all the evil spirits,
who prowl about the world
seeking the ruin of souls. Amen..
Feb '12
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
Peter- Well put. It's the distinction that defines the two. And one has better diction, too. Let alone, benediction.. kidding..
Apr '11
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
Peter Robinson
Ah, but there was a difference--a big difference. Whereas Santorum got testy with a reporter who was being tendentious, intentionally trying to bait the candidate by twisting his words...
If this the bolded words are accurate, that is a big difference. Craig Edwards, though, has a Ricochet post here that suggests that it's not, and a familiarity with Santorum's many other speeches along this line would also tell you that Santorum's claim is implausible.
It's the same sort of thing he was meaning to say when he used "we" to describe the people that would stick with Obama rather than risk Romney; Romney's policies and beliefs are the same as Obama's on a host of topics, so he's the worst candidate to run against him.
If you speak extemporaneously without notes while emotional and exhausted, and aren't naturally disciplined, you say this stuff. Santorum's making a habit of being furious with the people who report it.
Apr '11
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
Peter Robinson
Ah, but there was a difference--a big difference. Whereas Santorum got testy with a reporter who was being tendentious, intentionally trying to bait the candidate by twisting his words, Romney got testy with Bret Baier when Baier asked him several entirely legitimate, innocent questions about his record--questions Romney should have known would come up.
OK. I went back and watched the Baier tape again, and I withdraw my concession that it would be different. What Romney was annoyed about was the twisting of his words, just like Santorum was, but unlike Santorum had explicitly stated at the time that his words did not have the meaning later implied. Probably the most irritated response was to Bret's use of the "Model for the nation" quote as if "model" meant something other than what it means in, for instance "model penal code", and other national models for state law. This was despite Romney's neighboring sentences in the quoted passage making this explicit. It's true that Baier is able to quote others for his attacks, but this doesn't seem to be obviously less frustrating.
Mar '11
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
Yes, he is human, but his outburst wasn't presidential.
May '10
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
The Romney incident with Baier was notable for its rarity, while this incident is emblematic of Santorum's whole campaign, from the early debates to the present. He desperately needs to undo the "whiny, aggrieved guy" persona. Go listen to the VDH critique on a podcast a few weeks back. Great advice that it appears Santorum is constitutionally incapable of following. Which is why he'll never be president.
Oct '10
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
James Gawron: Peter,
I think everyone everyday should seriously consider cursing out a NY Times reporter.
Regards,
Jim · 8 hours ago
Jim, are you applying the Moral Imperative here? It sure does pass the test, doesn't it.
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
Horace: I think he displays in both instances exactly why he's unelectable. He is too combustible and he takes things too personally. He is a whiner. You may spin that as "being human." You had a different spin for Mitt Romney when he got testy with a journalist, as I recall. You may find this endearing. I think you are the minority. If he really wants to be endearing he needs to show a sense of humor and be self-deprecating about his mistakes. But he has no humor, he is all outrage. · 9 hours ago
Edited 9 hours ago
There is one problem, Horace. Santorum on this question is telling the simple truth. Moreover, by telling off the New York Times reporter, Santorum managed to get the press to cover his point. In July, 2009, Romney pushed for passing Romneycare at the national level, and he got what he asked for.
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
Scott, I think that this is overstated. But there is enough truth in it to prevent me from embracing Santorum. I do not mind this particular flap one bit. I doubt that it was calculated, but, if it was, it was smart. It drew attention to the truth about Romney and Obamacare. That having been said, Santorum's demeanor in the debates prior to Florida was off-putting in the extreme (precisely in the way Victor Hanson pointed out), and the angry, whiny Santorum has reappeared from time to time with some frequency ever since.
May '10
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
There is another 'context' angle that no one has discussed yet.
It's cute for Santorum to claim the moral high ground when he's told off a NYT reporter, and in most cases with a typical MSM hack I might even agree. But this particular reporter, Jeff Zeleny, from what I have observed at least in his appearances on Fox News, is not a hack. He isn't David Gregory or Soledad O'Brien. He may be liberal, but seems to be one of the ones who is actually thoughtful and trying to be fair.
Santorum pounds the theme "Romney's the WORST Republican we could run..the WORST Republican...we might as well stick with what we already have..." etc., Zeleny presses him on it, and Santorum reacts like this? Count me among those who find this unimpressive and unpresidential. And as Scott Reusser pointed out, this is a pattern, not an aberration, with Santorum. Big problem.
May '10
Re: Rick Santorum and--Shock!--an Honest Display of Emotion
Yes, concerned cit., and keep in mind everyone that Zeleny was just seeking clarification -- he hadn't printed anything yet -- and Santorum greeted that perfectly reasonable inquiry with defensiveness and foot-stomping. The episode might be applauded by those already sympathetic with Santorum, as here, but it's rightfully a turn-off for everybody else.