Santorum opened first Inquirer column with falsehood
Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) began his November 8 Philadelphia Inquirer column -- his first as an Inquirer columnist -- by writing: " 'Odd.' It is, indeed, odd to write a column every other Thursday for a paper that used that very word to describe me." Santorum continued: "Actually, odd was one of the nicer terms used in The Inquirer to describe me. Imagine these words next to your name in your high school yearbook -- disingenuous, snake oil peddler, smug, arrogant, chicken-livered, intolerant and fatalistic. And most of those labels were in news stories." In fact, a Nexis search revealed only two instances in which an Inquirer reporter used any of those words in a news article to describe Santorum -- one 1994 article referred to then-Senate candidate Santorum's protest to his opponent's campaign ad as "somewhat disingenuous," and a 2006 article reported that Santorum "alternated between hopeful and fatalistic" during the last week of his unsuccessful bid for re-election. Several of the other "labels" Santorum highlighted -- "snake oil peddler," "chicken-livered," "intolerant," and "odd" -- appeared either in columns or editorials. The remaining descriptors -- "smug" and "arrogant" -- appeared in news articles but were in quotation marks and were attributed to critics of Santorum.
Philadelphia Daily News reporter Will Bunch wrote in a November 23 entry to his Attytood blog that Santorum was "blatantly misleading" in his November 8 column. Bunch wrote:
The implication of what Santorum said there was clear: That the Inquirer and especially its presumably liberal reporters were out to get him. But the implication is also flat-out wrong. As several dilligent readers were quick to email me right after that column appeared, those words were either contained in quotes reported by the Inquirer or in pieces by columnists who are expected to voice strong opinions. By and large, my sources' check of Nexis showed the words were not the work of straight news reporters at all.
From Santorum's November 8 Inquirer column, titled "Rare welcome to a red-blooded conservative":
"Odd." It is, indeed, odd to write a column every other Thursday for a paper that used that very word to describe me. Actually, odd was one of the nicer terms used in The Inquirer to describe me. Imagine these words next to your name in your high school yearbook -- disingenuous, snake oil peddler, smug, arrogant, chicken-livered, intolerant and fatalistic. And most of those labels were in news stories.
My new employer also claimed not so long ago that I "inspire contempt" and "have lost my mind" and that my actions bore a remarkable resemblance to Joe McCarthy's. You know? The namesake of McCarthyism. At the time, I took solace from the implied compliment. At least The Inquirer thought I was making a substantial mark on my generation. Not bad for someone they also called a "doofus."
As regular readers of this page know, these pejoratives only scratched the surface of the contempt that this paper -- and its readers, in what seemed to me an endless stream of letters to the editor -- had for me and my performance in office.
From a November 12, 2006, Inquirer article:
It was six days before an election dominated by the Iraq war, and Santorum was talking at every turn about the "gathering storm" of rogue nations threatening America's survival.
Pundits wondered if Santorum had lost his mind.
It was actually Rick being Rick.
In the last week of his campaign, Santorum alternated between hopeful and fatalistic, liberated and trapped. He dissected his media coverage, brushed aside last-minute advice, and spent the final days of his faltering Senate campaign highlighting an unpopular war.
As a conservative in a moderate state, Santorum had always been able to mold the electorate to fit him. But in a year of Republican repudiation, cocksure and unwavering were no longer in vogue.
From an October 16, 1994, Inquirer article:
Last week, [then-Sen. Harris] Wofford [D-PA] fell in with the message pushed by the Democratic National Committee and the White House - attempting to link Santorum to the GOP "Contract with America" signed by U.S. House candidates and calling it a ticket back to the deficits of the Reagan-Bush years.
"Just when the deficit is finally going down, Rick Santorum threatens to blow it up again," the latest Wofford ad declares.
Santorum moved quickly and aggressively to point out that as a candidate for U.S. Senate, he did not sign the House contract. But his protest was somewhat disingenuous, to use one of his favorite words.
For while he didn't sign the House contract, the two-term Pittsburgh congressman did endorse the "Seven More in '94" agenda of the Republican Senate candidates. That package included a balanced-budget amendment, welfare reform, and renewed commitment to national defense.

















A Republican playing the victim? Who'd have expected that?
This is completely disingenuous by MMfA. MMfA will mention a paper's name (and even sometimes attribute the article to the paper) when they deal with an editorial written, but Santorum cannot include editorials/commentaries when he mentions the names he's been called?
Hint: 2 out of 7 is not "most."
It's not just "2 out of 7" if Santorum gets to play by the same rules that MMfA plays by.
Your hint stunk.
You still don't get it. He claimed that "most" came from news stories. That was a lie."Most" were from editorials. Santorum is free to complain about editorials, but he should be honest and not lie.
Please show me one place where MMFA claimed an editorial was a news story. Just one. Ready?......Go!
Crimson2, you don't have your facts right!
FOUR of the eight words were used in news stories, including those from quotations. The other four were in "columns or editorials," according to MM.
Santorum wrote, "And most of those labels were in news stories."
In other words, Santorum was off by one.
(*yawn*)
and what's the big deal about saying someone "alternated between hopeful and fatalistic"? that's a slur?
"Imagine these words next to your name in your high school yearbook -- disingenuous, snake oil peddler, smug, arrogant, chicken-livered, intolerant and fatalistic. And most of those labels were in news stories."--Rick Santorum
"MMfA will mention a paper's name (and even sometimes attribute the article to the paper) when they deal with an editorial written, but Santorum cannot include editorials/commentaries when he mentions the names he's been called?"--Dexteritas
++++++++++++++++++++
Your argument is inconsistent with Santorum's claim. As you can see in the quote above, Santorum isn't arguing that the paper called him names in editorials and/or columns. He is apparently falsely or disingenuously claiming "most of those labels were in news stories."
Editorials and columns are obviously not "news stories".
You got me, Open. Thanks for clarifying.
No it isnt disengenuous and THIS is why. Yes MMFA will point out these things in editorials but I dont remember them blaming the NEWSPAPER, rather the editorial writer themeselves. This is an important distinction. Santorum blamed the paper.
I knew that he was lying about the terms appearing in news stories, because the fact that Santorum is a smug, arrogant, chicken-livered, and intolerant snake oil peddler is not really news, now is it?
What can you expect of a "doofus"? Really, this guy now has a column? What gives?
My sweet Julia welcome back :-)
Politicians rarely fade away. They become lobbyist, pundits, authors, columnists etc.
Many should actually be jailbirds ;-)
Thanks, J2.
Trent Lott comes to mind at the mention of lobbyists, eh?
I guess Santorum is the next Robert Novak.
Wow - and to think that just an hour or so ago, I heard Rush Limbaugh say on his radio pukefest that "conservatives NEVER act like victims - they take action to improve their lot".
I guess Santorum's chosen action was to act like a victim.....
A month before the 2006 elections Rush Limbaugh was saying with certainty that the Republicans would gain seats in Congress. So take what Rush says with a few pounds of salt. That Republicans do not play the "victim" game is yet another myth foisted upon gullible souls by the bloated Limbaugh.
One of Rush's long standing bromides is that Liberals emphasize "symbolism over substance". You know, silly stuff like "Freedom Fries", Flag Burning Amendments, Gay Marriage Amendments, "Under God" in the pledge, "Homicide Bombers", and....waitaminnit....those are all CONSERVATIVE bugaboos....DOH!
Ricky, you forgot "Troglodyte".
Well, Santorum can at least be grateful that he's not listed at Dickipedia...yet.
Man cries about dog biting him.
He just needs to remember that song from the Sound of Music about his favorite things. Then maybe he won't feel so bad. I'm from the Allegheny mountains in Pa and it worked for me :-)
Marker, be careful with the man and dog thing. I think that's his next column, y'know, when he picks up on the "man on dog" image while attacking gays and lesbians.
I am happy for Dick getting another job since his "retirement" from the Senate. Now he can afford to send his kids to cyberschool and pays for it with his own money.
Disingenuous..not this Dick. I remember him on KDKDA radio, Hannity etc., preaning like a peacock(not pun intended, Dick) when someone found 20 year old weapons in a bunker used in the Iran/Iraq War, claiming that these were THE infamous WMD's. He could not tell anyone where they were found because of security reasons even though the report was in every newspaper. Disingenuous, no, truth-bender, yes.
This guy still considers himself a political somebody but the last election results should have informed him that his scam was over. Now he has a new one..
I think 'odd' is a complete description of Santorum.
The only thing you could add is 'irreverent' thanks to the voters in Pennsylvania.
http://www.unknownnews.org/071029a-KevinGood.html
Are you asking Santorum to stop lying because he is no longer in public service. That is like asking the wind not to blow.
What's false about referring to Santorum as a "snake oil peddler," "chicken-livered," "intolerant," "odd" "smug" or "arrogant"? They all seem appropriately descriptive and accurate.
Santorum lied on Clinton. On C-Span with Brian Lamb he made this statement:
"President Clinton said he liked the Sente Welfare Reform bill then he vetoed it."
Why a lie? Rick knew Clinton never received the Senate bill.
He had told them he did not like items in the House version
The bill went to conference and Clinton received a bill including House items he had said he did not like..
Santorum is a LIAR.
clarence swinney
poltical research historian since 1991 of reagan-clinton-bush ii administrations.
clarenceswinney@bellsouth.net