How To Commit Political Suicide:

  • #1

Main Question or Discussion Point

...In one easy step! http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20029076-503544.html

Foot, meet mouth, mouth... foot. Is there a clarification of this (the comment, NOT THE ISSUE!!!) which can make Santorum a functional fund-raiser? It could help if he's trying to take over Palin's place withe base, but it could backfire badly if it was intentional.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
172
1
I'm pro-abortion, so even though I disagree with Santorum's point, I fail to see how this is political suicide. Santorum did NOT say, for example, that Obama is "almost remarkable for a black man." He said it's "almost remarkable for a black man to say 'we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.'"

I have made the exact same argument about african-americans who argue against gay marriage. You'd figure that they, of all people, would understand a civil rights struggle.

His comments are fine.
 
  • #3
I'm pro-abortion, so even though I disagree with Santorum's point, I fail to see how this is political suicide. Santorum did NOT say, for example, that Obama is "almost remarkable for a black man." He said it's "almost remarkable for a black man to say 'we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.'"

I have made the exact same argument about african-americans who argue against gay marriage. You'd figure that they, of all people, would understand a civil rights struggle.

His comments are fine.
I'm not arguing for or against the content of his comments: content is dwarfed by "optics" in politics anyway. The reality is he just made himself even MORE polarizing, and has made it clear that he's in it to effect the agendas of others, not to win.

How this plays out in terms of his fund-raising will be the ultimate test of course. I think you make a good point about rights, I just think expecting the audience of "america in general" to get it... is crazed.
 
  • #4
Al68
I'm not arguing for or against the content of his comments: content is dwarfed by "optics" in politics anyway. The reality is he just made himself even MORE polarizing, and has made it clear that he's in it to effect the agendas of others, not to win.

How this plays out in terms of his fund-raising will be the ultimate test of course. I think you make a good point about rights, I just think expecting the audience of "america in general" to get it... is crazed.
Can you point out the specific part of his comments you're referring to? Like Jack21222, I'm pro-choice, but just can't figure out what you're talking about.
 
  • #5
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
616
In one case, it is decided, "Those people are not full persons under the Constitution because of their race."

Totally different from deciding when a person is given rights granted in the Constitution.

How are these issues related? It's absurd, a non sequitur.
 
  • #6
Can you point out the specific part of his comments you're referring to? Like Jack21222, I'm pro-choice, but just can't figure out what you're talking about.
I can only speak to how the media has reacted to specific portions of his comments. I typed in, "Santorum, controversy" and google gave me this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy

Whoops... wrong one. :tongue:

So then...

here is the man in is own words:
and here...

ABC 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,’” 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.’”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/20...ortion-stance-remarkable-for-a-black-man.html

Which includes video of what appears to be the remark. Make of it what you will; perhaps I'm not explaining this well.

Personally I agree with Lisab... we're talking about pure equivocation using the race of the president as a lever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
Al68
here is the man in is own words:
and here...


http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/20...ortion-stance-remarkable-for-a-black-man.html

Which includes video of what appears to be the remark. Make of it what you will; perhaps I'm not explaining this well.
I can see how one might disagree (I do myself) or how the analogy isn't a very good one. But "crazed"? Sounds far less crazy than the crap the left spouts routinely.

But I've been listening to Sirius Left a lot lately (for entertainment mostly), so that probably has my crazy meter out of whack. Very little is crazy compared to those guys.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
I can see how one might disagree (I do myself) or how the analogy isn't a very good one. But "crazed"? Sounds far less crazy than the crap the left spouts routinely.

But I've been listening to Sirius Left a lot lately (for entertainment mostly), so that probably has my crazy meter out of whack. Very little is crazy compared to those guys.
Well, I'm not saying that it's a contest, but he's running for the presidency and he's a former senator, not a DJ. Now, compare those comments to what Cohen said about Nazis, and yeah... it's not so crazy.

Of course, as you imply, the correct reaction is to say they're BOTH crazed, and slap the hell out of them to boot.
 
  • #9
Al68
Well, I'm not saying that it's a contest, but he's running for the presidency and he's a former senator, not a DJ. Now, compare those comments to what Cohen said about Nazis, and yeah... it's not so crazy.

Of course, as you imply, the correct reaction is to say they're BOTH crazed, and slap the hell out of them to boot.
I'd say they're both wrong, but Cohen was wrong in a far more hateful and fraudulent way. Santorum didn't say what he did out of hatred or an attempt to deceive people. He's just plain wrong.

But you're right, everything is relative. If I heard Santorum's comments in the context of sane, rational, and honest political debate in general, it would probably seem crazier than it does in the current political climate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
I'd say they're both wrong, but Cohen was wrong in a far more hateful and fraudulent way. Santorum didn't say what he did out of hatred or an attempt to deceive people. He's just plain wrong.
True, but not in the larger context of the "pro-life" hysteria. Ask the late Dr. Tiller and others; that's one big "not a game". In practice, rhetoric about Nazis is tossed around by pretty much everyone in American politics these days. Ironic, given the complete divorce from the reality of what Nazism was.

But you're right, everything is relative. If I heard Santorum's comments in the context of sane, rational, and honest political debate in general, it would probably seem crazier than it does in the current political climate.
Yeah... that's the problem... I think we need to stop listening to people who sound like hysterics, but... well... fear sells.
 
  • #11
Al68
True, but not in the larger context of the "pro-life" hysteria. Ask the late Dr. Tiller and others; that's one big "not a game".
Maybe, but their cause is seemingly hopeless at this time.

And like I have said in other threads, I believe a fetus is a person. But no person has the right to the forced servitude of another, even if that other is the mother. The thing I find strange about the whole abortion issue is that it so often seems to be the exception to the general rule on both sides: Those who are more libertarian on many other issues make an exception for abortion, and those who are more authoritarian on many other issues make an exception for abortion. I've always found that strange.
 
  • #12
PhilKravitz
And like I have said in other threads, I believe a fetus is a person. But no person has the right to the forced servitude of another, even if that other is the mother.
I too believe a fetus is a person. If two adults take a action that they know can result in the kidnapping of a human from the land of the unborn (think Plato and the cave) into this world then they have an obligation to meet the needs of the person they created until age 18 (21?, 26?).
 
  • #13
Maybe, but their cause is seemingly hopeless at this time.

And like I have said in other threads, I believe a fetus is a person. But no person has the right to the forced servitude of another, even if that other is the mother. The thing I find strange about the whole abortion issue is that it so often seems to be the exception to the general rule on both sides: Those who are more libertarian on many other issues make an exception for abortion, and those who are more authoritarian on many other issues make an exception for abortion. I've always found that strange.
It's a very common event, which means that people have to resolve this happening to the "good people" in their lives. If you know someone well, like and respect them, but they make a choice you disagree with... do you stop liking and respecting them? Make that a pattern and not ONE person, and it's clear: the more social issues touch people personally, the more passionate they are about it, one way or the other.

Some people of course, cut off family over this issue, so it does go the other way too.
 
  • #14
I too believe a fetus is a person. If two adults take a action that they know can result in the kidnapping of a human from the land of the unborn (think Plato and the cave) into this world then they have an obligation to meet the needs of the person they created until age 18 (21?, 26?).
Can you explain what you mean... entirely.... but especially the part about the "land of the unborn"? I didn't follow that at all... I hope... because if I did that really doesn't belong here.
 
  • #15
PhilKravitz
Can you explain what you mean... entirely.... but especially the part about the "land of the unborn"? I didn't follow that at all... I hope... because if I did that really doesn't belong here.
Fetuses do not come into existence expect by the free will action of two people. People are then responsible for the results of their actions.

Rape a not free will action on the part of one party might be a different case.
 
  • #16
Fetuses do not come into existence expect by the free will action of two people. People are then responsible for the results of their actions.

Rape a not free will action on the part of one party might be a different case.
What is the land of the unborn, and what does it have to do with Plato's analogy? I got the first part, although I respectfully disagree with the scope of those responsibilities. As for free will... I'm not aware that was necessary for conception; it's DESIRABLE, but are you saying that in cases of rape... the fetus never comes into existence?
 
  • #17
2,425
6
People are then responsible for the results of their actions.
Interesting. So let me imagine that a young couple is using contraceptive methods such as oral pills (quite common) and the young woman gets pregnant nevertheless. It is rather rare, but does happen. Their free will was to prevent the pregnancy, and science failed them. Unfortunately, the young man dies in a dramatic car accident as the events unfold. Now the young women, who might have a bright future if she can pursue her university studies, has to choose between abortion or seriously compromising the grant she received to study in college. What is her responsibility ?
 
  • #18
2,425
6
About the original post now. You know that I am neither against abortion nor leaning towards Santorum politically. Nevertheless, although awkwardly formulated, his reference is not illogical. His clarification IMHO should be quite enough to prevent further controversy.
 
  • #19
About the original post now. You know that I am neither against abortion nor leaning towards Santorum politically. Nevertheless, although awkwardly formulated, his reference is not illogical. His clarification IMHO should be quite enough to prevent further controversy.
I think the issue is that in the context of his views, political and social alignments... he really can't afford to be "misunderstood" when it comes to these issues. Right or wrong, see Trent Lott.
 
  • #20
149
0
I think the issue is that in the context of his views, political and social alignments... he really can't afford to be "misunderstood" when it comes to these issues. Right or wrong, see Trent Lott.
How to commit political suicide? I think this is worse:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256199/obama-not-always-fan-upping-debt-ceiling-katrina-trinko
"Here are Obama’s thoughts on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote. (He did vote for TARP, which increased the debt limit by $700 billion.)"
 
  • #21
149
0
Then:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...-limit-from-124-trillion-to-143-trillion.html

"President Obama Signs Law Raising Public Debt Limit from $12.4 Trillion to $14.3 Trillion
February 12, 2010 3:21 PM

Behind closed doors and with no cameras present, President Obama signed into law Friday afternoon the bill raising the public debt limit from $12.394 trillion to $14.294 trillion.

The current national debt is $12.3 trillion. Check out the National Debt Clock, which tells you your share of that -- roughly $40,000 per citizen, $113,000 per taxpayer."
 
  • #22
149
0
Now:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/02/Obama-aide-urges-debt-ceiling-raise/UPI-57141293985333/

"Obama aide urges debt-ceiling raise
Published: Jan. 2, 2011 at 11:22 AM

WASHINGTON, Jan. 2 (UPI) -- One of President Obama's top economic advisers warned Sunday Congress risks a calamity if it refuses to approve raising the national debt ceiling this year.

Speaking on ABC's "This Week with Christiane Amanpour," Austan Goolsbee said that refusal to raise the debt ceiling would be tantamount to an unprecedented default on the nation's obligations.

"The impact on the economy would be catastrophic," said Goolsbee, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. "I mean, that would be a worse financial economic crisis than anything we saw in 2008." "
 
  • #23
WhoWee: I don't get it. What does this have to do with Rick Santorum's comments, the subsequent reaction, and the notion of race as a hot-button issue in American politics? It just looks like three debt-related issues... which is not a little off-topic. Maybe I'm missing something?
 
  • #24
149
0
WhoWee: I don't get it. What does this have to do with Rick Santorum's comments, the subsequent reaction, and the notion of race as a hot-button issue in American politics? It just looks like three debt-related issues... which is not a little off-topic. Maybe I'm missing something?
The topic is how to commit political suicide - correct? You posted a sample of Rick Santorum making a comment that - taken out of context or parsed - might confuse someone?

I then provided an example of someone trying harder to commit political suicide - President Obama. The 3 posts were made to follow in sequence rather than one giant post that everyone dislikes.

The 3 posts show President Obama first speaking against raising the debt ceiling - inferring it bad leadership. The next post talks about him raising the debt ceiling - signing in a closed room - qietly with no fan fare. Last, the third post shows his aid talking about the dire need to raise the debt ceiling now - after President Obama has spent a lot more money.

I thought my point was clear? This is President Obama's "read my lips issue" - do you recall what that fiasco did to the first President Bush? He committed political suicide with only 3 words "read my lips".
Good stuff!
Anothet favorite of mine is "...I am not a crook". LOL
 
  • #25
The topic is how to commit political suicide - correct? You posted a sample of Rick Santorum making a comment that - taken out of context or parsed - might confuse someone?

I then provided an example of someone trying harder to commit political suicide - President Obama. The 3 posts were made to follow in sequence rather than one giant post that everyone dislikes.

The 3 posts show President Obama first speaking against raising the debt ceiling - inferring it bad leadership. The next post talks about him raising the debt ceiling - signing in a closed room - qietly with no fan fare. Last, the third post shows his aid talking about the dire need to raise the debt ceiling now - after President Obama has spent a lot more money.

I thought my point was clear? This is President Obama's "read my lips issue" - do you recall what that fiasco did to the first President Bush? He committed political suicide with only 3 words "read my lips".
Good stuff!
Anothet favorite of mine is "...I am not a crook". LOL
No, the title is "How To Commit Political Suicide:"... which is meant to be less-than-literal as my first post and the article make clear. In fact, there is some question as to whether or not this was an intentional way to get publicity and raise funds. After all, his base isn't going to be fazed in the least by what he said, or what it implies.

So, no, while I have no right to tell people what to say after my first post, I CAN at least clarify as the OP, that you've mis-read the subject.

edit: On the substance, "I am not a crook", was really just a great line AFTER Nixon committed political suicide. In fact, literally given that he won the damned presidency. Oh Nixon... he did such good and such naughty things. With Bush... I get it in context, but Obama? I think the best comparison would be, "I did NOT, have sexual relations... with that woman." That HAS to be the gold standard next to Trent Lotts' "We wouldn't have all these problems..." comment. Cheney said plenty, but he's immortal (clearly) and therefore this does NOT apply.
 

Related Threads on How To Commit Political Suicide:

  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
25K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
5K
Top