to observe how the left wing of the intartubes treats kiddies whose parents back views they don’t like:
 Sarah Maria Santorum’s tears inspire song
This is the story of a defeated senator, his crying daughter, a Nashville songwriter and Martina McBride, the country music star.
It begins in Pittsburgh on election night 2006. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), losing to Democrat Robert P. Casey Jr. by a wide margin, gathered his wife and six children around a hotel ballroom microphone and conceded.
The little girl at his side, Sarah Maria Santorum, then 8, wept. She squeezed her eyes and wiped her tears. She buried her face in her father’s arm, pulled away and cried some more  all on live, national television.
The image became an instant Internet sensation, fueled by snarky blogs like Wonkette, which declared it the “official screenshot of the 2006 congressional midterm elections,†and was debated for weeks on comment boards.
Now it’s a country music single.
McBride released the song, “For These Times,†on Monday  a social commentary inspired, in part, by Sarah Maria Santorum.
I don’t care that I’m posting this before most people will have begun for the day. Even if Kos were to have Bowers put up a Special Inaction Alert! they won’t be able to help themselves.
The easy predictions are that they’ll pile on and mock, they’ll get called on it, they will react with outrage, and have a hundred reasons why this differs from the Frost episode (of which Boehlert has just written the mendacious official version, which one can spend the entire day fisking, if one likes, so dense with lies it is). After all, some of the yokels who listen to this stuff like NASCAR. It’s not intellectual, like CSN (and sometimes Y).
Meanwhile, check out Macomber’s piece at American Spectator, for a little anti-venom. You can keep score in the comments, if you like.
Question:
Is The Narrativeâ„¢ the same as Pravda?
Pravda in the RAH sense:
-Robert A. Heinlein
And will it fail, in the same sense that imposed commie revolutions fail, in the face of reality?
I totally love that media matters bit. It has all the lies and uses the old tactic of embedding links to your friends to support the argument. The author knows that most people aren’t going to actually click through the links, but will assume that there is rock-solid proof of the assertion at the linked location. In this case the best one was a link to the content free hit piece the “Think Progress” under the word “Falsehoods”. I’m sure the irony was unentended, but still a laugh out loud moment for me.
It is entirely name calling and lies. Don’t those people have any grasp on reality at all?
Thanks, Dan. There is really nothing like starting off a morning reading a mendacious liar in all his glory. How does one make it through the day with all of those strawpeople dancing around in his head?
– “Are we threatening them? Are they afraid that we’re winning? Are they trying to silence intimidate us?”
– Well actually no. What we’re trying to do is totally ignore you and your gaggle of douchenozzels, but like the “12th cockroach” Raid hasn’t been able to do the job. As always it will take a good deal of Conservative patience, coupled with an effective extermination at the voting booths in 2008, to drive you back into your hate filled Marxist sewer.
– It occurs that Lefturds aren’t very good at this politics thing. Throw another fake but innaccurate log on the artificial genuine fire.
– Judy Giuliani on H&C last night…..
– “…and I promise you, I won’t be suddenly morphing into a politician anytime soon…”
– Note to Hildebeast: ….Ouch….Thats gonna leave a mark….
Don’t those people have any grasp on reality at all?
I suppose they may. But it is really about stirring up emotion without any actual rational argument. The left became intellectual flabby decades ago. When the Democrats were the default party, why would they feel the need to explain anything?
It’s insane. Do they realise, in some of these comments, they are calling people not human? Monsters? They’re saying that, in some cases, conservatives are not human. I’ve heard a right-winger call the most rabid leftists ‘infra-human’ – meaning, beastial and base (an accurate description of some of their rants) but not human? If I didn’t own a gun and know the Lord I might be very concerned.
SLANDER!!!
RiverC, that kind of rage is the rage that is indulged in by someone who fears that he is losing. If the Left truly thought that it was winning, truly thought that it was on the advance, it would not be indulging in that kind of rage.
The winner of a game does not rage against the loser. Their rage tells me exactly where they think they are.
Here ya go. Fire away.
I’m not attacking the kid. I’m attacking the adults — the Republican adults — who are using her tears in a publicity campaign to sell CDs.
That’s true. It is in a way fascinating to see the level of projection. Doing exactly what they say the other person is doing at the exact time they are saying it. What alarms me is the similarity of this talk with that of so-called fascists, who often label their enemies necessarily as monsters so they may kill/deal with them with impunity. Part of the American tradition always has been understanding the humanity of your enemy but still being able to fight him because he is your enemy. In other times you might be friends, but the conflict places you against each other. This is the basest, most tribal reaction that I think you can get, that they are exuding. Both we and our opponents (political in this case) are human. But do they know it?
Really? That’s what we said about SCHIP.
But, Dan, you’re a conservative and thus evil, whilst he is a liberal and thus righteous.
Get with the program here.
Well, with Chris Mathews actively supplying plutonium to Iran, Keith Olbermann infecting New England with typhoid and Whoopi Goldberg sexually harassing View guests, and Randi Rhodes defacing sidewalks with her face one has to ask–WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?
I figure if Boehlert can just make shit up, so can I. Except for the Rhodes thing, which is beyond parody.
As a matter of fact, Jeff–I think this would make a FANTASTIC open thread opportunity.
PS: Can some lefty out there define “swiftboating”, please? I’m a little vague on the whole inconvenient truths equal lies. Unless of course, one makes up climate data and calls it inconvenient truths. And is then swifboated on their profligate use of electricity and, apparently, the inorganic all you can eat bar at Sizzler.
I suppose that should have been “unorganic” trough at Sizzler.
Since even Nobel laureates can’t survive on silicon and boron spritzers.
Really? That’s what we said about SCHIP.
Exactly — and you said putting a child forward was categorically unacceptable. But — funny thing — you’re so often willing to exempt yourselves from these rules. (Did someone say Ashley Faulkner?)
By the way, using a child’s tears as a pivot is an acceptable strategy as long as it is true. Graeme was not part of a poor family. Thus, using him as a centerpiece for the advancement of a program for the poor is both misleading and disingenuous. The little girl cried because her father was losing the election, something that in said case was most likely part of the battle between values & reason America and handouts & guilt America. For instance, using 9/11 as a rallying point against Islamic terror is sincere; it was an act of Islamic terror. ‘Remember the Alamo’? And so forth.
If you want to argue that you dislike the opinions and ideas of those making the argument, or disagree, do so. But to attack their method; ostensibly sincere; is stupid. If a man’s son is run over by a speeder he has grounds to use this as a rallying point to get enforcement of speed limits. Whether or not this is a good idea has nothing to do with whether or not he can ‘use’ his son as such. Indeed, it is also notable whether the accident was the fault of the man’s negligence or the speeder’s. If the man’s, then his sincerity is in question.
In this sense, the whole 9/11 truth movement makes sense, but really it’s a losing battle. Trying to destroy the pivotal point won’t undo what it has done and will continue to do. In fact, any negligence on part of our government that contributed to the attack is further proof of its importance as a rallying point. We were asleep, we awaken. At some point we will be arguing people’s motivations; I.e saying the negligence was purposeful. This is foolishness, as we do not know what is in the hearts of man. And, often, we are treated to a bout of symmetric logic trying to match motivations by a minority of data. Whereas, in a real investigation all facts must be weighed. The weight of evidence is, and has always been, against purposeful negligence, ‘oil interests’ and such included.
Most of the time when you get into the deep facts of the case the Leftists lose; they rarely consider the facts before making their propositions, and indeed, they often set themselves against the idea of correctness itself and thus drive themselves towards error.
If you don’t like them using a kid’s tears, fine; but be honest about why or honest that you desire to conceal your motivation. We know already which, we’re just waiting to see if you’ll admit it.
These are my opinions, by the way. And be honest about the whole argument against the use of Graeme that was made. Straw men are not allowed, which is to say, they will be ignored. It’s a good way to lose points.
Stevie,
Care to make the case to us that expanding SCHIP to children of families at or above the median income for the entire country is wise public policy?
Since you seem to be truly concerned about the merits…let’s talk merits.
First, you must realize that y’all had the chance to lay into the Santorum kid, and you took the opportunity. She wasn’t trotted out. She was there as part of the family.
Second, show me the person who attacked the kid in the same way that, say, Justice Roberts’ son was attacked as gay. He was “trotted out”?
Also, by the way, there is a difference between a song and a campaign. Songs do just that. What about Bob Dylan? All of those folk singers? And so forth? It should be acknowledged that in any case, we’re talking about an anecdote, a single datum, which does not indicate a trend. The effect is intended to be emotional.
Which is the purpose and goal of music, often, but should not be a basis for law.
From the American Spectator piece:
Do you see it? These stories that they tell themselves about Blackwater hit squads and Civil War breaking out are prog pornography.
One reminder: It wasn’t that long ago that the lefties were characterizing anyone who made more than 80 grand or so as “wealthy.”
Economic growth just sucks, huh? Throws that whole voting demographic into the can, huh, Stevie?
Steve, you should either come here armed or empty; your intellect is sure to be mugged.
“#
Comment by Steve M. on 10/17 @ 8:16 am #
Really? That’s what we said about SCHIP.
Exactly  and you said putting a child forward was categorically unacceptable. But  funny thing  you’re so often willing to exempt yourselves from these rules. (Did someone say Ashley Faulkner?)”
Um, right, someone uses an incident for artistic inspiration, and you attack.
Just hope Bob Dylan doesn’t have your phone number.
Comment by RiverC on 10/17 @ 8:22 am #
Great minds think alike, eh, RC?
But why Dylan?
By the way, using a child’s tears as a pivot is an acceptable strategy as long as it is true.
Ah, yes — the old “someone’s pointed out our hypocrisy, so let’s redefine the parameters” trick. A Republican favorite.
Geez. I don’t hear anyone saying that it was wrong to televise John John Kennedy at his dad’s funeral. It really, honestly is not the same thing.
“She thinks it’s kind of neat,” Lynn Faulkner said. “Obviously, this is something we’ve never done before. … We’re kind of thrilled.”
Ah, got it:
I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment I could be you
Yes, I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes
You’d know what a drag it is to see you
-Bob Dylan
[this inspiration, I mean]
Somewhere in an alternate universe, this thread is spinning into a discussion of Suzanne Vega’s “Luka.”
In that universe I find a really tall something and jump.
Um, right, someone uses an incident for artistic inspiration, and you attack.
Obviously you didn’t read my post, which I linked above. I said:
She turned this incident into a pop song — fine. But now she’s going around to the media exploiting Sarah Maria’s tears to sell the song. And Rick Santorum isn’t standing in her way — he hasn’t said to her, “Please don’t talk about the genesis of the song in the press, it’s a further exploitation of my daughter.” No — he’s helping her sell the song by talking about his daughter’s tears.
So, Stevie, please explain the connection between former Senator Santorum’s daughter, Martina McBride, and billions of dollars in dubious extra entitlement spending.
Evel Knievel tried several jumps like this.
Not all ended well. Make sure your takeoff speed is correct.
Ah, yes  the old “someone’s pointed out our hypocrisy, so let’s redefine the parameters†trick. A Republican favorite.
Our? What hive mind are you part of? I have my own opinions about the whole thing. PERIOD. To think otherwise is itself, somewhat hypocritical given that I stated these were my own opinions.
Face it, you just want to win. You don’t care how you do it. Us? We just want you to get sane and leave us the f**k alone. Preferably on your own time and dime. If you want to have reasonable discussion and debate go ahead. But you really are comparing apples and oranges. It would be like comparing the horsepower of a Semi and a Honda Fit. Yes, internal combustion engine. Different function entirely. Just because they both move people and goods around does not make them fully comparable.
You’re the one who tried to define a pop song as the same as a propaganda campaign. If you love Graeme so much write a damn song about him. Then we’ll say, “Good song, but Graeme doesn’t represent the needs of common SCHIP recipients nor does a single anecdote make for good law in any case.”
In other words, check. Your move?
Dylan… well, The Hurricane came to mind. An anecdote is only useful if it accurately represents a REAL trend. But it must be genuine; if the trend does not exist or the person is not representative of it, it is simple manipulation. Graeme is the latter. Find a real example of the trend and you may have your cake.
As always, reality is the final arbiter of your aspirations.
Steve, do you know the difference between a country song and the Democrats’ weekly Congressional radio address? Do you know which one of these things is a tale about someone, told in the third person and which of them featured someone making a policy statement?
Ah yes, more boilerplate — “liberals are lemmings but right-wingers are all individuals (even when we’re all saying exactly the same thing)” and “liberals would run over their own grandmothers to win, and seek nothing else but power (while right-wingers just like to live a contemplative life while gamboling through fields of daisies).”
Got any more? Got any I haven’t heard?
Steve wrote,
“Exactly  and you said putting a child forward was categorically2 unacceptable.”
That’s not what I read. I read this group saying that choosing a child to deliver a political message, and then hiding behind that child in order to avoid defending the policy you made him advocate, and then painting criticism of the policy and criticism of the parents for their irresponsibility and selfishness as criticism of child, well, that sort of thing is immature, unfair, and the mark of a debater who knows his argument won’t hold up on the merits.
Children are used to sell products all the time. You can’t watch a half-hour of TV and not see a dozen kids and puppies used to advertise all sorts of stuff. In this case, they’re selling a recording that happens to be inspired by the little girl in question. I might find this sort of emotional appeal distasteful, but I don’t find it rises to nearly the same level as the Frost controversy.
If you can show me where this recording is going to force me to pay money for a misguided expansion of a narrowly-tailored national spending program, I might change my mind. If you can show me where the artist and the former senator are hiding behind the little girl in order to dodge criticism of the recording, I might change my mind. If you can show me where critics of the recording are being vilified in the press as “child-haters” and “heartless bastards” just for having the temerity not to swallow the message whole, then I might change my mind.
Until then, I see a very big difference between the two instances.
You’re the one who tried to define a pop song as the same as a propaganda campaign.
No — I’m the one who tried to define the campaign to sell a pop song as the same as a propaganda campaign.
It’s called “reading.” Learn how to do it.
Sarah Maria can cry all she wants and she’s still not getting SCHIP. What part of “veto” does she not understand?
OMFG! A recording artist is running around promoting her work in order to sell it? Shocka! Next thing you know, authors will be running around appearing on the TeeVee trying to sell their books!
Remember Tim McGraw? Live Like You Were Dying? Kenny Chesney and “Who You’d be Today”?
I condemn all of it, just in case.
Yes. Yes, you are, Steve. I like the way you did it too.
Kinda like how Randi Rhoades presumably was mugged by Michelle Malkin as opposed to doing a drunken faceplant on the sidewalk.
For the Children™!
“probably beaten up by some nutball in the Mallkin [sic] Mongoloid Mafia..”
Hey, don’t forget the “PW A Capella Choirboys”.
When are they gonna show respect?
Yes, it was. Wasn’t it, Pablo? Can I make all of my errors For the Children(tm) so that they can be blamed on the Right Wing Hate Machine ™ instead of my own imperfect self control?
So let me get this straight. SteveM is equating an entertainer using a poignant moment in time of a child crying for her father as inspiration for a song to a political organization using a child as a prop in a policy battle? They have completely lost me. The conversation stops there. There is no equivication, SteveM. None. Unless you can make a case for it? Please do.
No, I don’t think you’re progressive enough, RiverC.
BTW, Steve,
Would you be so kind as to identify the political point being made and/or the agenda being pushed here? So far, I’ve got “It’s sad when your Daddy loses his job.” and that’s about it. Whadda you got?
I’d like to get this out in the open now (you know how we haters are about pre-emption): If and when Santorum uses his crying little girl in an attempt to get re-elected, I will condemn said action even more loudly than I condemn the Demns for hiding behind the Frost boy. Because at that point, we really will be talking about a true equivalence.
“No  I’m the one who tried to define the campaign to sell a pop song as the same as a propaganda campaign.”
Everyone get that?
And he’s even claiming it with an electronic straight face. I’ll give you this, Stevie–you must be a great poker player.
Next up, I try to define a bucket of Olympia oysters as the same thing as Picasso’s “Guernica.”
“Remember Tim McGraw?”
His father was a pitcher!
Case closed.
Well, well put, Squid. I, too, will condemn that action.
“Comment by Semanticleo on 10/17 @ 8:57 am #
“probably beaten up by some nutball in the Mallkin [sic] Mongoloid Mafia..â€Â
Hey, don’t forget the “PW A Capella Choirboysâ€Â.
When are they gonna show respect?”
To you, you clueless loonwaffle?
Never.
Loonwaffle.
I like it.
My dad is an old fashioned liberal democrat. I tried to engage him last nite over steaks at Brian’s. All he could trot out were the usual tropes: Bush is stupid, he stole the election, the republicans have destroyed America. When I asked for some facts, all I got was muttering about bridges in Minneapolis. He’s my old man, so I’ll keep working on him…
Almost as good as cocknose.
I condemn everything.
(probably an upcoming George Strait song, sequel to “I Hate Everything”)
[*all attributions to Rachael Lucas]
Everything is OK as long as it is used to defeat the evil “Bush”. Too bad he aint running this time.
“I condemn everything.”
You, sir, are unreasonable.
There is always PIE.
To Steve M.: I agree with you as far as using children as political props for any reason by any political party, but there’s a major difference with regard to the S-CHIP campaign. Not only are children being used to promote an agenda, but they’re put forward to accuse anyone critical of the agenda of sliming/smearing/swift-boating the child. It’s a bald faced lie, and a formulation that’s disturbingly being picked up by people in the supposed objective and unbiased mainstream press. Surely you can see the difference between this and what Santorum is doing.
Steve M., to put it another way – you’d have a valid point if the promoters of this song accused people who don’t like it of smearing Santorum’s daughter.
SteveM writes:
In today’s Politico, there’s a story about a new country song that’s climbing the charts — and the story (which a publicist presumably spoon-fed to the Politico in order to help it climb the charts) is … well, all about publicizing the pain of a child.
A Republican child:
WTF is a “Republican child”?
I’m sure you are all aware of it, but it bears stating anyway. Steve M. is not here to actually discuss an issue, he is here to show you just how much better he and his side are than you. Today he’s pretending he knows what hypocrisy is to help make his point.
Give him a pat on the head, a lollipop and a sticker, and send him on his way, because his comments are not going to get any better.
Playing along with Steve M’s example-by-analogy, I hereby refuse to buy that song.
Back to you, Steve.
Following Slart’s example, I hereby vow to never buy another Neil Young song because of the way he exploited the whole Kent State thing for personal gain.
Also, I condemn my early post as being cruel to children.
As a genius songwriter once put it, Is he against poverty, war and injustice, unlike the rest of us squares?
Under Steve M’s mildly coherent rational, little John’s saluting his father’s body during the funeral procession was nothing more than another example of gross political posturing. Great point & contribution, again, Steve.
Sheesh.
SteveM stomps in here with a clumsy, invalid analogy and a steaming cup of smug, spills them on the floor, and runs off without so much as an offer to clean up.
Indeed. I am reminded of a comment a wise man once made about not feeding certain creatures who like to hang out beneath bridges.
Man, how low am I?
Proud KISS Army member.
“Christine Sixteen”
I had NO IDEA Gene Simmons was engaged in a cheap political stunt. Fire-breathing, blood-spitting, and spiked leather dragon boots aside.
“WTF is a “Republican childâ€Â?”
No shit. My 8 year old is already an anarchist. She would disdain that “label”! (Actually, she’s the sweetest little girl EVAH, but she neither knows, nor cares, anything about politics. You know, as an 8 year old girl probably should.
Now, of course a better analogy would be for Santorum to claim that he’d actually deserved to win because losing made his daughter sad. Even with that, though: poor analogy.
Poor Steve. I can just imagine how excited he was when he assembled that trope. And oh, the excitement he must have felt when he fired it at the Neothuglicans! And now, nothing.
It’s sad when dreams die. JUST ASK SARAH MARIA! Or is it Martina McBride?
First read of that had it as: “My 8 year old is already an antichrist”.
…of which my plate is empty. <urp>
I CONDEMN THE EMPTINESS OF MY PIE PLATE!
Just to be clear: Rick Santorum’s hair always freaked me out anyway.
BECAUSE OF THE HAIRSPRAY!!!
Since SteveM appears to have taken his marble( ) and gone home…
On the related issue of artistic propaganda, is anyone else curious just how much stuff is being quietly killed now that the narrative doesn’t match up well with the dawning reality? I’m thinking specifically of some of the recent movies and music such as Springsteen’s latest – with it’s lyrical trope about ‘last one to die for a mistake’ and such.
I mean, bring that stuff out when things truly are bleak and you’ll be hailed as ‘edgy’ and ‘topical’ and people will still listen, no matter how dark, beacuse they accept your assessment of the times. But sound like a wrongheaded throwback to an unloved past when things are actually starting to look up and you just might be putting the headstone on your aging career. Oh, Sure the reviewers and assorted hard lefties will still proclaim it, but they can’t exactly pack the arenas nor move the charts.
So, just how much stuff does anybody think is ‘in the can’ but will never see the light of day?
Consider this excerpt of Springsteen “last one to die for a mistake” from Thomas’ excellent post in light of Jimmah’s decision to pitch the Shah over the rail.
Discuss.
“No  I’m the one who tried to define the campaign to sell a pop song as the same as a propaganda campaign.â€Â
Because everyone knows that marketing a pop song = using a child to answer a Presidential Veto.
Once again, the self-described Nuance Crowd has trouble grapsing distintions and differences.
Wow, grasping at a pop song to try a “butmomtheydoittoo” wail?
For Teh Narrative!
“For Teh Narrative!”
Good thing they have a playbook for by-the-numbers “discussion.” Judging from the tortured logic they use, it is very obvious that they’d have trouble coming up with this stuff by themselves.
I’m also quite sure that the odd-numbered points simply say “Breathe.”
Actually, they say “Breathe — (see manual)”
I think Boehlert is constitutionally incapable of being honest. He’s part of a genre, angry ghey bloggers.
Sorry I got here late, and Steve M probably won’t read it, but:
That was pretty damned random, Steve, even for you.
I would LOVE to hear the rest of that “argument,” or just a rational version of what’s been said already.
Unless the entire argument was to accuse your opponents of hypocrisy and projection, regardless of the facts of the case.
It’s almost as if the facts are irrelevant, so they’re thrown in with little regard to whether they make sense in context.
Like maybe facts don’t really play a big part in your thought process.
It’s fascinating, in a diagnostic sense.
“First read of that had it as: “My 8 year old is already an antichristâ€Â.”
Slarti, friends with older girls (think teens) tell me that that antichrist thing will arrive in about 6-7 years. I am not looking forward to that. But as of right now, she is simply a wonderful, wonderful little girl. I’m hoping, probably against hope, that the teens won’t present that much drama.
id·i·ot /ˈɪdiÉ™t/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[id-ee-uht] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.
I include the definition so that when I say that you fine people have wasted a lot of bandwidth on something as easy as “Steve M is an idiot”, it will be taken as description and not name-calling.