I'm Rick Santorum, and I Approved Elbowing this Guy in the Face During My Anti-Video Game Violence Commercial

November 4, 2006 -
How bizarre is the Rick Santorum campaign commercial we covered on GamePolitics yesterday?

Even more bizarre than we initially realized.

Of course, there's the issue of the arch-conservative Santorum bragging about his support of liberal icon Hillary Clinton's video game violence initiatives.

But, wait. Who remembers Santorum cozying up to the video game industry back in June, when he was one of three senators on hand as the ESRB rolled out its new "Commitment to Parents" program?

Oddest of all is the elbow that U.S. Senator - and, presumably, role-model - Santorum delivers to the face of one of the wrestlers at the very end of the campaign commercial. You know, the commercial dealing with, um, how much Santorum opposes video game violence.

Comments

Like I said yesterday, all this crap is nothing more than a thinly-veiled desperation move to save his job.

the very definition of politician is to loft n the wind and pander to every vote you can get values and issues dont matter its "the vote"s" stupid"!

Damning proof that Politics causes people to perform violent acts by wiping their frontal lobes, I say ban it immediately.

Hey, if it bullshit works for them, it can work against them.

It's pretty simple :D
If you elbow somebody in the face in a video game, then you're a serial killer. If you elbow somebody in the face in front of a camera, then you're fit to be one of the nation's leaders.

Well, it is hypocrisy, but is it Irony?

Hypocrite.

Need more be said?

@Puddington
That is both hilarious and cynically depressing at the same time.

Mr. Santorum's website is not Mac friendly. This makes me hate him even more.

I didn't want to watch your stupid commercial anyways . . . .

~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~

yeah, I hate the anti-video game politicians. bunch of douche-bags

glad I cast my vote for Casey rather than Santorum

The commercial is more about how he states that he works "with" everybody in Congress and he tries to paint it as if you vote for his opponent, his opponent work. His lie about how he helped Clinton "limit violence in childrens video games" is one of his examples of how he works with everybody. The reason it is a lie is because there was no work to limit "inappropriate" material in childrens video games, as we all know. All they did was approve that CAMRA study.

Right, because everyone knows that virtual violence is much more dangerous than REAL violence.

Funny part is, it's like the saying that 'All Congressmen are crooked' or 'all lawyers are liars', simply because some of them have been proved to be such. They are the first to claim 'don't blame the government/bar for the acts of an individual person who just happens to be a member!'. Funny how they then go on to blame all computer games for the acts of a few individual people who just happen to play them.

What do you mean "not Mac friendly"? I'm using a Mac and the website is just fine.

Hrmm... Ok, it doesn't work on Safari, but it works just fine on Firefox and Opera.

@ Meophist

It works if you run Safari in 'Rosetta Emulation Mode.' My point was that a workaround is not 'friendly.'

Anyway, I was joking; I have pleny of reasons to dislike Santorum that aren't computer related.

~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~

I actually don't have Rosetta. Is Intel Safari and PPC Safari actually that different?

I don't really care about him either(one reason being that I'm Canadian), but I'm not going to attack his commercial without seeing it first.

Anyways, yeah, hypocrite. Is there anything else to say about this?

The whole commerical looks like an attempt to pass himself off as 'hip' and 'trendy'

...

I hope he ment to fail that.

Hmm... After watching the video I'm not sure if it's so much hypocritical as it just incredibly bad and oblivious to taste.

Actually, as much as I really, really want to agree with everyone else here (why not?) I'd have to argue that this commercial isn't very hypocritical. It's trashy and poorly read, but not hypocritical.

First of all, the basis of the commercial ISN'T his direct involvement in the anti-game legislation. It was mentioned (almost in passing). Old Santos real crime is probably working with H. Clinton on ANYTHING...but that's just a matter of taste.

I'm anti-censorship in all it's forms, and as such have followed Lieberman's demise closely...but not just old Lieby, but the history of Democrats actively working to censor media is astounding...Lieberman, Clinton (H.), Gore and Tipper, too. The party that claims to know what's "best for the people" seem to think they truly know what's "best for the people". Now if only they could get their own personal lives in order before they start deciding others'...hmm.

Back to the video...wouldn't it be peachy if gamers (mostly online) took a breath? Jack Thompson and his rants only hurt his own cause (and ironically help ours). The most clear message I got from this advertisement, whether intentional or not, is that he's comparing his actions to pro-wrestling..which is fake.

So he compares his actions to a fake sport...fake wrestling...could mean his actions are all for show. By appearing to be "tough on whatever" within a fake environment, he could mean that he's "fake tough on fake problems" which WOULD mean...tada...like most politicians he'll go through the motions, put on a good show, and most likely get jack squat done.

For my money folks, I'd take a fake politician throwing fake punches to fake problems any day over a REAL politician throwing REAL punches to fake problems. If these imbeciles think they can make up for absentee parenting and neglected policies (minors aren't allowed to buy 'M' games) by blaming the game developers...wow.

...and to Hillary and the rest of the nut jobs, remember this. I know what's best for me better than you EVER will. I saw both sides of the argument just in this internet post. You've yet to see both sides of the issue and you're getting paid for it. Leave what you don't know alone. Please.

This gives new meaning to "The People's Elbow."

I get it now. If he elbows people to the face then they'll lack the dexterity to play violent video games.

Is it just me or does Santorum look like Adam Sandler's long lost retarded brother?

@Hugh Phuels

Actually, Hot Coffee gave Hillary a platform, but her Family Entertainment Protection Act, aka S.2126 mentions video game violence over and over and over... to wit, the opening section of Sen. Clinton's bill:


....(2) Experimental research and longitudinal research conducted over the course of decades shows that exposure to higher levels of violence...

(3) ...a 2003 comprehensive review of the literature concluded `the scientific debate over whether media violence increases aggression and violence is essentially over...

(4) New research shows that exposure to violent video games causes similar effects as does exposure to violence in other media...

(5) Research shows that children are more likely to imitate the actions of a character with whom they identify, and in violent video games...

(8) The Entertainment Software Ratings Board has determined that certain video games contain intense violence and explicit sexual content that makes them inappropriate...

(9) Research shows that children whose parents monitor and control their access to violent media...

etc., etc. Hillary mentions game violence much more than sexual content. No question that both fall into the "inappropriate" category to which Santorum is refering. But to infer that he is talking about sexual content and not game violence here seems at odds with the facts of Hillary's legislative efforts that he claims to support.

Man, a monkey with a camcorder could've filmed a better commercial, not to mention could've come up with a better idea for one.

It is the poster of this story who is the idiot, and here's why.

"his support of liberal icon Hillary Clinton’s video game violence initiatives."

The linked commercial says NOTHING about video game violence. Instead Santorum says "inappropriate material" in children's video games. And, to be more specific the inappropriate material which got Hillary Clinton riled up about video games was the sexual content in Grant Theft Auto, i.e. "Hot Coffee, NOT violence.

So, there is nothing hypocritical about Santorum's participation or actions in the commercial with regards to video games. In addition I don't live in Pennsylvania, and I couldn't care less about Santorum's political beliefs or status, but as a campaign commercial it's pretty well done and effective.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
ZippyDSMleeOh gaaa the free market is a lie as its currently leading them to no one living there becuse they can not afford it makign it worthless.04/16/2014 - 3:24pm
Matthew WilsonIf you have not read http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/ you should. It is a bit stats heavy, but worth the read.04/16/2014 - 2:04pm
Matthew Wilsonthe issue is when is doesn't work it can screw over millions in new york city's case. more often than not it is better to let the free market run its course without market distortion.04/16/2014 - 9:36am
NeenekoTrue, and overdone stagnation is a problem. It is a tricky balance. It does not help that when it does work, no one notices. Most people here have benifited from rent controls and not even realized it.04/16/2014 - 9:23am
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/04/15/riaa_files_civil_suit_against_megaupload04/16/2014 - 8:48am
ZippyDSMleeEither way you get stagnation as people can not afford the prices they set.04/16/2014 - 8:47am
Neenekowell, specifically it helps people already living there and hurts people who want to live there instead. As for 'way more hurt', majorities generally need less legal protection. yes it hurt more people then it helped, it was written for a minority04/16/2014 - 8:30am
MaskedPixelantehttp://torrentfreak.com/square-enix-drm-boosts-profits-and-its-here-to-stay-140415/ Square proves how incredibly out of touch they are by saying that DRM is the way of the future, and is here to stay.04/16/2014 - 8:29am
james_fudgeUnwinnable Weekly Telethon playing Metal Gear http://www.twitch.tv/rainydayletsplay04/16/2014 - 8:06am
ConsterTo be fair, there's so little left of the middle class that those numbers are skewing.04/16/2014 - 7:42am
Matthew Wilsonyes it help a sub section of the poor, but hurt both the middle and upper class. in the end way more people were hurt than helped. also, it hurt most poor people as well.04/16/2014 - 12:13am
SeanBJust goes to show what I have said for years. Your ability to have sex does not qualify you for parenthood.04/15/2014 - 9:21pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician