Rick Santorum’s a Racist


Talking Points Memo reports that Rick Santorum’s reaction to the horrific act of racial terror in Charleston, which claimed nine innocent victims, was to call it an “assault on religious liberty.”

If TPM’s reporting is accurate, Santorum just defined himself as a racist. He knows what the shootings were about. We all know. For Santorum to ignore the reality here and try to characterize it as something it’s not goes beyond the day-to-day intellectual dishonesty we hear from politicians and the media.

This is just a guess, but I have to think that African-Americans hearing Santorum’s remarks would react in a manner similar to how Jews react to holocaust denial. As well they should. The difference between Santorum’s remarks and holocaust denial is only a matter of degree and blatancy.

And Santorum is not alone. Whether it’s an act of police brutality, an act of white on black terror, or stunningly offensive remarks by a public official, too many in the media and too many politicians are unwilling to confront the subject of racism in America head on.

And that unwillingness is itself racist.


  1. Despite the fact that Dylann Roof has confessed to authorities to shooting and killing nine people this week, and told investigators that he wanted to start a race war, http://myfox8.com/2015/06/19/charleston-shooting-suspect-dylan-roof-confesses-to-killing-9-people/, in addition:

    “Authorities say he apparently was motivated by hate, telling the African-American congregants, “You rape our women, and you’re taking over our country.”

    It’s more how the shooting came to be, and the events that precipitated it.

    Roof’s roommate, Joey Meek, told ABC News that Roof “was big into segregation,” and was plotting for six months.

    “I think he wanted something big like Trayvon Martin,” Meek told the network. “He wanted to make something spark up the race war again.””

    Charles Pierce reports that J.E.B.(!), speaking at the Faith and Freedom Summit today said, “It was a horrific act and I don’t know what the background of it is, but it was an act of hatred.” When pressed again about whether race motivated the attacks, Bush said, “I don’t know. Looks like to me it was, but we’ll find out all the information. It’s clear it was an act of raw hatred, for sure. Nine people lost their lives, and they were African-American. You can judge what it is.” http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a35854/jeb-takes-a-dive/.

    Aurin Squire opines at Talking Points Memo about “Why Conservatives Still Won’t Admit That Charleston Was a Racist Crime.” http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeb-bush-charleston-shooting-remarks.

  2. Later, after the meeting, Kyl explained why he hadn’t taken a stand upon hearing the racist remark. “It was an ugly thing to say,” Kyl admitted, “but what are you going to do? . . . We need her, and those like her, to win.” There are some kinds of weak-kneed, sniveling sons of bitches that you don’t have to be in order to win election to the Senate or anyplace else.


  3. Not a big fan of Santorum, Bob, but in this case Talking Points reported his comments totally out of context.
    He clearly identified the act as a crime of hate telling Piscopo, ““You just can’t think that things like this can happen in America. It’s obviously a crime of hate. Again, we don’t know the rationale, but what other rationale could there be? You’re sort of lost that somebody could walk into a Bible study in a church and indiscriminately kill people.”
    Here is the interview: http://am970theanswer.com/Shows/L1673 Santorum’s remarks start around the 27 min. mark.

    • You’re sort of missing the broader point, Dang. It’s not about Santorum. And the problem is the conscious refusal to use the words “racist” and “racism.” Speaking about “hate crimes” before digressing to attacks on religious freedom don’t cut it. There’s a reason for the careful choice of words here. Santorum may not approve of racism, but he doesn’t want to turn away the racist vote. And that’s despicable. My title on this one really was an attention grabber. Santorum was used to make a much broader point. Santorum himself is a irrelevancy, don’t you think?

Comments are closed.