from Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out (9/15/12):
Rick 'Frothy Mix' Santorum fulminated against Obama at the Values Voter Summit today in Washington, DC. He accused the president — you know the one who whacked Osama bin Laden — of bowing down to our foes. He said Obama “coddled and appeased” Islamic states that hated us.
The former presidential candidate regurgitated the beyond idiotic fundie talking point that our rights don’t come from government, they come from God. That’s interesting, because there have been many religious nations under the boot of tyranny — only to embrace freedom when the governments changed. For instance, Poland was quite Catholic under communist rule — but not free. Now the nation is free — but increasingly less Catholic. Explain that Frothy…
Santorum also took aim at the media, blasting them being on the side of liberals. However, he did say one thing in which I concur: He claimed the folks at the Values Voters Summit will “never have elite, smart, people on our side.”
Maybe this is because smart people don’t support backward, dumb ideas.
** Here is the video where Frothy basically claims only stupid people support his cause. Finally, something for me to stand up and cheer! (3:17-3:23)
Showing posts with label rick santorum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rick santorum. Show all posts
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Venango County Hate Group Out-of-Step with Public on Important Issues
Not surprisingly, Venango County-based Hate Group, the American Family Association of Pennsylvania, is completely out-of-step with public attitudes on many issues important to the health and well-being of all in the community.
Local leadership is needed, however, to counter the effects that the AFAofPA's demonizing propaganda has on vulnerable youth and families. And, that day cannot come too soon.
Poll Finds Support For
Contraceptive Policy and Gay Unions
by Marjorie Connelly for The New York Times:
Despite the deep divide between some religious leaders and government officials over contraceptives, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll found most voters support the new federal directive that health insurance plans provide coverage for birth control.
In addition, most voters said they favored some type of legal recognition for same-sex couples, at a time when the New Jersey Legislature is set to vote on gay marriage and after a federal appellate court ruled that Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage in California was unconstitutional.
While same-sex marriage and coverage for contraceptives have generated significant debate this month, the poll suggests that voters do not place social issues high on their agenda. When asked to name one issue that presidential candidates should discuss, most voters, including Republicans who described themselves as primary voters, mentioned an economic problem, like unemployment or the budget deficit. Few said they wanted to hear the candidates talk about abortion or gay marriage, for example.
On contraceptive coverage, 65 percent of voters in the poll said they supported the Obama administration’s requirement that health insurance plans cover the cost of birth control, and 59 percent, said the health insurance plans of religiously affiliated employers should cover the cost of birth control.
In a compromise last week, President Obama said insurance companies could shoulder the costs required under the new federal health care law, but the Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious leaders continue to oppose the rule.
A majority of Catholic voters in the poll were at odds with the church’s official stance, agreeing with most other voters that religiously affiliated employers should offer health insurance that provides contraception. Jennifer Davison, 38, a Catholic from Lomita, Calif., agrees with the federal requirement. “My opinion is that it is a personal issue rather than a religious issue,” she said in a follow-up interview.
Unlike Catholics, white evangelical Christian voters were more divided, with half objecting to requiring the health insurance plans of religious employers to cover contraceptives; 43 percent supported it. “It is a religious issue with me,” said Jessica Isner, 22, an evangelical Christian from Elkins, W. Va. “I believe that providing birth control is O.K. if the hospital is not religiously affiliated.”
Gay marriage is another debate in which the Catholic laity disagrees with church doctrine. More than two-thirds of Catholic voters supported some sort of legal recognition of gay couples’ relationships: 44 percent favored marriage, and 25 percent preferred civil unions. Twenty-four percent said gay couples should receive no legal recognition.
Again, white evangelical Christian voters expressed more conservative views. A majority said there should not be legal recognition of a gay relationship, while 18 percent said they should be allowed to marry and 25 percent supported civil unions.
The nationwide telephone poll included 1,064 registered voters, of whom 226 were Catholic and 238 were white evangelical Christians. The margins of sampling error are plus or minus three percentage points for all voters, plus or minus seven points for Catholics, and plus or minus six points for white evangelical Christians.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Howard Stern Speaks Out Against Anti-Gay Bigotry!
Howard Stern Brilliantly and Hilariously Slams Anti-Gay Bigots Bachmann, Santorum
Monday, January 23, 2012
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Voice of an LGBT Rights Ally in Uganda
from the Washington Blade:
These are challenging times for LGBT people and their allies in Uganda. Fanned by anti-gay rhetoric from American evangelicals working in the country, Ugandan politicians are trying to resume debate on the infamous Anti-Homosexuality Bill first introduced in 2009, just as Republican presidential candidates are bringing anti-gay rhetoric to the primary campaign.
Although homosexual acts by both men and women are already illegal in Uganda and punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment, this bill seeks to step up enforcement and increase penalties against gays and lesbians and their straight allies. “Repeat offenders” would be subject to the death penalty. Individuals and companies promoting LGBT rights would be penalized. Ugandan citizens would be required to report any homosexual activity within 24 hours or face a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment. Ugandan citizens living abroad would be subject to extradition for having same-sex relations outside of the country. Similar sanctions would apply to HIV-positive people.
One of the leaders in the fight against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is Rev. Mark Kiyimba, minister in exile of the Unitarian Universalist Church in Kampala, Uganda’s capital. Kiyimba, a straight ally, has been forced to leave Uganda because of threats against his life. He has received numerous death threats and was brought in for police questioning for “recruiting homosexuals at his church.” The minister is currently touring the United States speaking out against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and the American evangelical pastors who support it. He has left his wife and child behind in Uganda, but plans to return to them soon.
As part of his tour, Kiyimba will be speaking at the Unitarian Universalist Church in Silver Spring Tuesday, Jan. 17 at 7:30 p.m. Senior minister Rev. Elizabeth Lerner Maclay is proud to host.
“Rev. Mark Kiyimba is one of the most courageous, compassionate and visionary religious leaders in the world today,” Maclay says. “The peril he and his congregation are facing remind us why equal rights and protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people are essential the world over — including here in Maryland. We’re sure a lot of people will want to hear about the remarkable work he and his congregation are doing in the face of incredible danger.”
Kiyimba and Maclay are quick to point out that the Ugandan bill has strong links to American politics and the effort to export the American culture wars to Africa, where it is finding fertile soil, especially in conservative sub-Saharan countries. The Anti-Homosexuality Bill was introduced in October 2009 on the heels of a two-day conference led by American pastors Scott Lively, Don Schmierer and Caleb Lee Brundidge who asserted that homosexuality is a direct threat to the cohesion of African families. Lively, a former state director for Focus on the Family, said the conference, which was attended by thousands, including prominent Ugandan politicians, was like “a nuclear bomb against the gay agenda in Uganda.”
In response to this, Kiyimba said there is a moral obligation for his church to oppose the anti-gay bill.
“Because the bill was started by evangelicals,” he says during a Blade interview this week, “we thought it necessary for our church to counter those negative attitudes. We must do everything we can to stop this bill.” He organized an LGBT conference in Kampala that was attended by about 200 activists and his church hosted an event called “Standing on the Side of Love: Reimaging Valentine’s Day” last February. Kiyimba also founded the New Life Children’s Home and the New Life Primary School, an orphanage and school for children who have lost parents to AIDS or who themselves are HIV positive.
Kiyimba, who has a strong record as an advocate for both women’s rights and gay rights, feels it is important for progressive evangelicals to stand against the hate-filled rhetoric of some American right-wing pastors.
“It was started by Focus on the Family,” he says. “They started spreading hate among the people here. They are the ones who started it by coming to Uganda and holding seminars and workshops and telling people that homosexuality cannot be healed and telling people that there is a homosexual agenda to destroy the family and that the government needs to do something — that governments all over the world need to take a strong stand against homosexuality.”
Kiyimba also noted that there are links between the debate on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda and the Republican primaries. “Politicians such as Michelle Bachmann and (Pennsylvania's own) Rick Santorum are linked to the American evangelical pastors who went to Uganda. There is no difference. They use the same language to discuss homosexuality and the traditional family, but in Uganda they are calling to kill the gay people.”
The timing of Kiyimba’s talk in Silver Spring is noteworthy because it comes right before the one-year anniversary of the murder of Ugandan activist David Kato. Since the bill was introduced, Ugandan media have issued calls for harsher punishments for “immoral” behavior. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have reported an increase in detention and torture of those suspected of having homosexual relations, and one newspaper published a list of Uganda’s 100 “top” gays and lesbians, along with their photos and addresses, and the command “hang them.” Many on the list have been threatened, beaten and ostracized. One of them, David Kato, Uganda’s most prominent gay activist, was found bludgeoned to death last January. Police investigating the crime have called it a robbery.
Asked why American gays and lesbians and their allies should be concerned about the fight in Uganda, Kiyimba says, “People should join us and understand that we are a global village now. We are all one. If I am hurt, at the end of the day, you are also hurt. We want our friends in the West to take some responsibility to speak to the government here and in Uganda so that they can have an open mind on homosexuality. It is not a vice that people choose. We need to have an international voice to speak for those voiceless people in Uganda,”
Maclay shares two more reasons why locals should attend Kiyimba’s talk. First, she notes, “We need to pay attention — stay informed, talk to our legislators, write letters to the editor, contribute funds. This is an opportunity for people in the area to learn first-hand about the situation in Uganda. We are dealing with the same issues here, issues of respect and safety, in very different, but still very significant ways.”
But more importantly, she adds, our attention to the issue could help save Kiyimba’s life. “He is going back to Uganda at the end of the month. He can be kept safe by our awareness and concern. American input has a big impact on Ugandan society. It can be an impact that spreads hatred and intolerance or we can turn it around and reach out with compassion and respect. It is my absolute belief we can turn it around. It is my great hope that our care for him and his congregation and the children they care for will keep him safe.”
These are challenging times for LGBT people and their allies in Uganda. Fanned by anti-gay rhetoric from American evangelicals working in the country, Ugandan politicians are trying to resume debate on the infamous Anti-Homosexuality Bill first introduced in 2009, just as Republican presidential candidates are bringing anti-gay rhetoric to the primary campaign.
Although homosexual acts by both men and women are already illegal in Uganda and punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment, this bill seeks to step up enforcement and increase penalties against gays and lesbians and their straight allies. “Repeat offenders” would be subject to the death penalty. Individuals and companies promoting LGBT rights would be penalized. Ugandan citizens would be required to report any homosexual activity within 24 hours or face a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment. Ugandan citizens living abroad would be subject to extradition for having same-sex relations outside of the country. Similar sanctions would apply to HIV-positive people.
One of the leaders in the fight against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is Rev. Mark Kiyimba, minister in exile of the Unitarian Universalist Church in Kampala, Uganda’s capital. Kiyimba, a straight ally, has been forced to leave Uganda because of threats against his life. He has received numerous death threats and was brought in for police questioning for “recruiting homosexuals at his church.” The minister is currently touring the United States speaking out against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and the American evangelical pastors who support it. He has left his wife and child behind in Uganda, but plans to return to them soon.
As part of his tour, Kiyimba will be speaking at the Unitarian Universalist Church in Silver Spring Tuesday, Jan. 17 at 7:30 p.m. Senior minister Rev. Elizabeth Lerner Maclay is proud to host.
“Rev. Mark Kiyimba is one of the most courageous, compassionate and visionary religious leaders in the world today,” Maclay says. “The peril he and his congregation are facing remind us why equal rights and protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people are essential the world over — including here in Maryland. We’re sure a lot of people will want to hear about the remarkable work he and his congregation are doing in the face of incredible danger.”
Kiyimba and Maclay are quick to point out that the Ugandan bill has strong links to American politics and the effort to export the American culture wars to Africa, where it is finding fertile soil, especially in conservative sub-Saharan countries. The Anti-Homosexuality Bill was introduced in October 2009 on the heels of a two-day conference led by American pastors Scott Lively, Don Schmierer and Caleb Lee Brundidge who asserted that homosexuality is a direct threat to the cohesion of African families. Lively, a former state director for Focus on the Family, said the conference, which was attended by thousands, including prominent Ugandan politicians, was like “a nuclear bomb against the gay agenda in Uganda.”
In response to this, Kiyimba said there is a moral obligation for his church to oppose the anti-gay bill.
“Because the bill was started by evangelicals,” he says during a Blade interview this week, “we thought it necessary for our church to counter those negative attitudes. We must do everything we can to stop this bill.” He organized an LGBT conference in Kampala that was attended by about 200 activists and his church hosted an event called “Standing on the Side of Love: Reimaging Valentine’s Day” last February. Kiyimba also founded the New Life Children’s Home and the New Life Primary School, an orphanage and school for children who have lost parents to AIDS or who themselves are HIV positive.
Kiyimba, who has a strong record as an advocate for both women’s rights and gay rights, feels it is important for progressive evangelicals to stand against the hate-filled rhetoric of some American right-wing pastors.
“It was started by Focus on the Family,” he says. “They started spreading hate among the people here. They are the ones who started it by coming to Uganda and holding seminars and workshops and telling people that homosexuality cannot be healed and telling people that there is a homosexual agenda to destroy the family and that the government needs to do something — that governments all over the world need to take a strong stand against homosexuality.”
Kiyimba also noted that there are links between the debate on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda and the Republican primaries. “Politicians such as Michelle Bachmann and (Pennsylvania's own) Rick Santorum are linked to the American evangelical pastors who went to Uganda. There is no difference. They use the same language to discuss homosexuality and the traditional family, but in Uganda they are calling to kill the gay people.”
The timing of Kiyimba’s talk in Silver Spring is noteworthy because it comes right before the one-year anniversary of the murder of Ugandan activist David Kato. Since the bill was introduced, Ugandan media have issued calls for harsher punishments for “immoral” behavior. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have reported an increase in detention and torture of those suspected of having homosexual relations, and one newspaper published a list of Uganda’s 100 “top” gays and lesbians, along with their photos and addresses, and the command “hang them.” Many on the list have been threatened, beaten and ostracized. One of them, David Kato, Uganda’s most prominent gay activist, was found bludgeoned to death last January. Police investigating the crime have called it a robbery.
Asked why American gays and lesbians and their allies should be concerned about the fight in Uganda, Kiyimba says, “People should join us and understand that we are a global village now. We are all one. If I am hurt, at the end of the day, you are also hurt. We want our friends in the West to take some responsibility to speak to the government here and in Uganda so that they can have an open mind on homosexuality. It is not a vice that people choose. We need to have an international voice to speak for those voiceless people in Uganda,”
Maclay shares two more reasons why locals should attend Kiyimba’s talk. First, she notes, “We need to pay attention — stay informed, talk to our legislators, write letters to the editor, contribute funds. This is an opportunity for people in the area to learn first-hand about the situation in Uganda. We are dealing with the same issues here, issues of respect and safety, in very different, but still very significant ways.”
But more importantly, she adds, our attention to the issue could help save Kiyimba’s life. “He is going back to Uganda at the end of the month. He can be kept safe by our awareness and concern. American input has a big impact on Ugandan society. It can be an impact that spreads hatred and intolerance or we can turn it around and reach out with compassion and respect. It is my absolute belief we can turn it around. It is my great hope that our care for him and his congregation and the children they care for will keep him safe.”
Monday, November 21, 2011
Hypochristians
by Laurence Watts for The Huffington Post:
More learned people than I claim that William Shakespeare originated more than 1,000 words of the English Language. The fact that Shakespeare (c. 1564-1616) predated Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of The English Language (published in 1755) undoubtedly helped cement his reputation in this regard. Nowadays it's much harder to create a new word that catches on.
Huffington Post blogger and author Mark Simpson succeeded in this regard when in 1994 he coined the term "metrosexual," a term once reserved for the likes of David Beckham, but which can now be used to describe almost every man in every mall the world over. It's one of those things that I wish I'd thought of. It seems so obvious with hindsight, and yet to have spotted the trend, coined the phrase and watched it go viral requires pinpoint accuracy and not a small amount of luck.
In 2003, Dan Savage famously created the word "santorum." If you're not familiar with its meaning, I'll let you look it up rather than describe it here. In doing so he has effectively neutralized one of America's most enduring homophobes. It was a masterstroke that still fills me with awe.
My most recent why-didn't-I-think-of-that moment came recently while watching Comedy Central's The Colbert Report. During a scathing report covering ridiculous Republican amendments to the Michigan Senate's anti-bullying bill (SB 137), Stephen and his writing team coined the phrase "hypochristian" as a joke. The report was clever and scathing, but the word "hypochristian" hit my ears like a kipper soaked in rubbing alcohol being slapped across my face. What an amazingly powerful word! What a great invention.
"Hypochristian," derived from "hypocrite" and "Christian," is a word I would encourage you all to use in future. If I may, I would like to provide you with my proposal for its definition:
"A hypochristian is someone who claims to be Christian but fails to follow the principal teachings of Jesus Christ (hereby summarised as love, tolerance and forgiveness), preferring for selfish, cultural or political reasons to selectively emphasize passages from the Old Testament instead."
Allow me to give you two examples so you'll know how to spot a hypochristian in future. Let's start with Newt Gingrich.
Newt Gingrich claims to be a Roman Catholic. He opposes same-sex marriage, believing that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. As Speaker of the House he pushed the Defense of Marriage Act through the House of Representatives in 1996 when it looked like marriage equality might be won in Hawaii. Despite opposing marriage for same-sex couples, he has taken full advantage of his right to marry: he has married three times.
Gingrich married his first wife, Jackie Battley, in 1962. In 1980 he had his first affair with a woman called Marianne Ginther. He divorced Battley in 1981 and married Ginther, who became his second wife. Not having learned his lesson, he then began an affair with Callista Bisek in the mid 1980s. He finally divorced Ginther in 2000 and married Bisek, who then became his third wife. Not only did Gingrich clearly misunderstand Jesus when he said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," but he also appears to have ignored what the Bible says about adultery. Without a shadow of a doubt, Gingrich is a hypochristian.
Texas Governor Rick Perry also claims to be a Christian. Yet in spite of being "pro-life," he is a strong supporter and celebrator of the death penalty. This may very well be in accord with the Old Testament's "an eye for an eye" view of crime and punishment, but it's hard to believe that Jesus Christ would have allowed 234 people to be executed by the state of Texas had he been governor. It's also worth emphasizing that "thou shalt not kill" covers criminals just as much as it covers their victims. Oh, and before anyone points out, I'm well aware that the people of Texas would never actually elect Jesus Christ as governor. Perry is undoubtedly a hypochristian.
I, for one, am fed up with hypochristians denying gay men and women their human rights in the name of "God" through some kind of selective amnesia of what Christianity is about. These people are taking the Christ out of Christianity and replacing him with their own right-wing agenda. Put simply: Jesus did not preach hate. Those who use his name to justify their own hate and ignorance need to be called out. We now have the perfect word with which to do so.
More learned people than I claim that William Shakespeare originated more than 1,000 words of the English Language. The fact that Shakespeare (c. 1564-1616) predated Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of The English Language (published in 1755) undoubtedly helped cement his reputation in this regard. Nowadays it's much harder to create a new word that catches on.
Huffington Post blogger and author Mark Simpson succeeded in this regard when in 1994 he coined the term "metrosexual," a term once reserved for the likes of David Beckham, but which can now be used to describe almost every man in every mall the world over. It's one of those things that I wish I'd thought of. It seems so obvious with hindsight, and yet to have spotted the trend, coined the phrase and watched it go viral requires pinpoint accuracy and not a small amount of luck.
In 2003, Dan Savage famously created the word "santorum." If you're not familiar with its meaning, I'll let you look it up rather than describe it here. In doing so he has effectively neutralized one of America's most enduring homophobes. It was a masterstroke that still fills me with awe.
My most recent why-didn't-I-think-of-that moment came recently while watching Comedy Central's The Colbert Report. During a scathing report covering ridiculous Republican amendments to the Michigan Senate's anti-bullying bill (SB 137), Stephen and his writing team coined the phrase "hypochristian" as a joke. The report was clever and scathing, but the word "hypochristian" hit my ears like a kipper soaked in rubbing alcohol being slapped across my face. What an amazingly powerful word! What a great invention.
"Hypochristian," derived from "hypocrite" and "Christian," is a word I would encourage you all to use in future. If I may, I would like to provide you with my proposal for its definition:
"A hypochristian is someone who claims to be Christian but fails to follow the principal teachings of Jesus Christ (hereby summarised as love, tolerance and forgiveness), preferring for selfish, cultural or political reasons to selectively emphasize passages from the Old Testament instead."
Allow me to give you two examples so you'll know how to spot a hypochristian in future. Let's start with Newt Gingrich.
Newt Gingrich claims to be a Roman Catholic. He opposes same-sex marriage, believing that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. As Speaker of the House he pushed the Defense of Marriage Act through the House of Representatives in 1996 when it looked like marriage equality might be won in Hawaii. Despite opposing marriage for same-sex couples, he has taken full advantage of his right to marry: he has married three times.
Gingrich married his first wife, Jackie Battley, in 1962. In 1980 he had his first affair with a woman called Marianne Ginther. He divorced Battley in 1981 and married Ginther, who became his second wife. Not having learned his lesson, he then began an affair with Callista Bisek in the mid 1980s. He finally divorced Ginther in 2000 and married Bisek, who then became his third wife. Not only did Gingrich clearly misunderstand Jesus when he said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," but he also appears to have ignored what the Bible says about adultery. Without a shadow of a doubt, Gingrich is a hypochristian.
Texas Governor Rick Perry also claims to be a Christian. Yet in spite of being "pro-life," he is a strong supporter and celebrator of the death penalty. This may very well be in accord with the Old Testament's "an eye for an eye" view of crime and punishment, but it's hard to believe that Jesus Christ would have allowed 234 people to be executed by the state of Texas had he been governor. It's also worth emphasizing that "thou shalt not kill" covers criminals just as much as it covers their victims. Oh, and before anyone points out, I'm well aware that the people of Texas would never actually elect Jesus Christ as governor. Perry is undoubtedly a hypochristian.
I, for one, am fed up with hypochristians denying gay men and women their human rights in the name of "God" through some kind of selective amnesia of what Christianity is about. These people are taking the Christ out of Christianity and replacing him with their own right-wing agenda. Put simply: Jesus did not preach hate. Those who use his name to justify their own hate and ignorance need to be called out. We now have the perfect word with which to do so.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Friday, May 14, 2010
Santorum: He's Back and He's Still Viciously Homophobic
Controversial Former Senator, Onetime Target of Anger From Left, Courts Conservatives and Considers 2012 Presidential Run
by Brian Montopoli for CBS News Politics:
Rick Santorum wants back in the game.
Four years ago, the two-term Pennsylvania senator lost his reelection bid by a whopping 18 points, the worst loss for a sitting senator since before Ronald Reagan became president.
With that loss, Santorum -- a staunch social conservative who had become a target of the left for his role in divisive debates over issues such as homosexuality and evolution -- faded from the national scene.
This year, however, Santorum has been not-so-quietly laying the groundwork for a return to an even bigger stage: The 2012 Republican presidential nomination fight.
Santorum, a Fox News contributor, raised more than $700,000 through his Political Action Committee in the second half of 2009, with most of that money going to direct mail solicitations designed to build a conservative base of support and national profile. He has already traveled to key early primary states, and in a January letter to supporters stated flatly that he is "actively considering the 2012 race."
The author of "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good," Santorum might seem an odd candidate for the current moment. He's remembered far more for his commitment to social issues than the concerns about the country's fiscal problems animating the Tea Party movement.
But somewhat under-the-radar, Santorum has kept his profile up among conservatives via op-eds and a Friday guest-hosting gig on Bill Bennett's radio show. He now "sees an opening for someone who can unite the various primary factions -- economic libertarians, party establishment types and cultural conservatives," according to CBS News Chief Political Consultant Marc Ambinder.
Santorum will likely seek to position himself as "a true-blue, reliable social conservative who proved his conservatism in the Senate," said Stuart Rothenberg, editor and publisher of The Rothenberg Political Report. "He can argue he won in Pennsylvania, which is not normally predisposed to support conservatives, so that proves his abilities."
There are those for whom Santorum is -- literally -- a dirty word. Back in 2003, the senator gave an interview to the Associated Press in which he referenced polygamy, incest and "man on dog" sex in a conversation about homosexuality, setting off a firestorm of anger on the left. Journalist, sex advice columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage held a contest to get readers to come up with a new meaning for "santorum" -- the winning, easy-to-Google entry associates the conservative senator's name with a certain kind of sexual intercourse.
In an interview, Santorum said he was hurt by the reaction to his comments and insisted he had been mischaracterized. His interviewer, he said, had engaged in a "hatchet job" that clouded the fact that he was simply making a legal argument that "if the court created a right that sexual activity was all based on consent, then consent can be consent to do anything." Santorum said his focus was not on gay sexual activity specifically, and went on to stress his work to fight AIDS worldwide.
(In an e-mailed statement, Associated Press Media Relations Manager Jack Stokes said, "Our story was accurate then, and it has withstood the passage of time." You can see a transcript of the interview here.)
That isn't to say Santorum, a strong opponent of same-sex marriage, has exactly changed course. But he does seem to want to avoid controversy. Asked about his position on homosexuality, Santorum said, "I have no problem from a public policy point of view with homosexuality."
Asked about his personal feelings on the subject, Santorum said, carefully, "I have personal feelings on a lot of things." He added that people have a right to do what they want in the privacy of their own home. "There are things that people do that I think are good, there are things that are bad, that really doesn't matter much," he stated.
Savage said in an e-mail that Santorum's comments from the 2003 AP interview were rightly interpreted "as specifically and viciously homophobic."
"In the Senate, Rick Santorum called banning gay marriage 'the ultimate homeland security issue,' essentially arguing that the existence of gay couples and gay families represented a threat to the safety and security of the nation," said Savage.
Savage criticized Santorum for now stressing his work on global AIDS, which he called a largely-straight epidemic that anti-gay politicians use to mask their anti-gay sentiments.
"I don't expect a lot from Rick Santorum, but I'm saddened to see that he lacks the courage of his own bigoted convictions," he said.
Santorum comes across as sincere in his beliefs in person. Asked at a conservative conference earlier this month why he backed Arlen Specter over the more conservative Pat Toomey in the 2004 Pennsylvania Senate primary, he said he made a hard decision grounded in his opposition to abortion.
Specter, Santorum said, had agreed he would support then-President George W. Bush's Supreme Court nominees no matter what, and Santorum wanted to make sure the court was as conservative as possible. (Specter denies this assertion.)
"You questioned my judgment, and you have every right to do so," Santorum said. "But please don't question my intention to do what's right for those little babies."
Still, the decision to back Specter -- who is now a Democrat -- won't help Santorum in his quest to emerge as a viable alternative to the two expected entrants to the GOP primary field, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, along with whoever else takes the plunge.
Santorum now calls himself a "tea party person" who regrets that he and his colleagues voted for the 2003 Medicare prescription drug legislation without making sure it was paid for.
And while he hits all the notes one might expect from a conservative GOP presidential aspirant -- he strongly opposes the health care bill and says President Obama has damaged the economy and taken steps to "weaken our national security position" -- Santorum is not incapable of surprising those who expect an unblinking commitment to orthodox conservatism. Asked how he's changed since he lost his reelection bid, Santorum said he had become more open to "a lot more of the alternative energy types of things."
"I'm now of the opinion that anything that produces energy within the United States, given the global conflict that we're in, is something I'm for," he said. While he still believes in drilling for oil and fossil fuels, Santorum said, he's "open to other stuff," including creating incentives for bio-fuel production.
At the same time, Santorum has resisted leftward drift when it comes to the controversial social issues that once made him such a prominent target. Asked about his position on evolution, Santorum requested a definition of the term more than once; he then suggested that the question actually concerned "Darwinism."
"Look, I believe that we were created by God," Santorum said. "That we have a soul. Now, if you can square that with evolution, fine. I don't know. I'm not an expert in evolution. What I can say is that I believe that we are created in the image and likeness of God, that we have a soul, and that we are not just a mistake. A mutation. I think we are something that God put on this earth, and have a divine spark, as Abraham Lincoln said."
"My feeling is the bottom line is I think it's important for society to understand that we are not just animals," he added. "…if we are just animals, and we're no different than any other animal out there, then the world is a very different place. And our expectations of others are very different. And I don't think it's true. And I don't think it's healthy."
Santorum's best hope in a 2012 run for the White House may be to position himself as some combination of Mike Huckabee and Marco Rubio -- someone (like Huckabee) socially conservative enough to win over Iowa caucus-goers and (like Rubio) fiscally conservative enough to excite the Tea Partiers fed up with the traditional GOP.
If he ultimately does enter the race, according to Rothenberg, he won't be able to get by on name recognition. Whether he can make a splash will depend in large part on whether he can find his niche once the primary field takes shape.
"My guess is most people around the country don't really remember Rick Santorum," Rothenberg said. "He starts pretty far back in the pack, and he'd have to really commit to it."
Santorum clearly has the desire to do just that. Asked why he might run, he said Republicans need a standard bearer who has "stood and they've fought" for what makes America great.
"They didn't always win," he said. "But they've fought for those things."
by Brian Montopoli for CBS News Politics:
Rick Santorum wants back in the game.
Four years ago, the two-term Pennsylvania senator lost his reelection bid by a whopping 18 points, the worst loss for a sitting senator since before Ronald Reagan became president.
With that loss, Santorum -- a staunch social conservative who had become a target of the left for his role in divisive debates over issues such as homosexuality and evolution -- faded from the national scene.
This year, however, Santorum has been not-so-quietly laying the groundwork for a return to an even bigger stage: The 2012 Republican presidential nomination fight.
Santorum, a Fox News contributor, raised more than $700,000 through his Political Action Committee in the second half of 2009, with most of that money going to direct mail solicitations designed to build a conservative base of support and national profile. He has already traveled to key early primary states, and in a January letter to supporters stated flatly that he is "actively considering the 2012 race."
The author of "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good," Santorum might seem an odd candidate for the current moment. He's remembered far more for his commitment to social issues than the concerns about the country's fiscal problems animating the Tea Party movement.
But somewhat under-the-radar, Santorum has kept his profile up among conservatives via op-eds and a Friday guest-hosting gig on Bill Bennett's radio show. He now "sees an opening for someone who can unite the various primary factions -- economic libertarians, party establishment types and cultural conservatives," according to CBS News Chief Political Consultant Marc Ambinder.
Santorum will likely seek to position himself as "a true-blue, reliable social conservative who proved his conservatism in the Senate," said Stuart Rothenberg, editor and publisher of The Rothenberg Political Report. "He can argue he won in Pennsylvania, which is not normally predisposed to support conservatives, so that proves his abilities."
There are those for whom Santorum is -- literally -- a dirty word. Back in 2003, the senator gave an interview to the Associated Press in which he referenced polygamy, incest and "man on dog" sex in a conversation about homosexuality, setting off a firestorm of anger on the left. Journalist, sex advice columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage held a contest to get readers to come up with a new meaning for "santorum" -- the winning, easy-to-Google entry associates the conservative senator's name with a certain kind of sexual intercourse.
In an interview, Santorum said he was hurt by the reaction to his comments and insisted he had been mischaracterized. His interviewer, he said, had engaged in a "hatchet job" that clouded the fact that he was simply making a legal argument that "if the court created a right that sexual activity was all based on consent, then consent can be consent to do anything." Santorum said his focus was not on gay sexual activity specifically, and went on to stress his work to fight AIDS worldwide.
(In an e-mailed statement, Associated Press Media Relations Manager Jack Stokes said, "Our story was accurate then, and it has withstood the passage of time." You can see a transcript of the interview here.)
That isn't to say Santorum, a strong opponent of same-sex marriage, has exactly changed course. But he does seem to want to avoid controversy. Asked about his position on homosexuality, Santorum said, "I have no problem from a public policy point of view with homosexuality."
Asked about his personal feelings on the subject, Santorum said, carefully, "I have personal feelings on a lot of things." He added that people have a right to do what they want in the privacy of their own home. "There are things that people do that I think are good, there are things that are bad, that really doesn't matter much," he stated.
Savage said in an e-mail that Santorum's comments from the 2003 AP interview were rightly interpreted "as specifically and viciously homophobic."
"In the Senate, Rick Santorum called banning gay marriage 'the ultimate homeland security issue,' essentially arguing that the existence of gay couples and gay families represented a threat to the safety and security of the nation," said Savage.
Savage criticized Santorum for now stressing his work on global AIDS, which he called a largely-straight epidemic that anti-gay politicians use to mask their anti-gay sentiments.
"I don't expect a lot from Rick Santorum, but I'm saddened to see that he lacks the courage of his own bigoted convictions," he said.
Santorum comes across as sincere in his beliefs in person. Asked at a conservative conference earlier this month why he backed Arlen Specter over the more conservative Pat Toomey in the 2004 Pennsylvania Senate primary, he said he made a hard decision grounded in his opposition to abortion.
Specter, Santorum said, had agreed he would support then-President George W. Bush's Supreme Court nominees no matter what, and Santorum wanted to make sure the court was as conservative as possible. (Specter denies this assertion.)
"You questioned my judgment, and you have every right to do so," Santorum said. "But please don't question my intention to do what's right for those little babies."
Still, the decision to back Specter -- who is now a Democrat -- won't help Santorum in his quest to emerge as a viable alternative to the two expected entrants to the GOP primary field, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, along with whoever else takes the plunge.
Santorum now calls himself a "tea party person" who regrets that he and his colleagues voted for the 2003 Medicare prescription drug legislation without making sure it was paid for.
And while he hits all the notes one might expect from a conservative GOP presidential aspirant -- he strongly opposes the health care bill and says President Obama has damaged the economy and taken steps to "weaken our national security position" -- Santorum is not incapable of surprising those who expect an unblinking commitment to orthodox conservatism. Asked how he's changed since he lost his reelection bid, Santorum said he had become more open to "a lot more of the alternative energy types of things."
"I'm now of the opinion that anything that produces energy within the United States, given the global conflict that we're in, is something I'm for," he said. While he still believes in drilling for oil and fossil fuels, Santorum said, he's "open to other stuff," including creating incentives for bio-fuel production.
At the same time, Santorum has resisted leftward drift when it comes to the controversial social issues that once made him such a prominent target. Asked about his position on evolution, Santorum requested a definition of the term more than once; he then suggested that the question actually concerned "Darwinism."
"Look, I believe that we were created by God," Santorum said. "That we have a soul. Now, if you can square that with evolution, fine. I don't know. I'm not an expert in evolution. What I can say is that I believe that we are created in the image and likeness of God, that we have a soul, and that we are not just a mistake. A mutation. I think we are something that God put on this earth, and have a divine spark, as Abraham Lincoln said."
"My feeling is the bottom line is I think it's important for society to understand that we are not just animals," he added. "…if we are just animals, and we're no different than any other animal out there, then the world is a very different place. And our expectations of others are very different. And I don't think it's true. And I don't think it's healthy."
Santorum's best hope in a 2012 run for the White House may be to position himself as some combination of Mike Huckabee and Marco Rubio -- someone (like Huckabee) socially conservative enough to win over Iowa caucus-goers and (like Rubio) fiscally conservative enough to excite the Tea Partiers fed up with the traditional GOP.
If he ultimately does enter the race, according to Rothenberg, he won't be able to get by on name recognition. Whether he can make a splash will depend in large part on whether he can find his niche once the primary field takes shape.
"My guess is most people around the country don't really remember Rick Santorum," Rothenberg said. "He starts pretty far back in the pack, and he'd have to really commit to it."
Santorum clearly has the desire to do just that. Asked why he might run, he said Republicans need a standard bearer who has "stood and they've fought" for what makes America great.
"They didn't always win," he said. "But they've fought for those things."
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum Offers Up Some Racist Dating Advice
The Republican gave some dating advice, then took the opportunity to say that African-American men aren't interested in marriage.
By Tana Ganeva, AlterNet
This past Monday, former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., was tapped by Fox news to discuss the crucial, timely matter of Obama's Saturday night date. Santorum covered the relative advantages of various date destinations (Broadway or the corner bar?). He philosophically mused about what makes a marriage special (it's, in fact, the mundane!). And, he also took the opportunity to casually propagate some terrible racial myths and stereotypes (via Salon):
Number one, I think it's great that the president has a date night with his wife. He's a role model. He's a role model in particular, whether he likes it or not, in the African-American community.
And you have an African-American community, particularly in the poor inner city areas, we're looking at out of wedlock birthrates in three quarters to 75 percent (sic) of children being born out of wedlock. Marriage is an institution that's a bridge too far for too many African-American women and is not desirable among African-American males.
I know this doesn't need explaining, but just for fun: Here Santorum taps into centuries-old stereotypes that paint black men as sexually deviant and irresponsible, and hence to blame for the existence of the black underclass (as opposed to blatant as well as structural racism, the lack of support for all poor people and families, a legacy of violence and discrimination, etc. etc.)
Marriage is an institution that is "not desirable" for African-American men? Really?
Santorum also slips up by saying "African-American women and men", without qualifying the statement with some sort of reference to class status -- thereby implying that African-Amercans are naturally averse to marriage, regardless of class, social status, or education. This also nicely dovetails with classic racist myths about African-American sexuality.
Anyway, nice to know that social conservatives can deeply embarrass themselves and the GOP even when talking about something as trivial as the President's date night.
Here's the rest of Santorum's wise take on modern relationships in case you need some dating advice:
I think he has to realize that flying to New York is self-indulgent. Go down to the corner bar and have a drink, a shot and a beer. It does not matter where you go with your wife, is that it's with your wife. That's really the point... I would make the argument, the simpler the date, the more normal it is.
It connects to people. Here is what you do. Here is how you do it. And it is not going to Broadway. All right, once in awhile, you do something special. But it is mundane that really makes the marriage special, but because you are with your wife the mundane isn't mundane. It's special.
By Tana Ganeva, AlterNet
This past Monday, former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., was tapped by Fox news to discuss the crucial, timely matter of Obama's Saturday night date. Santorum covered the relative advantages of various date destinations (Broadway or the corner bar?). He philosophically mused about what makes a marriage special (it's, in fact, the mundane!). And, he also took the opportunity to casually propagate some terrible racial myths and stereotypes (via Salon):
Number one, I think it's great that the president has a date night with his wife. He's a role model. He's a role model in particular, whether he likes it or not, in the African-American community.
And you have an African-American community, particularly in the poor inner city areas, we're looking at out of wedlock birthrates in three quarters to 75 percent (sic) of children being born out of wedlock. Marriage is an institution that's a bridge too far for too many African-American women and is not desirable among African-American males.
I know this doesn't need explaining, but just for fun: Here Santorum taps into centuries-old stereotypes that paint black men as sexually deviant and irresponsible, and hence to blame for the existence of the black underclass (as opposed to blatant as well as structural racism, the lack of support for all poor people and families, a legacy of violence and discrimination, etc. etc.)
Marriage is an institution that is "not desirable" for African-American men? Really?
Santorum also slips up by saying "African-American women and men", without qualifying the statement with some sort of reference to class status -- thereby implying that African-Amercans are naturally averse to marriage, regardless of class, social status, or education. This also nicely dovetails with classic racist myths about African-American sexuality.
Anyway, nice to know that social conservatives can deeply embarrass themselves and the GOP even when talking about something as trivial as the President's date night.
Here's the rest of Santorum's wise take on modern relationships in case you need some dating advice:
I think he has to realize that flying to New York is self-indulgent. Go down to the corner bar and have a drink, a shot and a beer. It does not matter where you go with your wife, is that it's with your wife. That's really the point... I would make the argument, the simpler the date, the more normal it is.
It connects to people. Here is what you do. Here is how you do it. And it is not going to Broadway. All right, once in awhile, you do something special. But it is mundane that really makes the marriage special, but because you are with your wife the mundane isn't mundane. It's special.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)