Re: Transcript from Imus - 10/6 - SANTORUM'S ACTUAL COMMENTS

[Guest guest]

Kelli and all,

Here is the transcript I transcribed from Senator Santorum's

appearance on Imus in the Morning this morning (10/6). I have only

edited out 'ums,' repeated words, and phrases such as 'you know'

or 'I mean' (at times).

These are the statements I referred to earlier - they are Senator

Santorum's comments as I heard them (about 15 times):

---

I: You know who's been great, too, in this is Senator Harry Reid.

S: Harry Reid and Bill Frist, both. I mean, I've got to tell you,

they both worked together to clear this bill on both sides. Because

there were, you know, as you can imagine, getting 100 people to

agree to anything in the United States Senate is hard to do. And

both leadership office worked members on both sides who had

concerns about little issues on both sides to get this done. Bill

Frist, in particular at the end, with one particular member on our

side, really was a great help to me and Harry was the same way. And

so, I have nothing but kudos for both leaders.

---

This is the same section from the transcript you posted:

---

You know who else has been great on this is senator harry reid.

They both work together and to clear this bill on both sides. As can

you imagine, getting 100 people to agree to anything in the senate

is hard to do, and both, members of -- they both served to get this

done. Bill frist was one particular member who really was a great

help to me. And harry was the same way. So i have nothing but kudos

for both.

---

Also, Senator Santorum's last lengthy statement in the transcript

you posted was quite different from his actual statement.

These modification seem intentional and significant to me. Who

edited this transcript?

___________________

Imus in the Morning

Discussion with Senator Rick Santorum on the Combating Autism Act

October 6, 2006

7:44 am ET

Imus: …we're talking with Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania,

who was a co-sponsor, along with Dodd, initially, of the

Combating Autism Act which – I remember Senator Santorum and Senator

Dodd said to Deirdre Imus and Suzanne and these others that

they would support this bill if they could get all of these various

autism groups on the same page, because they were all over the

place. You had the mercury moms and you had the various other

groups screaming about this and that and they managed to do that.

And I think it's important that people understand this – that

Senator Santorum kept his word and so did Senator Dodd. And it's

not in their best interest – certainly not in Senator Santorum's

interest to get involved in all this or even, perhaps, Senator Dodd –

though Senator Dodd would be more inclined, perhaps, to support

something like this, just on the face of it than Senator Santorum

did. But Senator Santorum kept his word and, I mean, I think and

I'm not patronizing you and you know deep down I don't really give a

damn about much at all, but I care about this. Man, you are really

to be congratulated because, you know, you could have [inaudible]

killed them with this thing and you told them what they need to do.

They did it and then you all did what you did and they passed this

thing – this Combating Autism Act – by unanimous consent in the

Senate; sent it over to the House where it has enough votes in the

House – enough co-sponsors in the House to pass; winds up in that

skunk, Joe Barton's committee and he decides that. And so my wife

and Suzanne and a bunch of these other people go down there and meet

with him and he lies to them. He tells them if they support his NIH

reform bill – which is absurd on the bases of it and we don't have

time to get into all that – then he would help them with this. They

supported him. He decided not to help them with this and lied to

them about why he did. And, then, you were on CNN with him

yesterday and he was sitting there and he was lying and you knew he

was. You're to be congratulated for diplomatically pointing out

that what he was saying wasn't true. I was actually screaming foul

names at you at the television. Well, I was watching a DVD of it.

Santorum: Well, all I can say is that what he's saying is that, you

know, he would accept most of this Combating Autism bill and that,

you know, we're going to get 90 or 95%. I mean, that just, as I

said on CNN yesterday, is not accurate. I mean, at the heart –

I: He was lying, wasn't he?

S: I said he was not accurate.

I: Not accurate means lying, doesn't it?

S: Well, you can characterize it in a variety of different ways.

I'm not into calling anybody – one of my colleagues – a liar. I

would just say that I don't think he's accurately representing the

facts.

I: Well, you know he's lying. Of course not. I'm just trying to

goad you into saying something –

S: I know you are.

I: And I shouldn't.

S: Thank you so much. And, by the way, that would very, very

helpful in my relationship in trying to get this done if I would

call him a liar on this show. Just so you know.

I: By the way, if I really support you, why am I trying to take you

down? I don't know.

S: I don't know.

I: I apologize for that, even. Well, the guy is disingenuous and a

liar and I can say that and you've got enough sense not to and, by

the way, you probably shouldn't. But, here's my question: It

passes by unanimous consent in the Senate – now, I know it's a

single-issue disease bill, and, as you pointed out –

S: That's the first one we passed, by the way, in 5 years.

I: Yes. But, but, but autism is an epidemic in this country --

attention deficit disorder and all of that – there are twice as many

children diagnosed with autism in the country than there are with

cancer. We spend – my wife and I – spend our life devoted to kids

with cancer and cancer's still the leading cause of death by disease

for children. There are twice as many kids diagnosed with autism

and it doesn't make sense not to try to find out why or – and we're

not talking about a thimerosal deal – trying to – in fact, there's

not even any vaccine language in the bill – that's fine.

S: Here's the difference between cancer and autism. And, that is,

with respect to autism at NIH and the reason we want specific bill

on that – I've argued with Congressman Barton about the need for

this specific bill – is because autism – there is a cancer

institute – so, if you're doing cancer research, there's an

institute at the NIH set up and cancer has a home there. Autism

doesn't have a home there. There is no Autism Institute. Autism is

spread around in a variety of different institutes at the NIH.

There's no coordination, as far as we can see, and the autism

community certainly doesn't believe there's any coordination. And,

as a result of that, we need to develop better coordination. That's

why we need specifically, for autism, this bill to be able to better

coordinate things at NIH. And the second thing we need is – and you

talk about this all the time – the distrust in the autism community

about the research with respect to environmental causes of autism.

And, NIH, right now, does not have the credibility that they are

going to follow through in an honest manner and do the research that

needs to be done, so we set up a Center of Excellence to do research

in environmental causes which would include thimerosal and vaccines

and we set up and we authorize it -- we fund it. We provide levels

of funding -- which is very, very important – and we have the autism

community participate in the direction and oversight of that Center

of Excellence. So, I mean, it's one where we bring the community in

[and] we give them the level of comfort that they really need.

These people are going through an incredible, stressful time.

Children with autism – you know, I always say the most common thing

that I experience when I meet with a group of parents with children

with autism is tears. These are parents who are sort of on the edge

because of the stress – the 24-hour care that a lot of these

children need and they don't have answers as to what's causing

this. They don't have answers as to why we've seen an increase in

this. We don't have, even, a consensus on how to best treat it; how

to best screen for it and diagnose it. I mean, there are all sorts

of questions out there and that's why Dodd and I were able to

force something through. And Mike Enzi, who is the Chairman of the

HELP committee – who didn't want to do a disease-specific bill as

much as Joe Barton didn't want to do it – but, Mike understood,

after we spent a lot of time with him, that this was a special case

and he stepped aside, to his credit and to Ted Kennedy's credit, and

said, " Okay, we'll put off the whole reform of NIH. We'll get the

autism bill done and we'll work on NIH later. "

I: You know who's been great, too, in this is Senator Harry Reid.

S: Harry Reid and Bill Frist, both. I mean, I've got to tell you,

they both worked together to clear this bill on both sides. Because

there were, you know, as you can imagine, getting 100 people to

agree to anything in the United States Senate is hard to do. And

both leadership office worked members on both sides who had

concerns about little issues on both sides to get this done. Bill

Frist, in particular at the end, with one particular member on our

side, really was a great help to me and Harry was the same way. And

so, I have nothing but kudos for both leaders.

I: So, here's my question, Senator Santorum - you have a bill that

passes the Senate by unanimous consent – goes to the House – we know

we have a majority of House members who will vote for this – Why

does Joe Barton get to decide? And, by the way, when he had this

meeting with Suzanne and Deirdre and these other people, he

walked in, this smug little jerk, and said, " What do ya'll think

causes autism? " – trying to bait them, suggesting that they're

probably these thimerosal mercury nuts – which neither one of them

are, by the way – and one of these people who believes that it's all

genetics, as though, in the passed 10 years there's been a genetic

epidemic – which is, even a mental patient knows is impossible – my

question is: Why does he get to hold the bill up? Why can't

somebody – why isn't the mechanism in place – to force him to put it

out for a vote? If he doesn't support it, then vote against it.

S: There is a mechanism to do that. It's called a discharge

petition. It takes 218 members of the House to sign that – I think

it's 218 – a majority – to sign the discharge petition.

I: They have 228 co-sponsors in the House as you and are talking,

right now.

S: Alright. To my knowledge, no one has suggested a discharge

petition, yet, and it takes a while for people to sign it and to

schedule it. And the problem, right now, is a chairman has enormous

power, period, because once a bill's referred to committee, it

cannot come out unless the chairman schedules it for a meeting –

with the exception of the discharge petition – which is only done,

you know, I think, only a handful of times in the history of the

country, to my recollection.

I: Here's how gutless he is. We've invited him on the program 50

times – or a number of times. He has his pipsqueak press secretary

call me – call my office – wants to talk to me off the air, off the

record - about what? I mean, about whose payroll he's on? Whose

payroll is he on, Senator, do you know?

S: Are you trying to lead me down that path, again, Don?

I: No. I'm just saying, I thought we were paying him. Who else is

paying him?

S: You're leading me down that path. It's not a helpful path,

right now.

I: No, I know. Well, we appreciate your support.

S: Okay.

I: You know, as I've said before, you know what, we don't have –

thank the Lord we don't have an autistic child, but I know some

people who do and you talked a little bit about their parents and

they are beat down and a common denominator in all of these families

with these sick kids is divorce. It destroys the families. It

ruins the lives of these siblings.

S: It is awful. And let me just say, look, we've got a couple of

weeks in November and, you know, there are a lot of the folks in the

House – Chip Pickering, Bono, Deborah Pryce on the republican

side – Representative DeGette on the other side. I mean, they're

very passionate about this. They're working hard and we'll work

with Chairman Barton. We'll work with other members of the House

leadership and see if we can't work out something to get this

through. I've committed to Congressman Barton on several

conversations I had with him, the prior week, that I would get

Chairman Enzi and Senator Kennedy and Senator Specter – who are the

keys to the NIH reauthorization reform – to sit down and work and

try to move that bill forward and we're in that process right now.

So, let me assure you that I'm working, even though we're sort of in

an election right now, I'm working this issue back in Washington,

D.C. to see if we can come up with some sort of accommodations to

get both bills passed on after the election.

I: I know you are. Thanks, Senator, very much.

S: Thank you very much, Don. I appreciate it.

[Guest guest]

,

I see what you mean about the transcripts not reflecting the

dialogue in " exact " detail...

I'm guessing that the transcriber at " Shadow TV " is doing it so

quickly that errors are occuring...they just want to " get it out " ...

Kelli

>

> Kelli and all,

>

> Here is the transcript I transcribed from Senator Santorum's

> appearance on Imus in the Morning this morning (10/6). I have

only

> edited out 'ums,' repeated words, and phrases such as 'you know'

> or 'I mean' (at times).

>

> These are the statements I referred to earlier - they are Senator

> Santorum's comments as I heard them (about 15 times):

>

> ---

>

> I: You know who's been great, too, in this is Senator Harry

Reid.

>

> S: Harry Reid and Bill Frist, both. I mean, I've got to tell

you,

> they both worked together to clear this bill on both sides.

Because

> there were, you know, as you can imagine, getting 100 people to

> agree to anything in the United States Senate is hard to do. And

> both leadership office worked members on both sides who had

> concerns about little issues on both sides to get this done. Bill

> Frist, in particular at the end, with one particular member on our

> side, really was a great help to me and Harry was the same way.

And

> so, I have nothing but kudos for both leaders.

>

> ---

>

> This is the same section from the transcript you posted:

>

> ---

>

> You know who else has been great on this is senator harry reid.

>

> They both work together and to clear this bill on both sides. As

can

> you imagine, getting 100 people to agree to anything in the senate

> is hard to do, and both, members of -- they both served to get this

> done. Bill frist was one particular member who really was a great

> help to me. And harry was the same way. So i have nothing but

kudos

> for both.

>

> ---

>

> Also, Senator Santorum's last lengthy statement in the transcript

> you posted was quite different from his actual statement.

>

> These modification seem intentional and significant to me. Who

> edited this transcript?

>

>

>

> ___________________

>

> Imus in the Morning

> Discussion with Senator Rick Santorum on the Combating Autism Act

> October 6, 2006

>

> 7:44 am ET

>

> Imus: …we're talking with Senator Rick Santorum from

Pennsylvania,

> who was a co-sponsor, along with Dodd, initially, of the

> Combating Autism Act which – I remember Senator Santorum and

Senator

> Dodd said to Deirdre Imus and Suzanne and these others that

> they would support this bill if they could get all of these

various

> autism groups on the same page, because they were all over the

> place. You had the mercury moms and you had the various other

> groups screaming about this and that and they managed to do that.

> And I think it's important that people understand this – that

> Senator Santorum kept his word and so did Senator Dodd. And it's

> not in their best interest – certainly not in Senator Santorum's

> interest to get involved in all this or even, perhaps, Senator

Dodd –

> though Senator Dodd would be more inclined, perhaps, to support

> something like this, just on the face of it than Senator Santorum

> did. But Senator Santorum kept his word and, I mean, I think and

> I'm not patronizing you and you know deep down I don't really give

a

> damn about much at all, but I care about this. Man, you are

really

> to be congratulated because, you know, you could have [inaudible]

> killed them with this thing and you told them what they need to

do.

> They did it and then you all did what you did and they passed this

> thing – this Combating Autism Act – by unanimous consent in the

> Senate; sent it over to the House where it has enough votes in the

> House – enough co-sponsors in the House to pass; winds up in that

> skunk, Joe Barton's committee and he decides that. And so my wife

> and Suzanne and a bunch of these other people go down there and

meet

> with him and he lies to them. He tells them if they support his

NIH

> reform bill – which is absurd on the bases of it and we don't have

> time to get into all that – then he would help them with this.

They

> supported him. He decided not to help them with this and lied to

> them about why he did. And, then, you were on CNN with him

> yesterday and he was sitting there and he was lying and you knew

he

> was. You're to be congratulated for diplomatically pointing out

> that what he was saying wasn't true. I was actually screaming

foul

> names at you at the television. Well, I was watching a DVD of it.

>

> Santorum: Well, all I can say is that what he's saying is that,

you

> know, he would accept most of this Combating Autism bill and that,

> you know, we're going to get 90 or 95%. I mean, that just, as I

> said on CNN yesterday, is not accurate. I mean, at the heart –

>

> I: He was lying, wasn't he?

>

> S: I said he was not accurate.

>

> I: Not accurate means lying, doesn't it?

>

> S: Well, you can characterize it in a variety of different ways.

> I'm not into calling anybody – one of my colleagues – a liar. I

> would just say that I don't think he's accurately representing the

> facts.

>

> I: Well, you know he's lying. Of course not. I'm just trying to

> goad you into saying something –

>

> S: I know you are.

>

> I: And I shouldn't.

>

> S: Thank you so much. And, by the way, that would very, very

> helpful in my relationship in trying to get this done if I would

> call him a liar on this show. Just so you know.

>

> I: By the way, if I really support you, why am I trying to take

you

> down? I don't know.

>

> S: I don't know.

>

> I: I apologize for that, even. Well, the guy is disingenuous and

a

> liar and I can say that and you've got enough sense not to and, by

> the way, you probably shouldn't. But, here's my question: It

> passes by unanimous consent in the Senate – now, I know it's a

> single-issue disease bill, and, as you pointed out –

>

> S: That's the first one we passed, by the way, in 5 years.

>

> I: Yes. But, but, but autism is an epidemic in this country --

> attention deficit disorder and all of that – there are twice as

many

> children diagnosed with autism in the country than there are with

> cancer. We spend – my wife and I – spend our life devoted to kids

> with cancer and cancer's still the leading cause of death by

disease

> for children. There are twice as many kids diagnosed with autism

> and it doesn't make sense not to try to find out why or – and

we're

> not talking about a thimerosal deal – trying to – in fact, there's

> not even any vaccine language in the bill – that's fine.

>

> S: Here's the difference between cancer and autism. And, that

is,

> with respect to autism at NIH and the reason we want specific bill

> on that – I've argued with Congressman Barton about the need for

> this specific bill – is because autism – there is a cancer

> institute – so, if you're doing cancer research, there's an

> institute at the NIH set up and cancer has a home there. Autism

> doesn't have a home there. There is no Autism Institute. Autism

is

> spread around in a variety of different institutes at the NIH.

> There's no coordination, as far as we can see, and the autism

> community certainly doesn't believe there's any coordination.

And,

> as a result of that, we need to develop better coordination.

That's

> why we need specifically, for autism, this bill to be able to

better

> coordinate things at NIH. And the second thing we need is – and

you

> talk about this all the time – the distrust in the autism

community

> about the research with respect to environmental causes of

autism.

> And, NIH, right now, does not have the credibility that they are

> going to follow through in an honest manner and do the research

that

> needs to be done, so we set up a Center of Excellence to do

research

> in environmental causes which would include thimerosal and

vaccines

> and we set up and we authorize it -- we fund it. We provide

levels

> of funding -- which is very, very important – and we have the

autism

> community participate in the direction and oversight of that

Center

> of Excellence. So, I mean, it's one where we bring the community

in

> [and] we give them the level of comfort that they really need.

> These people are going through an incredible, stressful time.

> Children with autism – you know, I always say the most common

thing

> that I experience when I meet with a group of parents with

children

> with autism is tears. These are parents who are sort of on the

edge

> because of the stress – the 24-hour care that a lot of these

> children need and they don't have answers as to what's causing

> this. They don't have answers as to why we've seen an increase in

> this. We don't have, even, a consensus on how to best treat it;

how

> to best screen for it and diagnose it. I mean, there are all

sorts

> of questions out there and that's why Dodd and I were able

to

> force something through. And Mike Enzi, who is the Chairman of

the

> HELP committee – who didn't want to do a disease-specific bill as

> much as Joe Barton didn't want to do it – but, Mike understood,

> after we spent a lot of time with him, that this was a special

case

> and he stepped aside, to his credit and to Ted Kennedy's credit,

and

> said, " Okay, we'll put off the whole reform of NIH. We'll get the

> autism bill done and we'll work on NIH later. "

>

> I: You know who's been great, too, in this is Senator Harry

Reid.

>

> S: Harry Reid and Bill Frist, both. I mean, I've got to tell

you,

> they both worked together to clear this bill on both sides.

Because

> there were, you know, as you can imagine, getting 100 people to

> agree to anything in the United States Senate is hard to do. And

> both leadership office worked members on both sides who had

> concerns about little issues on both sides to get this done. Bill

> Frist, in particular at the end, with one particular member on our

> side, really was a great help to me and Harry was the same way.

And

> so, I have nothing but kudos for both leaders.

>

> I: So, here's my question, Senator Santorum - you have a bill

that

> passes the Senate by unanimous consent – goes to the House – we

know

> we have a majority of House members who will vote for this – Why

> does Joe Barton get to decide? And, by the way, when he had this

> meeting with Suzanne and Deirdre and these other people, he

> walked in, this smug little jerk, and said, " What do ya'll think

> causes autism? " – trying to bait them, suggesting that they're

> probably these thimerosal mercury nuts – which neither one of them

> are, by the way – and one of these people who believes that it's

all

> genetics, as though, in the passed 10 years there's been a genetic

> epidemic – which is, even a mental patient knows is impossible –

my

> question is: Why does he get to hold the bill up? Why can't

> somebody – why isn't the mechanism in place – to force him to put

it

> out for a vote? If he doesn't support it, then vote against it.

>

> S: There is a mechanism to do that. It's called a discharge

> petition. It takes 218 members of the House to sign that – I

think

> it's 218 – a majority – to sign the discharge petition.

>

> I: They have 228 co-sponsors in the House as you and are talking,

> right now.

>

> S: Alright. To my knowledge, no one has suggested a discharge

> petition, yet, and it takes a while for people to sign it and to

> schedule it. And the problem, right now, is a chairman has

enormous

> power, period, because once a bill's referred to committee, it

> cannot come out unless the chairman schedules it for a meeting –

> with the exception of the discharge petition – which is only done,

> you know, I think, only a handful of times in the history of the

> country, to my recollection.

>

> I: Here's how gutless he is. We've invited him on the program 50

> times – or a number of times. He has his pipsqueak press

secretary

> call me – call my office – wants to talk to me off the air, off

the

> record - about what? I mean, about whose payroll he's on? Whose

> payroll is he on, Senator, do you know?

>

> S: Are you trying to lead me down that path, again, Don?

>

> I: No. I'm just saying, I thought we were paying him. Who else

is

> paying him?

>

> S: You're leading me down that path. It's not a helpful path,

> right now.

>

> I: No, I know. Well, we appreciate your support.

>

> S: Okay.

>

> I: You know, as I've said before, you know what, we don't have –

> thank the Lord we don't have an autistic child, but I know some

> people who do and you talked a little bit about their parents and

> they are beat down and a common denominator in all of these

families

> with these sick kids is divorce. It destroys the families. It

> ruins the lives of these siblings.

>

> S: It is awful. And let me just say, look, we've got a couple of

> weeks in November and, you know, there are a lot of the folks in

the

> House – Chip Pickering, Bono, Deborah Pryce on the republican

> side – Representative DeGette on the other side. I mean, they're

> very passionate about this. They're working hard and we'll work

> with Chairman Barton. We'll work with other members of the House

> leadership and see if we can't work out something to get this

> through. I've committed to Congressman Barton on several

> conversations I had with him, the prior week, that I would get

> Chairman Enzi and Senator Kennedy and Senator Specter – who are

the

> keys to the NIH reauthorization reform – to sit down and work and

> try to move that bill forward and we're in that process right

now.

> So, let me assure you that I'm working, even though we're sort of

in

> an election right now, I'm working this issue back in Washington,

> D.C. to see if we can come up with some sort of accommodations to

> get both bills passed on after the election.

>

> I: I know you are. Thanks, Senator, very much.

>

> S: Thank you very much, Don. I appreciate it.

>

[Guest guest]

Kelli,

I just listened to Senator Santorum's entire interview with Don Imus

from this morning during which they discussed Mark Foley, the war,

the election, and the CAA. I took the opportunity to compare the

actual conversation to the transcript Senator Santorum's staff

supplied. There were a number of minor transcription errors

throughout the early portion of the interview. There were, however,

far more deviations from the actual comments in the portion of the

transcript relating to the CAA than the section preceding it. There

were quite a few quotes attributed to Senator Santorum in the CAA

section that were not actual quotes, but, rather, summaries of

statements and more than a few comments were omitted altogether.

I'm not referring to misspellings or other typos. When quoting a

U.S. senator about such an important topic, one would think accuracy

would take precedence over speed. What's the purpose of having a

transcript if it isn't accurate?

The transcript provided by Senator Santorum's staff has the

appearance of being edited. Summaries are, in fact, not quotes and

it is a misrepresentation to present them as such. Even if it

wasn't edited, this transcript is not a reliable source of

information, in my opinion. Of course, others are free to form

their own opinions.

> >

> > Kelli and all,

> >

> > Here is the transcript I transcribed from Senator Santorum's

> > appearance on Imus in the Morning this morning (10/6). I have

> only

> > edited out 'ums,' repeated words, and phrases such as 'you know'

> > or 'I mean' (at times).

> >

> > These are the statements I referred to earlier - they are

Senator

> > Santorum's comments as I heard them (about 15 times):

> >

> > ---

> >

> > I: You know who's been great, too, in this is Senator Harry

> Reid.

> >

> > S: Harry Reid and Bill Frist, both. I mean, I've got to tell

> you,

> > they both worked together to clear this bill on both sides.

> Because

> > there were, you know, as you can imagine, getting 100 people to

> > agree to anything in the United States Senate is hard to do.

And

> > both leadership office worked members on both sides who had

> > concerns about little issues on both sides to get this done.

Bill

> > Frist, in particular at the end, with one particular member on

our

> > side, really was a great help to me and Harry was the same way.

> And

> > so, I have nothing but kudos for both leaders.

> >

> > ---

> >

> > This is the same section from the transcript you posted:

> >

> > ---

> >

> > You know who else has been great on this is senator harry reid.

> >

> > They both work together and to clear this bill on both sides. As

> can

> > you imagine, getting 100 people to agree to anything in the

senate

> > is hard to do, and both, members of -- they both served to get

this

> > done. Bill frist was one particular member who really was a great

> > help to me. And harry was the same way. So i have nothing but

> kudos

> > for both.

> >

> > ---

> >

> > Also, Senator Santorum's last lengthy statement in the

transcript

> > you posted was quite different from his actual statement.

> >

> > These modification seem intentional and significant to me. Who

> > edited this transcript?

> >

> >

> >

> > ___________________

> >

> > Imus in the Morning

> > Discussion with Senator Rick Santorum on the Combating Autism Act

> > October 6, 2006

> >

> > 7:44 am ET

> >

> > Imus: …we're talking with Senator Rick Santorum from

> Pennsylvania,

> > who was a co-sponsor, along with Dodd, initially, of the

> > Combating Autism Act which – I remember Senator Santorum and

> Senator

> > Dodd said to Deirdre Imus and Suzanne and these others

that

> > they would support this bill if they could get all of these

> various

> > autism groups on the same page, because they were all over the

> > place. You had the mercury moms and you had the various other

> > groups screaming about this and that and they managed to do

that.

> > And I think it's important that people understand this – that

> > Senator Santorum kept his word and so did Senator Dodd. And

it's

> > not in their best interest – certainly not in Senator Santorum's

> > interest to get involved in all this or even, perhaps, Senator

> Dodd –

> > though Senator Dodd would be more inclined, perhaps, to support

> > something like this, just on the face of it than Senator

Santorum

> > did. But Senator Santorum kept his word and, I mean, I think

and

> > I'm not patronizing you and you know deep down I don't really

give

> a

> > damn about much at all, but I care about this. Man, you are

> really

> > to be congratulated because, you know, you could have

[inaudible]

> > killed them with this thing and you told them what they need to

> do.

> > They did it and then you all did what you did and they passed

this

> > thing – this Combating Autism Act – by unanimous consent in the

> > Senate; sent it over to the House where it has enough votes in

the

> > House – enough co-sponsors in the House to pass; winds up in

that

> > skunk, Joe Barton's committee and he decides that. And so my

wife

> > and Suzanne and a bunch of these other people go down there and

> meet

> > with him and he lies to them. He tells them if they support his

> NIH

> > reform bill – which is absurd on the bases of it and we don't

have

> > time to get into all that – then he would help them with this.

> They

> > supported him. He decided not to help them with this and lied

to

> > them about why he did. And, then, you were on CNN with him

> > yesterday and he was sitting there and he was lying and you knew

> he

> > was. You're to be congratulated for diplomatically pointing out

> > that what he was saying wasn't true. I was actually screaming

> foul

> > names at you at the television. Well, I was watching a DVD of

it.

> >

> > Santorum: Well, all I can say is that what he's saying is that,

> you

> > know, he would accept most of this Combating Autism bill and

that,

> > you know, we're going to get 90 or 95%. I mean, that just, as I

> > said on CNN yesterday, is not accurate. I mean, at the heart –

> >

> > I: He was lying, wasn't he?

> >

> > S: I said he was not accurate.

> >

> > I: Not accurate means lying, doesn't it?

> >

> > S: Well, you can characterize it in a variety of different

ways.

> > I'm not into calling anybody – one of my colleagues – a liar. I

> > would just say that I don't think he's accurately representing

the

> > facts.

> >

> > I: Well, you know he's lying. Of course not. I'm just trying

to

> > goad you into saying something –

> >

> > S: I know you are.

> >

> > I: And I shouldn't.

> >

> > S: Thank you so much. And, by the way, that would very, very

> > helpful in my relationship in trying to get this done if I would

> > call him a liar on this show. Just so you know.

> >

> > I: By the way, if I really support you, why am I trying to take

> you

> > down? I don't know.

> >

> > S: I don't know.

> >

> > I: I apologize for that, even. Well, the guy is disingenuous

and

> a

> > liar and I can say that and you've got enough sense not to and,

by

> > the way, you probably shouldn't. But, here's my question: It

> > passes by unanimous consent in the Senate – now, I know it's a

> > single-issue disease bill, and, as you pointed out –

> >

> > S: That's the first one we passed, by the way, in 5 years.

> >

> > I: Yes. But, but, but autism is an epidemic in this country --

> > attention deficit disorder and all of that – there are twice as

> many

> > children diagnosed with autism in the country than there are

with

> > cancer. We spend – my wife and I – spend our life devoted to

kids

> > with cancer and cancer's still the leading cause of death by

> disease

> > for children. There are twice as many kids diagnosed with

autism

> > and it doesn't make sense not to try to find out why or – and

> we're

> > not talking about a thimerosal deal – trying to – in fact,

there's

> > not even any vaccine language in the bill – that's fine.

> >

> > S: Here's the difference between cancer and autism. And, that

> is,

> > with respect to autism at NIH and the reason we want specific

bill

> > on that – I've argued with Congressman Barton about the need for

> > this specific bill – is because autism – there is a cancer

> > institute – so, if you're doing cancer research, there's an

> > institute at the NIH set up and cancer has a home there. Autism

> > doesn't have a home there. There is no Autism Institute.

Autism

> is

> > spread around in a variety of different institutes at the NIH.

> > There's no coordination, as far as we can see, and the autism

> > community certainly doesn't believe there's any coordination.

> And,

> > as a result of that, we need to develop better coordination.

> That's

> > why we need specifically, for autism, this bill to be able to

> better

> > coordinate things at NIH. And the second thing we need is – and

> you

> > talk about this all the time – the distrust in the autism

> community

> > about the research with respect to environmental causes of

> autism.

> > And, NIH, right now, does not have the credibility that they are

> > going to follow through in an honest manner and do the research

> that

> > needs to be done, so we set up a Center of Excellence to do

> research

> > in environmental causes which would include thimerosal and

> vaccines

> > and we set up and we authorize it -- we fund it. We provide

> levels

> > of funding -- which is very, very important – and we have the

> autism

> > community participate in the direction and oversight of that

> Center

> > of Excellence. So, I mean, it's one where we bring the

community

> in

> > [and] we give them the level of comfort that they really need.

> > These people are going through an incredible, stressful time.

> > Children with autism – you know, I always say the most common

> thing

> > that I experience when I meet with a group of parents with

> children

> > with autism is tears. These are parents who are sort of on the

> edge

> > because of the stress – the 24-hour care that a lot of these

> > children need and they don't have answers as to what's causing

> > this. They don't have answers as to why we've seen an increase

in

> > this. We don't have, even, a consensus on how to best treat it;

> how

> > to best screen for it and diagnose it. I mean, there are all

> sorts

> > of questions out there and that's why Dodd and I were able

> to

> > force something through. And Mike Enzi, who is the Chairman of

> the

> > HELP committee – who didn't want to do a disease-specific bill

as

> > much as Joe Barton didn't want to do it – but, Mike understood,

> > after we spent a lot of time with him, that this was a special

> case

> > and he stepped aside, to his credit and to Ted Kennedy's credit,

> and

> > said, " Okay, we'll put off the whole reform of NIH. We'll get

the

> > autism bill done and we'll work on NIH later. "

> >

> > I: You know who's been great, too, in this is Senator Harry

> Reid.

> >

> > S: Harry Reid and Bill Frist, both. I mean, I've got to tell

> you,

> > they both worked together to clear this bill on both sides.

> Because

> > there were, you know, as you can imagine, getting 100 people to

> > agree to anything in the United States Senate is hard to do.

And

> > both leadership office worked members on both sides who had

> > concerns about little issues on both sides to get this done.

Bill

> > Frist, in particular at the end, with one particular member on

our

> > side, really was a great help to me and Harry was the same way.

> And

> > so, I have nothing but kudos for both leaders.

> >

> > I: So, here's my question, Senator Santorum - you have a bill

> that

> > passes the Senate by unanimous consent – goes to the House – we

> know

> > we have a majority of House members who will vote for this – Why

> > does Joe Barton get to decide? And, by the way, when he had

this

> > meeting with Suzanne and Deirdre and these other people,

he

> > walked in, this smug little jerk, and said, " What do ya'll think

> > causes autism? " – trying to bait them, suggesting that they're

> > probably these thimerosal mercury nuts – which neither one of

them

> > are, by the way – and one of these people who believes that it's

> all

> > genetics, as though, in the passed 10 years there's been a

genetic

> > epidemic – which is, even a mental patient knows is impossible –

> my

> > question is: Why does he get to hold the bill up? Why can't

> > somebody – why isn't the mechanism in place – to force him to

put

> it

> > out for a vote? If he doesn't support it, then vote against

it.

> >

> > S: There is a mechanism to do that. It's called a discharge

> > petition. It takes 218 members of the House to sign that – I

> think

> > it's 218 – a majority – to sign the discharge petition.

> >

> > I: They have 228 co-sponsors in the House as you and are

talking,

> > right now.

> >

> > S: Alright. To my knowledge, no one has suggested a discharge

> > petition, yet, and it takes a while for people to sign it and to

> > schedule it. And the problem, right now, is a chairman has

> enormous

> > power, period, because once a bill's referred to committee, it

> > cannot come out unless the chairman schedules it for a meeting –

> > with the exception of the discharge petition – which is only

done,

> > you know, I think, only a handful of times in the history of the

> > country, to my recollection.

> >

> > I: Here's how gutless he is. We've invited him on the program

50

> > times – or a number of times. He has his pipsqueak press

> secretary

> > call me – call my office – wants to talk to me off the air, off

> the

> > record - about what? I mean, about whose payroll he's on?

Whose

> > payroll is he on, Senator, do you know?

> >

> > S: Are you trying to lead me down that path, again, Don?

> >

> > I: No. I'm just saying, I thought we were paying him. Who

else

> is

> > paying him?

> >

> > S: You're leading me down that path. It's not a helpful path,

> > right now.

> >

> > I: No, I know. Well, we appreciate your support.

> >

> > S: Okay.

> >

> > I: You know, as I've said before, you know what, we don't have –

> > thank the Lord we don't have an autistic child, but I know some

> > people who do and you talked a little bit about their parents

and

> > they are beat down and a common denominator in all of these

> families

> > with these sick kids is divorce. It destroys the families. It

> > ruins the lives of these siblings.

> >

> > S: It is awful. And let me just say, look, we've got a couple

of

> > weeks in November and, you know, there are a lot of the folks in

> the

> > House – Chip Pickering, Bono, Deborah Pryce on the

republican

> > side – Representative DeGette on the other side. I mean,

they're

> > very passionate about this. They're working hard and we'll work

> > with Chairman Barton. We'll work with other members of the

House

> > leadership and see if we can't work out something to get this

> > through. I've committed to Congressman Barton on several

> > conversations I had with him, the prior week, that I would get

> > Chairman Enzi and Senator Kennedy and Senator Specter – who are

> the

> > keys to the NIH reauthorization reform – to sit down and work

and

> > try to move that bill forward and we're in that process right

> now.

> > So, let me assure you that I'm working, even though we're sort

of

> in

> > an election right now, I'm working this issue back in

Washington,

> > D.C. to see if we can come up with some sort of accommodations

to

> > get both bills passed on after the election.

> >

> > I: I know you are. Thanks, Senator, very much.

> >

> > S: Thank you very much, Don. I appreciate it.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

,

This transcript was not provided by Senator Santorum's office; that

is, it wasn't " typed up " by his office....the link I got is an

official site (much like if you download CNN -- it's an official

site and you click on the video link)....it's called SHADOW TV....it

obviously is some sort of company that " transcribes " the dialogue

from shows....

It sounds like you think Senator Santorum's office did this

transcription....they didn't. So if there are any errors, it is on

the part of the company...not the Senator's office.

Kelli

PS...If you provide me with your e-mail, off list, I can forward it

to you so you can see what I'm talking about....

> > >

> > > Kelli and all,

> > >

> > > Here is the transcript I transcribed from Senator Santorum's

> > > appearance on Imus in the Morning this morning (10/6). I have

> > only

> > > edited out 'ums,' repeated words, and phrases such as 'you

know'

> > > or 'I mean' (at times).

> > >

> > > These are the statements I referred to earlier - they are

> Senator

> > > Santorum's comments as I heard them (about 15 times):

> > >

> > > ---

> > >

> > > I: You know who's been great, too, in this is Senator Harry

> > Reid.

> > >

> > > S: Harry Reid and Bill Frist, both. I mean, I've got to tell

> > you,

> > > they both worked together to clear this bill on both sides.

> > Because

> > > there were, you know, as you can imagine, getting 100 people

to

> > > agree to anything in the United States Senate is hard to do.

> And

> > > both leadership office worked members on both sides who had

> > > concerns about little issues on both sides to get this done.

> Bill

> > > Frist, in particular at the end, with one particular member on

> our

> > > side, really was a great help to me and Harry was the same

way.

> > And

> > > so, I have nothing but kudos for both leaders.

> > >

> > > ---

> > >

> > > This is the same section from the transcript you posted:

> > >

> > > ---

> > >

> > > You know who else has been great on this is senator harry reid.

> > >

> > > They both work together and to clear this bill on both sides.

As

> > can

> > > you imagine, getting 100 people to agree to anything in the

> senate

> > > is hard to do, and both, members of -- they both served to get

> this

> > > done. Bill frist was one particular member who really was a

great

> > > help to me. And harry was the same way. So i have nothing but

> > kudos

> > > for both.

> > >

> > > ---

> > >

> > > Also, Senator Santorum's last lengthy statement in the

> transcript

> > > you posted was quite different from his actual statement.

> > >

> > > These modification seem intentional and significant to me.

Who

> > > edited this transcript?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ___________________

> > >

> > > Imus in the Morning

> > > Discussion with Senator Rick Santorum on the Combating Autism

Act

> > > October 6, 2006

> > >

> > > 7:44 am ET

> > >

> > > Imus: …we're talking with Senator Rick Santorum from

> > Pennsylvania,

> > > who was a co-sponsor, along with Dodd, initially, of the

> > > Combating Autism Act which – I remember Senator Santorum and

> > Senator

> > > Dodd said to Deirdre Imus and Suzanne and these others

> that

> > > they would support this bill if they could get all of these

> > various

> > > autism groups on the same page, because they were all over the

> > > place. You had the mercury moms and you had the various other

> > > groups screaming about this and that and they managed to do

> that.

> > > And I think it's important that people understand this – that

> > > Senator Santorum kept his word and so did Senator Dodd. And

> it's

> > > not in their best interest – certainly not in Senator

Santorum's

> > > interest to get involved in all this or even, perhaps, Senator

> > Dodd –

> > > though Senator Dodd would be more inclined, perhaps, to

support

> > > something like this, just on the face of it than Senator

> Santorum

> > > did. But Senator Santorum kept his word and, I mean, I think

> and

> > > I'm not patronizing you and you know deep down I don't really

> give

> > a

> > > damn about much at all, but I care about this. Man, you are

> > really

> > > to be congratulated because, you know, you could have

> [inaudible]

> > > killed them with this thing and you told them what they need

to

> > do.

> > > They did it and then you all did what you did and they passed

> this

> > > thing – this Combating Autism Act – by unanimous consent in

the

> > > Senate; sent it over to the House where it has enough votes in

> the

> > > House – enough co-sponsors in the House to pass; winds up in

> that

> > > skunk, Joe Barton's committee and he decides that. And so my

> wife

> > > and Suzanne and a bunch of these other people go down there

and

> > meet

> > > with him and he lies to them. He tells them if they support

his

> > NIH

> > > reform bill – which is absurd on the bases of it and we don't

> have

> > > time to get into all that – then he would help them with

this.

> > They

> > > supported him. He decided not to help them with this and lied

> to

> > > them about why he did. And, then, you were on CNN with him

> > > yesterday and he was sitting there and he was lying and you

knew

> > he

> > > was. You're to be congratulated for diplomatically pointing

out

> > > that what he was saying wasn't true. I was actually screaming

> > foul

> > > names at you at the television. Well, I was watching a DVD of

> it.

> > >

> > > Santorum: Well, all I can say is that what he's saying is

that,

> > you

> > > know, he would accept most of this Combating Autism bill and

> that,

> > > you know, we're going to get 90 or 95%. I mean, that just, as

I

> > > said on CNN yesterday, is not accurate. I mean, at the heart –

> > >

> > > I: He was lying, wasn't he?

> > >

> > > S: I said he was not accurate.

> > >

> > > I: Not accurate means lying, doesn't it?

> > >

> > > S: Well, you can characterize it in a variety of different

> ways.

> > > I'm not into calling anybody – one of my colleagues – a liar.

I

> > > would just say that I don't think he's accurately representing

> the

> > > facts.

> > >

> > > I: Well, you know he's lying. Of course not. I'm just

trying

> to

> > > goad you into saying something –

> > >

> > > S: I know you are.

> > >

> > > I: And I shouldn't.

> > >

> > > S: Thank you so much. And, by the way, that would very, very

> > > helpful in my relationship in trying to get this done if I

would

> > > call him a liar on this show. Just so you know.

> > >

> > > I: By the way, if I really support you, why am I trying to

take

> > you

> > > down? I don't know.

> > >

> > > S: I don't know.

> > >

> > > I: I apologize for that, even. Well, the guy is disingenuous

> and

> > a

> > > liar and I can say that and you've got enough sense not to

and,

> by

> > > the way, you probably shouldn't. But, here's my question: It

> > > passes by unanimous consent in the Senate – now, I know it's a

> > > single-issue disease bill, and, as you pointed out –

> > >

> > > S: That's the first one we passed, by the way, in 5 years.

> > >

> > > I: Yes. But, but, but autism is an epidemic in this country -

-

> > > attention deficit disorder and all of that – there are twice

as

> > many

> > > children diagnosed with autism in the country than there are

> with

> > > cancer. We spend – my wife and I – spend our life devoted to

> kids

> > > with cancer and cancer's still the leading cause of death by

> > disease

> > > for children. There are twice as many kids diagnosed with

> autism

> > > and it doesn't make sense not to try to find out why or – and

> > we're

> > > not talking about a thimerosal deal – trying to – in fact,

> there's

> > > not even any vaccine language in the bill – that's fine.

> > >

> > > S: Here's the difference between cancer and autism. And,

that

> > is,

> > > with respect to autism at NIH and the reason we want specific

> bill

> > > on that – I've argued with Congressman Barton about the need

for

> > > this specific bill – is because autism – there is a cancer

> > > institute – so, if you're doing cancer research, there's an

> > > institute at the NIH set up and cancer has a home there.

Autism

> > > doesn't have a home there. There is no Autism Institute.

> Autism

> > is

> > > spread around in a variety of different institutes at the

NIH.

> > > There's no coordination, as far as we can see, and the autism

> > > community certainly doesn't believe there's any coordination.

> > And,

> > > as a result of that, we need to develop better coordination.

> > That's

> > > why we need specifically, for autism, this bill to be able to

> > better

> > > coordinate things at NIH. And the second thing we need is –

and

> > you

> > > talk about this all the time – the distrust in the autism

> > community

> > > about the research with respect to environmental causes of

> > autism.

> > > And, NIH, right now, does not have the credibility that they

are

> > > going to follow through in an honest manner and do the

research

> > that

> > > needs to be done, so we set up a Center of Excellence to do

> > research

> > > in environmental causes which would include thimerosal and

> > vaccines

> > > and we set up and we authorize it -- we fund it. We provide

> > levels

> > > of funding -- which is very, very important – and we have the

> > autism

> > > community participate in the direction and oversight of that

> > Center

> > > of Excellence. So, I mean, it's one where we bring the

> community

> > in

> > > [and] we give them the level of comfort that they really

need.

> > > These people are going through an incredible, stressful time.

> > > Children with autism – you know, I always say the most common

> > thing

> > > that I experience when I meet with a group of parents with

> > children

> > > with autism is tears. These are parents who are sort of on

the

> > edge

> > > because of the stress – the 24-hour care that a lot of these

> > > children need and they don't have answers as to what's causing

> > > this. They don't have answers as to why we've seen an

increase

> in

> > > this. We don't have, even, a consensus on how to best treat

it;

> > how

> > > to best screen for it and diagnose it. I mean, there are all

> > sorts

> > > of questions out there and that's why Dodd and I were

able

> > to

> > > force something through. And Mike Enzi, who is the Chairman

of

> > the

> > > HELP committee – who didn't want to do a disease-specific bill

> as

> > > much as Joe Barton didn't want to do it – but, Mike

understood,

> > > after we spent a lot of time with him, that this was a special

> > case

> > > and he stepped aside, to his credit and to Ted Kennedy's

credit,

> > and

> > > said, " Okay, we'll put off the whole reform of NIH. We'll get

> the

> > > autism bill done and we'll work on NIH later. "

> > >

> > > I: You know who's been great, too, in this is Senator Harry

> > Reid.

> > >

> > > S: Harry Reid and Bill Frist, both. I mean, I've got to tell

> > you,

> > > they both worked together to clear this bill on both sides.

> > Because

> > > there were, you know, as you can imagine, getting 100 people

to

> > > agree to anything in the United States Senate is hard to do.

> And

> > > both leadership office worked members on both sides who had

> > > concerns about little issues on both sides to get this done.

> Bill

> > > Frist, in particular at the end, with one particular member on

> our

> > > side, really was a great help to me and Harry was the same

way.

> > And

> > > so, I have nothing but kudos for both leaders.

> > >

> > > I: So, here's my question, Senator Santorum - you have a bill

> > that

> > > passes the Senate by unanimous consent – goes to the House –

we

> > know

> > > we have a majority of House members who will vote for this –

Why

> > > does Joe Barton get to decide? And, by the way, when he had

> this

> > > meeting with Suzanne and Deirdre and these other

people,

> he

> > > walked in, this smug little jerk, and said, " What do ya'll

think

> > > causes autism? " – trying to bait them, suggesting that they're

> > > probably these thimerosal mercury nuts – which neither one of

> them

> > > are, by the way – and one of these people who believes that

it's

> > all

> > > genetics, as though, in the passed 10 years there's been a

> genetic

> > > epidemic – which is, even a mental patient knows is

impossible –

> > my

> > > question is: Why does he get to hold the bill up? Why can't

> > > somebody – why isn't the mechanism in place – to force him to

> put

> > it

> > > out for a vote? If he doesn't support it, then vote against

> it.

> > >

> > > S: There is a mechanism to do that. It's called a discharge

> > > petition. It takes 218 members of the House to sign that – I

> > think

> > > it's 218 – a majority – to sign the discharge petition.

> > >

> > > I: They have 228 co-sponsors in the House as you and are

> talking,

> > > right now.

> > >

> > > S: Alright. To my knowledge, no one has suggested a

discharge

> > > petition, yet, and it takes a while for people to sign it and

to

> > > schedule it. And the problem, right now, is a chairman has

> > enormous

> > > power, period, because once a bill's referred to committee, it

> > > cannot come out unless the chairman schedules it for a

meeting –

> > > with the exception of the discharge petition – which is only

> done,

> > > you know, I think, only a handful of times in the history of

the

> > > country, to my recollection.

> > >

> > > I: Here's how gutless he is. We've invited him on the

program

> 50

> > > times – or a number of times. He has his pipsqueak press

> > secretary

> > > call me – call my office – wants to talk to me off the air,

off

> > the

> > > record - about what? I mean, about whose payroll he's on?

> Whose

> > > payroll is he on, Senator, do you know?

> > >

> > > S: Are you trying to lead me down that path, again, Don?

> > >

> > > I: No. I'm just saying, I thought we were paying him. Who

> else

> > is

> > > paying him?

> > >

> > > S: You're leading me down that path. It's not a helpful

path,

> > > right now.

> > >

> > > I: No, I know. Well, we appreciate your support.

> > >

> > > S: Okay.

> > >

> > > I: You know, as I've said before, you know what, we don't

have –

>

> > > thank the Lord we don't have an autistic child, but I know

some

> > > people who do and you talked a little bit about their parents

> and

> > > they are beat down and a common denominator in all of these

> > families

> > > with these sick kids is divorce. It destroys the families.

It

> > > ruins the lives of these siblings.

> > >

> > > S: It is awful. And let me just say, look, we've got a

couple

> of

> > > weeks in November and, you know, there are a lot of the folks

in

> > the

> > > House – Chip Pickering, Bono, Deborah Pryce on the

> republican

> > > side – Representative DeGette on the other side. I mean,

> they're

> > > very passionate about this. They're working hard and we'll

work

> > > with Chairman Barton. We'll work with other members of the

> House

> > > leadership and see if we can't work out something to get this

> > > through. I've committed to Congressman Barton on several

> > > conversations I had with him, the prior week, that I would get

> > > Chairman Enzi and Senator Kennedy and Senator Specter – who

are

> > the

> > > keys to the NIH reauthorization reform – to sit down and work

> and

> > > try to move that bill forward and we're in that process right

> > now.

> > > So, let me assure you that I'm working, even though we're sort

> of

> > in

> > > an election right now, I'm working this issue back in

> Washington,

> > > D.C. to see if we can come up with some sort of accommodations

> to

> > > get both bills passed on after the election.

> > >

> > > I: I know you are. Thanks, Senator, very much.

> > >

> > > S: Thank you very much, Don. I appreciate it.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Kelli,

Thanks for clearing that up. In an earlier message (37637) you made

the following comment:

" Here's the full text....got this from Jen Vesey in Senator

Santorum's office.... "

I took that to mean Jen Vesey provided you with the text. In that

case, Ms. Vesey might like to know that the transcript has a few

substantive errors.

Yes, I would like to see the link.

Thanks,

ianpsmom

(without the spaces)

>

> ,

>

> This transcript was not provided by Senator Santorum's office;

that is, it wasn't " typed up " by his office....the link I got is an

official site (much like if you download CNN -- it's an official

site and you click on the video link)....it's called SHADOW TV....it

obviously is some sort of company that " transcribes " the dialogue

from shows....

>

It sounds like you think Senator Santorum's office did this

transcription....they didn't. So if there are any errors, it is on

the part of the company...not the Senator's office.

>

> Kelli

>

> PS...If you provide me with your e-mail, off list, I can forward

it to you so you can see what I'm talking about....

[Guest guest]

Kelli,

Thank you for the information you provided to me privately. The

message you received containing the text you posted came from Ms.

Vesey -- not directly from Shadow TV. As I demonstrated in a

private email, the original text from Shadow TV could have very

easily been edited before it arrived in your inbox. The fact

remains, your source for the transcript of Senator Santorum's

interview with Don Imus was not reliable -- whether it was Shadow TV

or Ms. Vesey.

On Friday, October 6, 2006 Senator Santorum made the following

statements:

" Harry Reid and Bill Frist, both. I mean, I've got to tell you,

they both worked together to clear this bill on both sides. Because

there were, you know, as you can imagine, getting 100 people to

agree to anything in the United States Senate is hard to do. And

both leadership office worked members on both sides who had

concerns about little issues on both sides to get this done. Bill

Frist, in particular at the end, with one particular member on our

side, really was a great help to me and Harry was the same way. And

so, I have nothing but kudos for both leaders. "

The omissions found in the text Ms. Vesey provided were not

inconsequential with respect to these remarks -- whether accidental

or not. Clearly, Senator Santorum considers Senator Frist's

assistance key to passing the CAA by unanimous consent in the

Senate. I believe that's relevant to many parents -- I'm one of

them.

>

> ,

>

> This transcript was not provided by Senator Santorum's office;

that

> is, it wasn't " typed up " by his office....the link I got is an

> official site (much like if you download CNN -- it's an official

> site and you click on the video link)....it's called SHADOW

TV....it

> obviously is some sort of company that " transcribes " the dialogue

> from shows....

>

> It sounds like you think Senator Santorum's office did this

> transcription....they didn't. So if there are any errors, it is

on

> the part of the company...not the Senator's office.

>

> Kelli

>

> PS...If you provide me with your e-mail, off list, I can forward

it

> to you so you can see what I'm talking about....

[Guest guest]

,

Like I said in my e-mail to you, I see no need why Jen Vesey (or

anyone else in that office) would waste their time on altering

a " transcript " (text)...in fact, the " transcript " (text) was " vague "

on Senator Frist's help in the process....if you remember, Senator

Santorum was " praising him " highly....seems to me, if they had

altered this, they wouldn't CUT that bit of information out...

I believe it was an error of some " transcriber " at Shadow TV....the

text was presented as that....text. Not a legal " transcript " ...

If you want to believe that the " transcript " (text) " was altered

that's your choice. It's not something I'm going to " dwell on " ....

Kelli

PS....did you watch the " video clip " that came with the e-mail I

sent you?? Was there any " alterations " in that??? That probably

has a bigger " audience " than the text....

> >

> > ,

> >

> > This transcript was not provided by Senator Santorum's office;

> that

> > is, it wasn't " typed up " by his office....the link I got is an

> > official site (much like if you download CNN -- it's an official

> > site and you click on the video link)....it's called SHADOW

> TV....it

> > obviously is some sort of company that " transcribes " the

dialogue

> > from shows....

> >

> > It sounds like you think Senator Santorum's office did this

> > transcription....they didn't. So if there are any errors, it is

> on

> > the part of the company...not the Senator's office.

> >

> > Kelli

> >

> > PS...If you provide me with your e-mail, off list, I can forward

> it

> > to you so you can see what I'm talking about....

>

[Guest guest]

>

> > PS....did you watch the " video clip " that came with the e-mail I

> sent you?? Was there any " alterations " in that??? That probably

> has a bigger " audience " than the text....

>

Kelli,

This isn't relevant. You didn't post the video clip here.

[Guest guest]

,

I forwarded text that I believed was a mirror of the video...I did it

to allow people to see what transpired on the Imus show...

I was posting as a " courtsey " to others...

Again, if you want to believe that someone in Santorum's office

altered the text, that's your choice.

End of subject for me.

Kelli

> >

> > > PS....did you watch the " video clip " that came with the e-mail I

> > sent you?? Was there any " alterations " in that??? That probably

> > has a bigger " audience " than the text....

> >

>

> Kelli,

>

> This isn't relevant. You didn't post the video clip here.

>

>

>