First it was Alan Colmes; now it is Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, who went on MSNBC to mock Rick Santorum for how he and his wife Karen dealt with the death of their son Gabriel. (A severe prenatal development led to his very early delivery, and Gabriel died two hours after his birth.)
“He’s not a little weird, it’s that he’s really weird,” Robinson said of Santorum. “And some of his positions he’s taken are just so weird, um, that I think that some Republicans are gonna be off-put. Um, not everybody is going to, going to be down, for example, with the story of how he and his wife handled the, the, the stillborn ah, ah, child, ah, um, whose body they took home to, to kind of sleep with it, introduce to the rest of the family. It’s a very weird story.”
On these comments I have three observations to make, the first of which is that spending time with a stillborn child (or one who died shortly after birth, as in the Santorum case) is commonly recommended. The matter of taking the child home for a few hours is less common, but they did it so that their other children could also spend a little time with the deceased child, and that is definitely recommended. For example, here’s the official page of the American Pregnancy Association (an association of health-care providers that treat pregnant women) about stillbirth. It recommends that parents spend time with the child, as the Santorums did, and the APA writes:
With the loss of your baby, your family members will also grieve. Your baby is someone’s granddaughter, brother, cousin, nephew or sister. It is important for your family members to spend time with the baby. This will help them come to terms with their loss. If you have other children, it is very important to be honest with them about what has happened by using simple and honest explanations. It is your decision whether you would like the children to see the baby. Ask for a Child Life Specialist at the hospital; these are trained professionals who can help you prepare your children for the heartbreaking news, and prepare them to see the baby if you wish.
This is basically what the Santorum family did. They also had a funeral, which is often done in these kinds of situations. It seems to be enormously helpful to people in a moment of terrible pain. So Robinson, like Colmes, was speaking out of a seemingly bottomless well of ignorance.
The second point is the casual cruelty of Robinson and those like him. Robinson seems completely comfortable lampooning a man and his wife who had experienced the worst possible nightmare for parents: the death of their child. It is one thing to say you would act differently if you were in the situation faced by Rick and Karen Santorum; it’s quite another to deride them as “crazy” and “very weird,” which is what commentators on the left are increasingly doing, and with particular delight and glee.
We are seeing how ideology and partisan politics can so disfigure people’s minds and hearts that they become vicious in their assaults on those with whom they have political disagreements. I would hope no one I know would, in a thousand years, ridicule parents who were grappling with unfathomable human pain. Even if those parents were liberal. Even if they were running for president and first lady.
The third point is it tells you something about the culture in which we live that in some quarters those who routinely champion abortion, even partial-birth abortion, are viewed as enlightened and morally sophisticated while those grieving the loss of their son, whom they took home for a night before burying, are mercilessly mocked.
"We are seeing how ideology and partisan politics can so disfigure people’s minds and hearts that they become vicious in their assaults on those with whom they have political disagreements. I would hope no one I know would, in a thousand years, ridicule parents who were grappling with unfathomable human pain. Even if those parents were liberal."
I have to confess that when I first heard that Santorum and his wife opted to bring their child home I thought it was odd. However after hearing their reasoning, my heart went out to them and I regarded it as a sensible and tender way to deal with the death of a child (Though, I'm still not sure what I would do in similar circumstances...)
Whether it is someone's politics or their heart that causes them to be vicious to others with whom they disagree, the standing irony in these cases is that the vitriol from both Robinson and Colmes is that the two of them self-identify as accepting of all life-styles.
Irony aside, the practical effect of these "mistakes" is that the initial impression of the comment ("weird") is the one that tends to stick and subsequent apologies and "retractions" are lost in the following newscycles...
I would go further and point out that Alan Colmes' comment was that they took the child home and "played with it." I noted in the combox on HotAir.com how disgusting that kind of commentary was. It was meant to conjure up images of someone like Norman Bates talking to his dead mother. And another media tool even used the expression that the Santorums took the baby home and "paraded it around the house." Sorry, I don't feel goodwill towards these men. I feel ill will.
I think if you want to set moral standards of debate; the best way to do it, is to comment when there are violations by people you like, supporting causes you agree with. I have heard quite a few liberals go after the Alam Colmes comment as over the line. I rarely hear conservatives critique unfair or dishonest comments by conservatives.
In Rick Santorum's case he made a career out of attacking other people's families and personal lives. The number one things Rick Santorum is known for is saying truly hateful stuff about gay people. For example his comments that gay people are unable to provide a loving environment to raise their children in.
I think what Eugene Robinson said was really over the line. But he was saying it on a talk show (with a gay host) not from the floor of the United States Senate trying to have his hate enacted into law.
The purpose of various yahoos in the media criticising the Santorum family's way of grieving for their lost child was to make him unpalatable to the American public as a presidential candidate. It's impure politics at its worst. Nothing more, nothing less. It's similar to the way leftists trashed and continue to trash Sarah Palin for daring to have the audacity! to bring a Down syndrome baby to full term. These moronic leftists even tried to foster the meme that the baby wasn't Sarah's.
Rubbish! Where is your moral outrage on that?
Leftists absolutely hate people that they perceive as different, or genetically flawed; and anyone who doesn't "think" as they do, or hold the "right" ideas; i.e., anyone "conservative."
Conservatives rarely critique their own?
Again, rubbish!
And since we don't consider the fact that the Bible describes homosexuality as a sin is "hateful stuff," we will never fully agree on what "hateful stuff" really is.
By the way, where and when did Santorum ever say this: "...gay people are unable to provide a loving environment to raise their children in." I can understand him saying that it's not an ideal or appropriate environment. I've never heard him say that gays are incapable of loving. If you can demonstrate a quote from him saying this, I'll retract this portion of my statement.
It doesn't matter who said it from where. It was nationally televised and the purpose was to derail Santorum's bid for the Republican slot.
You really should look to your own house before defending the disgraceful behaviour of your cronies.
"We are seeing how ideology and partisan politics can so disfigure people’s minds and hearts that they become vicious in their assaults on those with whom they have political disagreements. I would hope no one I know would, in a thousand years, ridicule parents who were grappling with unfathomable human pain. Even if those parents were liberal."
ReplyDeleteI have to confess that when I first heard that Santorum and his wife opted to bring their child home I thought it was odd. However after hearing their reasoning, my heart went out to them and I regarded it as a sensible and tender way to deal with the death of a child (Though, I'm still not sure what I would do in similar circumstances...)
Whether it is someone's politics or their heart that causes them to be vicious to others with whom they disagree, the standing irony in these cases is that the vitriol from both Robinson and Colmes is that the two of them self-identify as accepting of all life-styles.
Irony aside, the practical effect of these "mistakes" is that the initial impression of the comment ("weird") is the one that tends to stick and subsequent apologies and "retractions" are lost in the following newscycles...
I would go further and point out that Alan Colmes' comment was that they took the child home and "played with it." I noted in the combox on HotAir.com how disgusting that kind of commentary was. It was meant to conjure up images of someone like Norman Bates talking to his dead mother. And another media tool even used the expression that the Santorums took the baby home and "paraded it around the house." Sorry, I don't feel goodwill towards these men. I feel ill will.
ReplyDeleteI think if you want to set moral standards of debate; the best way to do it, is to comment when there are violations by people you like, supporting causes you agree with. I have heard quite a few liberals go after the Alam Colmes comment as over the line. I rarely hear conservatives critique unfair or dishonest comments by conservatives.
ReplyDeleteIn Rick Santorum's case he made a career out of attacking other people's families and personal lives. The number one things Rick Santorum is known for is saying truly hateful stuff about gay people. For example his comments that gay people are unable to provide a loving environment to raise their children in.
I think what Eugene Robinson said was really over the line. But he was saying it on a talk show (with a gay host) not from the floor of the United States Senate trying to have his hate enacted into law.
The purpose of various yahoos in the media criticising the Santorum family's way of grieving for their lost child was to make him unpalatable to the American public as a presidential candidate. It's impure politics at its worst. Nothing more, nothing less. It's similar to the way leftists trashed and continue to trash Sarah Palin for daring to have the audacity! to bring a Down syndrome baby to full term. These moronic leftists even tried to foster the meme that the baby wasn't Sarah's.
ReplyDeleteRubbish! Where is your moral outrage on that?
Leftists absolutely hate people that they perceive as different, or genetically flawed; and anyone who doesn't "think" as they do, or hold the "right" ideas; i.e., anyone "conservative."
Conservatives rarely critique their own?
Again, rubbish!
And since we don't consider the fact that the Bible describes homosexuality as a sin is "hateful stuff," we will never fully agree on what "hateful stuff" really is.
By the way, where and when did Santorum ever say this: "...gay people are unable to provide a loving environment to raise their children in." I can understand him saying that it's not an ideal or appropriate environment. I've never heard him say that gays are incapable of loving. If you can demonstrate a quote from him saying this, I'll retract this portion of my statement.
It doesn't matter who said it from where. It was nationally televised and the purpose was to derail Santorum's bid for the Republican slot.
You really should look to your own house before defending the disgraceful behaviour of your cronies.