Santorum spars with Charlie Rose: “You don’t do this with President Obama. In fact, with President Obama, what you did was you went out and defended him against someone who he sat in a church for, for 20 years, and defended him, that, oh, he can’t possibly believe what he listened to for 20 years. That’s just a double-standard, this is what you’re pulling off, and I’m going to call you on it.”
You should actually see the whole interview, folks. Now, with what he sees as a real shot at the Nomination, suddenly Rick Santorum the guy who said he thought contraception was "dangerous" and wanted States to have the right to ban it....is NOW touting his votes for Title 10 and all the times he supported funding contraception at home and abroad.
Where will be all the praise from the "pro-life/anti-contraception" National Review writers?
They can't smell their own [fill in the blank] because they eat it for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, ultimately creating more [fill in the blank]. The cycle never quits.
On the day after Obama's victory in 2008, Charlie Rose had a panel on that included Evan Thomas and Jon Meacham, the Editor and Editor at Large, respectively, of Newsweek. During the panel, Rose, Meacham and Thomas all lamented the fact that they didn't "know" Obama. That's right. Three guys, all three of have tremendous latitude to either report themselves, or direct reporters to research, investigate and then write about anyone, wax poetic about not "knowing who Barack Obama is".
The irony, of course, was lost on them. Entirely. They didn't know who Obama was, and consequently their viewers and their readers didn't know who Obama was, precisely because they never satisfied the journalistic obligations to actually investigate, and critically examine the man who was elected. Fours years later, they still haven't.
Today, however, we know about virtually every deal that Bain Capital ever made. We know about men whose wife Rick Santorum dated. We know about the patients of Marcus Bachman. We have seen interviews, ad infinitum, with Newt Gingrich's former wives. And finally, and my favorite, we know about a rock, on the ground, in the middle of West Texas, that may or may not have been painted 30-years ago when a candidate's parents once leased some hunting property.
Santorum right. Rose doesn't treat Obama that way. No one does.
Here's that interview if anyone wants to be disgusted.
I agree that it's shameless, but the answer isn't to lay of the GOP, it's to greatly increase the exposure to liberals. (I think you agree; I'm just clarifying that point.)
I thought that was an exceptionally good answer for reasons listed below. But I'm (now) a Santorum supporter, given our remaining candidates. I'd be interested to hear what some Romney, Gingrich, or Paul folks think.
His response did a few things well.
First, he's smiling -- so he's clearly trying to shake the whiny or scold image. Second, he hit the media for being weasly and unctuous.
Third, he called them out for defending Obama and, in doing so, took the fight to *Obama*, which we're all dying for.
And, fourth, he kept injecting his pro-manufacturing platform in there. This makes him look like a man concerned with the issues, and if further underscores how insipid Charlie Rose looks.
In short, he took on the media without simply looking like he was adopting Gingrich's schtick. Well played.
He'd do well to do more of this. I'm so sick of this attempt to make our candidates out to be loons. If Biden got HALF the exposure and hit-jobs that Palin (or any of our candidates do), there would be a national movement to get him a mental evaluation. I'm sick of it.
he came off squirely and whiny. That's just how he comes off
*is* an effective argument?
If I'm "chiding" you, it is for endlessly repeating your rigid perceptions that (a) don't appear to me to be grounded in any kind of reality but (b) can't be challenged by anything other than an opposing opinion. That is my point.
I will neither accept someone else's erroneous and by now boring perception, nor will I move on. And you will apparently continue to whine about whining and repeat such meaningless assertions as "he just does" . . . .
This is a truly fascinating discussion. I would love to stay but an even more fascinating discussion between two of my kids has just broken out. Apparently one just said "I know you are but what am I?"
Right now I don't give a $#!% who the (R) nominee is, not a giant fan of any of these people but I'll gladly pull the lever for the winner. Squirely and whiny is not how Santorum came across to me. It maybe obvious to you and we're all idiots for not seeing it your way, but that's how the world works. Repeating yourself 50 gazillion times doesn't make your point 50 gazillion times stronger. Someone could easily classify your responses as "whiny".
What's telling for me is that, even though I'm a Romney guy who has been vocal in my opposition to Santorum (I think he's electoral poison for us) I read the transcript first, and thought to myself "heck yeah! Way to go Santorum, you're gonna get a lot of praise for this and DESERVE it."
Then I watched the video.
God, Santorum is just...really, really hard to take in terms of his voice tone and his facial expressions. He comes across as whiny, and pinch-faced, and he undercuts the quality of the argument he's making simply by being the guy who makes it, with that demeanor. Indeed, just like the fellow above me pointed out, Romney has his own 'robotic' flaw and Paul has his "nutty cracking-voiced Walter Brennan" problem too. They've all got these issues. It's just that Santorum's makes me think of vinegar and lemons.
Still, give credit to Santorum for the substance of his point here: it's good, and that shouldn't be taken away from him.
Fine, I just don't see it. To me he looks like a normal person answering questions and then becoming forceful yet still pleasant in challenging Rose. All anyone who disagrees can do, when someone levels the "whiny" charge, is to say "I didn't see it." I didn't see it.
You should actually see the whole interview, folks. Now, with what he sees as a real shot at the Nomination, suddenly Rick Santorum the guy who said he thought contraception was "dangerous" and wanted States to have the right to ban it....is NOW touting his votes for Title 10 and all the times he supported funding contraception at home and abroad.
Where will be all the praise from the "pro-life/anti-contraception" National Review writers?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis argument would be effective, but thanks to the media no one knows who Jeremiah Wright is and his connection to the President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI laughed out loud (but I was crying on the inside).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKudos to Santorum for taking Rose to the woodshed for his blatant hypocrisy. Media lefties like Rose really don't smell their own [fill in the blank].
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey can't smell their own [fill in the blank] because they eat it for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, ultimately creating more [fill in the blank]. The cycle never quits.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOn the day after Obama's victory in 2008, Charlie Rose had a panel on that included Evan Thomas and Jon Meacham, the Editor and Editor at Large, respectively, of Newsweek. During the panel, Rose, Meacham and Thomas all lamented the fact that they didn't "know" Obama. That's right. Three guys, all three of have tremendous latitude to either report themselves, or direct reporters to research, investigate and then write about anyone, wax poetic about not "knowing who Barack Obama is".
The irony, of course, was lost on them. Entirely. They didn't know who Obama was, and consequently their viewers and their readers didn't know who Obama was, precisely because they never satisfied the journalistic obligations to actually investigate, and critically examine the man who was elected. Fours years later, they still haven't.
Today, however, we know about virtually every deal that Bain Capital ever made. We know about men whose wife Rick Santorum dated. We know about the patients of Marcus Bachman. We have seen interviews, ad infinitum, with Newt Gingrich's former wives. And finally, and my favorite, we know about a rock, on the ground, in the middle of West Texas, that may or may not have been painted 30-years ago when a candidate's parents once leased some hunting property.
Santorum right. Rose doesn't treat Obama that way. No one does.
Here's that interview if anyone wants to be disgusted.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree that it's shameless, but the answer isn't to lay of the GOP, it's to greatly increase the exposure to liberals. (I think you agree; I'm just clarifying that point.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI thought that was an exceptionally good answer for reasons listed below. But I'm (now) a Santorum supporter, given our remaining candidates. I'd be interested to hear what some Romney, Gingrich, or Paul folks think.
His response did a few things well.
First, he's smiling -- so he's clearly trying to shake the whiny or scold image. Second, he hit the media for being weasly and unctuous.
Third, he called them out for defending Obama and, in doing so, took the fight to *Obama*, which we're all dying for.
And, fourth, he kept injecting his pro-manufacturing platform in there. This makes him look like a man concerned with the issues, and if further underscores how insipid Charlie Rose looks.
In short, he took on the media without simply looking like he was adopting Gingrich's schtick. Well played.
He'd do well to do more of this. I'm so sick of this attempt to make our candidates out to be loons. If Biden got HALF the exposure and hit-jobs that Palin (or any of our candidates do), there would be a national movement to get him a mental evaluation. I'm sick of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum has no charisma. I agree with what he said here and he came off squirely and whiny.
That's just how he comes off... there's nothing that can be done about it. Romney is robotic and it can't be fixed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe thing that nothing can be done about is your immovable perception. He didn't whine a lick.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMute the video and look at his body language. Chiding me for my opinion by stating your own opinion isn't really an effective argument.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd
he came off squirely and whiny. That's just how he comes off
*is* an effective argument?
If I'm "chiding" you, it is for endlessly repeating your rigid perceptions that (a) don't appear to me to be grounded in any kind of reality but (b) can't be challenged by anything other than an opposing opinion. That is my point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not the first person to say that Santorum sounds whiny. He just does. Romney sounds robotic. He just does.
Accept the perception and move on...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI will neither accept someone else's erroneous and by now boring perception, nor will I move on. And you will apparently continue to whine about whining and repeat such meaningless assertions as "he just does" . . . .
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Santorum is nominated prepare for a very depressing Summer. This "perception" will be the reality whether you see it or not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a truly fascinating discussion. I would love to stay but an even more fascinating discussion between two of my kids has just broken out. Apparently one just said "I know you are but what am I?"
Gadzooks!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight now I don't give a $#!% who the (R) nominee is, not a giant fan of any of these people but I'll gladly pull the lever for the winner. Squirely and whiny is not how Santorum came across to me. It maybe obvious to you and we're all idiots for not seeing it your way, but that's how the world works. Repeating yourself 50 gazillion times doesn't make your point 50 gazillion times stronger. Someone could easily classify your responses as "whiny".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd apparently Santorum's insufferable nature is contagious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately I agree with Daily Plunge.
What's telling for me is that, even though I'm a Romney guy who has been vocal in my opposition to Santorum (I think he's electoral poison for us) I read the transcript first, and thought to myself "heck yeah! Way to go Santorum, you're gonna get a lot of praise for this and DESERVE it."
Then I watched the video.
God, Santorum is just...really, really hard to take in terms of his voice tone and his facial expressions. He comes across as whiny, and pinch-faced, and he undercuts the quality of the argument he's making simply by being the guy who makes it, with that demeanor. Indeed, just like the fellow above me pointed out, Romney has his own 'robotic' flaw and Paul has his "nutty cracking-voiced Walter Brennan" problem too. They've all got these issues. It's just that Santorum's makes me think of vinegar and lemons.
Still, give credit to Santorum for the substance of his point here: it's good, and that shouldn't be taken away from him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFine, I just don't see it. To me he looks like a normal person answering questions and then becoming forceful yet still pleasant in challenging Rose. All anyone who disagrees can do, when someone levels the "whiny" charge, is to say "I didn't see it." I didn't see it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse