« No DeLoreans Allowed | Main | The Pope should not have voiced displeasure with Coptic Christians being murdered in Egypt... »

What exactly is the controversy over Rick Santorum's statement?

Someone's going to have to help me out... is this seriously a controversy?  Or are progressives and their willing accomplices in the media manufacturing one?

Let's go to ABC's The Note for context:

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, a potential 2012 Republican presidential contender, injected race into the debate about abortion rights, saying that President Barack Obama's stance on the issue is "almost remarkable for a black man."

In a recent interview with the Christian News Service, Santorum argued that because of his race, Obama should be able to say definitively that the life of unborn children is protected under the Constitution.

"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,'" Santorum said in a televised interview. "Well if that person -- human life is not a person -- then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'we're going to decide who are people and who are not people.'"

Santorum was referring to comments, now more than two years old, that Obama made as a candidate for president in which he said that the question of whether a baby should have human rights was "above my pay grade."

Obama offered that answer in August 2008 at a forum on religion and politics organized by California pastor Rick Warren.

"Just about everything else in the world he's willing to do -- have the government do -- but he can't answer that basic question which is not a debatable issue at all," Santorum told CNS News' Terry Jeffrey.  "I don't think you'll find a biologist in the world who will say that is not a human life."

The mingling of race and the abortion debate -- two extremely volatile issues -- is likely to present problems for Santorum's presidential ambitions.

How?  How does this present problems?  Are they really simply overlooking this relevant piece of history?

What a freakin' joke this all is.  Complete joke.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40962.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What exactly is the controversy over Rick Santorum's statement?:

Comments (27)

The joke is going to be on ... (Below threshold)
914:

The joke is going to be on Barry in 2012. The fool cannot create jobs, cannot produce college grades. Cannot halt the hate-filled rhetoric. And cannot resist using the race card in every situation.

Liberalism truly is a devious mental disorder.

Certainly I have no quarrel... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Certainly I have no quarrel with his basic premise (from the moment a human egg is fertilized it is destined to develop into a human being). And human beings, regardless of race/gender/political affiliation, are people. But to pander to his base, while trying to stick one on Obama, was ill conceived. "Remarkable" or not, "freakin' joke or not, that was just a dumb thing for Santorum to say.

I imagine he's considering a run for President.

Why don't we just declare a... (Below threshold)

Why don't we just declare a fetus to be 3/5 of a person?

J.

Obama shoulod knoiw by now ... (Below threshold)
Don L:

Obama shoulod knoiw by now that babies, born or unborn are to be considered 3/5ths of a person -or something like that.

I had thought this would expose the biased number of inner city blacks that abortion is targeting - the real racism behind Margaret Sangar's lagacy.

Barry would not want anybod... (Below threshold)
914:

Barry would not want anybody punished with even 3/5 of a baby.

instead of welcoming the de... (Below threshold)

instead of welcoming the debate and the chance to school the press on what he meant and why it is not only applicable but appropriate, he will apologize and maybe send al sharpton an 'edible arrangement'

any chance we can harvest spine cells from sarah palin and inject the gop with them? would their health insurance cover that?

If Santorum were smart, he'... (Below threshold)
Hank:

If Santorum were smart, he'd avoid both issues, abortion and race.

Neither issue allows for reasonable debate or discussion. Both are polarizing and emotional. And when it comes to emotion, no one does it better than liberals since their whole foundation is built on feelings, sensitivity and what they perceive as fairness.

Besides, we've more important issues facing us, national bankruptcy for one.

Just because we have more i... (Below threshold)
914:

Just because we have more important issue's facing us, does not mean Santorum cannot speak of Barry's hypocrisy.

Rick's "Presidential ambiti... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

Rick's "Presidential ambitions" can't get over the hurdle of losing his Senate seat by double digits to a complete blithering idiot who couldn't be bothered to show up for his own state job for weeks at a time.

Obama is the most pro-abortion President in history. He wouldn't even vote for legal protection for babies born before a "partial birth abortion" could be performed. The SOB wouldn't care if you put babies in a blender.

BUT Obama won't win or lose reelection on the abortion issue. Santorum is correct on his point, but it is irrelevant to his own campaign as well. He has no chance for the nomination, and that's a good thing for Republicans.

Maybe someone should show O... (Below threshold)
Theo:

Maybe someone should show Obama your post from January 16 entitled "my people are dying."

"What exactly is the contro... (Below threshold)
SpideyTerry:

"What exactly is the controversy over Rick Santorum's statement?"

Simple. He's a Republican that (whether intentionally or not) injected race into another issue. That's truly unforgivable... because he's a Republican. Democrats can play the race card all the live long day. They have, in fact, especially since that big-earred buffoon came along - such as the allusions to any criticism of him having certain connotations. But for a Republican just to even mention race? Truly a controversy.

The more obvious questions ... (Below threshold)
Simple Simon:

The more obvious questions is what does Obama's skin color have to do with his remarks two years ago or his position on abortion today?

Answer: Nothing.

Then why did Santorum bring it up?

Answer: Obvious.

Simon,Simple answe... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Simon,

Simple answer for you. Go read the post from 1/16 titled "My People are Dying". Also demographically, blacks tend to be more antiabortion.

So no it isn't because he is racist.

Did Santorum read the 1/16 ... (Below threshold)
Simple Simon:

Did Santorum read the 1/16 post? No - so it's irrelevant to what he said and why he said it.

Go read the Manhattan phone book - that'll explain it. Or maybe not - I dunno - just a suggestion.

Obama's race had nothing to do with things - except to people like Santorum. You know, "racists" who can't see past a person's skin color - and who have prejudices based on race.

Just a slightly OT comment:... (Below threshold)
codekeyguy:

Just a slightly OT comment:
I HATE OBAMA, I DESPISE OBAMA. However, the fact that he is black has nothing to do with my HATING OR DESPISING HIM!!!.
Is that waaaaacist???

First, I think this is a di... (Below threshold)
Weegie:

First, I think this is a discussion that anybody with presidential aspirations should strenously avoid. Making a connection between Obama's ethnicity and abortion will be played up by the mongrel left as some kind of racist statement. And, let's face facts - the people who decide elections do not understand nuance or subtlety - they will be bluntly told by the media that Santorum is racist and they will believe it.

That said, the issue Santorum is addressing is the fact that a very high percentage of black pregnancies end in abortion, I think it in excess of 40%.

That's why it is an issue, but the churlish dishonesty of the media is why politicians on the national stage should avoid it.

Santorum's correct, but he may have fallen on his sword fighting this wholly unnecessary battle.

He needs to pick his battles, and he needs to carefully consider what he plans to say in light of how it will be distorted by the dishonest left.

There is no way that aborti... (Below threshold)
kathie:

There is no way that abortion should be constitutionally sanctioned in this country. If someone wants to have an abortion go right ahead, it can be a decision between the woman and her doctor. But to say the constitution sanctions something other then "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is wrong, just like slavery was wrong under our constitution.

To miss Santorum's statemen... (Below threshold)
Rick Author Profile Page:

To miss Santorum's statements being tied to the fact that the Constitution originally defined slaves (blacks) as only 3/5ths of a person is to miss the entire point...

Have we become this ignorant?

That said, the issue San... (Below threshold)
woop:

That said, the issue Santorum is addressing is the fact that a very high percentage of black pregnancies end in abortion, I think it in excess of 40%.

You're putting words in Santorum's mouth. In his later remarks he never used that argument as an explanation,

I get it - explaining why a racist makes racist remarks is tough when he's one of your own - but don't just make stuff up.

To miss Santorum's state... (Below threshold)
Woop:

To miss Santorum's statements being tied to the fact that the Constitution originally defined slaves (blacks) as only 3/5ths of a person is to miss the entire point...Have we become this ignorant?

You're making up excuses for a racist. We not ignorant enough to believe such bs.

Speaking of ignorance, any ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Speaking of ignorance, any of you Constitutional scholars know WHY slaves were defined as 3/5 of a person?

It wasn't to make a statement about their personhood or their humanity. Hell, they weren't thought of as people, really, at all. They were chattel, property, like livestock.

No, the reason that was originally part of the Constitution was because, without it, the southern states wouldn't have ratified. See, it increased their representation in Congress. If a state had, for example, a million voting whites and a million non-voting blacks, that state got the representation of 1,600,000 people. If a state had a million voting whites and NO non-voting blacks, it got the representation of just a million. In that way the slave states got more power in the House of Representatives than the free states.

Geez, you Tea Party types are always squawking about the Constitution, but you seem to know very little about it.

I've seen this statistic to... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I've seen this statistic tossed around with some frequency here, that 40% of black pregnancies end in abortion. What is the source of this information? It seems of doubtful probability to me.

#19-22 have the combined in... (Below threshold)
914:

#19-22 have the combined intellect of a tahitian green mosquito.

"Well if that person -- ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"Well if that person -- human life is not a person -- then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'we're going to decide who are people and who are not people.'"

Yes, In light of the 3/5ths compromise it is surprising that a black president would get involved in saying who is and who is not a person since the compromise was based on the dehumanizing of black people and they were counted not because the south thought that they had value and rights as people but because they were useful tools to increase the power of the white slave owners.

Funny thing is that the left says that to point out this irony is racist. But as I have pointed out the dems were always the party of the slave owners and they have been the party of Jim Crow and opposition to the civil rights act and they are still the party of wanting to decide who gets to be counted as human and who does not.

There is no way that abo... (Below threshold)
john:

There is no way that abortion should be constitutionally sanctioned in this country. If someone wants to have an abortion go right ahead, it can be a decision between the woman and her doctor.

Do you have any familiarity with historical fact? Women DID "go right ahead", and it WAS a decision between the woman and her doctor. Then some states decided they wanted to intervene. The SCOTUS just said they can't do that. Abortion is not "constitutionally sanctioned". Do you understand the difference between saying "you have permission to do x" and "you can't be forbidden from doing x"? If not, then you don't understand the Constitution at all.

I do believe the Northern s... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I do believe the Northern states would not have ratified the constitution due to the fact that the Southern states would have had more representation.

Also, the push was on to adopt the constituion because the Articles of Confederation was the first constitution and the founders were in fact acting contrary to the law of the land. Rightfully so, but there you have it. ww

I do believe the writers of... (Below threshold)
studakota:

I do believe the writers of the Constitution were right about nearly everything they put in that document. Events have proven them almost right on the three fifths provision, also. Or, perhaps, the revisionist history books are teaching something other than the truth these days. I think that equation, and only if muscles are given undo credit, seems about right.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy