|
|
|
October 04, 2006
Did Santorum just get rather big?
Or has he been rather big on an ongoing basis? In his discussion of "The List" (apparently consisting of gay Republicans who are traitors to their penises or something) David Corn says something about Rick Santorum I can't resist: Santorum in a 2003 AP interview compared homosexuality to bestiality, incest and polygamy. It would be rather big of Santorum to employ a fellow who engages in activity akin to such horrors.If that would be big of Santorum, then he's been "big" for more than a year. In April I remarked on an apparently anomalous fact about Rick Santorum -- his refusal to fire a gay aide: ...Rick Santorum refused last summer to fire a gay aide. (The original Knight-Ridder story survives at Free Republic.) A picture of the gay aide (who is also black) appears here. Even more ominously, the gay Advocate.com reported that "Santorum's praise for his gay aide didn't dim the ardor of the senator's conservative supporters." (More here.)As of a few weeks ago, the spokesman identified last summer was still employed by Santorum. Unless I am wrong in my analysis of David Corn's reasoning, Santorum has been "rather big" for quite some time. What gives? What if David Corn is right? (I don't much agree with Rick Santorum, so I'm still absorbing this.) posted by Eric on 10.04.06 at 03:08 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4082 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Did Santorum just get rather big?:
» On The Jumping Of Sharks from Blue Crab Boulevard
Well, this unraveled faster than I believed possible. The left has overplayed the Foley hand to the point that there is now a brewing anti-homosexual witch hunt. Aimed at Republican staffers who happen to be gay. Gay Patriot takes a wee bit o... [Read More] Tracked on October 4, 2006 09:46 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War For Profit
• How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide • I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight • Wind Boom • Isaiah Washington, victim • Hippie Shirts • A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? • Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists • PETA agrees -- with me! • The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Look, people are free to support Mr. Santorum or not, as they choose. But David Corn's statement that "Santorum in a 2003 AP interview compared homosexuality to bestiality, incest and polygamy" (and your uncritical repetition of it here) is simply wrong, as a matter of rather easily verifiable fact. What Santorum said was that if you allow homosexual marriage, you have no principled basis upon which to ban any other, shall we say, "unconventional" sexual liasons. And the truth of the matter is that he had an at least arguable point.