‘Senator Porker’

[Note: For current IGF Cutlture Watch postings, please use the url http://igfculturewatch.com.]

————————————

Former senator Rick Santorum, reportedly surging in Iowa polls, is not only a virulent homophobe, he also is, according to the Cato Institute’s David Boaz, a long-time opponent of limited government and, in his own dismissive words, “this whole idea of personal autonomy, . . . this idea that people should be left alone.”

More. Romney’s move to the right on social issues, designed to attracted Midwestern and Southern evangelicals, bombed big time in Iowa. Religious conservatives, who dominate the Iowa GOP, went overwhelmingly for Santorum. But if Romney is the eventual Republican nominee, his anti-gay rights and anti-immigrant positions won’t play well with independents. When will they ever learn?

Furthermore. Santorum’s fixation on gay marriage as intolerable perversity gets booed by (some) New Hampshire college Republicans and would be a likely negative among the general electorate.

On the other hand, some are arguing that Santorum would be more likely than Romney, or Obama, to appeal to the white working class. Kimberley Strassel writes in the Wall Street Journal: “He’s the frugal guy, the man of faith, the person who understands the financial worries of average Americans. He’s directly contrasting his own blue-collar bona fides with those of the more privileged Mr. Romney. Identity politics is often a winner, and Mr. Santorum does it well.”

Let’s hope the popular response to Obama’s disastrous leftwing “leadership” to nowhere doesn’t turn out to be American fascism.

And finally… Viva Paul for his bare-knuckled attack exposing Santorum’s hypocrisy.

31 Comments for “‘Senator Porker’”

  1. posted by Lori Heine on

    Santorum may be surging in the polls — Iowa chose another social-reactionary nutball, Mike Huckabee, four years ago — but he’s not going any farther than “Reverend” Huckabee did. This country is not going to elect a childish, ignorant loon like that for president.

    I don’t like Ron Paul’s foreign policy, and I’m not a Republican, so I have no dog in this fight. But I must admit, it would feel good to see him at least finish well. One way or another, my choice in the generals will probably be Gary Johnson — who’s Ron Paul without all the wacky baggage.

  2. posted by Doug on

    Unfortunately Gary Johnson does not stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected.

  3. posted by Jorge on

    …he also is, according to the Cato Institute’s David Boaz, a long-time opponent of limited government and, in his own dismissive words, “this whole idea of personal autonomy, . . . this idea that people should be left alone.”

    And he’s the only such candidate in the race that’s been largely dominated by small-government Tea Party-ists. But Romney and Gingrich are a little okay, too. I am very happy right now.

    I’m not as impressed by that “top ten” list as most other gays probably are (and this isn’t the first time I’ve read it). He believes in straight marriage. Yeah, him and every other conservative Republican. He really dislikes Lawrence v. Texas. Okay, that’s a big one, a really big one. And it’s the only big one! “I don’t hate gays or think there’s something wrong with gays” is a homophobic statement??? “I don’t hate the sinner, I hate the sin” is something I wish politicians wouldn’t say, but it’s a cookie-cutter Christian line and Catholic position that represented some progress in its time. There’s a lot to say about Rick Santorum from that list, but the pattern is not one of a virulent homophobe.

    Contrast him with someone like Mike Huckabee, who never has anything remotely nice to say about gays, or even Newt Gingrich, who, while he wants the gay national security vote, seems too keen to avoid even acknowledging the interests of gays as individuals or as a group.

    Speaking of timeline, the point I made the last time someone showed that list to me is that, given the mix of very recent and very old quotes in there, one should judge him by where he stands right now. Well a lot’s happened since then.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      The difference between Santorum and Huckabee is only the difference between Catholic fundamentalism and Evangelical Fundamentalism. We’re splitting hairs to find any practical differences in terms of policy. No, Santorum is not going to admit to being anti-gay. He’s just against gay people having any rights and even thinks gay sex should be illegal. But he doesn’t hate gay people? Who’s stupid enough to believe that?

      • posted by Jorge on

        That’s a significant difference in my book. Policy and civil rights are important, but human rights are even more important.

        But he doesn’t hate gay people? Who’s stupid enough to believe that?

        You are making an empty bluff you cannot back up. I’ve already shown that this idea that Rick Santorum is some kind of flaming homophobe is a gross exaggeration, something people just repeat without having any understanding of it. You choose to hide behind this imagination. That makes you the stupid one, not me.

        • posted by Houndentenor on

          I guess I don’t buy that “love the sinner but hate the sin” nonsense. He opposes any rights for gay people. That cannot be from anything but animus towards homosexuals.

          His latest: he thinks states should have the right to ban contraceptives. He’s to the right of the Evangelical social conservatives.

  4. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Speaking of timeline, the point I made the last time someone showed that list to me is that, given the mix of very recent and very old quotes in there, one should judge him by where he stands right now. Well a lot’s happened since then.

    So let’s look at Santorum’s current positions:

    (1) Santorum has pledged support for the FMA.
    (2) Santorum speaks out frequently in opposition to marriage equality and marriage-equivalent civil unions.
    (3) Santorum favors “invalidating” existing same-sex marriages nationwide and has pledged to do so in the District.
    (4) Santorum has pledged to appoint “original intent” judges who would overturn Lawrence and other cases decided on the “right of privacy”.
    (5) Santorum has taken no public stance (as far as I know) in 2011 on removing jurisdiction over “culture wars” cases from the federal judiciary, but has supported the proposal in the past and has given no indication that he’s changed his mind.
    (6) Santorum favors reinstating DADT.
    (7) Santorum opposes adoption by gays and lesbians.

    … and so on.

    A lot has happened “since then”, Jorge, as you point out. But one thing hasn’t happened — Santorum hasn’t changed much, at least for the better.

    • posted by BobN on

      (2) Santorum speaks out frequently in opposition to marriage equality and marriage-equivalent civil unions.

      He opposes all forms of civil unions and domestic partnerships.

      And you left off opposition to ENDA.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        He opposes all forms of civil unions and domestic partnerships. And you left off opposition to ENDA.

        True. My bad. Santorum’s for small government, though — he wants a government just big enough to fit into your bedroom. So chase those dust bunnies out from under the bed before the inauguration if he’s elected. Does anyone know whether he likes kittens?

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        BTW, on a more serious note, Marriage Equality has put together a grid with the various presidential candidates’ positions on LGBT issues. I question a couple of the calls — Ron Paul rates a “maybe” at best on DOMA, for example — but it seems generally accurate.

    • posted by Jorge on

      So let’s look at Santorum’s current positions:

      You’re badly missing my point. Stephen Miller is trying to say that Rick Santorum is a “virulent homophobe.” That’s a gross exaggeration. You might want to speak to that.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        You’re badly missing my point. Stephen Miller is trying to say that Rick Santorum is a “virulent homophobe.” That’s a gross exaggeration. You might want to speak to that.

        Okay.

        I have no idea what motivates Santorum, although a number of his statements suggest to me that his attitudes toward gays and lesbians are indistinguishable from the attitudes of Mike Heath, Peter LaBarbera and Don Wildmon.

        But that doesn’t tell me anything. Unlike George Bush, I can’t see into mens’ souls. For all I know, Santorum comparison of my relationship with Michael to man-on-dog sex is a result of a highly developed Christian empathy.

        But who gives a flying F whether or not Santorum has personal animus toward gays and lesbians? It doesn’t make any difference.

        What counts, and all that counts, is what he proposes do as President if elected. And that’s plain enough. If elected, Santorum will work to eradicate marriage equality nationally, reinstate DADT and do his absolute best to block all progress toward “equal means equal” while he is President.

        • posted by Houndentenor on

          This is a ridiculous argument. None of us know what any politician really believes. We do know what they say and far more importantly we know what they do. Santorum’s voting record is completely anti-gay. His statements are anti-gay. Perhaps he doesn’t really personally hate gay people. But his actions are hateful. In practical terms, there is no difference.

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            It may be ridiculous to judge a politician on his record — both what he’s done and what he proposes to do — but that’s what I think counts and I stand by it.

          • posted by Jorge on

            This is a ridiculous argument. None of us know what any politician really believes. We do know what they say and far more importantly we know what they do.

            Uh, yeah, that’s my point.

          • posted by Jorge on

            Okay, that posted well before I meant it to.

            My point is do not say things about politicans that are not supported by the record.

          • posted by Houndentenor on

            But Santorum’s record and statements are completely anti-gay. I don’t care what’s in his heart or what he secretly believes. I don’t care if he knows gay people and is nice to them. None of that affects me. What his policies would be and what laws he would sign and veto would affect me. That’s what matters, and those effects would all be negative.

  5. posted by Shadow Chaser on

    As a center/left Catholic Democrat residing in Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum was my member of the House for one term and U.S. Senator for two. I could not have been happier than I was on Election Night 2006, when the election was called for Robert Casey 90 seconds after the polls closed in Pennsylvania,

    A couple of thing I wish to note. First of all in Pennsylvania, voters love pork! We expect our elected to bring home the bacon in terms of money for road projects, highways, bridges, mass transit; and to bring home contracts to local companies and major employers. We might be willing to give up our pork providing that South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, etc go ahead of us.

    The other thing I wish to note was then Senator Santorum’s role in the Terri Schiavo case. I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy the pain that Ms. Schiavo’s husband and parents must have experienced. However, the senator taking the parents’ side was uncalled for at best; and intrusive at least. Yes, the senator shares the strongly held religious values with the parents; it was the next of kin, meaning the husband who had the role of decision maker. I know a lot of culturally conservative Catholics who realized that there was no hope for improvement in Ms. Schiavo’s condition and that it was time to let her go and for everyone to move on.

    At the very of the 2006 race, Santorum soft-pedaled his stand on gays in hopes of holding onto independents and moderate-to-liberal Republicans in the Philadelphia suburbs. He said he might have been a bit harsh in his comments about members of the GLBT community, but he said he really didn’t know any gay men or lesbians. That remarked didn’t ring true because 1) it was rumored that a key staff member was a closeted gay man; and 2) Santorum’s northeastern Pennsylvania office was on the same street as Scranton’s major gay bar.

    Labor Day 2005, Santorum and Casey were tied 39-39 percent with 22 percent undecided. Election night 2006, Casey 59 percent, Santorun 41

  6. posted by Inahandbasket on

    Oh, you mean the OUT since before the 2006 election Robert Traynham?

    http://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog/2005/07/man-on-dog-santorum-has-out.html

  7. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Romney’s move to the right on social issues, designed to attracted Midwestern and Southern evangelicals, bombed big time in Iowa. Religious conservatives, who dominate the Iowa GOP, went overwhelmingly for Santorum. But if Romney is the eventual Republican nominee, his anti-gay rights and anti-immigrant positions won’t play well with independents. When will they ever learn?

    As I understand it, Romney’s current positions are:

    (1) Romney has pledged support for the FMA.
    (2) Romney opposes marriage equality, marriage-equivalent civil unions, and domestic partnerships nationwide.
    (3) Romney opposes granting citizenship to married spouses of gay and lesbian Americans.
    (4) Romney opposes DOMA repeal.
    (5) Romney has been ambiguous about whether he supports adoption by gays and lesbians.
    (6) Romney supports workplace equality, both in government and in the private sector, but opposes legislation putting that into law.
    (7) Romney has been ambiguous about whether he would reinstate DADT.
    (8) Romney opposes extending pay and benefits equality to spouses and family of married service personnel.
    (9) Romney has pledged to appoint “original intent” federal judges.
    (10) Romney has been ambiguous about whether he would remove federal court jurisdiction over “culture war” cases like the DOMA challenges and LCR’s DADT challenge.

    I’m sure Romney would like to fly under the wire on these positions in the general election in order to appear “moderate” for independent voters, making the right noises for the base but signalling “I don’t really believe that …”, defusing the issues just like John McCain did in 2008.

    But I don’t think that he’s going to get away with that this year.

    The Perry case is going to be decided at the 9th Circuit shortly, and head to SCOTUS. The consolidated DOMA cases might make it out of the 1st Circuit and onto the SCOTUS docket this year, as well. Washington state will have a legislative fight over marriage equality this year, with marriage equality supported by the Democratic governor. North Carolinians will be voting on an anti-marriage amendment in May. Minnesotans will be voting on an anti-marriage amendment in November. Maryland’s legislature will again take up marriage equality this year, this time with the support of Maryland’s Democratic governor. Maine may have a marriage equality initiative on the ballot in November. Republicans in New Hampshire will attempt to repeal marriage equality, with the House expected to act the week after the New Hampshire primary. NOM has started a “Let the People Vote” campaign in New York and will try to take down the four Republicans who voted for marriage equality. Iowa is looking at a pitched battle for control of the legislature, centered around marriage equality. California might see yet another ballot initiative in November, although that seems unlikely.

    LGBT issues will be fought on other fronts as well. Republicans are pushing a plethora of anti-gay bills in the state legislatures nationwide, ranging from bans on adoption and foster care to “Don’t Say Gay”, so LGBT issues are likely to be part of the political landscape across the country.

    And that presents a problem. Romney can’t win the swing states without an energized base, and since the base doesn’t trust him, he can’t “run to the middle” on LGBT issues and hope to get their support. On the other hand, as you point out, if Romney sticks to his current positions, and doesn’t “run to the middle”, he’s likely to turn off independents and younger voters, also critical to his election in the swing states.

    I guess Romney can do what he did in Iowa, using his SuperPac to flood the airwaves with relentless attack ads while Mitt and Mittens run around reciting “America the Beautiful”. That will deflect attention from his positions, but I’m not sure that it will work with independents as well as it did with Republicans in Iowa.

    As an aside, I think that there is a sleeper issue in this election. Although Romney hasn’t yet done so, others — Perry, Gingrich, and yesterday Santorum — have signed on to a right-wing push to remove federal court jurisdiction from “culture wars” issues.

    Gingrich has gone the farthest, arguing for a “two-branch” government in which the federal courts would have no jurisdiction over the constitutionality of any laws passed by Congress with the concurrence of the President. Gingrich would, in effect, overturn the constitutional balance that has existed in this country since Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

    The others have not gone to that extreme, but propose to remove federal court review of the constitutionality of “culture wars” legislation — marriage equality, DOMA, DADT, abortion and so on, opening the door to gutting constitutional review of other laws down the road.

    Either way, this is an issue that presents a real opportunity to Democrats in 2012. FDR, enormously popular in other respects, got his ass handed to him on a plate when he proposed a “court packing” scheme in 1937, using almost exactly the argument now used by right-wing extremists: “The balance of power… has been tipped out of balance by the Courts in direct contradiction of the high purposes of the framers of the Constitution. It is my purpose to restore that balance.” FDR got his ass handed to him because Americans understood that our liberty depends, in large part, on our constitutional system of checks and balances, including, specifically, constitutional review by the courts.

    The Republican plan might seem like a “process” issue, but I think that it has legs. Americans understand that tampering with the constitutional balance is dangerous, radical and unacceptable. This issue, more than any other, demonstrates how extreme the Republican party has become in recent years, and I think that if Romney signs on, too, the Democrats can beat the hell out of him on it.

  8. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    From the New York Times:

    The testiest part of the exchange came when an audience member suggested that gay people should be allowed to marry because they have a right to happiness.

    In response, Mr. Santorum asked whether she thought that more than two people should be allowed to marry, apparently trying to suggest that the questioner was advocating an extreme position.

    “If you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that OK?” he asked.

    That angered the audience, which booed his answer.

    “I’m happy to engage in a discussion,” he continued, saying that he wanted to “give people a chance to answer, but we’re going to have a civil discussion.”

    The woman who had asked the first question then persisted, saying that the question about bigamy was “irrelevant.”

    “In my personal opinion, go for it,” she said. “But when two men want to marry …”

    Mr. Santorum interrupted, “What about three men?”

    “That’s not what I’m talking about,” the woman said to Mr. Santorum, who spent close to an hour and a half before the crowd.

    The session ended with many of the students booing Mr. Santorum as he left for his next event.

    Santorum’s going after us full throttle. A taste of things to come in 2012.

    • posted by Jorge on

      I certainly think same-sex marriage laws–and the ban on anti-sodomy laws–touch on something more important than merely (“go for it!”) whether the couple is happy.

      But… he’s just not a strong candidate. Would Romney have gotten mired in that? Would Bachman?–sheesh, she has an ex-gay therapist husband and I think the record shows she has ex-gay therapy sympathies herself. Well, so does Santorum, actually.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        Santorum’s views seem to be aligned very closely with conservative Catholic theology — he opposes contraception, for example — which isn’t surprising.

        I agree he’s not a strong candidate. There were any number of ways to handle that question, and he picked the absolute worst.

        Between his ineptness and the scrutiny that is underway, my guess is that Santorum will go the way of the other “three-week wonders” and fall by the wayside before too long.

        I don’t like Romney any better than the Republicans seem to — he’s Tom Dewey all over again, phony as can be — but I think Romney’s got the nomination wrapped up. Perry’s too dumb to be President, Gingrich is a mean snake-in-the-grass, Santorum is VP timber at best, and Ron Paul can’t win.

        What I don’t understand is why Huntsman isn’t getting more attention, particularly from conservative gays and lesbians. Huntsman would be my choice if I were a Republican, because I think he’s got a strong record, is smart as hell, is a consistent economic conservative without being nuts on “culture wars” issues, hasn’t pandered to Maggie Gallagher, and seems to have the necessary judgment to be good President. I don’t agree with many of his positions, but I’d trust him as President, which is more than I can say for Romney.

  9. posted by Gregory on

    Huntsman is a RINO. As a right-leaning libertarian my issues are: 1. Ending Big Government. 2. American Exceptionalism. 3. National Defense. 4. The Economy. 5. Opposing Obama.

    I may be gay but I’m not dating anyone worth marrying, I’m not interested in serving in the military, and I don’t worry that Santorum or Romney are going to reinstate DADT since the repeal enjoys popular support (you can’t repeal a law supported by 70%+ of the people).

    In the end, defeating Obama is what matters. America cannot afford 4 more years of Big Government Marxism.
    http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

  10. posted by Lori Heine on

    “Not attacking or being malicious. I just think you are like sooo many! uneducated about the truth of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. No disrespect is meant.”

    Sam, I am not “uneducated” about Dr. Paul’s foreign policy. I just don’t like it.

    When we got into war in the Middle East, I was still a Democrat. And I protested against it. I didn’t think it was a good idea to spray a water hose at a hornet’s nest. It tends to stir up the hornets, and we end up getting stung.

    But we’re there. We’ve been losing lives there for nearly ten years. If we simply pull out now, we’ll be partially responsible for the further carnage that will inevitably result. We made promises to the people in that region who want to be rid of Islamic extremism. We can’t just say, “Whoa, we’ve changed our minds” and abandon them after they’ve gotten into it up to their nuts.

    Nor do I think we can simply say that terrorist acts against us are somehow caused by our being at war there. The attacks of 9-11 were well in the works long before the Gulf War. I’m not inclined to take bin Laden’s word for it when America gets blamed.

    Your devotion to Dr. Paul is touching. I like his domestic policy very much, and I’m glad he’s so committed to libertarian principles in general. But his views on Iran are simply irresponsible. And even though some of the statements attributed to him were actually made by other people, he’s made enough wild and crazy remarks to make the entire libertarian movement look bad.

    Gary Johnson looks better to me all the time.

  11. posted by Bill Herrmann on

    Hey, guys. Is this web site dead or dormant? I don’t see anything new posted in a long time.

  12. posted by Jorge on

    My computer wasn’t refreshing the main page for some reason. I only saw the later blog posts once I began to post to this one.

    Oh well.

    • posted by Jorge on

      So they changed the url, you say? So be it.

Comments are closed.