More Santorum

It’s not just in the Times, it’s also on NPR, and some people are unhappy.

Take this ombudsman’s note defending their coverage of the Santorum story.

The ombudsman found that covering the story was a legitimate journalistic enterprise.

I have to say that for myself, I sympathize with Wolff but agree with Sydell. It would be disingenuous to ignore what anyone can see on Google. We Latinos call that trying to cover the sun with a finger. Sydell’s story, at least, gives a responsible explanation of why you find what you find on Google. And why Santorum has a problem.

Of course it was. Journalists have no business pretending a real news story isn’t news. Even if the subjects of those stories don’t like it.

My favorite part of this whole thing, though, is the phrasing of the letter of complaint. Read this sentence:

All Things Considered has stepped out of bounds for this cheap political smear.

He said it, I didn’t.

I’ve always been partial to Bob Kerrey’s definition of Santorum, but I have to agree that Dan Savage has really topped him.

Don’t you wonder, though, why Santorum‘s friends are working so hard to keep the meme alive?

6 thoughts on “More Santorum

  1. …but I keep meaning to write a piece about how I don’t like the Santorum google attack.

    I’m not going to complain that its too icky, but that there are many, many more people named Santorum in the world than that one guy. Old, young, men, women, liberal, conservative… in this country and in the US.

    Its a broad attack that literally has hundreds of thousands of collateral casualties – some who may be kinds that will get bullied.

    It’s one of those above-it-all, I’m-so-clever attacks, where the attackers can’t be bothered to consider the full implications out of a combination of privilege, laziness and smug self-satisfaction (in other words, due to having the negative stereotypical qualities of a liberal). It aint good.

  2. When a United States Senator publicly declares married and unmarried couples to be “dog fuckers” because of their marriage or relationship, HE becomes the only relevant issue, rather than those of us who are married or in relationships. He is the one who owes an explanation, an apology and, were we in a world run by grown-ups, he owes us his resignation. And an apology from this hateful little man is due to everyone, not just those of us who are married or in relationships. The behavior of the SpreadingSantorum crew is insignificant relative to Icky-Ricky’s public disparagement of one of civil society’s foundational obligations and our absolute right to privacy, sexual intimacy and freedom from government interference in our family relationships.  

    Rick Santorum is, and has always been, unqualified to hold a position of trust. Equating his constituents’ sex lives to Dog Fucking is, sadly and disgracefully, typical of his life’s work; and it is typical of his uncritically bigoted world view. At the time he directed his his bigoted hate speech toward us, he was in a position of authority — authority that privileged him with the ability to affect the lives of all people/families in the U.S.  

    Icky Ricky’s comments were:

    “In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. . . . It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing [heterosexuality]. . . . [w]hether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, whether it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

    Rick Santorum’s comments elevated him to a particularly ignoble pantheon of public enemies — those whose hateful words and behavior far exceed any type, or any degree, of ridicule and denunciation. To date, the ridicule of GOP primary superstar Rick Santorum has been relatively gentle and continues to be minor compared to the actions of its object.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    BTW – I realize that most Republican members of Congress know virtually nothing about the public policies/issues on which they opine – particularly for the camera.  Still, do any of these knuckle dragging bafoons actually know the legal definition of sodomy in virtually every state that has one? Do these guys really believe that if their wives give them a blow-job (i.e. sodomize them in the eyes of the law) that there spouse’s oral offering is the functional equivalent of fucking a dog, or a child or committing adultery? Care to think what Newt Gingrich actually believed when he doled well-paying federal jobs to women who doled him blow-jobs?–Mmmmm, talk amongst yourselves. . .    

  3. According to dipshits like Santorum, only The Rich and politicians like him who support them are to decide what is a pre-version, who is ripping off the government & American people, and at what low level of thought and discourse our society should function.  Why is it (since CL mentioned Newt’s thing) that the BIGGEST PRE-VERTS in our country cry foul when they are called to task for the foulness they spew forth year after year, day after day.  

Comments are closed.