Bloggers to the Rescue of Santorum

Now that he's had time to read the blogs of his apologists review the video, Rick Santorum's memory has returned... sort of.

I’ve looked at that quote, in fact I looked at the video. In fact, I’m pretty confident I didn’t say black. I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of — blah — mumbled it and sort of changed my thought.

The questions:

1. Why did it take Santorum so long to figure out that he didn't say "black"?

2. If Santorum didn't mean "black", what word did he have in mind? (Palestinian?)

3. If he didn't mean to use a word, from what I've seen, Santorum's verbalized pause of choice is "Um". Can he point to another example from his speeches where a verbalized pause has sounded like "bla...ah" or something similar?

4. Why did Santorum even need to check - why did he offer a nonsensical excuse¹ about having recently watched "Waiting for Superman" rather than expressing, "That's ridiculous - I would never say such a thing."?

I don't think Santorum can be taken seriously as a candidate, so I don't want to give undue focus to a slip of his tongue, but here's the deal: The media should be asking him to explain his weak follow-up.

What if the shoe were on the other foot - not about something caught on tape, but about rumors of something inflammatory on a videotape that nobody could produce? I'll give Geraldo Rivera credit here,

But if a malicious rumor about a candidate's spouse got that much attention, why not press Santorum for a better explanation?²
--------------
1. In the video linked above, Santorum states,

"I've seen that quote and I haven't seen the context in which that was made. And yesterday I talked for example about a movie called, um, what was it, 'Waiting for Superman', which was about black children, and so I don't know whether it was response and I was talking after talking about that, so let just me say, no matter what, I want to make every lives [sic] better...."

2. The Obama campaign was able to respond, "No such tape exists. Michelle Obama has not spoken from the pulpit at Trinity and has not used that word".

Purely Coincidental, I Tells Ya!

Of course it is.

Marvelous Malia and Sweet Sasha are the names of the dolls manufactured by Ty - the company that made billions from the Beanie Babies.

* * *

Ty spokeswoman Tania Lundeen told a Chicago newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times Wednesday the dolls were inspired by the first family's daughters.

Later, she told the Associated Press the names of the $10, brown-skinned dolls were chosen because "they are beautiful names," and not because of any resemblance to the Obama children.

Sure. And when I launch my line of plush CEO toys, my "Haughty H. Ty" doll will be so named merely because "H. Ty" is a beautiful name. No other connection is even conceivable.

I Know It's Michelle Malkin, But....

After somebody at Fox News decided to run text in front of a news segment featuring Michelle Malkin, describing Michelle Obama as Barack Obama's "baby mama", Malkin came out in defense of the network....

But I do know that it was Michelle Obama herself who referred to Barack as her “baby’s daddy” and has used the phrase “baby daddy” to describe Barack while on the stump this year.

Her sources? A clear reference by Michelle to her husband as her "baby's daddy", and an unsubstantiated comment attacking her in the Topix John McCain forum. I guess she felt compelled to add the latter, given that even she knows how idiotic she would look if her sole argument was that referring to your spouse as your "baby's daddy" and referring to a black woman as a "baby mama" (or a black man as a "baby daddy") are comparable.

But even assuming a "baby daddy" reference exists, applying Malkin-think, is it now fair game to ask in relation to Cindy McCain if the nation is ready to have a First Lady who is a trollop? Would she argue that calling Cindy McCain a trollop or the C-word cannot be considered sexist, because McCain used those words first? Oh, I'm sure she would were McCain a Democrat, but as he's a Republican even Malkin could seek through that sort of specious, brainless Malkin-think, couldn't she?

Malkin's kind of like an intellectually flyweight version of Ann Coulter (a flyweight version of a welterweight). I'd suggest that she keep her mouth shut and simply be thought a fool, but every day she proves that you can make a small fortune playing court jester to the Republican establishment.

More On Those Tiny American Flags

In case you have missed it, which pretty much would entail your not paying attention to any political commentary, the "go after the Obamas' patriotism and harp on the flag pin" line of attack is not unique to Bill Kristol. It's a line being pushed by pretty much any within the obsequious political right, whose devotion to the Republican Party's cause overwhelms any reservation they might otherwise have against prevarication in public. Case in point, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA).

But, the thing that [Michelle Obama] did not do, and still has not done now for three days, is to explain what she meant. And it would have been that simple, just to say, “You know what? This is a great country, and I’m just proud that people really are getting involved in this election.” That would have been the end of it.¹ Instead, through Axelrod, the campaign manager going to let her be her spokesman, they’ve let this thing grow. When you combine that with the fact that the guy would not say the Pledge of Allegiance, and won’t put an American lapel pin on his coat — [audience boos] — that’s things voters are watching. And, it’s because this Democratic primary —

MAHER: [overlapping] Wait a second? He won’t say the Pledge of Allegiance?

KINGSTON: Well, the famous picture of him standing while Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton have their hand over their heart, saluting the flag during the Pledge, and Obama has his hands deliberately down, that is disturbing to Americans.

You can see the trademark pattern - start with an attack on Michelle Obama's patriotism and try to extend it to Barack Obama through a series of lies and misrepresentations.

• Prevarication #1: "When you combine that with the fact that the guy would not say the Pledge of Allegiance....." - Video evidence to the contrary be damned, right?
• Prevarication #2: "... and won’t put an American lapel pin on his coat ...." - Which, of course, isn't what Obama said.
• Prevarication #3: "... Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton have their hand over their heart, saluting the flag during the Pledge, and Obama has his hands deliberately down ..." - Except the picture was taken during the National Anthem - is Kingston so unpatriotic that he doesn't know the difference? And there are many pictures of Obama with his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.

"Now wait a minute," you say, "Maybe Kingston isn't being deliberately dishonest. Maybe he is just an incredibly stupid man who makes rash accusations about national political figures in complete ignorance of the facts." While I might otherwise be tempted to acknowledge the possibility, applying the rule of "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity," Kingston's other prevarications serve to "out" him.

We have not had a domestic attack since 9/11. Now — [audience reacts] — I know, because —

MAHER: [overlapping] But – and I wore the green socks again this week, and I still didn’t get cancer. [laughter] [applause]

KINGSTON: Well, Bill, I know, as a member of the Defense Committee, who sits in many, many hours of bipartisan hearings with lots of tough questions to lots of members of the military, prior to the counter-attack in Afghanistan in October, 2001, we were absolutely assured that when we took the war over to the Middle East, that we would be attacked again. That’s what all the – the consensus was from the intelligence agencies.

How could any Member of Congress who was serving in 2001, let alone one who is a member of the Defense Committee, have forgotten the Anthrax attacks?

-------------
1. Kingston claimed, "And it would have been that simple, just to say, 'You know what? This is a great country, and I’m just proud that people really are getting involved in this election.' That would have been the end of it." Given that Michelle Obama has claimed, "What I was clearly talking about was that I’m proud in how Americans are engaging in the political process," I somehow doubt that we should take Kingston at his word.

... Miniature American Flags for Others ...

William Kristol takes belated note of the fact that Barack Obama stopped wearing an American Flag lapel pin at the time it became a leading example of Republican tokenism - that is, after the 9/11 attacks, when Republicans (including G.W.) who were rarely if ever seen to wear a flag pin on their lapels made it part of their standard wardrobe.

But Obama chose to present his flag-pin removal as a principled gesture. “You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”

Leave aside the claim that “speaking out on issues” constitutes true patriotism. What’s striking is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good — too patriotic! — to wear a flag pin on his chest.

Kristol builds a fascinating false dichotomy here - between flag pins and "speaking out" as the only possible illustrations of patriotism, with declining to wear a flag pin being pitched as the wrong choice.

I think Obama's is a peculiar approach to the issue, but the explanation was not volunteered by Obama at the start of his silent protest. It was elicited when a reporter asked about the issue. And let's be honest, Kristol wouldn't care what answer Obama gave. Just as it doesn't matter to Kristol that his Republican masters are once again using the flag as a political prop. Wrapping yourself in the flag for political gain, I guess, is what Kristol would deem "patriotism." It's fascinating how quickly Kristol is willing to leave aside "speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security" as an illustration of patriotism - perhaps because the politicians he favors are so craven? At the end of his column, Kristol writes, "[McCain's] patriotism has consisted of deeds more challenging than “speaking out on issues" - an attack built off of the earlier false dichotomy. Are we to pretend Obama could have avoided this attack by wearing a flag on his lapel?

Kristol then proceeds to make the usual idiot's assertion about Michelle Obama's comments on pride.

Michelle Obama’s adult life goes back to the mid-1980s. Can it really be the case that nothing the U.S. achieved since then has made her proud?

Obviously it is possible to be proud in many specific accomplishments of a person, institution, or country without extrapolating that pride to the everything the person, institution or country does. For example, you can be impressed that Bill Kristol told the truth about G.W. driving the Iraq war into a ditch, while being appalled at his continued cheerleading of what he knows to be an incompetent effort. It goes both ways, as well. I'm sure a lot of people who work at the New York Times are proud of their paper, yet are horrified that somebody as willfully obtuse as Kristol now has a regular gig on the Op/Ed page.

The idea of an Obama "cult of personality" where the Democrats push forward a candidate who " tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry? Isn't that how a growing number of Republicans are presently describing G.W.?

In some senses, it's pathetic that the right-wing attack machine can find so little ammunition against Barack Obama that they are trying to turn Michelle Obama into Hillary, redux. How long will it be before she has to bashfully appear on daytime TV with a plate full of freshly baked cookies?

Michelle Obama's Pride

The right-wingers have been having fun with Michelle Obama's statement, "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change." Brit Hume decided to pretend that the statement excluded the possibility that she was proud of certain things the country has done (such as pushing back the invasion of Kuwait). Today Michelle Obama has issued a clarification of her remarks,

“What I was clearly talking about was that I’m proud in how Americans are engaging in the political process,” according to the Associated Press. “For the first time in my lifetime, I’m seeing people rolling up their sleeves in a way that I haven’t seen and really trying to figure this out - and that’s the source of pride that I was talking about.”

I believe that Michelle Obama was speaking to the feeling among many minority groups that the are marginalized and "don't really count". Under this interpretation it is a statement about race, and pride in a nation that is moving past the idea that "America is not ready for a black President." It's a bit like G.W.'s talking in code to the religious right - I suspect that her words were intended to resonate with a lot of people she hopes will vote for her husband over Clinton.

Why have Michelle Obama say the words? Because there is a recognition that any mention of race can inspire this sort of thing - "Maybe Democrats won't see it as a big deal, but the Republicans will. If Obama wins the nomination, they'll find some creative ways to spin it. I can just see the attack ads now - fear mongering commercials blasting that 'unapologetic Muslim' and his 'unpatriotic wife' who want to lead this nation in a 'time of war.'". Yeah, and in 1992 Hillary Clinton was depicted as a promiscuous lesbian who couldn't bake cookies - but it didn't cause her husband to lose the election. We voters barely care who the VP is, let alone the First Lady.

This is the sort of thing that can cause a right-wing nutter to make a poor choice of words or even curl up in a ball and suck his thumb. "Racialists"? Why shy away from the word "racist"? Must everybody speak in code?