you get that with every politican. I remember one of Bill Clinton's adds in 1996 accused Bob Dole of not supporting veterans enough....and statistically it was true, based on laws that he voted for or against in the Senate. I would be willing to bet that if I wanted to, I could find more than a few off the cuff comments of anyone over a long period of time that would make them look like the greatest racist on the planet.
Every politican isn't in view, nor do all politicans do so. Clinton's comment isn't based on a history of comments against others not supporting veterans when in political campaigns. With Dole's stances, as it was true what Clinton said on him, it'd not be inaccurate since it wasn't a stereotype. Different story with Santurom and the comment made about not wanting to support blacks on welfare despite the fact that it has never been blacks on welfare solely (or even in a majority above other ethnic groups) nor is it the case that support is a negative to avoid/denounce. Taking comments out of context in one setting doesn't mean that comments dealt with in another are automatically OUT of context, as it concerns Santorum. Of course one can find a number of off the cuff comments and (divorced from the history of the one speaking or examination of accuracy) make them out to be something they're not...but that argument doesn't work when people examine in context what was said, defended and in line historically with a number of comments/policies advocated with a figure. That is the case with Santurom, who has not shown any history of really being concerned for the black community and has often made significant stereotypes of others.
Happened before in regards to talking about marriage, singling out black people learning about marriage as opposed to all people and then trying to critique the president on how to date his spouse (as if that's his business or as if it all has to be the same):
There's way around or nor any real basis in saying "Well, he was taken out of context" as if it was simply off the cuff when his other commentary doesn't add up either.
Santorum spontaneously derided poor black people in response to a question about
foreign money..withthe comment on black people tying into his explanation of why he did it. When asked about the comments in a CBS interview, Santorum
bizarrely referenced a documentary about the education achievement gap, Waiting for Superman, to explain the context. “Yesterday I talked for example about a movie called, um, what was it? ‘Waiting for Superman,’ which was about black children and so I don’t know whether it was in response and I was talking about that,” he said. The movie actually portrays students of several races. There had originally been some
confusion about whether Santorum actually said the word “black,” which he appeared to clear up in the CBS interview by acknowledging that was in fact the statement he made. CBS accurately pointed out that
only nine percent of Iowans on
food stamps are black — and 84 percent are white. Nationally,
39 percent of welfare recipients are white, 37 percent are black, and 17 percent are Hispanic. So Santorum’s decision to single out
black welfare recipients was needless and insulting — and inaccurate — stereotypes of the kind of people some voters might expect to want a “handout.”
And if that wasn't bad enough, there was back-peddling in saying he meant "blah" people rather than "black people"---even though others, conservatives and liberals alike, called him on it and the ways that the excuses for the blunder didn't line up. What "blah people" even means we might never know, but Rick Santorum fits the profile of the stereotypical conservative that doesn't care to help anyone outside a select few....and in speaking on it, one doesn't even have to assume that one's a racist bigot in order to address where they have serious stereotypes that can at least be apologized for. Defending it doesn't make things better..