Rick Santorum is back in the news. This time, the news media is wondering if he’s racist. You might confuse this with the times they accused him of being a homophobe but it’s completely different. Hey, I guess he should take comfort that they didn’t blame him for the Tuscon shooting.
Yesterday it was all over the media that Santorum said something that all the talking heads on CNN agreed was at the least racially insensitive. But notice that none of the media are discussing what Santorum actually said. They’re completely ignoring the point he was making. All they want is the question -“Is Santorum Racist?”
They intentionally convolute in order to distract and attack.
It’s funny that the same media that apologizes for using the word “crosshairs” feels perfectly comfortable accusing a possible GOP Presidential candidate of “playing the race card.”
Here’s what Santorum said:
“the question is–and this is what Barack Obama didn’t want to answer–is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well, if that person, human life, is not a person, then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, no, we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.”
Cue the media firestorm.
Newsbusters reports:
The media picked up on the comment and, without publishing what Santorum said leading up to the segment, questioned if he had racial motivations. Jennifer Epstein’s Politico piece was headlined “Rick Santorum plays race card on President Obama.” Epstein labeled Santorum’s remark “eyebrow-raising.”
USA Today reported “Ex-Senator Ties Obama’s Race to Abortion Rights.” New York Magazine’s piece was titled “Rick Santorum Can’t Believe Obama Doesn’t Know Exactly When Life Begins, Because He’s Black.”
Other sources picked up the piece, such as Slate, the Washington Post, the Daily Caller, the Huffington Post, National Journal, MSNBC.com, and ABCNews.com. NBC correspondent Norah O’Donnell ran the clip of Santorum’s comment on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” and asked her guests to comment.
To anyone with a brain it’s perfectly clear what Santorum is saying. He’s saying that not so long ago black people weren’t considered fully deserving of human rights by our government and therefore he’d hope that Obama would understand the dangers of governments picking and choosing who is human and who’s not.
It’s the same thing that happened when Santorum took on the right to privacy. He said:
“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”
Then everyone was saying that Santorum was equating homosexuality with incest and bestiality. But he wasn’t. He was making a valid legal argument. And you want to know something- Santorum was right. Right in both cases.
Does it hurt his political chances to be so unguarded with his comments? Yes. But is he right? Absolutely.
And his comment drawing a parallel between slavery and abortion is one that’s raised constantly even by Alveda King but they don’t yell about it when she’s saying it, the media just ignores her as much as they can.
I agree with Santorum. The argument against abortion and slavery are the same. It is the cry of the victim that “I am human too.” And until we acknowledge their humanity, I hope Rick Santorum goes right on saying the truth.
January 21, 2011 at 5:07 am
Sorry, but no, he's wrong, there is no relation between the civil rights movement and abortion, since one involves living human beings and the other unborn fetuses which may or may not actually alive, fetuses are not treated as slaves were treated, nor are they capable of existing outside the womb, those who were slaves could easily exist free.
Fetuses don't cry out that they are human, they don't struggle for their rights or freedom from the womb, at tha stage they cannot, your argument only proves you don;t understand a great many things.
If you say that Santorum was making a point about rights by te supreme court, then the supreme court also said you have a right to abortion, so its a valid legal claim for Obama to support abortion.
January 21, 2011 at 5:58 am
To the commenter above: You can make the same arguments about disabled or mute people, but no one would call for them to be killed. It's a moot point to equate humanity with what someone can or can't do.
By the way, something you apparently don't understand is that born babies also can't survive by themselves OUTSIDE the womb. Work your head around that one.
January 21, 2011 at 10:12 am
Ah, another less-than-intrepid-Anonymous above. Post under your own name/pseudonym! But then, you may just be being consistent, as cowardice seems to be the basis for the morality you propose: 'The only people that have rights are those who can fight for them' is a good summary of your argument.
Well, an unborn child can neither boycott your store nor sock you in the jaw, so I guess you do feel free to objectify, exploit, and terminate them. What a 'liberal' position.
January 21, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Remember when Democrats use to be for 'the little guy'?
Sigh…
Sure Republicans still cater to big corporations, but the Democrats get their political funding through abortion groups and more recently for those redefining marriage to terms to something it is not. It's about money, not about truth or justice. Just follow the campaign donations.
90% of men are stronger then the average woman, since men can put up a 'better fight' should women lose their voice?
It isn't that we don't understand things, we understand them. We understand people can be evil and cruel, even barbaric to think nothing of killing innocent life that can't defend for itself.
The first feminists we pro-life, how can we argue as women for human dignity if we can't even offer that to our unborn children?
January 21, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Regarding Anon's comment:
"fetuses are not treated as slaves were treated,"
that is untrue. It is a common defense of abortion that the unborn child is the property of the mother.
January 21, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Please tell me "Anonymous" is a fake commenter put here for us to chew on, and not actually representative of liberal "thought" processes… Wow…
January 21, 2011 at 2:28 pm
I love you Rick Santorum–please run for president. And Anonymous, if you think that the unborn don't "cry out" and "struggle," someone's lyin' to you.
January 21, 2011 at 3:23 pm
To repeat what I said in another thread, if I held the same ideas as our first commenter, I'd probably wish to remain anonymous as well.
January 21, 2011 at 4:43 pm
the first comment is astounding and breathtaking in its ignorance. Doubting even whether the fetus is alive or not?!
January 21, 2011 at 4:52 pm
@Joe
One of my first pro-life experiences was with a boyfriend when I was a young teen. For some reason we touched upon the subject, I thought he would have the typical response. He didn't. He knew a human being develops a beating heart 22 days after conception. This was pre-Internet and his family wasn't religious, but he did have one year of Catholic high school before going back to public.
It amazes me despite my progressive sex ed in Massachusetts, we never covered fetal development.
January 21, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Anonymous' argument is that flawed, liberal argument that is prevalent in most elitist circles today, which is: a human is only a person when it reaches a certain stage of development. Anonymous called the unborn a "fetus." Well, what is a fetus? It's a noun stemming from the adjective "fetal." Fetal what? Fetal human. Just like embryonic human, infantile human, adolescent human, and so on.
So according to anonymous, you are only human when you reach a certain stage of development, and it is the right of the State to clarify what stage this is. Then it would follow, that according to this line of thinking, one day it would be acceptable to define humans as not being "humans" until they have reached the stage of adulthood, so all other stages of development before adulthood would qualify for legal and acceptable extermination, including teenagers.
January 21, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Santorum is brilliant. Proclaiming the truth without regard for poll ratings is what he should be doing–per the gospels. In fact, it's what we should all be doing, proclaiming the truth in love, whether it will fall on welcoming ears or not.
What are we doing, however big or small, to proclaim life? How about pro-life vinyl cutouts for the back of your auto? Seems like a visible way to remind people about prenatal life in a non-in-your-face-way.
**just saw this ad in the NCR, I do not reap any benefits from orders placed. Just sayin'.
January 21, 2011 at 6:15 pm
I'm amazed (maybe I shouldn't be)at the disgusting bile spewed at Rick Santorum on the internet and in the news media for holding positions that up until a few years ago weren't that extreme. The one piece I read about him that even tried to be objective was by Joe Klein in Time Magazine, where he pointed out that Santorum's comments in fact weren't racist. But then he called him an abortion extremist and implied that Santorum had put his wife's life in danger by not getting her an abortion during a risky pregnancy. Disgusting. So we've finally arrived at the point where holding a Catholic position is considered a hate crime.
January 21, 2011 at 8:02 pm
Obama is not a black man – he is half-white, raised by a white mother and white grandparents. He has no ancestors that suffered through slavery in America. In fact, his ancestors were white slaveowners in America. He has nothing in common with black Americans whose people suffered through 300 years of slavery and discrimination. He was able to be elected president because he does not look black. If he looked like Clarence Thomas, he never would have been elected. Just some food for thought.
January 21, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Stantorum is right that the issue is defining what constitutes human life, but he made a critical mistake in expecting liberals to connect the dots between the nineteenth century issue of the humanity of slaves and the current issue of the humanity of the unborn.
Pro Lifers as a movement have made the same error, expecting the opposition to see the issues in their terms ("what is life") all at once instead of incrementally. If we were to work against late-term abortion (which an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose), where the humanity of the unborn is more self-evident and undeniable, then we might be able to move majority opinion to the realization that life begins at conception gradually instead of expecting people to make that realization in one great leap.
January 21, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Here's the rest of what Santorum said:
Santorum further explained, when his comment became a much-blogged-about issue: “For decades, certain human beings were wrongly treated as property and denied liberty in America because they were not considered persons under the Constitution. Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason; because they are not considered persons under the Constitution. I am disappointed that President Obama, who rightfully fights for civil rights, refuses to recognize the civil rights of the unborn in this country.”
AMEN! SANTORUM 2012
January 21, 2011 at 9:57 pm
unborn fetuses which may or may not actually alive
Ok, I am the first to admit my typing skills are often lacking, but this isn't even coherent. I assume he means a fetus may or may not be actually alive. Apparently, we are dealing with a first grader here who has not yet had a biology lesson. Can anyone really be this stupid? OF COURSE the fetus is alive, hence, that is why it continues to GROW! If it were dead, it wouldn't continue developing.
January 22, 2011 at 12:31 pm
How does Obama not understand that since the Roe v Wade decision some 50 million unborn babies have been killed and over half of these were black babies?
Santorum is not racist by pointing out the facts. The liberal and pro-abort crowd does not want to be confused by the facts.
But as we have become accustomed to seeing and hearing, the news media is loud on bang and silent on facts.
If Obama's mantra of 'Hope and Change' was real and heartfelt, he would be leading the March for Life in DC next week.
January 22, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Quite true. A fetus is human. It can't survive outside the womb, without an incubator and other support (depending on gestation) but neither can a neonate or an infant survive without frequent feeding and other care. Biologically, a zygote (i.e. fertilised ovum) is a NEW individual, there is no scientific doubt about this anywhere. Arbitrary differences between infants and fetuses are there only for the benefit of pro-abortionists. The same argument which allows abortion also allows infanticide and the killing of those who are unconscious, sedated or asleep. There really is no excuse for abortion, those who want choice can choose to not have sexual intercourse. Non Catholics can even use condoms. Oh, and of course there is this thing called ADOPTION.
January 23, 2011 at 4:31 am
the anonymous commenter at the top wasn't a "plant." It was actually a good example of the more intelligent arguments put forward from the liberal side of the fence.
Sheesh. These are people who espouse no absolutes. They have absolutely no logical, coherent or true arguments.
(not to mention that they were either "educated" by Jesuits or pop schools which means they have degrees in either superficiality or indoctrination).
His/her "hit-and -run" sort of comment is because they think they actually scored points.
kc