The most famous segment of one of the best-known speeches in modern American history:
Many find these words inspiring. They make Rick Santorum violently nauseous:
In remarks last year at the College of Saint Mary Magdalen in Warner, N.H., Santorum had told the crowd of J.F.K.’s famous 1960 address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, “Earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech.”...On Sunday, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Santorum whether he stood by his statement...Santorum defended his remarks...“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said. “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.”...
Stephanopoulos asked Santorum, “You think you wanted to throw up?” “Well, yes, absolutely,” Santorum replied. “To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up.”
One of Santorum's most striking characteristics as a politician is a willingness to own his most controversial remarks. Most politicians running for president wouldn't have criticised JFK's speech in the first place, JFK being the iconic figure he is for Americans across the political spectrum. Neither would they have used such extreme language. But if they had, they would definitely find a way to "walk it back" when asked about it on national TV. Santorum doesn't do that. He repeats, explains, and intensifies. He doesn't succumb to pressure from advisers, because he doesn't have any advisers, at least not in the professional sense. He can truly claim to be "unspun"; an honest politician.
There are plenty of people who find this approach honourable and refreshing, and it certainly makes for a stark contrast with Mitt Romney. I find it increases my appreciation for shiftiness and spin.
(More on Santorum here).
Amazing that someone having held high office and now seeking to be President should be so ignorant of the grounds for the pilgrims leaving for that country and the giving birth of it.
Posted by: Andrew | February 26, 2012 at 11:31 PM
Some people defend Santorum by saying, 'well, at least he's genuine', which makes you think, 'sure- genuinely offensive and bonkers'. Mystifies me that anyone would choose this guy over Romney, just because Santorum could somehow 'relate' to them better. As if that matters more than being qualified & not crackers.
Posted by: ejoch | February 27, 2012 at 02:23 PM
Erk!
However... you can't say you don't know what you're voting for. I mean shiftiness and spin could certainly do Santorum a few favours, but what favours does it do the electorate?
Posted by: simon kane | February 28, 2012 at 02:56 AM
You're right, of course, Simon.
Posted by: Ian Leslie | February 28, 2012 at 02:41 PM
Have you ever thought about creating an ebook or guest authoring on other websites? I have a blog centered on the same ideas you discuss and would love to have you share some stories/information. I know my visitors would appreciate your work. If you are even remotely interested, feel free to shoot me an email.
Posted by: facesiz.net | October 20, 2013 at 05:10 AM