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
mespo, this is what you wrote when you wanted to point out a hypocrite that you didn’t want to attack based on perceived gay attributes (or even obesity.)
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/09/14/bachmann-attacks-perry-for-giving-girls-anti-cancer-vaccine-a-retardation/#comment-267900
Apologies in advance but, query: Will continued public dancing with an obviously gay Porky Pig lead to retardation?
A simple rule of common sense on the Internet, if you have to write “Apologies in advance”, just hit cancel on the post.
The rest of you, and mespo, this is the ironic, not bigoted, not stereotyped, funny, funny, funny, astute, enlightened, joke that you are defending. A joke, “gay porky pig” that goes to Bachmann’s hypocrisy and not to any perceived personal gay characteristics you attribute to him.
Who should I believe? Mespo/Mike/lottakatz/swarthmore mom or my lying eyes?
Well most of you are much more highly successful and lawyers than I, so I guess I’ll defer to you.
http://youtu.be/_4e8iAofnrw
In addition to what Arendt said about hypocrites, they’re just plain ol’ funny too.
anon:
My condemnation was to his hypocrisy, not his purported sexual orientation. There is nothing inherently wrong with being gay; however there is with being publically against what you purportedly are for political and financial gains. I would happily point out the same for the likes of Al Sharpton, Bill Clinton, and George Bush –either or both.
You likely missed one of my favorite quotes from a giant in the field of political philosophy but it still bears repeating:
“What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core.”
~Hanna Arendt
And as I explained once before, my thoughts are not amenable to your sophomoric labeling. I see no sacred cows in my evaluations of situations and people. Just as there are no persons above criticism, no group enjoys immunity either. The group known as “hypocrites,” being perhaps the least worthy.
By the way, it’s Dewars– and good one at that.
Why thank you lottakatz. The feeling is mutual.
Honestly, I think it’s commendable how you folks stick up for Mespo and assure us all that his attacks were not based on a homophobic slur, or were justifiable even if they were.
That’s why half the quadrant is learning to speak Republicaniii!
“I truly find it interesting that you are discussing Mespo’s “homophobia” on a thread asking the question about the possible “unfairness” of Dan Savages using Santorum’s name, to attack possibly one of the greatest homophobes in politics today. ”
Huh!?
First Mike, I’m not discussing Mespo’s homophobia, I am discussing the stupidity and hypocrisy of liberals, progressives, and iconoclasts (that means you) using homophobic attacks on others. Mespo is a nice example of how it has happened here just recently.
I can’t understand why you think my discussion is so interesting. It seems directly on topic.
“It’s not my falsely alleged homophobia that offends anon. It’s my none-to- disguised derision at hypocrite Bachmann’s purported homophobia, his weight and speech impediments notwithstanding.”
Put down the bourbon mespo. That paragraph made no sense whatsoever.
Guilty by association I am.
Mespo is one of the intellectual bright lights on this blawg. Classically trained I suspect, and as astute as they come. His knowledge and insight always delights me when I read his arguments. I respect him greatly and have him pegged as an old fashioned, middle of the road politically, bona fide. intellectual. It was some of his postings that first caught my eye on this blawg and gave me cause to stick around. I owe a couple of years of entertainment to, in good measure, Mespo. My only quibble is that his prose lacks as much snark as I’d like. (Virtually nil snark in any normal discussion in fact.) Obviously, coming from me that statement is also a compliment. I luvs me some Mespo. In a chaste, christian, intellectual way of course.
If it’s come down to Mespo making a snarky statement in bad taste that Mr. Bachmann is a closeted gay then I’m coming down on the side of ‘you can take it to the bank’.
As an exercise go to Wikipedia and call up ‘republican sex scandals’ and ‘democratic sex scandals’. Then count up which group has, in the last 10-15 years a higher number of them being homosexual sex scandals’. Then check the names/politics of the individuals. Odds are, if one is an anti-gay, family values politician or enabler) getting caught in a gay sex scandal you’re going to be a Republican. If I were a betting person I’d put my money on Mr. Bachmann being so far in the closet he can see Narnia.
Notice how Bachmann said previously that homosexuals “needed to be educated and disciplined”? Not ‘needed self discipline’, but needed to BE DISCIPLINED. Maybe he sublimates his confusion with other games but If his Dom isn’t a male I’ll be surprised. Unless it’s Michele. Srsly.
Great clip, Swarthmore mom. Thanks for posting it.
Mike S:
It’s not my falsely alleged homophobia that offends anon. It’s my none-to- disguised derision at hypocrite Bachmann’s purported homophobia, his weight and speech impediments notwithstanding.
Alan Simpson…voice in the wilderness…
Swarthmore Mom,
Awesome clip!
i’ve found someone who sympathizes with rick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Crapper
sexual crudeness is in the eye of the beholder
one person’s sexual crudeness is another person’s sexual turn on
Santorum is a crybaby, I have no sympathy for him and people who hold his views, he deserves this attention, he invited it
We have too much to worry about to give this any attention, this is nothing but a distraction
“…… right-winger Jonathan Turley decided Rick Santorum needed protection?
And note how Jonathan Turley omits Republican Rick Santorum’s long history of viciously degrading an entire class of people but Turley still manages to deftly create a false equivalency with those that are the VICTIMS of Republican Santorum’s history of attacks….”
Then they came for,
I would seriously urge you to brush up on your reading comprehension skills, or in the alternative to stop your arduous multi-tasking. You seem to be missing the point of the discussion in a rush to answer what is not being stated. Slow down, breathe deeply and read it again.
Anon,
I truly find it interesting that you are discussing Mespo’s “homophobia” on a thread asking the question about the possible “unfairness” of Dan Savages using Santorum’s name, to attack possibly one of the greatest homophobes in politics today. As for Bachman I truly believe that anyone who feels there is a “cure” for homosexuality, as if one were needed, is indeed a homophobic bigot. When it comes to bigots all methods of derision are fair game in my opinion. There is no equivalency between bigotry against homosexuals and support of their right to all the benefits of citizenship. One is the outpouring of diseased minds and the other is human rights.
First Republican Rick Santorum came after the gays…
… and when in response a gay turned Santorum’s name into a synonym for fecal matter: http://spreadingsantorum.com/ , right-winger Jonathan Turley decided Rick Santorum needed protection?
And note how Jonathan Turley omits Republican Rick Santorum’s long history of viciously degrading an entire class of people but Turley still manages to deftly create a false equivalency with those that are the VICTIMS of Republican Santorum’s history of attacks….
Disgraceful.
Once again because some kid was on my lawn:
If Marcus came out as a gay man he would find acceptance on the left & ridicule on the right.
Acceptance on the left, and ridicule on the right? Is that like when leftists here and elsewhere make fun of Bachmann’s lisp while Cheney and Olson fight for gay marriage?
mespo727272
1, September 21, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Looks like Santorium’s hard right, bible thumping, faith-based base may be shrinking.
——————-
I’ve been suspecting this for a while – all trends fade eventually. I hope that everyone who is interested in US history is familiar with the Second Great Awakening – the middle of the 19th century that saw a huge growth in religiosity and the spawning (and invention) of many different denominations and sects. I don’t think that the period from roughly 1970 through probably 2020 will be seen as quite as dramatic as the Second Awakening, but it clearly has been a “bubble” where the economic, political and PR influence of religion has boomed, and presumably will fade to some degree.
While I can’t cite sources, my understanding is that many more fundamentalist denominations in the US were anti-political, to the point of discouraging their members from even voting because it was so clearly dirty and “worldly.” But something shifted (coincidentally in the aftermath of the Civil Rights era and the advent of the Republican party’s “Southern Strategy”) where politicians courted more extreme religious people and religious leaders realized there was money and power to be had from the deal.
We’ve reached this crazy point where preachers are getting up in front of congregations and indirectly doing the bidding of the Libertarian Koch brothers on issues from global warming to unions. Perhaps Raph Reed is the poster child for how much “steroidal” religion got into a cash lined bed with politics – as a bizzarro example, he probably took money from TV/internet service cable companies to promote opposition to net neutrality (a form of anti-trust, pro-competition regulation) among “Tea Party” circles, presumably based on his “Christian” credentials. This is what currently passes for “Christian leadership.” And leading “Christian presidential candidate” Rick Perry is essentially promoting himself on his pro-oil industry (and, thus, anti-caring-for-God’s-creation positions) and pro-death penalty positions.
If this insane, twisted situation isn’t the death-throes of the current ebb of politicized, hyped-up religiosity in the US, then we are in very serious trouble. I’m hopeful that we are seeing the last hurrah of this stuff through the prominence of Gov. Palin, Sen. Santorum and their ilk. They’re turning off mainstream Americans from that fringe of religion, and turning off the passionately religious from politics and PR.