We are the 99%

December 19, 2006

Rick Santorum - via the Trib

Salena Zito has a pair of articles in today's Tribune Review on our favorite soon-to-be former Senator, Rick Santorum (God, I LOVED typing that!). One is an interview and the other a summary of the interview.

In the interview Rick does have some interesting things to say - and if you peer between the lines a LOT of interesting things to say. Case in point:
Trib: Is there any scenario in which you would consider running for president in 2008?

Santorum: For the year 2008 the answer is, I am not going to be running.
Take a close look. Now closer. He only ruled out running in 2008. Pretty much means we'll see a Rick Santorum campaign someplace in maybe about three years or so, doesn't it?

Some of the questions bordered on softball. Take a look at the first one:
Trib: Did you ever envision when you first ran for Congress, and stood on the corners of Cochran and Washington Roads in Mount Lebanon with your homemade signs, that your career would lead you to a final-act speech on the growing threat of Islamic fascism?
It really only makes sense if one agrees that there is a "growing threat of Islamic fascism." (That, of course, is a separate issue.) The interviewer and interviewee have to already agree on the concept before the question can be answered. Kind of frames the rest of the interview, don't it?.

Though Zito does get in something challenging:
Trib: Any plans to move back to Pennsylvania? Or will your future keep you close to the Washington Beltway?

Santorum: I am in the process of figuring that all out. I will make some decision here in the next few weeks.
Wait a sec. The question implies that Rick doesn't live in Pennsylvania. What's up with that? What happened to all that stuff during the campaign about his "legal residence" being in Penn Hills? And could there be a more tepid response?

Here's Rick on the media:
Trib: The media -- how do you think they have played a role in the public's perception of the threat of Islamic fascism, the effects of the war in Iraq?

Santorum: I gave a speech at the Valley Forge Military Academy a little over a year ago, and I talked about the role of the media -- I was very critical of them.

They felt it was their obligation to go out every day and report as they do. And they report death- as I say, "one side of the story." I understand why they do it, and I am not saying that they don't have to do it.

But understand, by doing so, all you do is accomplish exactly what the terrorists want you to do, which is to weary the American public of this war -- and eventually cause us to stop fighting it. That is the end result of what we are doing.

I have always said that if World War II was covered like this war, I really, very seriously doubt that we would have ever won that war. Certainly, we might have been willing, when the losses got so high, to negotiate a compromise or negotiate some sort of surrender. The death that went on -- I always remind people that we lost more people in a couple of hours on D-Day that we have in the entire war (in Iraq).

The amount of death and destruction that occurred in the previous wars, under the current media coverage, would not have tolerated by the American public.

The bottom line is, the media -- and I am not saying that they are intending to do this -- but simply by what they are doing, without question, it is aiding the terrorists and their objective.

And that may just simply be the function of a free press in a democratic society. ... I would argue that covering the bad things that are going on Iraq, and not covering the greater complexities that I have talked about in my speeches and highlighting the threat, is a disservice to the American public. And, I think, will have far-reaching consequences.
Let's take it apart section by section:
I gave a speech at the Valley Forge Military Academy a little over a year ago, and I talked about the role of the media -- I was very critical of them.

They felt it was their obligation to go out every day and report as they do. And they report death- as I say, "one side of the story." I understand why they do it, and I am not saying that they don't have to do it.

But understand, by doing so, all you do is accomplish exactly what the terrorists want you to do, which is to weary the American public of this war -- and eventually cause us to stop fighting it. That is the end result of what we are doing.
So by reporting the deaths in Iraq, the media is helping the terrorists.
I have always said that if World War II was covered like this war, I really, very seriously doubt that we would have ever won that war. Certainly, we might have been willing, when the losses got so high, to negotiate a compromise or negotiate some sort of surrender. The death that went on -- I always remind people that we lost more people in a couple of hours on D-Day that we have in the entire war (in Iraq).
That last part might not be accurate. From the D-Day Museum website:
How many Allied and German casualties were there on D-Day, and in the Battle of Normandy?

“Casualties” refers to all losses suffered by the armed forces: killed, wounded, missing in action (meaning that their bodies were not found) and prisoners of war. There is no "official" casualty figure for D-Day. Under the circumstances, accurate record keeping was very difficult. For example, some troops who were listed as missing may actually have landed in the wrong place, and have rejoined their parent unit only later.

In April and May 1944, the Allied air forces lost nearly 12,000 men and over 2,000 aircraft in operations which paved the way for D-Day.

Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces lost 6603 men. Note that the casualty figures for smaller units do not always add up to equal these overall figures exactly, however (this simply reflects the problems of obtaining accurate casualty statistics). [Italics added]
And US casualties so far in Iraq? As of today (1219/06): 2950 dead and 46,880 "non mortal casualties." To be sure, the numbers will go up.

But given that the accuracy of all the D-Day numbers is hazy, I won't hold Rick to this. But let's assume for the sake of the argument that Rick is correct. That more US Servicemen died in a "couple of hours" on D-Day than were killed in the 4 years of Bush's war. So what? More people die in car accidents on the nation's roads. Does that make an illegal war legal? Does that suddenly make what was a meaningless death a meaningful one?
The amount of death and destruction that occurred in the previous wars, under the current media coverage, would not have tolerated by the American public.

The bottom line is, the media -- and I am not saying that they are intending to do this -- but simply by what they are doing, without question, it is aiding the terrorists and their objective.

And that may just simply be the function of a free press in a democratic society. ... I would argue that covering the bad things that are going on Iraq, and not covering the greater complexities that I have talked about in my speeches and highlighting the threat, is a disservice to the American public. And, I think, will have far-reaching consequences.
So to sum up. The media, though Rick is careful to say that he doesn't think it's intentional, is aiding the terrorists simply by reporting what they see. If only they'd parrot more of the nonsense that the administration (and Rick Santorum) has been saying over the last few years, the war would be over and we would have won it. Why can't the media just show us nice pictures of bunnies and sunsets? That way, the serious, important people can finish the job with no pesky interference from the public.

Yea, that's it. The media's fault and the public's fault for not buying that tripe.

14 comments:

Richmond K. Turner said...

He's gone. We voted him out. He's history. He's not running for anything now, and apparently won't be running for anything in two years time. It's over, we won, and now there are new issues that we simply have to deal with.

I didn't like the guy either, but can we please stop paying attention to him? At the very least, can we limit things to simple schadenfreude, a few snapshots of him loading up a U-Haul, and comments such as "Ha, ha, Ricky! Sucks to be you, pal!"?

Point-by-point criticism of Rick Santorum at this point seems pointless. Granted, we all have a bit of residual anger that can still be unleashed, but that anger is probably better channeled into battles that we haven't already won.

Mark Rauterkus said...

He might be gone, but clean up reamins. Healing takes more than a blink.

You hit upon Rick all you want. And, I'll hit upon Tom Murphy too. The clean up from him is going to take years, if not a generation.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Actually, Santorum is not gone at all. He just shifted his shape, became a Democrat, and changed his name to Bob Casey.

I agree that it's time to leave the old avatar alone and start focusing our attention on the new one.

EdHeath said...

Well, I will grant you there are interesting questions buried in your post, that Santorum raised. We are constantly comparing ourselves to generations past, in terms of morality, resolve and whatever. The impact on public opinion of (tv) media, blogs, and other instant communications is a still unresolved and even still changing open ended question. It’s a debate worth having.

Actually, there is a media source where that debate is periodically raised, and efforts are made to include at least two, if not all, points of view. Issues like Iraq are given more that 45 seconds, more than a few images, and like a say the administration is given ample access as well as its critics.

Its called the News Hour on PBS, and nobody watches it, because it requires too much effort.

Of course, I have heard criticism of the News Hour that it simplfies issues by pitting two or so guests against each other. I guess the critics prefer the talking heads of the networks.

Santorum hisself has been on the News Hour plenty of times. I wonder what he says about their Iraq coverage?

John, I hope Casey is not the new Santorum. At least his party line votes will be different. I still fall back on David Brooks assessment of Santorum as (perhaps misguided) activist for the poor in the US and around the globe. Maybe Casey couldstand to have a little of that spirit in his character.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Ed, I'm not going to bore you with my list of similarities between Rick and Bob, but please, please join me in watching Casey very closely these next six years.

xranger said...

Thanks for some level-headed comment, again, Ed.

I was always a Santorum fan, didn't agree with him on a lot of things, and saw him lose his way over the past few years. No wonder he was fired.

The question I would pose, though, is what does your side want out of Casey. What do you want to see from the junior Senator?

Democrats-Lie said...

David gives Rick Santorum nearly the same amount of attention as he does the menu.

He just cannot let him go. David's got some sort of weird, near perverted obsession with Santorum, wouldn't ya say?

It's all David talks about anymore.

Rick Santorum went to Giant Eagle. Rick Santorum didn't have enough money to pay. Hey, I'll blog that!

Rick Santorum has a urinary tract infection. Hey, I'll blog that, too!

See where I am going with this? David cannot focus.

Hey David, I got news for ya, pal: Your party won! You can quit with the Rick Santorum talk now.

God almighty man, talk about something else already.

By the way, does Mr. Food still air?

Need I say more?

Anonymous said...

I think the perverted obsession belongs to Braden. Why do you continually attack David with your homophobic, neurotically anti-eating issues? You are the one who seems to have a man crush. Does Mrs. Inflatable know about this? Maybe she should check what you do online....careful who you point fingers at pasty Mr. Too Thin.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Awww, let the little fella rant. He actually thinks it's David that looks silly!

Anonymous said...

I think Anonymous is a bit touchy when it came to the "menu comment" made previously. Hit home, eh Anon?

I suggest you change your attitude.

corporatemedia said...

As I said in response to dayvoe's post,Still Rick - He just couldn't help himself
on December 6th about T-Ricky's final Senate speech, Santorum is already running for president in either 2012 or 2016. "Will he run" is not in question. It's just a matter of when.

He WILL run in 2012 if the Repug candidate loses in 2008.
or
He WILL run in 2016 if the Repug candidate wins in 2008.

Even if a Repug wins the presidency in 2008, T-Ricky may consider a take-it-to-new-haven run in 2012 against a sitting president (if that president is unpopular). The historical model would be Reagan's 1976 run against President Ford. After losing, T-Ricky embraces and campaigns for the president's re-election. He has lost nothing and gained a network for his run in 2016. Also, remember that Bill Clinton did not expect to win the nomination in 1992! He believed it would take more than one run at the big prize.

T-Rick already gave the first speech of his campaign. It was his final speech in the Senate that dayvoe blogged about back on December 6th.

BTW, I live about a 10 minute walk from where it all began for Tricky Ricky "on the corners of Cochran and Washington Roads in Mount Lebanon with...homemade signs"

(I still have some of MY homemade signs!)

It began for him and ENDED for me in the same neigborhood. What a coincidence. Cosmic! Comic?

And what a relief, after 16 YEARS he is no longer representing me in Congress.

But PLEASE keep your bloggin' eye on him, dayvoe, because he will be back. (I'll be particulary interested in his future residency.)

But now it's time me to clear my head of that foul thing by deeply breathing in the cleaner PENNSYLVANIA air that has resulted from his expulsion from our state back to his home of VIRGINA. Everyone should go outside and try it, you'll notice the difference. A big breath. It works. Really.

I will not have to call back the posse, ASAP (Anti-Santorum Action Posse) or re-start

SANTORUM CYBERGATE

(in whatever incarnation it returns) until at least 2011.

Sixteen years of his bullshit was enough.

He will NOT be president. (But he will run.)

Oh and BTW, that thing about the number of dead at Normandy. That was just T-Ricky getting his battles mixed up. It was that final battle for Mordor that he was thinking about!

checksixb17 said...

I am an America, muslim, catholic, protestant, Jewish, agnostic, African, Indian, Asian, Irish, English, Cuban, Rushian, Iraqi, Iranian, Person. My life blood is Red, White and Blue, American. My fellow Americans have shed their blood in every American war since the early 1770's. I'll bet you didn't know that. The Chinese built our railroads to make us a super power. We fight American wars but we are discriminated against when we come home. It is a sad thing to see. Our Constitution gaurantees us civil rights but the people of this country don't read and abide by our constitution. So our children have to live in America and defend America without the rewards promised by the Constitution. I will vote for Senator Obama who is a Christian. Good luck Mr. Obama!

checksixb17 said...

George Washington was a Liberal or we would still be under the British Crown, Thomas Jefferson was a liberal when he wrote that there should separation of Church and State, Lincoln was a Liberal when he freed the Slaves, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Liberal when he ended Child Labor and created Federal Insurance for bank deposits and 40 hour work weeks so that more people could work, he put people to work on infrastructure with the WPA and the CCC witch helped feed a starving nation. Roosevelt provided the older citizens with Social Security, his liberal accomplishments are too long to list here. If it we had no liberals we would be living like people in the Stone Age.

checksixb17 said...

Republicans are spend and charge it to your grand children politicians! The Repubs say that Democrats are tax and spend. Okay, at the very least the Democrats pay as you go and leave with a surplus. The Repubs spend it, give the rich a tax break, charge it to your grand children, and leave with the largest debt in American History! They say it's 10 trillion but, the economist's say it is really about 61 trillion dollars. I'll trade the Repubs in every time for what they call a tax and spend Democrat. Give me that old tax and spend guy every time. We'll pay as we go, we'll regulate the fat cats on Wall Street, we'll leave everyone with a surplus. The Repubs have spent us so far into the future that we are on the verge of the second Great Depression. What you have seen so far is only the tiny beginning. I promise I will probably vote for a Democrat the rest of my life. Sure, I'm like Will Rogers, I don't belong to an organized party because I'm a Democrat. There are, in this country many more Democrats than Republicans, always have been.... But we don't vote unless there is a catastrophy. Well, here we are again, and we are all going to vote!