Even though our reader and occasional blogger Sonicfrog doesn’t like former U.S Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa), considering him “an example of an anti-gay Republican“, he wonders at the lengths some of our fellow gays go to smear the man whose political career ended over four years ago. (If Santorum runs for president, his polling may break into the single digits.)
Put the shoe on the other foot. Would you be cheering if someone associated your name with something you considered vile and extremely improper? I don’t think so. The guy is lame on his own.
When he took one of his “very liberal Facebook friends” to task for “gleefully” posting a link to the story documenting the smear, said liberal responded:
bull***t. santorum deserves much worse than this. a disgusting smug self-righteous religious blowhard like him should never be allowed to achieve any significance in our government and anything done to ‘smear’ his name is acceptable.
Anything done to ‘smear’ his name is acceptable? And this fellow allies himself politically with the folks decrying the harsher tone of our discourse.
“And you wonder,” Sonic concludes, “why I don’t associate myself with the liberal pro-gay anti-Republican establishment that I’m supposed to belong to simply because I’m gay.”
Methinks some of our readers might share his sentiments. Read the whole thing.
I remember when liberals tried to smear Santorum by outing one of his staffers. His response was, essentially, “Yeah, so?”.
Classic.
Rick Santorum must be a good and decent person. I know this because of the moral caliber of the people attacking him.
I always thought that mockery was an effective way of dealing with insufferable assholes. Rick Santorum qualifies. What’s the big deal?
Oh yeah – he’s a Republican, which always comes first.
The enemies of Sen. Rick Santorum have created a “Google bomb” so that when you Google the former Senator’s name, you come up with numerous sites that refer to him as the name of a homosexual sex act. A while back, Santorum offended a few folks by equating homosexuality with bestiality and other less savory activities and the homosexual community, led by sex columnist Dan Savage, stuck back.
But now Santorum is running for President and most voters in places like Iowa and New Hampshire have no idea who he is. So it might be nice for the Santorum campaign if people found web sites that were more, er, official.
I’m not a Santorum fan and I think he’s a joke of a presidential candidate, but I do admire his organization’s response to a question about this problem in a Roll Call interview this week.
A spokesperson said, “It’s a First Amendment issue,” when asked how they planned to take the sites down or push them off the first page.
That’s right; Santorum has the First Amendment right to say that gay people in loving, monogamous relationships are just as bad as sick criminal people who abuse farm animals. And gay people have the first amendment right to say that “Rick Santorum” is another name for anal sex.
There is a fairness to this, isn’t there?
http://blogs.forbes.com/tjwalker/2011/02/17/former-sen-rick-santorum-has-a-google-problem/
OF course, when you can’t address the ideas attack the person. Typical tactic of the left.
but andy cohen and ben cohen have some interesting thoughts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKM3_usplug
Of course, we see it every day in this forum.
@sonicfrog Thousands upon thousands of people, many of them straight, have been reading Savage Love for 20 years or so. Long before he was an activist, Savage was a sex columnist, and as such, a hell of a lot of people know who he is.
#3 – “I always thought that mockery was an effective way of dealing with insufferable assholes.”
That’s exactly how we deal with you, Levi.
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
My lib friend is now giving Savage credit for the defeat of Santorum on the election a few years ago. I mean… Come On! How many people outside the gay community know who Dan Savage is, even after he got some good publicity for the “It Gets Better” vids?
you probably saw Wayne Besen’s blurb against the good senator?
You mean Wayne Besen, the antireligious bigot and hatemonger, whose organization Truth Wins Out holds the following publicly-stated positions?
Actually, Bob, most �reasonable� people, if we�re using the word with a respect for its root word, �reason,� agree that there is no evidence for God�s existence, and thus no rational REASON to believe that any god or gods have determined ANYTHING, much less morality.
Comment by Evan Hurst � May 27, 2010 @ 7:13 pm
Hahahahaha, um. Dude. Seriously? No one in the history of the universe has ever been able to prove that the idea of �gods,� which have always been used to control populations, ever existed. It�s a ridiculous idea, created by uneducated nomads from thousands of years ago.
GROW UP>
Comment by Evan Hurst � May 29, 2010 @ 4:13 am
They all rank �10? because they�re all retarded and none of them can be proven by any human who�s ever lived.
God, your questions are really stupid.
Comment by Evan Hurst � May 29, 2010 @ 4:29 am
Bob. That means your god is a weak minded little bitch who changes his mind and is definitely NOT eternal or omnipotent. He�s merely a reflection of humanity�s most disgusting instincts.
Grow the hell up.
Comment by Evan Hurst � May 31, 2010 @ 4:20 am
Of COURSE, their idea of god is as a serial rapist. Fundamentalist religious people ARE essentially battered wives. They just act it out on a grander scale without such visible bruises. The really screwed up thing is that their abuser is an imaginary friend.
But it�s a rapist just the same.
Comment by Evan Hurst � May 31, 2010 @ 4:22 am
Ben, everything you said was spot on. Bob�s idea of �god� is a moral reprobate, and a child at that. I wouldn�t worship a sniveling ass like that if you paid me.
Comment by Evan Hurst � May 31, 2010 @ 4:25 am
We should remember that Besen, who is supported by websites such as Box Turtle Bulletin and gays and lesbians like Rob Tisinai, is driven primarily by antireligious bigotry. It is instructive that Besen’s obvious and clear hatred of people who hold religious beliefs does not disqualify him from a leading position in the gay and lesbian community, which clearly holds similar antireligious views and agrees with Besen that people should be discriminated against based on religious beliefs.
OK… But that is thousands of thousands world wide. Savage is not syndicated in traditional, widely read news papers or magazines. He’s not main-stream. He mostly appears in free periodicals. I love the San Diego Reader… and he’s not in that one. How many of his readers live in the US and could effect a Pennsylvania Senate race? Not only that, but most of the people who would ever think to read Savage on a regular basis would almost certainly NOT EVER consider voting for Santorum in the first place.