WaPo Thumps 2012 Hopeful Rick Santorum as 'Notorious for His Moral Pronouncements'
Washington Post political reporter Karen Tumulty explored the dark-horse presidential explorations of former Sen. Rick Santorum on the front page of Friday's paper. It was a fairly respectful story until it came time to discuss the former senator's “notorious” moral statements, and how he still “breathes fire” on occasion:
Santorum was notorious for his moral pronouncements. He contended, for instance, that Boston's liberal culture was partly to blame for the sex-abuse scandal in the Catholic Church there, and suggested that lifting antiquated state sodomy laws would sanction bestiality -- or as he put it, "man on dog."
Santorum still breathes fire. In his evolving stump speech, he frames the prospect of Obama's reelection in near-apocalyptic terms: "Democracy and freedom will disappear." His agenda consists of stopping pretty much everything that has been set in motion in the past two years, starting with the overhaul of the nation's health-care system.
In 2003, Santorum gave an interview to an AP reporter -- who was also married to a Democratic political activist. She plucked out this part of the interview about the Supreme Court then considering Lawrence vs. Texas, which gave a major push to "gay marriage" in the US:
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.
As for the Obama rhetoric, it may sound harshly anti-Obama and apocalyptic -- but it's also a fairly common conservative sound on blogs and talk radio. (Tumulty seems shocked, but doesn't consider the sound of liberal radio and blogs in the second term of Bush, routinely presenting the president as a dictator.) The aim of reversing most of Obama's agenda is official Republican boilerplate.
Tumulty's piece was tame compared to a rougher Santorum profile in the Post in 2005. But the bias remains: liberals are not "notorious" in their moral pronouncements and their rarely "breathe fire." In the same edition of the paper, essayist Philip Kennicott found radical artist David Wojnarowicz "scarbrous" only when taken out of context. When he was trashing conservatives, he was creating "elaborate, imaginative social vignettes." He was "ferociously brilliant and anarchic." Barney Frank would be the mainstream, but Rick Santorum is a fire-breathing extremist.
And Tumulty also succeeded in finding that elusive anonymous Republican pundit who could trash nearly every other presidential contender in the Republican field as a hopeless disaster. (What a shock that someone saying this would remain anonymous. Who wants to bet Captain Coward will draw a paycheck from one of the people he or she is now trashing?)
Others agree that the old GOP script could be rewritten in 2012. "People are desperate to the point of panic in wanting to get rid of Barack Obama, and increasingly anxious about the prospects of some of our choices," said a prominent Republican strategist, who did not want to be quoted by name suggesting that anything is lacking on the GOP bench.
"Every one of these people is either deeply flawed or irredeemably polarizing, and that's why a guy like Santorum is going to get a look."
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Let's stop giving life to anonymity...
Submitted by The_Barrel_Guy on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 11:40pm.
"said a prominent Republican strategist, who did not want to be quoted by name suggesting that anything is lacking on the GOP bench."
This is really simple... Without a name, I believe that Tumulty made this up hisself and was flat out lying that it belonged to a "prominent Republican strategist."
No name... NO TRUTH...
Enough said...
No name... NO TRUTH...
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 10:41am.
I'm with you Barrel Guy. Whenever we hear a news story that includes "unnamed source," we chalk it up to a lazy reporter probably making up "facts" to fit their agenda.
I understand that sometimes you need to protect a source, but when the issue of the story does not involve a threat to their physical safety, either step up and be counted, or stay silent and be discounted.
I think what seperates most of the people at NB is to not just be able to read and hear what is being said, but more importantly what is NOT being said.
Helpful Suggestion for the Washington Post
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:01am.
Maybe it's time for the WaPo to set aside a special page each day called Potential Republican Presidential Candidates We Want to Destroy Early. There a lot of potential GOP candidates the WaPo will want to ruin and this will help their efforts to be much more systematic and methodical. I'm just trying to be helpful to them.
Yep, they are like a
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:29am.
Yep, they are like a rattled sentry, guarding the perimeter, who shoots at any sound or movement that is perceived out in the darkness.
Hey...
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:31am.
I wasn't rattled, I was just bored.
Well..... you know you have
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:35am.
Well..... you know you have to account for all of your rounds when your duty is up. You're going to have a lot of splainin to do.
Worth it
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:40am.
Totally worth it.The real problem is that the media guards the perimeter
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 10:57am.
like Barney Fyffe protects Mayberry. Except the MSM is not nearly as funny, and no one has yet figured out that they need to only give them one bullet at a time and make them put it in their pocket.
Dennis Prager
Mid, I'm waiting for the
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:01am.
Mid,
I'm waiting for the WaPo to go after the kids of Santorum, et al - just in case they might try running in 2035 or something. It's important for a liberal rag to stay vigilant and be very proactive...
Let's hope in 2012
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:54am.
Less focus on the definition of marriage and abortion and more focus on securing our borders, paying down our debt and supporting our military 100 percent.I'm in ! As long as the
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 11:03am.
I'm in !
As long as the Liberals stop trying to re-define marriage and increase (and fund with taxpayer $) abortions.
And let's please remember that those two items are out of the hands of any President, so far as marriage laws are state by state, and abortion will opnly get "banned" if two things happen - SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade and then all 50 states outlaw abortion.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Agreed free
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:52pm.
Liberals are just hell bent on trying to get everyone to change the laws. They want everyone to think the way they do or they are either racist or facist.Shawn, I would like to agree, but can't
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 11:05am.
Let's just say that I agree the MAJOR focus has to be on restoring the republic, protecting the borders, etc.
The big however, is what are we protecting, if we have no moral fabric? We have seen the moral fabric degenerate over the last 30 years; where a politician could get taken out of the running for plagarism (Joe Biden) we now have a President who stands and outright lies to us, daring to be contradicted.
The country needs to go back to a personal responsibility mode. Right now, we don't have that in our society; in fact, we try at every turn to subvert personal responsibility with government largesse.
However, until "we the people" angrily stand up in the liberal's face, denounce his behavior and his morals, and refuse to buy his nonsense, all of this is tacitly approved as correct.
Dennis Prager
Sorry Historian
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:06pm.
"The country needs to go back to a personal responsibility mode"I could not agree more. I feel it is smart to ridicule liberals on how they want to take everybodys money, redistribution of wealth and blatant racism with favortism to people like the Black Panthers. However historian, think about what you said. "Personal responsiblity". I don't agree with gay marraige, but I could care less if somebody is gay and has anal sex. Politicians that advocate sodomey laws in my mind are idiots and just as bad as liberals on trying to limit our freedoms. I am not a big fan of abortion either, but for now it is not a big voting issue for me. With the state our economy is right now, the Islamic enemies we face, the homegrown people thant want to kill us and our national debt, I just do not feel the majority of Americans want to moral issues. It was nice in the mid 90s when we had the luxury of having Clintons DNA on a blue dress as a major issue, but those days are gone. If the GOP loses the message of low taxes, strong country and securing our borders and goes off track on moral issues, that is when people get turned off and are under the impression they are better off with the dems.
A long history of double-crossing us ...
Submitted by KC Mulville on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:55am.
There's a good reason why Santorum sounds the alarm about these liberal social decisions. It turns out that they're usually loaded with social and moral explosives.
Griswold v. Connecticut was a 1965 Supreme Court case about contraceptives. In it, William O. Douglas argued, with just a bit of drama, that he didn't want government invading the "sacred precincts of the marital bedroom." (Never mind that contraceptives aren't actually sold in the sacred bedroom, but to each his own.) Douglas' absurd notion was that although there is no specific right to privacy, the Constitution had unstated but certain "emanations and penumbras" that surely ... surely ... guarantee a right to privacy. And, once you buy that there is an unmentioned right to privacy, you might also buy the idea that the Supreme Court has the right ... nay, the duty ... to fill in the words and details for us. How helpful of them! Basically, Douglas traded on the respect for marriage to establish that the government had no right to intrude on marriage. Marriage was sacred, and heaven forfend that government ...
Oh never mind. It was all crap anyway. In 1972, having persuaded America on the basis of marriage, swept all that marriage crap away in Eisenstadt v. Baird, which laughingly said that it was unequal application of the law to allow married people a privilege, so everyone can have contraceptives. In other words, the Court admitted that their exhortation in defense of marriage was just bait, intended to lure Americans to agreement. Once agreed, they just extended the concept to everyone.
People were aghast at where such an open-ended argument would lead. Didn't take long. Almost within the same breath, that same Court soon allowed abortion. Harry Blackmun took Douglas' emanation bid, and raised him "trimesters." Blackmun invented the trimester scheme, mostly out of his own head, and imposed it on the rest of us as law.
Santorum correctly saw where Lawrence v. Texas was going to lead. Although the Supreme Court assured us that this case couldn't possibly support an argument for gay marriage, Massachusetts used Lawrence for precisely that purpose, about six months after the assurance.
Liberals giggle at the notion that any Supreme Court case could have ramifications. Well that's not really true ... liberals count on those ramifications.
Excellent response!!!
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 11:07am.
This is an excellent analysis; my hat is off to you.
Dennis Prager
Serious question
Submitted by 10ksnooker on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 7:08am.
Who reads the WashPost and why would you waste your time doing that?