"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

That's Not What Santorum Said

The Romney media office, aka the Drudgereport, blares the headline "SANTORUM: OBAMA PREFERABLE TO ROMNEY"

Except, that's is not what he said and I am fairly sure not what he meant. Here is the quote.

Speaking at an event in Texas, Santorum again made the case that Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom's comments Wednesday on CNN about a "reset" of the campaign if Romney clinched the nomination showed the former Massachusetts governor's efforts to appeal to conservatives were insincere.

"You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who's just going to be a little different than the person in there," Santorum told a crowd in San Antonio, according to NBC News. "If you're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch-A-Sketch candidate of the future."
The key context of the quote is in the lede in. He is speaking about giving voters "the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who's just going to be a little different." So what follows in his statement is how Santorum (and I for that matter) imagines how the voter will look at it. You need a real contrast. If your walls are already painted beige, why would you bother to paint them beiger. You wouldn't. You would stick with what you have.

What Santorum is saying is that we need contrast in this election. McCain lost the election when the financial crisis hit and his only response was "I agree with Senator Obama." Well, why wouldn't we pick him? We did.

What Santorum is warning about is if you offer the voter a choice between Obama and Obamaesque, voters will probably choose Obama. Why paint the walls?

Your Ad Here

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am losing respect for team Archbold. Your blindness here is troubling....


If Santorum was our next president, I would give thanks to God and consider it a blessing.... But Santorum isn't perfect and he made a mistake here.... And in other places as well.


I really think that you end up hurting him(and yourself!) more by persistently and obstinately refusing to critically examine him and what he's done or said.


I think that both you and Santorum need to do the whole gut check thing....


Of course, you didn't really ask for my opinion but there it is :-)


Matt

Kevin L. said...

I think you need to come to terms with the fact that our boy,"Stepped in it".
Sorry, but no matter how you read it, Rick messed up and it maybe what sinks him unless he can find away to move past it fast.

Paul said...

Funny, when YOUR presidential pick gets painted in a bad light by the media, you get all up in arms about it. But when Ron Paul is continually painted poorly and not given a fair shot, you say nothing.

Textbook definition of a hypocrite.

And as per one of your earlier posts, this is one of those times when name-calling is justified.

Hilltop said...

The man is finished and he has done the work himself.
I had high hopes for him, and I gave his campaign money, but he is over with. He sounds more and more like Newt in tone -an increasingly shrill appeal to a decreasingly interested electorate.

Paul Zummo said...

What I find funny about the comments is that I am willing to bet that none of these people actually bothered to see or read the entirety of what Santorum said. So instead of acknowledging that fact, they just ape the media line and claim that Pat's the one being the stooge.

Ace of Spades, hardly a fan of Rick Santorum, has even said that the comments are being blown way out of proportion. But I guess he's just "blind."

And if this is what sinks Santorum in your opinion, then you deserve what you get when Romney gets crushed by Obama in the fall.

And that says it all about what conservatives have become. The slightest perceived gaffe and they get all offended and reactionary. What a pathetic party. I hope something with a stiffer spine emerges in its wake.

Foxfier said...

When do they ever not ignore the context for what was actually said? "They" being the Dems, although some folks pick it up randomly.

All the "inevitable" folks are playing it out of context, and a lot of folks get their news from them-- I've been so busy lately that I had only heard about it what must've been third hand.
(A crack on the Ricochet podcast, from Lileks I think-- I haven't had time to set and watch a video for weeks, just listen to audio or mp3s, but I refuse to believe Mr. Lileks would misrepresent THAT badly.)

Anonymous said...

Paul,


Santorum stepped in it.... That's fine but don't try and pretend otherwise.... That's what I find offensive or troubling. It's not a perceived gaffe, it's a gaffe.


Many conservatives *have* become pathetic... by refusing to critically examine themselves. That's where we need more backbone.


Long live Ace! :-)

M

Paul Zummo said...

Santorum stepped in it.... That's fine but don't try and pretend otherwise.... That's what I find offensive or troubling. It's not a perceived gaffe, it's a gaffe.

You're just repeating what you said the first time. You aren't adding any new commentary, or responding to any of the points brought up. Repeating things isn't arguing, it's just demonstrating your own refusal to critically examine yourself.

Anonymous said...

Paul @ 9:06 AM

"Funny, when YOUR presidential pick gets painted in a bad light by the media, you get all up in arms about it. But when Ron Paul is continually painted poorly and not given a fair shot, you say nothing.

"Textbook definition of a hypocrite."

Hardly textbook, unless the candidates are being painted in a bad light for the same reason. If there's a legitimate reason for the bad press in one case but not the other, there's no hypocracy involved.

BTW, I'm NOT saying Ron Paul OR Santorum deserves his bad portrayal. Just think you jumped to the "hypocrite" jibe a bit prematurely.

Mary De Voe said...

I go with PatricK Archbold's interpretation. We, Americans have laid down with the devil and gotten up in chains. Unless our next president is going to free us from our chains, return our freedom, and put the ship of state on course, Etch-a-Sketching will be more chains. We want God. We want God. We want God. "If you're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch-A-Sketch candidate of the future."

Paul Zummo said...

Here is Santorum's remarks made to Hot Air:

“I would never vote for Barack Obama over any Republican and to suggest otherwise is preposterous. This is just another attempt by the Romney Campaign to distort and distract the media and voters from the unshakeable fact that many of Romney’s policies mirror Barack Obama’s. I was simply making the point that there is a huge enthusiasm gap around Mitt Romney and it’s easy to see why – Romney has sided with Obama on healthcare mandates, cap-and-trade, and the Wall Street bailouts. Voters have to be excited enough to actually go vote, and my campaign’s movement to restore freedom is exciting this nation. If this election is about Obama versus the Obama-Lite candidate, we have a tough time rallying this nation. It’s time for bold vision, bold reforms and bold contrasts. This election is about more than Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Rick Santorum – this campaign is about freedom and I will fight to restore your freedoms.”

Yep.

Pedro Erik said...

Drudge Report is simply impossible to read this period. It is too much biased to Romney. I do nothave any beef with media choosing a candidate, but it must report facts correctly.

Imagine if Santorum said the etch sketch remark...It will certainly be in the front page of the Drudge Report.

Drudge? Forget.

And, well done, Paul Zummo.

Paul said...

"Hardly textbook, unless the candidates are being painted in a bad light for the same reason. If there's a legitimate reason for the bad press in one case but not the other, there's no hypocracy involved."

Exactly textbook: Archbold can huff and puff about Santorum getting misquoted or misrepresented, but then he turns around and misrepresents Ron Paul at every turn by calling him Dr. Boing Boing and saying that the youth are stupid for backing him. It's an abusive ad hominem with no foundation in reality. And yet he cries and moans like a baby the one time his horse gets misrepresented.

Archbold is a hypocrite. Not too early to say it. If anything, it's probably a little too late, but I, unlike Archbold, like to wait until I have amassed a decent amount of evidence before I call someone a name. And he has displayed this aspect of his character thoroughly.

Foxfier said...

RP is nuts, and Santorum didn't say what they're claiming.

There's a difference.

Paul Zummo said...

Hypocrite. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Mary De Voe said...

HOPE and CHANGE and TRUTH. TRUTH is missing in Obama's campaign. Does anybody remember what TRUTH looks like, what TRUTH sounds like, WHO TRUTH is? We want God. We want God, NOW. Romneycare scared the hell out of me. Hillarycare scared the hell out of me. Obamacare scares the hell out of everybody. Giving up one's freedom for a packet of pills is selling one's soul to the devil for two cents. HOPE and CHANGE and LIES. The finger of God is writing SANTORUM on Romney's Etch-a-Sketch.

Anonymous said...

I LIKE Obamacare! There Mary, not everyone agrees with you. My son has insurance because of it.

You keep repeating "We want God". Where do you think he is if he isn't with you?

Paul Zummo said...

I LIKE Obamacare!

Sorry, you forgot the ironic hitter hashtag. Wait a second, this isn't twitter. You mean you're serious? Wow.

My son has insurance because of it.

Well as long as your family benefits from it, I guess it's okay if the rest of the country suffers. But I'm sure as long as he lives in your basement until he's 40, you guys will be happy.

Mary De Voe said...

Anonymous 6:39
"You keep repeating "We want God". Where do you think he is if he isn't with you?"
The God of Life is not in Obamacare. The Holy Innocents, who come into being (existence) at the will of Our Creator, are being deprive of their Life, Liberty and the pursuit of their Happiness. The newly begotten are murdered before they are liberated to speak God’s name “I AM”. These sovereign persons are not citizens until they are birthed. Obamacare has no authority over their sovereign immunity. No, God is not in Obamacare. God is not in our public square. God and the Person of God have been exiled and prohibited from even having His Name ”I AM WHO I AM” spoken out loud. The atheist takes her existence from God and ungraciously denies that she has her existence from God making her existence from God a stolen intellectual property and perjury in a court of law. No, God is not in the public square. God, our Creator is in our founding principles of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, in all statesmen, all patriots, all citizens, all sovereign persons and our constitutional posterity. Divine Providence will provide for the rational, immortal souls of every human being created equal and endowed with unalienable rights. WE, hold these truths to be self-evident.
Your son has insurance because of Obamacare. Murdering our constitutional posterity, transgendering the sex of children, transhumanizing people without their informed consent. There is a book called COMA. In the book, if the doctors wanted your body part and you were a match for the favored elite you did not survive your surgery. Tell your son to be careful when he enters a hospital and from whom he employs his OBAMACARE, unless he wants to end up like the aborted children who refused to die, or the aborted babies whose brains are being used for science experiments. Obama has ordered all frozen embryos destroyed. He does not want any snowflake babies standing up and saying to the world “I AM A HUMAN BEING”. A NATION NOT UNDER God can be a very dangerous place to live.
Oh, yes and then there is that: “or prohibit the free exercise thereof.”´matter that makes Obamacare unconstitutional and illegal.
“I LIKE Obamacare! There Mary, not everyone agrees with you. My son has insurance because of it.” I thank the Lord, my God, you do not agree with me. Your son has signed onto more than insurance. When the devil comes for your son’s immortal soul, how will you stop him?

Sophia's Favorite said...

Okay Paul, so then are you concerned to deny that Ron Paul has been endorsed by David Duke, the neo-Nazi group Stormfront, and the Communist Party of the USA?

Face it, he's a RINO. At least since 1946, proactive foreign policy has been the hallmark of Republicanism. But please, tell us all again how anti-interventionist Reagan was.

Ron Paul is a Dixiecrat.

Paul said...

First of all, I'm glad to see you all cannot dispute the fact that Archbold is a hypocrite (aside from the cute little Princess Bride quote, which amounts to a dodge), but have chosen instead to resort to bashing Ron Paul. So now that we know Archbold is a hypocrite, we can move on to the way you have chosen to deal with this.

You all have resorted to the same smear campaign and unsubstantiated claims (unless you can give references) against Ron Paul that Archbold depends heavily on. Really, I expected better from fellow conservatives.

And Sophia's Favorite, I will address you, since, if I cut through all of your sarcasm and name-calling, you, unlike the others, have presented some actual points and concerns.. I will simply ask, does having certain groups favor a certain candidate mean that those groups are indicative of the kind of people the candidate attracts? I doubt you will say tehy are representative of the whole. Although you haven't even really given backing to these claims in the first place (which I am happy to look at if you give it). The reality is Ron Paul attracts a ton of different people simply because he stands for the principles of liberty and small, constitutional government--and most of those are good, concerned, hard-working Americans (Copy the following link into your browser to see *4000* people attending a political rally for Ron Paul, and I sincerely doubt those are all neo-nazis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj46XbP2NcE). Though again, you really should substantiate these claims.

Most people's only defense against Ron Paul is the smear campaign, because it's harder to, you know, actually use reasoning against a man whose predictions have all come true.

It's funny, there's a saying: "If you want to upset a liberal, use reasoning and logic." But I would like to add, "If you want to hear so-called conservatives argue like liberals, speak to them about Ron Paul."

Paul said...

In fact, I'm calling Archbold out.

Archbold, I would like to hear you try to defend yourself against your flagrant hypocrisy. Come on, give it a shot if you're man enough? You sit behind that computer and think that you can say whatever you want with impunity, but I'm getting sick of it.

You either learn to approach Ron Paul's positions with some reasoning and respect, or you stop whining when others don't do the same with your favored candidate.

Foxfier said...

In fact, I'm calling Archbold out.

*checks calendar* Day that ends in Y, eh?

You keep demanding things, then ignore them if they don't agree with you. I don't think you need to hold your breath for them to be handed to you again....

Paul said...

Haha, wow. Foxfier, you just proved this point of mine: "If you want to hear so-called conservatives argue like liberals, speak to them about Ron Paul." That makes zero sense.

If anyone can decipher what foxfier was saying and how it's a response to my quote that I'm calling Archbold out, please help me out.

Hilarious.

Foxfier said...

I'll be a bit more plain-spoken:
You hang around and try to call the CMR hosts out all the time. It's nothing worthy of announcement. Nor is your habit of ignoring or mocking things that don't suit you, then whining about Ron Paul not being treated "fairly"-- which would mean being agreed with, while his many shortcomings are ignored.

Paul said...

Finally, thank you. Someone being forthright. Now we can actually have a conversation.

Two things:
1) "It's nothing worthy of announcement."
a) I used to like this blog but for this entire election cycle have felt alienated by a blogger who uses the same tactics as the MSM that he so often decries.
b) If it's not worthy of announcement, I guess that means you all know it goes on.

2) I just gave reasoning to Sophia's Favorite as to why I disagreed with her point about Ron Paul's supporters (which, when I make a point, I try to provide some backing as I did with the link...so I'm not "demanding" anything that I would not also give). I'm looking for a REASONED conversation, not character assassination and abusive ad hominems.

3) I am not overlooking RP's flaws. I know he has them. But most people who bring them up have failed to demonstrate how those flaws should bother me in my support for him as a candidate. Furthermore, I bet I can articulate his flaws better than most people who disagree with him can, but I don't think any of them disqualify him from being the best possible candidate for the presidency, especially when you compare them to a frank examination of the OTHER candidate's flaws.

I have no problem with people disagreeing. In fact, I welcome the debate. But if you're going to disagree with him, at least have good reasons for doing so. And I have found that good reasoning is usually in short supply for those who disagree with Ron Paul. (Hence why they have to call him "Dr. Boing-Boing" and his supporters "stupid.") Kind of pitiful, really.

Paul said...

And I meant to write "Three Things."

Foxfier said...

Finally, thank you. Someone being forthright. Now we can actually have a conversation.

No, we can't.

And I'm done helping you hijack this thread to your pet dead horse.

Mary De Voe said...

Anonymous 6:39
I just heard tha Obama is not letting the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) help any tornado victims. Your son got insurance and he is paying a premium. What will he get for his premium when catastrophe stricks? Medicare premiums are to double in 2014. More HOPE and CHANGE.

Teresa said...

Pat is spot on his assessment. Santorum has made the same point using numerous ways to do so. Unfortunately this time it wasn't as clearly spoken as it could have been, and he has admitted this. Santorum has explained this throughout his campaign that Obama versus Obama-lite is not giving voters a real choice.

Anonymous said...

All I know is whoever Mary De Voe votes for, I will make sure to vote for the other guy. Geez, she sounds like the mother from "Carrie."

Post a Comment