Article written about Santorum(Phil I wouldn't click on this thread).

[Kevin]

Meet The Mullah Omar of Pennsylvania
Santorum: That's Latin for Asshole
By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

Rick Santorum had only been in the senate for a few weeks when Bob Kerrey, then Senator from Nebraska, pegged him. "Santorum, that's Latin for asshole." It was probably the funniest line the grim Kerrey ever uttered and it was on the mark, too.

Such a stew of sleazy self-righteousness and audacious stupidity has not been seen in the senate since the days of Steve Symms, the celebrated moron from Idaho. In 1998, investigative reporter Ken Silverstein fingered Santorum as the dumbest member of congress in a story for The Progressive. Considering the competition, that's an achievement of considerable distinction.

Even Santorum's staff knows the senator is a vacuous boob prone to outrageous gaffs and crude outbursts of unvarnished bigotry. For years, they kept him firmly leashed, rarely permitting him to attend a press interview without a senior staffer by his side. They learned the hard way. While in serving in the House, Santorum was asked by a reporter to explain why his record on environmental policy was so dreadful. Santorum replied by observing that the environment was of little consequence in God's grand plan. "Nowhere in the Bible does it say that America will be here 100 years from now." The reference was to the Rapture, which apparently is impending.

Santorum is the self-anointed prophet of family values on the Hill, who issues frequent jeremiads on the threats Hollywood fare poses to the "fabric of American culture." Of course, these sermons are hard to swallow from a man with Santorum's resume. After all, before entering Congress Santorum worked as a lobbyist. His top client? The World Wrestling Federation.

But now the Republican leadership, apparently cruising along in self-destruct mode, has elevated Santorum to the number three spot in the senate and his staff can't run interference for him anymore. The results have been comically predictable. Six months ago, Santorum penned an op-ed for a Christian paper blaming the sexual molestation scandals in the Catholic Church on "the culture of liberalism." Surely, an omen that the senator from Pennsylvania wasn't quite ready for prime time.

So it came to pass that on April 7, Santorum sat down for an interview with AP reporter Lara Jordan. He should have been on his guard. After all, Jordan is married to Jim Jordan, who oversees John Kerry's presidential campaign. Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz, despises Santorum. He inherited the senate seat left open when her previous husband, John Heinz, perished in a plane crash. "Santorum is critical of everything, indifferent to nuance, and incapable of compromise," Heinz said. This should have been a warning signal to Santorum that the interview with Jordan might be hostile terrain, but his intellectual radar seems to function about as well as Baghdad's air defense system. Post-war, that is.

After a brisk discussion of the degeneracy of American culture, the interview turned to the subject of the pending Supreme Court case on sodomy laws. Like most religious zealots, Santorum is obsessed not just with homosexuals but with visualizing the postures and physical mechanics of homosexual love. He seized on her question with an enthusiasm many Republicans reserve for discussions of the tax code.

"I have no problem with homosexuality," Santorum pronounced. "I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions."

In the past, one of Santorum's staffers would have found some way to interrupt the interview and deftly muzzle the senator. But he was flying solo and evidently trying to impress Ms. Jordan with his encyclopedic knowledge of the work of Krafft-Ebbing. Note the senator's excited and flirtatious tone.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that [have] sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold - Griswold was the contraceptive case - and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you - this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

"Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality

At this point, even the unnerved reporter tried to rein in Santorum. "I'm sorry," Jordan interjected. "I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking
me out."

But the man was on a roll and there was no stopping him. "And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately," Santorum said. "The idea is that the state doesn't have
rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there
are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society."

There you have it. A case study in the politics of pathological homophobia. Despite outcries from gay Republicans, Bush stood by Santorum in his hour of media martyrdom: "The president believes the senator is an inclusive man," Ari Fleishcer informed the press. "And that's what he believes." Santorum's pal Tom Delay, the pest exterminator-turned-Republican House Majority Leader, was ebullient. He called Santorum's remarks "courageous."

Trent Lott must be snickering in the senate cloakroom.

Santorum, the Mullah Omar of Pennsylvania, is a ridiculous spectacle but he can't be taken lightly. He is the slick-haired darling of the neo-cons, an obedient automaton that feverishly promotes their wildest fantasies without hesitation.

Undeterred by the First Amendment, Santorum says planning to introduce legislation that will limit criticism of Israel in colleges and universities that receive federal money.

And his passion for Israel is so profound that it obviates even his rancid homophobia. When it comes to the Middle East, liberal Democrats race to co-sponsor legislation with him. Most recently, Santorum and Barbara Boxer teamed up to introduce the Syria Accountability Act, which would inflict trade sanctions on Syria like those which gripped Iraq for 12 years, killing nearly one million children. Talk about family values.

Sure, Santorum is an asshole. But he's not one of a kind.


Although the author of this has the right not to like Santorum, His left-wingness blinds his common-sense towards the end of the article in my opinion.

[bullmoose88]

Whats the point of posting an article that seems to be a few years old about a guy who is no longer in elected office?

[Keystone Phil]

Whats the point of posting an article that seems to be a few years old about a guy who is no longer in elected office?

This hatred will last forever and they'll always enjoy bringing up his defeat. And life goes on...

[Rob]

Great article, Kevin, and I'm glad you posted it. Life is just a little better with this scumbag out of public office...

Santorum says planning to introduce legislation that will limit criticism of Israel in colleges and universities that receive federal money.

WTF?

And his passion for Israel is so profound that it obviates even his rancid homophobia. When it comes to the Middle East, liberal Democrats race to co-sponsor legislation with him. Most recently, Santorum and Barbara Boxer teamed up to introduce the Syria Accountability Act, which would inflict trade sanctions on Syria like those which gripped Iraq for 12 years, killing nearly one million children. Talk about family values.

That famous "left-wing extremist" Boxer strikes again!

[Kevin]

I liked Santorum and the guy who just replaced him is Santorum-lite anyways.Btw I just brought this article up for the hell of it.   

[Rob]

I liked Santorum and the guy who just replaced him is Santorum-lite anyways.

Er, yeah, that guy who opposed welfare reform is such a rightist...

Btw I just brought this article up for the hell of it.   

Thanks for sharing!

[Keystone Phil]

I liked Santorum and the guy who just replaced him is Santorum-lite anyways.

Er, yeah, that guy who opposed welfare reform is such a rightist...

Btw I just brought this article up for the hell of it.   

Thanks for sharing!

Question: Upon your return, why did you decide to become such a raging asshole?

[Rob]

Question: Upon your return, why did you decide to become such a raging asshole?

Takes one to know one, eh Phil?

[Kevin]

I liked Santorum and the guy who just replaced him is Santorum-lite anyways.

Er, yeah, that guy who opposed welfare reform is such a rightist...

Btw I just brought this article up for the hell of it.   

Thanks for sharing!

Question: Upon your return, why did you decide to become such a raging asshole?

Is that question directed at me?

[Stranger in a strange land]

Whats the point of posting an article that seems to be a few years old about a guy who is no longer in elected office?

This hatred will last forever and they'll always enjoy bringing up his defeat. And life goes on...

Phil, you're clearly a good person, and it puzzles me why you would so strongly support a bigoted, dominionist theocrat like Santorum, especially one who often doesn't seem to be playing with a full deck of cards. If I were Santorum, I'd move to Utah and wait for Orrin Hatch to retire, or learn to speak with a southern accent and run for a house seat somewhere in the deep south.

And Santorum's defeat will continue to be a favorite topic on the forum for a long time, as it shows, more clearly than any other race, that voters have finally fallen out of love with ultra-conservative republicans.

[Keystone Phil]

Whats the point of posting an article that seems to be a few years old about a guy who is no longer in elected office?

This hatred will last forever and they'll always enjoy bringing up his defeat. And life goes on...

Phil, you're clearly a good person, and it puzzles me why you would so strongly support a bigoted, dominionist theocrat like Santorum, especially one who often doesn't seem to be playing with a full deck of cards. If I were Santorum, I'd move to Utah and wait for Orrin Hatch to retire, or learn to speak with a southern accent and run for a house seat somewhere in the deep south.

And Santorum's defeat will continue to be a favorite topic on the forum for a long time, as it shows, more clearly than any other race, that voters have finally fallen out of love with ultra-conservative republicans.

Let the hate continue...

[MarkWarner08]

Why did you post this, Kevin? This piece is old news and BS.

Everyone needs to move on from the Santorum election. Despite my obvious policy disagreements with him, I respect Santorum's intellectual savvy, his powerful oratorical skills and his passion for his convictions. The GOP lost its soul on November 7th when Santorum lost.

[Deano963]

Despite my obvious policy disagreements with him, I respect Santorum's intellectual savvy

what

[MarkWarner08]

Despite my obvious policy disagreements with him, I respect Santorum's intellectual savvy

what

He's a very smart person. C'mon, you can respect someone even if you don't like them.

[Jake]

Quite a bit over the top. I'm pretty sure Santorum, as a Catholic, would not be a big fan of the rapture. Nor he is a "neo-con" at all, unless we've watered that term down to include basically any enemy of the left. And comparing him to Mullah Omar was the kicker. Let me know when Santorum begins forcing his religious views on people using his own personal militia.

[Keystone Phil]

Quite a bit over the top. I'm pretty sure Santorum, as a Catholic, would not be a big fan of the rapture. Nor he is a "neo-con" at all, unless we've watered that term down to include basically any enemy of the left. And comparing him to Mullah Omar was the kicker. Let me know when Santorum begins forcing his religious views on people using his own personal militia.

Don't even bother arguing with these people, Jake. They'll never accept anything other than attacks on the man.

[Deano963]

Despite my obvious policy disagreements with him, I respect Santorum's intellectual savvy

what

He's a very smart person. C'mon, you can respect someone even if you don't like them.

Of course I can, but I also won't say that said person posesses intellectual savvy when they simply don't. Heck, there are people I DO LIKE who I won't say that they are intellectually savvy. Santorum was simply NOT a very smart guy.

Nor he is a "neo-con" at all, unless we've watered that term down to include basically any enemy of the left.

Are you kidding? Santorum was one of the poster-boys of neoconservatism.

[Keystone Phil]

Are you kidding? Santorum was one of the poster-boys of neoconservatism.

Neocons usually care very little for social issues and are usually liberal in those areas.

[YRABNNRM]

Kevin, GREAT IDEA you had for this thread!

[Verily]

I liked Santorum and the guy who just replaced him is Santorum-lite anyways.Btw I just brought this article up for the hell of it.   

Casey's not an asshole or a bigot, which were the real problems with Santorum. I wouldn't say I agree with Casey's politics, but at least he's not objectionable as a person.

[Deano963]

Are you kidding? Santorum was one of the poster-boys of neoconservatism.

Neocons usually care very little for social issues and are usually liberal in those areas.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. Name some neocons who are socially liberal and I will name many more who are socially conservative.

[Kevin]

Are you kidding? Santorum was one of the poster-boys of neoconservatism.

Neocons usually care very little for social issues and are usually liberal in those areas.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. Name some neocons who are socially liberal and I will name many more who are socially conservative.

Goldwater it turned it was more socially liberal, If you considered him a neocon.

[WalterMitty]

bob kerrey=asshole.

[Verily]

Are you kidding? Santorum was one of the poster-boys of neoconservatism.

Neocons usually care very little for social issues and are usually liberal in those areas.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. Name some neocons who are socially liberal and I will name many more who are socially conservative.

Goldwater it turned it was more socially liberal, If you considered him a neocon.

Goldwater was before neoconservativism even emerged as an ideology. It wasn't fully formed until the 1980s. One could make argument that McCarthyism was very early neoconservativism and that Kennedy and Johnson both used neoconservative foreign policy, but there was no cohesion to neoconservativism yet.

[mgrossbe]

Santorum comments here and tim hardaways bigoted comments the other day reminded me of this oped ariticle i wrote in college. where after having the second question happen to me i posed to our readers two questions what do if

1. If you child turned out to be homosexual?
2. What would you do if you were hit on my a memeber of the same sex?

I expected some very pro-gay and anti-gay comments which i got of course, but what was interesting was a few people said that by thinking about it this way helped to be it in a different perspective.  I would post the whole aritcle but our college had not put the paper online at that point so i only have a hard copy. But this quote always struck me as relevent.

"so often I look at the gays as a some ambigous group that can be easily hated because they were different than me but, when i look at them as individuals its is much harder to dispise them who knows what truely motivates their actions..." Jan S.

Ulimtatly my point is that it is easy to see that i can easily see santorum points espcially if you fervently believe in the bible but look at the people not the group and think about them as if you were them, if you believe you would not act on your orientation more power to you i just do not think it is possible. you don't have to repsond to those questions here i would just pose that you think about it sometime.

PS.

I politly said to him that i was their with my then girlfriend now wife and we both kinda laughed and i had to ask whether i seemed gay he said no just thought i might be don't really know how to take that but whatever.