Skip to comments.Santorum on shirtless photo: ‘I apologize...I'm sure that's not a pretty sight'
Posted on 03/17/2012 3:02:05 PM PDT by VinL
As if Rick Santorum's campaign trip to Puerto Rico couldn't get any more cringe-worthy.
The Republican presidential candidate is red-faced after a tourist snapped a less-than-flattering photo of him sunbathing poolside on the island.
"I know I probably should lose, 15, 20 pounds, but I'm working on it," Santorum said during a radio interview on the Steve Cochran Show on Friday, after the flabby photo made the rounds.
The picture was first posted by Buzzfeed.
The former Pennsylvania senator said he snuck some sun in during an hour he had to spare between campaign events ahead of Sunday's primary in Puerto Rico.
Santorum said he was simply trying to "catch a few rays," adding, "I didn't know that anyone was taking a picture of us. I apologize to all of those because I'm sure that's not a pretty sight."
The embarrassing photo comes the same week Santorum came under fire for declaring English would have to be Puerto Rico's official language if the U.S. commonwealth wants to become a state.
He later sought to clarify his remarks.
"Obviously Spanish would be the language here," he told reporters in Puerto Rico on Thursday.
"We understand that you know the people of different cultures speak different languages but we have a common language, and that's what I was saying yesterday, he added.
How much distance would make you more comfortable?
For me— doesn’t matter- I don’t think like that.
Based on Rick’s promulgated standards, he should have been in his room, wearing his sweater vest.
Go easy on em!
I’ve been a journalist for years. I apologize for using journalist jargon, when I should have used terms that maybe you might understand.
Do you really think this is a legitimate “news story”?
Not sure why you are so bent on being a jerk, newby.
Ah. Please don’t bother responding to my last comment. I thought you were being antagonistic toward me in particular, and I was providing some clarification. But it’s a waste of time for me to try to engage you. From the looks of it, you’re a jerk toward everyone. Your family has my pity.
New rule, apparently. Presidential candidates cannot sit by a pool. Perhaps they could do the Nixon on San Clemente walk on the beach in oxfords and black sox.
Well, journalist, I’m not going to characterize you as a “jerk”- but certainly you know you are being dishonest in argument.
Yesterday, you framed the wrong question- you know you did. That wasn’t my fault. Today, recognizing your error, you presented a revised argument.
What you should consider is the fact that, in reaction to your failings, you felt compelled to reply by announcing your purported bona fides (I’m a journalist!”); and by lashing out at me personally- (”newby”; “jerk”). Now, from that, you have to address your own insecurities.
Rest assured, based on your posts- I don’t place any value in your opinion of me. My suggestion, however, is that you examine your own motives in your conduct here.
Nonetheless, as per your request, tonight at dinner, I will convey your expression of pity to my family.
Vin’s on fire today!
In my first comment here, I wrote, “Why is this a story?”
Your response indicated that you thought I meant, “Why is this a piece of fiction?”
Of course that’s not what I meant. Such an interpretation doesn’t even make sense. I was trying to enlighten you, but you weren’t sincere. You were merely looking for a fight.
It seems like you’re rooting for Gingrich. I am too. Let’s focus on that commonality, and put this stupid episode behind us.
You may not believe me that “story” is common parlance for “news story.” And that “Why is this a story?” is a common question in situations like this. But it is:
Of course you think that way - and you acted on your thoughts.
It mattered enough to cause you to do the work necessary to post the excerpt and find a quote about couches. You went on to ask, “who belongs to that thigh sitting next to him?,” although those legs are not identifiably male or female and are not at all “next to him.”
And then, you commented how I “look.” Perhaps you’re suffering from visual delusions or hallucinations?
What was he smoking before he became inflamed, though?
“What was he smoking before he became inflamed, though?”
He’s not literally on fire, and judging by the quality of his posts he hasn`t been smoking anything. My advice is to get out while you still can.
Just kidding. Don`t go anywhere. :)
My vision’s fine- you’re in error- he’s one (1) chair away.
In fact, now that you mention it, his creeping hand is only about three (3) feet from the subject thigh. Didn’t notice that before.
“Creeping hand?” You must be suffering from hallucinations. Or perhaps it’s merely projection on your part.
In either case, you should decrease your use of mind-altering drugs unless prescribed under the close supervision of a physician and stop posting under the influence.
Or perhaps admit your mistake as a first step to recovery.
“And then, you commented how I look. Perhaps youre suffering from visual delusions or hallucinations?”
Merely replying and mirroring the language of your post #95.
“It mattered enough to cause you to do the work necessary to post the excerpt and find a quote about couches”
No extra work- that quote is in my ping list.
You went on to ask, who belongs to that thigh sitting next to him?, although those legs are not identifiably male or female and are not at all next to him.
I understand those thighs are not identified, that’s the purpose of the question, right?
And if the thighs aren’t next to him— how is it you’re able to comment on them?
You may not believe me that story is common parlance for news story. And that Why is this a story? is a common question in situations like this. But it is:
Theo, first see post #20. That is what engaged me. And after that, there was one after another.
Frankly, I get very upset when posters seek to intimidate another poster with the threatening words- troll, dem operative, left, or newbie/newby. (your word). Their usage is not for the purpose of reasoned or intellectual debate- the intent is to silence.
A few years ago, I recall a female poster who had offered an opinion. She posted very infrequently. The person to whom the post was directed called her a closet troll, who was in favor of abortion and didn’t belong on the board. I defended her. She pm’d- very upset. She explained how much the Board meant to her-she was recently widowed and alone- and reading the Board was a big part of her day- and she was concerned that she would be banished. This then- is a very low and unsavory form of controlling a discussion.
The tenor of my replies to some in this thread— resulted from that provocation— that’s all.
Others jumped in for the sport of it- as sometimes happens to all posters— a desire to pick up the challenge of the debate.
Finally, you seem intent on moving forward, but concomitantly, you seek to justify your original question as non-confrontational. You quote yourself “why is this a story?”
On it’s face, that seems innocent enough- but you neglect the antecedent - “UM. Why is this a story?”
It was the “um”— that presented the problem-
How is it that you are still posting that the legs *are* next to him when we all know that there is a table and an empty beach chair between the two people?
You should back off and admit that he is not “on” any seat with anyone else and that you imagined that his hand is “creeping.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.