On shows like The Daily Show, people have chuckled that former Senator Rick Santorum’s name is synonymous with a graphic sexual act. Gay columnist Dan Savage launched a campaign for people to link the name to the act on Google. This prompted Santorum to contact Google and complain that the company is “spreading filth.”
Savage asked readers to link the name to an act described as “the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.” I understand Savage’s outrage over Santorum’s views which include not only anti-homosexual positions but an attack generally on the right of privacy for all adults. However, this campaign degrades the debate and makes the opponents of Santorum appear juvenile, crude, and petty. It matches the hateful and unhinged rhetoric of the far right with graphic and shocking rhetoric for the left. Who wins in such a contest? I expect it is Santorum who wins by showing that the left engages in sexually crude tactics — fulfilling his stereotypes of the alliance in favor of gay rights.
Santorum is going on the offensive, contacting Google and crying foul:
“I suspect if something was up there like that about Joe Biden, they’d get rid of it. If you’re a responsible business, you don’t let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country. To have a business allow that type of filth to be purveyed through their website or through their system is something that they say they can’t handle but I suspect that’s not true.”
Google’s spokesperson explained that “Google’s search results are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the web. Users who want content removed from the Internet should contact the webmaster of the page directly. Once the webmaster takes the page down from the web, it will be removed from Google’s search results through our usual crawling process.” However, the spokesperson added that the company does not “remove content from our search results, except in very limited cases such as illegal content and violations of our webmaster guidelines.”
While I expect some may rejoice in the controversy created by this campaign, it has further degraded an already degrading campaign for the entire country as candidates fight to overdo each other in headline grabbing rhetoric and extreme positions.
Source: Politico
Santorum, like the teabaggers, will just have to live with the mockery …
“O would some Power the gift to give us
To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us,”
from Robert Burns poem entitled “The Louse”
You are correct Frankly. Santorum is an evil and sick human being that wants the Bible to control all of our lives and our government. I don’t think anyone can look petty when compared to Santorum. Well, maybe Rick Perry can, but no one else!
Random – No Brian expects all media to protect all Republicans from anything that might offend their precious fee-fees. They have successfully browbeaten the papers and news shows from calling out Republican wrong doing or trying to play “both sides do it” on issues like voter suppression and campaign contributions. They don’t yet have a muzzle on the Internet but they are working on it.
This has been a problem for Rick Santorum since 2003, when Savage ran his famous column asking for definitions. It’s now only a huge problem because Rick’s running for president and Rick’s whining like a baby about a problem he brought on himself. Personally, I’m not unhappy about this result, because, to me, it’s rather like what happened to Charles Boycott, whose name became the source of “boycott.” It’s just that Mr. Boycott was just a lowly land agent, while Mr. Santorum happened to be an (allegedly) highly-respected *snort* Senator from Pennsylvania. Call it the evolution of language.
http://thepragmaticprogressive.org/wp/2011/08/16/could-you-be-targeted-in-gops-anti-gay-witch-hunt-commission/
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/08/2012-campaign-a-uniquely-anti-gay-gop-field.html The whole field is anti-gay.
Savage coined the term based on suggestions solicited from his column’s audience. It was in response to Santorum equating gay sex with man-on-dog sex. If you’re looking to assign blame for debasement, the thread starts with Santorum’s original remarks. T
I find nothing redeeming about Santorum. He represents a twisted religious faction that in my view has no place in politics. Although Mr Savage’s fun & games with “Santorum” are a bit over the top it’s still funny. Last year on Real Time Savage was hilarious elaborating that he wouldn’t mind going Santorum on his ass. Perverted? Yes but funny..
Whats truly perverted is the story about Santorum’s stillborn child that he and the Mrs took home, dressed him and took pictures with their other children. Twisted religious freaks or what?
I’m not sure which is funnier… thinking Santorum remotely matters or feigned outrage that a well known bigot is being mocked.
“Oh please, won’t someone treat this homophobe polling at 2% with the respect courtesy he deserves!”
@Brian,
You really expect search engines to screen out smear campaigns? So now Google has to investigate what’s true and what’s not? Should be pretty easy; maybe they can get to the bottom of Obama’s birth certificate, the murders the Clintons supposedly conspired to commit, whether Al Gore invented the internet, etc.
Certainly you see the problem here, right?
Oh please, the democrats have been getting smacked for years in public discourse by not deigning to play the dirty game the republicans have mastered. Decorum and taking the high road is great, but it’s little consolation for repeatedly losing elections: choosing not to play the game is a sure way to lose.
High-minded public political discourse in the US is a myth based only on wishful thinking — for every respectful debate between our lionized founding fathers, there were dozens of cases of dirty tricks and muckraking that “we” have collectively chosen to ignore.
The moronic commenters above illustrate the difficulty here; through linking campaigns, “parody” sites that don’t even attempt to be funny, etc., you can effectively defame someone without satisfying the legal definition of defamation, and there’s little the defamed can do about it. When it happens to one of your left-wing heroes, maybe you’ll think it’s not so funny.
(The Google response is obtuse, BTW; intentionally not getting it. The issue re Google is not the content of the original sites, but the Google policy of not screening out fake associations, i.e., smear campaigns, in its search results. And Google would screen it out if the target was, e.g., Michelle Obama.)
Maybe Santorum could fight back by making the name ‘savage’ mean something bad, like: fierce, violent, and uncontrolled. That would teach him a lesson!
A- Its not just google – bing & yahoo return the same site as #1 why is little ricky only going after google?
B- The thing is a joke, it has been kept alive mostly because little ricky brings it up, causing more hits for spreadingsantorum.com. How many people, let alone Republican primary voters, would have ever known of the issue if not for his bringing it up?
C- while he likes to pretend it is the web sites fault that he can’t crack 2% in the polls his personality and policies are his real problem. He should work on those.
D- Yes, it is crude & rude but it was in response to little ricky saying gay marriage is like screwing dogs (and later he threw in pedophilia). That is crude, rude and potentially life threatening given his audience. If you want a polite debate on the subject I’d suggest you get the wingnuts to stop spreading santorum about the issue & discuss the actual issues.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/08/flashback-rick-perry-supports-criminalizing-gay-sex Rick Perry is the second most anti-gay candidate although the rest of them don’t support the repeal of DADT either and if elected could make moves to reinstall it.
Obama: n. A smooth-talking two-faced huckster, who says one thing and does another.
Uh oh, the word “intercourse” may be next on the flat earth society’s list.
Let there be free intercourse of course.
I think your timeline is a bit off. Savage created his new definition for Santorum pre-Google (or at least pre-Google dominance). It’s only just now really making in impact because of Santorum’s presidential campaign.
Oh…MY…..LOL…..