Rick Santorum, 3 men and the MSM

by Datechguy | January 6th, 2012

Readability

Rick Santorum, 3 men and the MSM

At the col­lege con­ven­tion yes­ter­day, Rick San­to­rum took a lot of ques­tions from a lib­eral crowd of Col­lege stu­dents, bu the ques­tion that a lot of peo­ple were wait­ing for was one on Gay Mar­riage. ABC’s Shushan­nah Wal­she has this piece up:

San­to­rum answered that for “230 years mar­riage has been between one man and woman. So if you want to change the law … you have to make the pos­i­tive argu­ment about why.”

At that point, sev­eral mem­bers of the audi­ence started try­ing to engage the candidate.

San­to­rum said, “We’re not shout­ing out here,” before ask­ing the stu­dents to raise their hands.

They include a video of about 4 min­utes exclud­ing the base ques­tion and is cut exclud­ing his base speech and jumps right to the Gay Mar­riage ques­tion asked in the mid­dle of the event
video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

Well not the whole ques­tion they start in the mid­dle of the ques­tion and cuts at a key point when the audi­ence applauds the sug­ges­tion that mar­riage means what­ever peo­ple says it means. A bit decep­tive, but a bet­ter job than Think progress uses even a smaller cut from CNN

and states that San­to­rum is “on the defensive”.

This is the media image that is desired, but unfor­tu­nately for them, Stacy McCain and I were there. I shot the entire exchange, and when you watch it, Two things are clear:

1. San­to­rum is on the offen­sive NOT the defensive.

2. The stu­dents unable to cope with his arguments.

Let’s begin with the full unedited video and see what we actu­ally have from the start.

Take a look at the inter­ac­tion here. San­to­rum uses logic and rea­son start­ing that as peo­ple try­ing to change the law, the pos­i­tive case to be made is theirs to make for the change:

“Don’t you have to make the pos­i­tive argu­ment to make the change?”
He uses the exam­ple of propos­ing to build a bridge, the neces­sity to pro­vide the pub­lic pur­pose is a fun­da­men­tal ques­tion and puts the case in the intel­lec­tual rather than the emo­tional case. The hos­tile crowd is put on the defen­sive, San­to­rum is not going to back down and once the argu­ment is over logic and rea­son the ball is now in his court?

When the stu­dent answers the med­ical visit busi­ness San­to­rum responds with the fact that hos­pi­tal vis­i­ta­tion can be han­dled with a legal writ­ten con­tract and that this was ALWAYS true.

He then asks for another rea­son and a young lady answers:

“How about the argu­ment that all men are cre­ated equal and the right to hap­pi­ness?”
San­to­rum pounces:

“Are we say­ing every­one has the right to marry?”

The crowd claps and agrees with loud shouts, San­to­rum continues

“So any­one can marry any­one else?” when the crowd approves, he asks “So any­one can marry sev­eral people?”

At once the crowd starts to object, fil­i­buster and inter­rupt, or as ABC calls it “engag­ing” San­to­rum calls for order and con­tin­ues to demand an answer: “If every per­son has a right to be happy, so if you aren’t happy unless you are mar­ried to five other peo­ple then that’s OK.”

Again mem­bers of the crowd, con­fronted with the need to rea­son, decides to fil­i­buster again, he will have none of it. The young lady quickly ads…“As long as you don’t harm other peo­ple.“

It’s the same argu­ment that Chris used dur­ing our debate on the sub­ject at the cen­ter of mass pod­cast and San­to­rum asks the ques­tion: “Who deter­mines what harms some­one else?” and the “every­body can under­stand it” comes out.

These kids are appar­ently too young to remem­ber the days when “every­body could under­stand” that homo­sex­u­al­ity was wrong. They unknow­ingly make the ICK fac­tor argu­ment. But they are look­ing not for a dis­cus­sion but a sound bite.

Finally the young lady says that her per­son opin­ion on 3 is “yeah, go for it.” and San­to­rum deliv­ers the coup de grâce.

If she reflects the val­ues of every­one else…Marriage really means what­ever you want it to mean.”the col­lege crowd applauds not real­iz­ing what they’ve just done but ABC appar­ently did since they cut the video right before the applause here.

San­to­rum then makes is clos­ing argu­ment, dis­agree­ing with what NH did but con­ced­ing that they did it the “right way” via leg­isla­tive action and urges that if you want to make the case for or against, make the case in the pub­lic square, and makes his own case for the unique sta­tus of marriage.

It was very illus­tra­tive. First rather than pan­der­ing San­to­rum chal­lenges them on an intel­lec­tual level in a way that appar­ently they have not been before on this issue. The stu­dents who on other ques­tion would take and give become unable to make their case with­out shouts and inter­rup­tions. (These are col­lege students?)

Like many young peo­ple they don’t under­stand that there are hun­dreds of years of rea­son, logic and intel­lect behind the San­to­rum argu­ment and their response proves them, despite the edu­ca­tion they are pay­ing for, are not intel­lec­tu­ally armed to make their case. They are used to a sound bite wars and in the arena of ideas, at least for this idea, come unarmed.

The final dag­ger through the heart came much later. At the very end of the day as San­to­rum is leav­ing groups of col­lege kids as he is going to his car pep­per him with ques­tions when as he enters the car he gives a response to a ques­tion (that although I was film­ing I couldn’t’ hear and the cam­era didn’t pick up) say­ing: “The fed­eral gov­ern­ment doesn’t do that.” Here is the video:

When he gets in I shut off the cam­era and boy to I regret that, because the reac­tion of these kids is the story. The kids start whoop­ing. They hi-​five and cheer each other as the car leave brag­ging that this will end up on Huff Po. Think progress will likely be recruit­ing here.

Run that through your head a sec­ond, their engage­ment with the can­di­date was not to learn, to make a case for what they believe, they were look­ing for a sound bite to spin and it was that moment rather than the chance to actu­ally engage a for­mer sen­a­tor and can­di­date for pres­i­dent that made all the dif­fer­ence to them.

Ladies and gen­tle­men I present you with the future Main­stream media!

If you want to know why cit­i­zen media is impor­tant, this is it.

Update: If the MSM really wanted the big quote from that appear­ance, it came before this

Update 2: he took a sim­i­lar ques­tion in Wind­ham, here is my the video (missed the start of the ques­tion run­ning down the aisle after dump­ing my mem­ory card)

Update 4: One last thing, although there was con­fronta­tion on Gay Mar­riage there crowd was not con­fronta­tional on other issues and there were very good exchanges oth­er­wise. I’m think­ing that ques­tion might not have been rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the entire con­ven­tion. As for the con­ven­tion itself, I’d never heard of it but Mike Far­rell who was kind enough to tell me about it:

It seems a worth­while event and I look for­ward to cov­er­ing it in 4 years again

Update 5: Kudos to MSNBC for show­ing the whole video

Visit msnbc​.com for break­ing news, world news, and news about the economy

Update 6: Stacy McCain calls the MSM out:

Per­mit me to say that this head­line is a lie:

Rick San­to­rum focuses on gay marriage

Rick San­to­rum is not “focus­ing on gay mar­riage.” He is being asked — asked repeat­edly by reporters and by peo­ple at town-​hall meet­ings — about his oppo­si­tion to gay mar­riage, and he is explain­ing his oppo­si­tion. He is not obsessed with the issue, but nei­ther is he never going to back down from what he believes.

It is the media that is focused on Gay Mar­riage because they don’t dare talk about the record of Barack Obama, not if they wont to see him re-​elected.

At the college convention yesterday, Rick Santorum took a lot of questions from a liberal crowd of College students, bu the question that a lot of people were waiting for was one on Gay Marriage. ABC’s Shushannah Walshe has this piece up:

Santorum answered that for “230 years marriage has been between one man and woman. So if you want to change the law … you have to make the positive argument about why.”

At that point, several members of the audience started trying to engage the candidate.

Santorum said, “We’re not shouting out here,” before asking the students to raise their hands.

They include a video of about 4 minutes excluding the base question and is cut excluding his base speech and jumps right to the Gay Marriage question asked in the middle of the event
video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

Well not the whole question they start in the middle of the question and cuts at a key point when the audience applauds the suggestion that marriage means whatever people says it means. A bit deceptive, but a better job than Think progress uses even a smaller cut from CNN

and states that Santorum is “on the defensive”.

This is the media image that is desired, but unfortunately for them, Stacy McCain and I were there. I shot the entire exchange, and when you watch it, Two things are clear:

1. Santorum is on the offensive NOT the defensive.

2. The students unable to cope with his arguments.

Let’s begin with the full unedited video and see what we actually have from the start.

Take a look at the interaction here. Santorum uses logic and reason starting that as people trying to change the law, the positive case to be made is theirs to make for the change:

“Don’t you have to make the positive argument to make the change?”
He uses the example of proposing to build a bridge, the necessity to provide the public purpose is a fundamental question and puts the case in the intellectual rather than the emotional case. The hostile crowd is put on the defensive, Santorum is not going to back down and once the argument is over logic and reason the ball is now in his court?

When the student answers the medical visit business Santorum responds with the fact that hospital visitation can be handled with a legal written contract and that this was ALWAYS true.

He then asks for another reason and a young lady answers:

“How about the argument that all men are created equal and the right to happiness?”
Santorum pounces:

“Are we saying everyone has the right to marry?”

The crowd claps and agrees with loud shouts, Santorum continues

“So anyone can marry anyone else?” when the crowd approves, he asks “So anyone can marry several people?”

At once the crowd starts to object, filibuster and interrupt, or as ABC calls it “engaging” Santorum calls for order and continues to demand an answer: “If every person has a right to be happy, so if you aren’t happy unless you are married to five other people then that’s OK.”

Again members of the crowd, confronted with the need to reason, decides to filibuster again, he will have none of it. The young lady quickly ads…“As long as you don’t harm other people.”

It’s the same argument that Chris used during our debate on the subject at the center of mass podcast and Santorum asks the question: “Who determines what harms someone else?” and the “everybody can understand it” comes out.

These kids are apparently too young to remember the days when “everybody could understand” that homosexuality was wrong. They unknowingly make the ICK factor argument. But they are looking not for a discussion but a sound bite.

Finally the young lady says that her person opinion on 3 is “yeah, go for it.” and Santorum delivers the coup de grace.

“If she reflects the values of everyone else…Marriage really means whatever you want it to mean.” the college crowd applauds not realizing what they’ve just done but ABC apparently did since they cut the video right before the applause here.

Santorum then makes is closing argument, disagreeing with what NH did but conceding that they did it the “right way” via legislative action and urges that if you want to make the case for or against, make the case in the public square, and makes his own case for the unique status of marriage.

It was very illustrative. First rather than pandering Santorum challenges them on an intellectual level in a way that apparently they have not been before on this issue. The students who on other question would take and give become unable to make their case without shouts and interruptions. (These are college students?)

Like many young people they don’t understand that there are hundreds of years of reason, logic and intellect behind the Santorum argument and their response proves them, despite the education they are paying for, are not intellectually armed to make their case. They are used to a sound bite wars and in the arena of ideas, at least for this idea, come unarmed.

The final dagger through the heart came much later. At the very end of the day as Santorum is leaving groups of college kids as he is going to his car pepper him with questions when as he enters the car he gives a response to a question (that although I was filming I couldn’t’ hear and the camera didn’t pick up) saying: “The federal government doesn’t do that.” Here is the video:

When he gets in I shut off the camera and boy to I regret that, because the reaction of these kids is the story. The kids start whooping. They hi-five and cheer each other as the car leave bragging that this will end up on Huff Po. Think progress will likely be recruiting here.

Run that through your head a second, their engagement with the candidate was not to learn, to make a case for what they believe, they were looking for a sound bite to spin and it was that moment rather than the chance to actually engage a former senator and candidate for president that made all the difference to them.

Ladies and gentlemen I present you with the future Mainstream media!

If you want to know why citizen media is important, this is it.

Update: If the MSM really wanted the big quote from that appearance, it came before this

Update 2: he took a similar question in Windham, here is my the video (missed the start of the question running down the aisle after dumping my memory card)

Update 4: One last thing, although there was confrontation on Gay Marriage there crowd was not confrontational on other issues and there were very good exchanges otherwise. I’m thinking that question might not have been representative of the entire convention. As for the convention itself, I’d never heard of it but Mike Farrell who was kind enough to tell me about it:

It seems a worthwhile event and I look forward to covering it in 4 years again

Update 5: Kudos to MSNBC for showing the whole video

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Update 6: Stacy McCain calls the MSM out:

Permit me to say that this headline is a lie:

Rick Santorum focuses on gay marriage

Rick Santorum is not “focusing on gay marriage.” He is being asked — asked repeatedly by reporters and by people at town-hall meetings — about his opposition to gay marriage, and he is explaining his opposition. He is not obsessed with the issue, but neither is he never going to back down from what he believes.

It is the media that is focused on Gay Marriage because they don’t dare talk about the record of Barack Obama, not if they wont to see him re-elected.

Buy Raspberry Ketone Here

American 023

From a Former Atheist:

From a Former Atheist:

Try the Double Burger!

nashoba

Annie’s Book Stop of Worcester

Annies Book Stop of Worcester 001

Find Discounts at the Stores you Love

TOP STORES

Listen to your Granny

RWG

Forest of Assassins

Forest of Assassins

DH Gate Dot Com, Online Shopping

ecigarette

Support our favorite Charties

Read me at Examiner.com

Examiner badge2

Only 114 Million Hits to retirement!

Most Innovative Blogger 2013

Most Innovative Blogger 2013

Tags

Help a Brother Knight of Mine who needs a hand