-
Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett
May 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Ray Manzarek, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Thoughts on The Tornado in Moore, Oklahoma
May 20, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Alan O’Day, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Elijah Harper, R.I.P.
May 18, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
During an appearance yesterday on The Laura Ingraham Show, Rick Santorum expressed regret for remarking that John F. Kennedy’s speech on religion during the 1960 presidential campaign made him “want to throw up.”
Unfortunately for Santorum, his penance was a day late and a Hail Mary short.
It is one thing for Santorum to disagree with the substance of JFK’s speech but it’s quite another thing to say it wanted to make him hurl chunks. That’s not exactly an image Santorum should want us to remember him by and he knows it.
For all of JFK’s falleability, details of which are still being revealed nearly 50 years after his assassination, he remains one of our most admired Presidents. According to a Harris poll taken in January, JFK was considered the third best President since WWII (behind only FDR and Ronald Reagan) and the fourth best in American history (behind only Reagan, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln). It just isn’t smart politics.
While history is important and can be relevant to matters facing us today, Santorum cannot afford to dwell on them at length. He needs to look ahead rather than behind. Besides if Santorum were to go door-to-door how many people would he find whose foremost thoughts are on a half century old speech by the 35th President of the United States?
View all comments (35) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/29/santorum-regrets-jfk-remark
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Vast and the Tiny
- A President Loses His Power
- We Have Her Example
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill| 2.29.12 @ 12:50PM
Why Santorum lost MI & AZ:
voted for
1. Raising the debt ceiling 5 times
2. Planned Parenthood
3. Medicare Part D
4. NCLB
5. Bridge to nowhere
6. supported Arlene Specter, who cast the 60th "deciding" vote passing Obamacare
voted against
1. "Right-to-Work" law
Ans: Ricky "Pro-Union " Santorum
JJ| 2.29.12 @ 12:52PM
Gee, makes you wonder why Romney spent all that money.
ayrnieu| 2.29.12 @ 1:03PM
I know it's been a while, but do remember that he wants to give felons the vote. He raised the issue himself in the first Florida debate, and may have been surprised when Romney opposed felon suffrage even after he emphasized that jailbirds and parolees would have to wait a bit -- to wait longer or lesser to vote, depending on if the Democrats are in power. He even attempted to confuse Romney's failure to undo horrible MA law with his own passionate moral defense of horrible MA law.
Drek| 2.29.12 @ 9:13PM
EXACTLY!
For the life of me I can't understand why some such as Hillyer and THE OTHER MCCAIN fail to get the felon vote issue.
And don't forget that Santorum smugly racially pandered during the SC debate about the right of felons to vote.
It was unbelievable!
I almost jumped out of my chair expecting the other candidates to fall all over themselves going after Santorum. But it didn't happen.
JJ| 2.29.12 @ 12:52PM
What is lost is the value in having us revisit just how nasty JFK was. We are finally able to get away from his romanticized image and see that he engaged in while president group sex with his intern.
Obama also has a romanticized image and that image must be shot down before November.
Drek| 2.29.12 @ 9:15PM
One battle at a time.
Right now, we're trying to defeat obama and all things obama.
Which means, for the present, we're not much interested in disabusing scores of millions of Americans of their romanticized and mistaken view on JFK.
This isn't the time, nor is it the place to relitigate the details of the JFK tenure.
ayrnieu| 2.29.12 @ 12:55PM
...hwhat? It's a good thing polls don't ever request justifications. "I was so moved by how he died." "A bolder Soviet Union was what the world needed at the time." "We learned so much, as a country, from his handling of Cuba." "Why, a President just MUST be good for the media to side so much with him - to pick him over the country, any sense of shame, and all journalistic ideals."
Simon Templar| 2.29.12 @ 12:56PM
Once again, you give into the liberal narrative and rush to cooperate with MSM and place the misrepresentation of another conservatives comments on another sacred cow of the liberals.
Yes, he should have not used such graphic imagery to explain his concern over this speech and its disgusting content relative to ideas expressed in it that we are still suffering under today.
Fine, but what about what the content of his remarks and an explanation of what he was attempting to comminicate. Not news worthy? Just push them aside? Once again an opportunity lost to express a conservative ideal and counter argument to liberalism.
What is it with you, conservatives? If a democrat said something equivalent, not only would they not apologize but use it as an opportunity to further attack conservativism and a springboard for a documentary and domination of the airwaves to make their latest slam against conservatives, like conservatives hate women and want the to die. Sound familar, Goldstein?
Why is it we can not defend ourselves, control the narrative, and turn a negative into an opportunity. Or is it we can only do this to our own?
Aaron Goldstein| 2.29.12 @ 3:12PM
How exactly have I misrepresented what Santorum said?
If you object to Santorum's apology then take him to task for it, not me. I am not responsible for how he comports himself.
Simon Templar| 2.29.12 @ 6:11PM
I think we had this same argument just the other day about another topic.
You misrepresent the candidate when you buy into the idea that he should apologize and when you go along with the MSM liberal narrative and reporting of the so-called mistep, "gaffe", and perceived offense to one of their sacred cows.
Report the whole conversation, the context, the comment, the speech, and the interview with Inghram.
Report and defend a fellow conservative when being attacked by the MSM media and expose their misrepresentations of what our candidates say. Most of all stop overeacting to our candidates mistakes and gaffes like they are the end of the world, their campaigns, and conservativism.
Maybe take this as an opportunity to educate the public on just exactly what JFK said and how outrageous it was and how it is still impacting us today. Now, that might be useful.
Aaron Goldstein| 2.29.12 @ 6:47PM
How can I misrepresent a candidate for apologizing after he has apologized?
You might not think that Santorum should have apologized. Fair enough. But then your quarrel is with him, not me.
For the record, I will vote for Santorum on Super Tuesday. With that said, it doesn't mean he is above criticism and it's not my job to defend Santorum for the sake of defending Santorum.
I noted that it was fine for Santorum to criticize JFK but anyone with a scintilla of common sense understands that saying JFK makes you throw up is going to draw you heat and take away from the message you are trying to convey. Santorum is responsible for what comes out of his mouth and has only himself to blame in this instance.
Simon Templar| 3.1.12 @ 12:47AM
As I said I have no problem with making the reasonable observation that his particular use of language in describing his reaction to the JFK speech was not the best choice of words and lends itself to being a give away to the DNC smear machine.
Your article contains nothing but that, however, and is focused only on that to the exclusion of the whole story and context of these remarks. By doing this, it implicitly accepts the narrative created by the MSM that something really horrible has happened that it is unforgivable and permanently damaging. This is how he wants to be remembered? Please, it is a bit dramatic and playing into the narrative the MSM wants.
Where was the outcry for apologies for the direct insults this president has made of this country from his 'guns and bible clinging' remarks to this countrys mostly about greed he just made today?
Just what has been learned from your short article on this gaffe? Do we know more now about what Santorum was trying to say about this speech or what he was objecting to...this is not defending him per se, it is just reporting the whole story and the whole context. You are inadvertently helping the MSM media in getting us to only remember that part of it and nothing else.
It is your job to defend conservativism and conservatives. You write for a web magazine that promotes conservativism, conservatives, and the political objectives of conservatives. When they are attacked by liberals and the progressive establishment and unfairly portrayed or misrepresented or are trying to skew their message, my god, I would think that is part of the story as well and one would feel the necessity and common sense to report it and the message that they would like to be buried under the rubble of their media frenzy and distortion machine.
Aaron Goldstein| 3.1.12 @ 10:25AM
The details of Santorum's comments were widely reported here and elsewhere. There was no need for me to elaborate.
I have written plenty of articles and blog posts promoting conservatives, conservatism and its aims and objects and will continue to do so. One of the surest means to promote these things is by getting conservatives elected to public office which is what Rick Santorum is seeking to do.
I believe the manner in which he criticized JFK has harmed him in the pursuit of the GOP nomination. Upon further reflection, Santorum arrived at the conclusion and apologized, a fact you have repeatedly overlooked in the course of your critique.
If you carefully comb through my articles and blog posts, I have consistently defended conservatives from unfair and unwarranted criticism by the liberal media. However, this does not mean conservatives are immune from criticism and I will crticize them when I believe it is warranted.
teflon93| 2.29.12 @ 1:06PM
Cut the anti-Catholic crap, Goldstein. It does you no favors.
Clint| 2.29.12 @ 2:01PM
Ditto.
Aaron Goldstein| 2.29.12 @ 3:13PM
Anti-Catholic? Evidence please.
teflon93| 2.29.12 @ 3:55PM
"Unfortunately for Santorum, his penance was a day late and a Hail Mary short."
teflon93| 2.29.12 @ 3:59PM
And especially inappropriate given Lent just began Wednesday.
I suppose we can look forward to remarks about Romney baptizing the dead or wearing sacred underwear, right?
Aaron Goldstein| 2.29.12 @ 5:19PM
Don't be silly. That's hardly anti-Catholic. Given that Santorum was expressing regret over what he said, it's quite appropo.
teflon93| 2.29.12 @ 5:36PM
Actually, it's apropos of nothing so much as mocking Santorum for being a faithful Catholic, as opposed to Kennedy, who, ahem, wasn't.
It is quite the equivalent of mocking Romney for the practices of his faith enumerated above which have a similar salvific bent. But you'd never do that, would you, Aaron?
For our Jewish brothers and sisters, it is the equivalent of mocking praying at the Wailing Wall.
It is unnecessary, offensive, and even worse---unclever.
Perhaps you could use this penitential season to aim a little higher. Since you're no doubt of the "electability is everything" crowd, you might want to reflect that no presidential candidate who fails to carry the Catholic vote will be elected in 2012. You do Your Man Mitt no favors with such nonsense and call into question your own ability to see fatal tone-deafness for the electoral disqualifier it is.
Aaron Goldstein| 2.29.12 @ 6:50PM
So by your logic, NFL broadcasters are anti-Catholic if they mention a Hail Mary pass.
If Mitt is my man then why am I voting for Santorum on Super Tuesday?
Clint| 2.29.12 @ 4:27PM
" Unfortunately for Santorum, his penance was a day late and a Hail Mary short."
WL| 3.1.12 @ 12:05AM
At least he didn't call him a Jesus Firster....sound familiar Clint??????????
That's because it's a play on your ISREAL FIRSTER VOMIT that you got from Media Matters....
Or did you read it from the Ron Paul Swastika flags...er uh...I mean newsletters...?
Always remember Clint...
Romney's your daddy now.
Clint| 3.1.12 @ 2:56AM
You Seem So Upset & PMS'y Again, Israel Firster Smear Bund Girlieboy,WL.
Was It Somethin' I Said, Sugar Pockets ?
jppc| 2.29.12 @ 1:08PM
The sad truth is none of the GOP candidates are particurlarly good or strong. It's a weak field.
Mittens outspent Santorum 6 to 1 and barely squeaked out a victory. Wow, I'm impressed.
Remember, teh Beltway, the Rino's, the Neocons, the Establishment all have wanted Mittens for years now.
Mittens is just like his father - a liberal Republican.
mjs_pa| 2.29.12 @ 1:21PM
From the polling I saw, Santorum did less well with seniors, those households with $200,000 plus income and what some have called the "somewhat" conservative vote.
But his biggest disadvantage was with early voters who might have cast their ballots prior to his campaigning in MI and also prior to the Santorum surge in the polls.
I'm sure the hurling chunks comment might have left a bad taste with some people --it surely was an in-artful way of expressing disagreement--but his analysis of JFK's speech were spot on, especially if one considers Rick's comments in their entirety.
It appears that Rick is willing to have a complete, open and honest discussion of all the issues, but the American people want spoon fed pablum from the establishment and the media.
I don't know how we address the daunting challenges we face today without both our leaders and the public actively and completely engaged.
Drek| 2.29.12 @ 9:26PM
The "inartful" seems to be something of a trend with him, ---- doesn't it?
When he has a way of saying something positive, or focusing on the flip dark side of the same point, he usually chooses the latter.
Even when he accused the jerk obama of being a "snob," that was the flip side of an argument that could have been much more persuasively presented.
And as for his line about JFK, ------- simply bizarre.
JFK's theology in the Dallas of 1960 was wrong. But his attempt at blunting residual hostility to a "papist" in the White House was successful. But instead of talking about rising gasoline prices as a direct function of obama's policies, instead of talking about ginned up government numbers used to veil an ugly economy, instead of positive and fruitful lines of pursuit, ------------ Santorum takes off on a tear against JFK.
Talk about tilting at windmills!
WTF| 2.29.12 @ 2:23PM
No, the issue is conservatives keep giving in and not fighting the left on these issues. They keep digging their own graves. Santorum is to be commended, he has more balls than the entire Establishment combined. But instead of backing him up on the ideas, they poo poo the form and join liberals in attacking him.
He makes a valid point on Universities, and he's "against education and kids going to college to be smarter like that was bad" and OUR side allows the left to control the narrative EVERY. SNGLE. TIME.
The right loses because it is too meek. It's too willing to try to make people like them, instead of educating the stupid. That's why were losing.
And it aint Rick's fault...
Minna| 2.29.12 @ 6:47PM
Rick lost last night in my humble opinion because
of....
1: The horrific speech on JFK, who is still beloved by many.
2: He'd like to have no birth control and not
allow women/men contraceptive use.
This is the picture I have surmised from all his rhetoric.
We live in the United State of America. I don't want the government in my bedroom.
This is how you lose big time!
I and other women in the know are saying: Bye,
Bye, Rick and don't come back.
Drek| 2.29.12 @ 9:30PM
But will Rick go away?
It's obvious that he thinks he's doing the Lord's work.
And some, like THE OTHER MCCAIN, besotted of Santorum's large family, are still in his corner.
In January of this year Santorum decried outsiders choosing the Republican candidate.
In February of this year, Santorum EXPLICITLY urged outsiders to select the Republican candidate.
And instead of decrying this flip flop, this tawdry maneuvering, this political squalor, instead of that THE OTHER MCCAIN and other Santorum defenders DEFENDED it!
Larry| 3.1.12 @ 2:09AM
Talk about distractions! Santorum has said nothing of the kind about birth control or contraceptives. Barack the Usurper is the one (along with media lackey George Stephanopoulos) who started this whole thing with the assualts on religious liberty.
If women are this dumb about Santorum, maybe we have to consider repealing the 19th Amendment. And no, I will not apologize for that remark, because I'm not running for anything, thank you. Dumb women need to stay home and not vote at all if they are going to trash Santorum on that issue.
aware| 2.29.12 @ 7:35PM
The spectacle continues.
Drek| 2.29.12 @ 9:20PM
Easy Aaron.
I didn't discern any anti-Catholicism in any of your commentary.
And as for the line about "his penance coming a day late, and a Hail Mary short,"---------- that was a good line.
And in as much as the phrase "Hail Mary" has entered our cultural as well as our collective, religious lexicon, there was nothing wrong with it.
ayrnieu| 2.29.12 @ 10:00PM
It wasn't good line, it was an excessively cute line. It's just "too little, too late" dressed up with comic Catholic jargon that Aaron holds no reverence for. Result: non-Christians think it cute, Catholics are annoyed, and I am annoyed by the suspicion that Aaron would readily decry a remark exactly like his own as 'anti-semitic' or 'racist'. A suspicion that you can try to confirm if you like (I didn't) with a search of his name on this site and the words 'paul', 'newsletter'.
No, it's non-Catholic rather than anti-Catholic, and endless leftist victimological whining is something we should mock rather than emulate, but Aaron was channeling Maureen Dowd with that line, not Mencken.
Fiscal| 3.1.12 @ 9:00AM
Let me get this straight -- so when it politically incorrect against blacks or Muslims or Jews or Mormons it's OK, but when it attacks Christian sensibilities it's not???? It was a good line, Aaron, and apropos.