-
The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again
May 22, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett
May 22, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Ray Manzarek, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Thoughts on The Tornado in Moore, Oklahoma
May 20, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Alan O’Day, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I want to take some time to comment on Rick Santorum cussing out New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny earlier this week after a speech in Racine, Wisconsin and his subsequent defense of his language. To be precise, Santorum said, “If you haven’t cursed out a New York Times reporter during the course of a campaign you’re really not a real Republican.”
Honestly, Santorum came off as incredibly thin skinned in that exchange. This isn’t to say that there haven’t been times when President Obama or Mitt Romney have been testy with reporters. Will Brad Watson and Brett Baier please stand up? But neither Obama nor Romney have sworn at a reporter.
If Santorum thinks Zeleny’s question was so annoying as to warrant cussing him out then I’m afraid it’s the tip of the iceberg. Should Santorum manage to win the GOP nomination and then defeat President Obama then he will get a lot more of these questions and he will be a million times more annoyed than he is now. Is Santorum going to cuss out every reporter? Would Santorum become the first President to drop a f-bomb at a White House press conference? Now there may be times when getting cross with a reporter is absolutely necessary but one has to choose one’s battles carefully. I didn’t think Zeleny’s question was unreasonable nor was his tone towards Santorum either condescending or confrontational. Zeleny is no Helen Thomas let alone Sam Donaldson.
Although there is much to dislike about the New York Times, Ronald Reagan managed to get elected and govern for two terms without cussing out any of their staff. Don’t get me wrong. Reagan found the New York Times and the liberal press to be tiresome. In a letter written to an old friend from Eureka, Illinois in February 1982, Reagan said, “You are right, what we’re getting from the press is dictated by ideology. But, if you think it’s bad out there, you ought to have to get up every morning and start the day with the Washington Post and the New York Times.” But when confronted by a miscreant a good old “oh, shut up” would suffice. In a good many of his dealings with press, like the aforementioned Donaldson, Reagan used humor to his advantage.
Please keep in mind that I voted for Santorum in the Massachusetts Primary three weeks ago so I swear by him. Still, I think a page from Reagan’s book would do him a world of good.
View all comments (54) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/03/27/swearing-on-santorum
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
Jack in Wi.| 3.28.12 @ 12:26AM
As an old hot head who has cussed out a lot of people in his day. I say it is better to hold back and try to reason with people.
Clint| 3.28.12 @ 3:36AM
Indeed Jack.
One Must Above All, Learn To Measure Their Words Carefully, Practice A Level Of Restraint And Attempt To Reason With Others, Even ThoughThey Are Dirty Rotten, Scum Suckin', No Good Sons Of Bitches.
Bless You.
Simon Templar| 3.28.12 @ 2:15PM
That was funny!
Occam's Tool| 3.28.12 @ 5:04PM
Takes One to Know One.
Clint| 3.28.12 @ 9:09PM
Tool Job Knows His Asshole.
Kriskxx| 3.28.12 @ 12:45AM
Good article, thought you were an intelligent person, until I saw the last few lines. Shame on you, voting for the candidate with the least experience. You need to visit www.politijim.com for an education
Simon Templar| 3.28.12 @ 1:02AM
Well, here we go again. Presidents have used a lot more salty language than 'bullshit', pal, in the last two hundred years and particularly in the White House. You need to get a life and grow up.
Just why did you supposedly vote for Santorum, by the way?
Speaking of words that are inappropriate or negative, you might want to spend a few moments of your church lady time examining the recent words caught on a hot mic by our president where he sells out our national defense to a dictator and concedes that he his manipulating the American people.
In the spirit of Santorum and 48 presidents before him, your article and silly objection is pure bullshit. It is more than overdue for the press to be confronted with their bullshit misrepresentation, lying, smearing, and misinformation.
Your thought process is very childlike. The man has given thousands of interviews over his political career and he gets fed up with a NYT's reporter's manipulation once and you draw the conclusion that he will do this as President and in many interviews in the future. Flummery.
You defend a GD NYT reporter and make a case that he was just an innocent, agenda less, reasonable questioner?
Please go back to Canada and your Socialist Democratic party.
Do you have anything better to write about?
Aaron Goldstein| 3.28.12 @ 1:26AM
Well, right on cue. You're about as predictable as a rerun of Three's Company.
Can you cite me a single instance in which a sitting President has publicly sworn at a reporter? BTW, there have been 44 Presidents, not 48. That's almost as bad as Obama saying he had visited 57 states with one to go.
Speaking of Obama, I've criticized him plenty and did so today with his unhelpful intervention in the Trayvon Martin case. It won't be the last time I take Obama to task.
Criticize my thought process all you like. But given your lack of due diligence and your propensity to get the most basic of facts wrong you have demonstrated that you are not intelligent enough to be in the same room with me.
jocon307| 3.28.12 @ 2:06AM
Well, look I can get to synthesis on the original comment and Mr. Goldstein's reply.
I seem to remember G. W. Bush pointing out a well-known reporter (Adam Clymer, and wasn't he from the Times too?) and calling him a very nasty name (a**-hole, wasn't it?) and Cheney agreeing with him.
No, it wasn't intended to be a public remark, but it was caught on a "hot" mic.
I think we're all pretty cool to calls for "civility" these days.
I'll be ready to re-start the civility train when Spike Lee publicly apologizes to that elderly Florida couple who have been harassed since he tweeted their address.
Drek| 3.28.12 @ 8:28AM
Cheney agreed with GW "big time!"
LiveFreeOrDie| 3.28.12 @ 1:27PM
Speaking of thin-skinned, pot meets kettle.
Simon Templar| 3.28.12 @ 2:23PM
You think I am thin-skinned?
I am not sure this is a question of thin or thick skin. I think it is a question of intellectual integrity, maturity, and appropriate focus, both of which, I think AG is lacking.
LiveFreeOrDie| 3.28.12 @ 3:45PM
No sir, I probably clicked the wrong reply button. My comment was for Aaron who wrote, "Honestly, Santorum came off as incredibly thin skinned in that exchange."
Yet one comment and it's his skin that seems rather thin, "...you have demonstrated that you are not intelligent enough to be in the same room with me."
Simply pointing out the remaining, "left"-over hypocrisy of the former liberal and my least-favorite writer at the Spectator.
Simon Templar| 3.28.12 @ 11:35PM
Thank you for your reply and explanation.
Simon Templar| 3.28.12 @ 2:06PM
A sitting president actually threatened to punch the lights out of a reporter.
"Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!"
Nixon dropped the f bomb daily, LBJ had a mouth like a drunken sailor. Yes, much of that occurred in the White House and behind closed doors. Oh, excuse me for the error on the number of presidents, I bet you looked it up. The point still stands.
Given your lack of logic, your triteness, your exaggerations, your gnat straining, and your childish rantings about people's language while the nation is literally going down the shit hole, oops bad word, I not only do not want to share a room with you, I do not want to share the country.
As a former socialist, you still have that penchant for political correctness and controlling others speech. Funny. When I heard about the remark I thought to myself, 'I bet AG jumped on that one.' So, I surfed to TAS to see if so, and on cue, you did.
The idea here is you think your special and deserve special treatment than the rest of us in this nation. You do not. You also reserve greater rights on free speech and the benefit of the doubt about your intentions and agendas. Bullshit.
I do not give a rats ass about your criticism of Obama's comments on Trayvon Martin. In fact, this is my very point. You focus on this trivial bullshit while you say nothing about his outrageous and treasonous comments about selling our national security out to the Russians!
What are you the new political manners lady? Maybe you should start a special column and give advice on proper etiquette and political manners.
Aaron Goldstein| 3.28.12 @ 6:14PM
Truman was never caught on film doing that. He wrote that in a letter and used amusing language in defense of his daughter. Nice try though.
Of course you don't care about my criticisms of Obama on Trayvon Martin nor would you care if I criticized Obama about his open mic remarks to Medvedev. You would say I was covering my tracks as you did during my recent article about Obama's refusal to return Bill Maher's $1 million following my criticisms of Rush Limbaugh.
You may not wish to share this country with me. That's your problem, not mine. However, Worcester Tea Party is more than delighted to have my company and has invited me to speak to them during their Tax Day Rally next month.
Simon Templar| 3.28.12 @ 11:54PM
That is your response? It was in a letter and not on film? The letter was not amusing nor was it intended to be amusing and his anger was real. The letter was signed and by most standards, including law, a document and statement in writing is taken more literally and forcefully than a statement on camera that can be easily edited or taken out of context. So what? The point still stands that worse has been said to reporters by presidents. Is there something wrong with you? Next time, do not reply to me. It is a waste of time talking with as you do not appear to be able to construct a reasonable and logical counter argument or address anything I have pointed out to you or have criticized you on...
No, I would say you are focusing on the wrong story and are obsessed with playing church lady about trivial gaffes and misstatements while more pressing, dangerous, and relevant issues are being ignored. You want to focus on peoples words and language use, then focus on Obama treasonous hot mic comments to the Russians!
I said clearly that I do not care about his 'if I had a son remark.' I do care and think it more noteworthy and relevant what he is saying to Medvedev.
Aaron Goldstein| 3.29.12 @ 2:13AM
There's been plenty of critical commentary to Obama's open mic gaffe. If I don't comment on something it's usually because I just might not have anything to add to that particular discussion. The notion that I am obliged to comment on something is sheer nonsense. I'll write what I want and when I want. You just want to be obeyed and are frustrated because no one in the real world listens to you.
Occam's Tool| 3.28.12 @ 5:14PM
My beloved Aaron, you are wrong. Worse has been done by Presidents.
This story was told to me by the emeritus Lyndon Baines Johnson Professor of History at Texas Christian, Paul Boller, Best Selling author of "Presidential Anecdotes," and, may I say, my favorite college prof.
Bill Moyers was told that LBJ was quite profane and crude. He asked a friend of his, who worked closely with LBJ, to let him know when something choice was going on. One night, the friend calls Moyers.
Moyers comes over to the White House, goes up and observes LBJ in a large bed, the room filled with aides coming back and forth with papers, the three TVs blaring with the evening news. Typical LBJ multitasking, Moyers thinks.
"So, what's so crude?" Moyers asks his friend.
"Don't you see? Look closer! LBJ's having an enema!"
Rick is thin-skinned, but, really. I like the guy. LBJ, when he wasn't balling his secretaries, was kicking his fellow legislators in the shins, sometimes literally. There's crude and then there's CRUDE.
Aaron Goldstein| 3.28.12 @ 6:28PM
I am well aware that LBJ could be crude. Read Barry Goldwater's account about how LBJ would try to make his Senate colleagues go skinny dipping with him if they didn't want to vote his way.
LBJ also physically roughed up Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson at Camp David after Pearson called for a halt to bombing in North Vietnam following a speech Pearson gave at Temple University in April 1965.
But all of this was done behind closed doors. Believe me, if he was caught having an enema on camera no one would remember Vietnam, The Civil Rights Act or the War on Poverty.
aware| 3.28.12 @ 6:47PM
Did you have to conjure up the LBJ/skinny dipping thing to make your point? Now I can never think of skinny dipping the same way again.
Aaron Goldstein| 3.28.12 @ 10:16PM
I know. Well, at least you got the point.
Occam's Tool| 3.28.12 @ 5:16PM
Yes, I can think of worse. Margaret Truman's piano recital was publicly panned by a critic, and Harry S. Truman threatened to punch him. That's not strictly "cussing," but it is worse.
Occam's Tool| 3.28.12 @ 5:21PM
"She [Margaret Truman] performed at Carnegie Hall in 1949. In 1950, a Washington critic panned one of her performances, prompting the president to write a letter on White House stationery that read in part: “Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you’ll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below.” from Margaret Truman's obituary, Chicago Tribune.
No, he didn't cuss the reporter. Instead, he took the time, ON WHITE HOUSE stationary, to threaten to beat one up, folded the threat into an envelope, and mailed it, and subsequently apologized for it.
See your one and raise you two, Aaron. (Did I mention I had an 800 College Board Score in American History once upon a time?)
Occam's Tool| 3.28.12 @ 5:22PM
But it apparently was a singing recital, not a piano recital.
Aaron Goldstein| 3.28.12 @ 10:18PM
Well, he was defending his daughter's honor.
Aside from that see my earlier response to Simon Temper.
Simon Templar| 3.29.12 @ 12:19AM
Cute, Simon Temper.
Grow up before it is too late.
It's A Cunning Plan Actually!| 3.28.12 @ 1:26PM
You know Simon, I agree with you but (there's always a but, isn't there?), why do so many feel the need to use the name above all names in vain? It wasn't spelled out, but only a blind person wouldn't see it. When I consider just who God is & what He's done not only for me, but everyone here it makes me wonder one all of us take His name so lightly & use it so disrespectfully. Yes, I have been guilty of this, but with God's help I have stopped using His name this way & try my hardest to give His name & God Himself the respect He deserves. You don't have to agree with me, but please don't use God's name this way. Thanks & go with God!
Simon Templar| 3.28.12 @ 1:32PM
I will consider your request.
It's A Cunning Plan Actually!| 3.28.12 @ 5:32PM
makes me wonder why, not wonder one. Don't know what I was thinking there.
Simon Templar| 3.28.12 @ 1:06AM
Is Santorum going to cuss out every reporter?
Is that a real question or concern?
Yeah, he is and I suggest he start with you.
Aaron Goldstein| 3.28.12 @ 1:28AM
You give terrible advice. It would be the biggest mistake of his life.
Simon Templar| 3.28.12 @ 1:31PM
That was called sarcasm, AG. Are you as thick as you appear or is it you really do not have an argument to make or have a genuine reply?
Dai Alanye | 3.28.12 @ 4:22PM
I don't dislike Golstrein in general, but he appeared to take too many stupid pills before writing this post.
1. Zeleny deliberately distorted Santorum's statement for purposes of provocation.
2. Were Santorum to become President the frustrations of the campaign would be behind him, as would, no doubt, the impulse toward salty speech.
aware| 3.28.12 @ 6:42AM
Aaron, since you are a Scamtorum supporter and an intelligent fellow, could you please inform me of just one instance when he sponsored, supported, or voted for a reduction of the State?
Dai Alanye | 3.28.12 @ 4:27PM
Man! Some people seem congenitally unable to pay attention.
Santoum's ratings by conservative outfits aren't the type you get for choosing government expansion:
Santorum gets 88% from American Conservative Union
92% from National Tax Limitation Committee
92% equiv from National Taxpayers Union
94% from League of Private Property Voters
95% from Americans for Tax Reform
100% from National Right to Life
A+ from National Rigle Association
Pay especially close heed to Nat'l Tax Limitation, Nat'l Taxpayers Union and Americans for Tax Reform.
aware| 3.28.12 @ 6:04PM
Talk about not paying attention. I didn't ask for bullshit ratings from bullshit "agencies", I asked for just one instance of Scamtorum actually voting for a reduction in the size and scope of the State.
Now go find one if you can cause I can cite many times he voted to EXPAND the power of the State. That's why I call him SCAMtorum.
Dai Alanye | 3.29.12 @ 5:08PM
One is enough for unaware? OK. Welfare Reform, a big important bill on which he was a leader.
aware| 3.29.12 @ 5:47PM
"Welfare reform"? Then why do we have an entitlement runaway train barreling straight toward us? Some "reform", huh.
OK, I see your "welfare reform"(HA!) and raise you with No Child, Medicare part D, and the Dept. of Fatherland Security. I got about 25 others if you care to continue.
Drek| 3.28.12 @ 8:31AM
The only time I can recall Santorum's role up on Capitol Hill was decisive was when he pulled Specter over the finish line to victory against Pat Toomey in the primary.
Other than, he was the right hand man of Trent Lott, and he became more and more of a "team player."
If his political trajectory hadn't been interrupted by his ignominious trouncing by Casey in '06, who here doubts that he would most likely have ended his political career by being little more than Pennsylvania's version of Dick Lugar, a guy who many forget began well, but isn't finishing strong, if you all know what I mean, and I think that you do.
Dai Alanye | 3.28.12 @ 4:33PM
Spector? Hmm, that would be the senator who assured confirmation of Roberts and Alioto, as I recall. You remember, the guys who just might overturn Obamacare.
Drek| 3.28.12 @ 7:52PM
And where was Specter when it came to actually passing obamacare into law in the first place?
You can't go taking credit for Roberts and Alito, via some deal, while overlooking Specter's role, instrumental role too, in landing all of us in the spot we're in.
Margaret Blackwell| 3.28.12 @ 10:22AM
I agree. I am also a Santorum supporter and I think he can do better with the press. I think one call call the media on their b.s. with wit and humor. However, I'm not sure this hurts him exactly. That's exactly what a great many Americans would like to say to the media. The audacity of outright lying has become the modus operandi of the media. Santorum was just having a Breitbart moment. Good for him.
Sam| 3.28.12 @ 10:40AM
AG--I thought the same way you did, i.e. Reagan's humor better than Santorum's tantrum. Then again Santorum's words seem more effective than Romney's flip-flopping excuses and O's treason-esque tidbits. Must admit I didn't think you're a Santorum voter based on previous articles you've written. Now you'll have to walk around with that big "idiot" sign on your forehead like the rest of us Santorum supporters--which btw looks better than "hope and dope" the others are wearing. Then again Romney's probably lurking around with his Etch-A-Sketch somewhere...
Bill| 3.28.12 @ 10:48AM
"Pro-union" Santorum is ahead of Romney slightly (30% to 28%) in his home-state PA. Romney is inevitable.
Dai Alanye | 3.28.12 @ 4:36PM
Bill turned against Perry, and now has turned against Gingrich. I expect by the time of the general election he'll have turned against any Republican, and will back BO.
martin j smith| 3.28.12 @ 11:00AM
Your lecture on talk etiquette is simply mahvolus. But actually I do not believe Santorum is in the race to actually be the nominee. I think he is in the race to expose both Romney and the LEFT for what they are. He has every right to fight back. Let me know when Obama and his fellow Communists behave in a half way civil manner then maybe I will agree with you. Till then I do not agree with you.
Les| 3.28.12 @ 11:17AM
It's Santorum's Italian temper(I can say that,I'm of Italian ancestry).
C Bowen| 3.28.12 @ 2:13PM
Seeing as Santorum came out on the side of Sharpton and Obama regarding the Zimmerman case, I'd say going Hard Left/NY Times wasn't a good play either.
aware| 3.28.12 @ 6:06PM
But it is right in character for the Statist.
Molly| 3.28.12 @ 4:49PM
The media continuously distorts Santorums words and paints him as negatively as possible. They deserved more that what they got as far as I am concerned. The guy can never get a break for anything, people just like to paint him as a sanctimonious person who is constantly judging others for how they live their life, and they criticize him no matter what he does. Telling people what you believe in and trying to live up to your values is not a crime, but it sure is treated like that if your name is Rick Santorum. And when you do actually do something that everyday people do without being under a microscope then watch out because you will get criticized for that too.
Susanne | 3.28.12 @ 7:22PM
It's nice that Mr. Stein is a refined gentleman wh
o avoids using cheap language. He seems to be forgetting that once upon a time there was a great American President, who was also very honest, and sometimes tactless, especially over issues he cared deeply about. That man was Harry Truman, who slogan "Give Em Hell, Harry" became beloved by many. Harry was not afraid of being hated, but he was afraid of NOT doing the "right thng". I see Rick Santorum gaining his strength as he seems to channel the honesty & integrity of Harry Truman. Both were deeply religious men of strong opinion.
When the tide turned for Santorum, is when he started to speak in more bolder terms about his vision for America. Many politicos thought he had thrown it all away for being too extreme. WHAT A SURPRISE, they got, as the applause for Santorum kept getting stronger, and is still vibratiing strongly. Most Americans, whether they agree with Rick Santorum or not, are now respecting him as never before. We need Rick's honesty and caring, his faith in G*d and in our country as never before. His cussing, in a small way, advances his image as a "fighter". I say, you go, go GO Santorum!
Proud Mormon| 3.28.12 @ 8:10PM
1/20/13. Mitt on the capitol steps with his left hand on the Book of Mormon with his right hand raised...do you solemnly swear...that's the kind of swearing we members of the Church of Latter Day Saints will remember for generations.
Oldefarte| 3.29.12 @ 12:07AM
Santorum should be cursed out for his recent incinuation regarding Romney equating to Obama [which was/is the hypocritical limit of Reagan's eleventh commandment IMHO]!!!!