Rick Santorum may have accepted Alan Colmes’ apology but I won’t

Posted by: ST on January 9, 2012 at 6:48 pm

Forgive me for being a little bit late on writing about this issue but my week last week was so jammed up with things going on that I didn’t get a chance to write in depth about this (although I did comment at Twitter). What am I talking about, you may ask? Liberal commentator Alan Colmes’ guttersnipe cheap shot at GOP presidential contender Rick Santorum and his family over how they handled the grieving process over the loss of their newborn baby boy Gabriel back in 1996. The remarks, made last Monday on a Fox News segment, were reported by the Huffington Post:

In a heated clash on Fox News, Colmes appeared on air with Rich Lowry, editor of National Review. The two contributors were discussing Santorum’s recent surge in the polls, when Colmes brought up Santorum’s infant son who died just two hours after being born.

Colmes said, “Once [voters] get a load of some of the crazy things he’s said and done, like taking his two-hour-old baby who died right after childbirth home and played with it for a couple of hours so his other children would know that the child was real…”

Lowry interjected and called Colmes’ comment a “cheap shot.” “It’s not, it’s not a cheap shot,” Colmes said.

Lowry continued to cut off Colmes and said, “To say it’s ‘crazy,’ something that’s that personal and harmful as losing a child, and to mock it, to mock him like that, is really beyond the pale and beneath you.” Lowry added that the remark was “contemptible.”

Colmes doubled down and said, “I’m not mocking the losing of the child, but what I’m saying is I think it shows a certain unusual attitude to take a two-hour baby home that died to play with his other children.”

Later, Colmes climbed down off his high horse and apologized to the Santorums, which they accepted:

Hannity brought up that Colmes had said he had apologized to Santorum and brought the audience to speed on his comments, or at least the subject matter therein. Santorum responded that “there’s a lot of nasty stuff out there on the internet, and I’m sure Alan Colmes reads a lot of that stuff from the left.” He then explained what he had done with the child– remain with him for the night and show him to his siblings after he had passed, as a way to “recognize the dignity of that life”– and added that “it was a tremendously healing experience,” though “I can understand why people may want to do something differently.”

As for his conversation with Colmes, Santorum explained that he accepted. “I know Alan is a very good person at heart,” he told Hannity, “He made a mistake, he admitted the mistake… we all say things and do stupid things.” He did note, however, that it was “part of the culture” for people to make mean comments and impossible to avoid them. “They do say those things, but please, don’t repeat them.”

Santorum was and is extremely gracious in accepting Colmes apology about a deeply personal issue that the Santorums themselves put out there years ago in book form as part of their healing process, and also in order to try and help other families who have had to deal with the tragic loss of an infant child.

On the other hand, yours truly is not nearly as forgiving of Colmes and his despicable personal attack.

Frankly, I don’t believe Colmes’ apology.  He has a history of going deeply negative and disturbingly personal in his attacks on the political opposition – as was the case with Governor Palin back in 2008, when he actually posted on his blog the insinuation that the Governor and her husband Todd had conceived their first son Track out of wedlock.   How did he come to that conclusion? He actually took the time to calculate the time of their anniversary back to the day they eloped, and concluded that because “less than 8 months” after they had their first son (screencap of the post here):

In her speech in Dayton today, Gov. Sarah Palin announced that she and her husband are celebrating their 20th wedding anniversary, which means they were married on August 29, 1988.

On April 20, 1989 –  less than eight months after they eloped  – their first son, Track, was born.

I think I can guess the real reason why they eloped, and it wasn’t to save money on an expensive wedding.

Of course, Colmes wasn’t the only one who “went there” in nasty personal attacks on Palin.  None of us will forget the obsession many on the far left (which some still have) had with whether or not Palin’s youngest son Trig, who suffers from Down’s Syndrome,  was really her son or that of her daughter Bristol Palin – who in actuality was five months pregnant at the time with her own child.  We’ll also never forget outrageous attacks from some so-called “feminists” about how Palin shouldn’t have subjected her special needs son to a brutal vice-presidential campaign and instead should have gone back home and been a full-time mom to Trig, in spite of the fact that Trig was rarely on the campaign trail with her.

Yes, some people issue(d) apologies and “clarifications” after the fact, but by that point it’s too late  - which is exactly the way they want it. The idea with the political left, as it has been for decades now, is to throw mud on the wall and hope some of it sticks, even if some sacrificial lefty lambs come of as heartless jerks in the process. It’s a way of them inserting rumors, innuendos, and deliberate misrepresentations and distortions of the facts into the public discourse in order to try and convince just enough people that the right is full of nothing but  backroad hicks, country bumpkins, and other various and assorted fruit cakes who are not fit to be your local dog catcher, much less a public servant in a high political office.

Conservative writer Mark Steyn slammed that point home in a column he wrote for National Review Online over the weekend which talked about the mythical “empathy” of the left, and how it has limits – especially when it comes to “weirdifying” conservatives for shameless political and social gain:

Lest you doubt that we’re headed for the most vicious election year in memory, consider the determined effort, within ten minutes of his triumph in Iowa, to weirdify Rick Santorum. Discussing the surging senator on Fox News, Alan Colmes mused on some of the “crazy things” he’s said and done.

Santorum has certainly said and done many crazy things, as have most members of America’s political class, but the “crazy thing” Colmes chose to focus on was Santorum’s “taking his two-hour-old baby when it died right after childbirth home,” whereupon he “played with it.” MyNational Review colleague Rich Lowry rightly slapped down Alan on air, and Colmes subsequently apologized, though not before Mrs. Santorum had been reduced to tears by his remarks. Undeterred, Eugene Robinson, the Pulitzer Prize–winning Washington Post columnist, doubled down on stupid and insisted that Deadbabygate demonstrated how Santorum is “not a little weird, he’s really weird.”

[...]

There is something telling about what Peter Wehner at Commentary rightly called the “casual cruelty” of Eugene Robinson. The Left endlessly trumpets its “empathy.” President Obama, for example, has said that what he looks for in his judges is “the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” As he told his pro-abortion pals at Planned Parenthood, “we need somebody who’s got the heart — the empathy — to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom.” Empathy, empathy, empathy: You barely heard the word outside clinical circles until the liberals decided it was one of those accessories no self-proclaimed caring progressive should be without.

Indeed, flaunting their empathy is what got Eugene Robinson and many others their Pulitzers — Robinson describes his newspaper column as “a license to feel.” Yet he’s entirely incapable of imagining how it must feel for a parent to experience within the same day both new life and death — or even to understand that the inability to imagine being in that situation ought to prompt a little circumspection.

The Left’s much-vaunted powers of empathy routinely fail when confronted by those who do not agree with them politically. Rick Santorum’s conservatism is not particularly to my taste (alas, for us genuine right-wing crazies, it’s that kind of year), and I can well see why fair-minded people would have differences with him on a host of issues from spending to homosexuality. But you could have said the same thing four years ago about Sarah Palin — and instead the Left, especially the so-called feminist Left, found it easier to mock her gleefully for the soi-disant retard kid and her fecundity in general. The usual rap against the Right is that they’re hypocrites — they vote for the Defense of Marriage Act, and next thing you know they’re playing footsie across the stall divider with an undercover cop at the airport men’s room. But Rick Santorum lives his values, and that seems to bother the Left even more.

Bang on.

And is it just me or does anyone else find it to be the height of absurdity for pro-abortion leftists like Colmes- you know, the kind who support a woman’s “right” to have her developing unborn child’s body parts sucked out piece by piece as part of the abortion process – attempting to assert moral authority over anything, much less a family’s respectful grieving process for an unborn baby they loved from the moment of conception?

Dear Alan Colmes and any other liberal, feminist or not, who has used and twisted (or who will use and twist in the future) this personal family tragedy in an attempt to score cheap political points during an election year: I’ve got two words for you and they’re not fit to print here, much less for a lady to say out loud.  The first one starts with an “F” and the last one ends in a “u.”  I’m sure you can figure the rest out, geniuses.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

16 Responses to “Rick Santorum may have accepted Alan Colmes’ apology but I won’t”

Comments

  1. Carlos says:

    I find it amazing that a mental and spiritual incompetent like Colmes is trumpeted as THE liberal on Fox. Of course, he is no more a spiritual vacuum than is, say, The Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, or an intellectual vacuum like Nancy Pelousy or Debbie Wasserman-Shultz.

    He is a sorry excuse for a human being, and all I can say is it’s too bad he and his cohorts weren’t chosen by their mothers for abortion, since that seems to be the gold standard for liberality now days.

  2. Severian says:

    It isn’t “beneath” Colmes, it’s par for the course for him, he’s a despicable cad. As for the BS about the leftist feminists allegedly being upset at Palin for “subjecting” Trig to the rigors of the campaign trail, what a load of hypocritical crap. They would have had no problem at all with her killing him in utero, but suddenly they’re upset with Palin hitting the trail with him? Yeah, right, that’s believable, not!

  3. another point of view says:

    And yet, I can’t help but to think that if key names in the story were changed to, oh, let’s say Ann Coulter and Barack Obama, you would not respond “Bang on” to the same criticisms. Hmmmm…

  4. ST says:

    apv wrote:

    And yet, I can’t help but to think that if key names in the story were changed to, oh, let’s say Ann Coulter and Barack Obama, you would not respond “Bang on” to the same criticisms. Hmmmm…

    Wrong.

    But thanks for playing.

  5. Great White Rat says:

    I can’t help but to think that if key names in the story were changed to, oh, let’s say Ann Coulter and Barack Obama, you would not respond “Bang on” to the same criticisms

    And your evidence of that is what? Just your imagination? That’s what I thought.

    ST’s criticism, and Steyn’s, is of something that Colmes actually, and hatefully, said. You know, real facts. They didn’t speculate about what Colmes might have said. We’re dealing in reality here, not what you dredged up in the fever swamps of your imagination, so do try to keep up.

    As for Colmes, notice that his beef with Santorum has nothing to do with policy. He’s not attacking Santorum for his jobs or budget ideas. In typically liberal fashion, it’s a personal attack, a pitch for hate. Colmes even invented part of the story (“played with” the dead child) to ramp up the hate.

    Liberals can’t really debate policy using facts and rational arguments anymore. They’ve lost that debate and they know it. Want to see what it looks like when liberals have complete control and can institute every one of their policies? Go to Detroit and contemplate the full flowering of unencumbered liberalism.

    So they have to resort to hate. Conservatives are concerned that entitlement spending is bankrupting the nation? Don’t defend the spending. No, appeal to the emotions. Run ads showing them throwing grandma off a cliff. Appeal to hate.

    Conservatives don’t like Obama’s plans to make energy more expensive? Don’t defend the plans. No, appeal to the emotions. Scream about raaaaaaacism at the top of your lungs. Appeal to hate.

    Colmes was just following the liberal playbook. No wonder that when Lowry called him on it he didn’t think he was out of line.

  6. Drew the Infidel says:

    Nothing, but nothing, is beneath nor out of character for Alan Colmes; he is a cheap shot artist of the first order. In situations such as the losing of a child, no one knows how they might react and to criticize another for how they deal with it is as low as a person can go.

  7. Kate says:

    Doesn’t this qualify as “hate speech”.

  8. Chris in N.Va. says:

    Doing the math….

    Hmm….I was born premature myself, in excess of 4 weeks, hence my parents’ first anniversary date was also LESS THAN the prerequisite, sacrosanct 9-months’-gestation parameter upon which Cadaver Colmes seems to be so anally fixated.

    Alas, Alan. Figures may not lie, but liars do figure…

  9. Jiji says:

    In another age I can picture Colmes riding around in a horse drawn wagon selling snake oil.

  10. Steph says:

    @Kate…yep, I do! This is definitely ‘hate speech” and, let’s face it, if a conservative said this about a liberal, that conservative would be either in jail or murdered! This just sickens me that Colmes would stoop this low. what is WRONG with liberals? Great White Rat nailed it, in my opinion. All about hate rather than discussing issues and policies.

  11. Michael Teuber says:

    ‘mock her gleefully for the soi-disant retard kid’

    Mark Steyn is doing good work defending Senator & Mrs. Santorum. Having said that, the most charitable translation of ‘soi-disant’ seems to be ‘so-called’. Repeating the insult towards a Down Syndrome child even with the qualifier seems cruel.

  12. Mark says:

    Colmes is a Dirtbag and one of the main reasons I don’t watch Hannity anymore. Or O’Reilly either. Colmes is as dumb as a box of rocks. Why do they keep him around. Listening to him makes my brain hurt.

  13. Chris Bennett says:

    What the heck is so unusual about having a deceased person displayed so people can come to terms with loss? Have liberals like Colmes and Gene Robinson never heard of open caskets? Liberals must think having deceased family members are something the living should be ashamed of…

  14. Carlos says:

    “In another age I can picture Colmes riding around in a horse drawn wagon selling snake oil.”

    Actually, Jiji, the picture that comes to mind of the age is of a pre-war, small-time southern landowner sitting in the back of the buggy with a whip to make sure his poor slave driver didn’t get the least bit out of line.

    That seems to fit his personality better, what with being such a shill for the Democraps, the party of slavery, Jim Crow and the KKK.

  15. Sherry says:

    Now if they’d stopped by the DMV and registered their son as a Democratic voter, it would have been just fine.

  16. Mary De Voe says:

    You are correct in not believing or accepting Colmes’ apology on behalf of Rick Santorum. I do not accept Colmes’ apology, either. A snake may shed its skin, but there is another just like it underneath. It is charity on Santorum’s part, but Colmes does not abide charity.