Rick Santorum; under fire for appearantly anti-gay comments

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-24 02:20am

Precisely WHY are we assuming that most of the Republicans behind the scenes disagree with his views? If anything, I would think that George Bush probably agrees COMPLETELY with what he said, given his own religious views and the powerful influence of the far-right on the Republican party. We're talking about an administration whose first major order of top-priority business for the justice department was covering up nude statues, for fuck's sake. The president hails from a state where atheists are banned from public office in the state constitution. Much of their constituency comes from the southern regions which are so sexually repressive that vibrators are BANNED in three states (and these aren't legacy laws; the bans were enacted recently).

Could someone please explain why anyone is assuming that the party's leadership do not agree with what this ass-clown said?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-04-24 02:44am

George Bush undoubtly does agree with Santorum on this one, as he is in bed with the Christian Right. But what Bush believes isn't as much of an issue as to what he (or his press secretary) makes a statement in favor of. That is what people tend to make their judgement calls on and making a statement could effect his political career.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-04-24 02:54am

Precisely WHY are we assuming that most of the Republicans behind the scenes disagree with his views?

I'm pretty sure these Republicans disagree.

More relevantly, party discipline in the US is pratically nonexistent when compared to the degree of control exercised in Westminster-style parliamentary systems. That lack of party discipline makes pigeonholing every Republican as 'conservative and Democrat as 'liberal' a mistake.

Consider that the very liberal Lincoln Chaffee and the very conservative Jesse Helms are both Republicans while the very liberal Ted Kennedy and the very conservative Zell Miller are both Democrats.

Party membership in many areas of the US isn't a very good indicator of ideological belief. This is why I can assume that many, if not most, Republicans wouldn't be lying if they said they disagree.

If anything, I would think that George Bush probably agrees COMPLETELY with what he said, given his own religious views and the powerful influence of the far-right on the Republican party.

He probably does, but he's too smart to come right out and say it.

We're talking about an administration whose first major order of top-priority business for the justice department was covering up nude statues, for fuck's sake.

Right wingers are hardly alone in their dislike of public nudity. There's plenty of prudery and stupidity on both sides of the political spectrum.

Linky

Vermont tends to consider itself a quite progressive state — but the state government was years ahead of John Ashcroft in covering up works of art. In 1993, female employees in a state office building complained that they were being sexually harassed by a mural of Christopher Columbus arriving in the New World, because the painting depicted native women without shirts. State officials hung bedsheets over the harassing mural.

That same year, prison managers in Massachusetts removed a copy of Renoir's "Bather" from an inmate's cell, for the stated purpose of protecting the feelings of female prison employees

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-04-24 03:53am

Darth Wong wrote:Precisely WHY are we assuming that most of the Republicans behind the scenes disagree with his views? If anything, I would think that George Bush probably agrees COMPLETELY with what he said, given his own religious views and the powerful influence of the far-right on the Republican party. We're talking about an administration whose first major order of top-priority business for the justice department was covering up nude statues, for fuck's sake. The president hails from a state where atheists are banned from public office in the state constitution. Much of their constituency comes from the southern regions which are so sexually repressive that vibrators are BANNED in three states (and these aren't legacy laws; the bans were enacted recently).

Could someone please explain why anyone is assuming that the party's leadership do not agree with what this ass-clown said?

While some may agree with and others disagree with, a situation like this will hurt all of them to one extent or another. Lotts little fuck up didn't really hurt the Replican Senator of UT but Lott still felt the heat from his own party on that one because it hurt the national base of the party that they all need for cash and for presidential elections. The GOP, IMO, has recently displayed a 'behind the scene' tendancy to push out dumb fucks like this guy. Lott, Gringrich, Livingston (? defunked Speaker for a day after his affair was exposed, I think that was his name) just off the top of my head.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-04-24 07:10am

Santorum is an idiot. Stupid. Unbelievable. Inconcievable. Moron.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-04-24 09:42am

Queeb Salaron wrote:The ONLY way that law enforcement officials could be tipped off about the occurrence of anal sex is if they busted into the room as the act was being committed. Sorry, but that's unethical and illegal.

Nope, its 100% legal. The Consitution does not give the right to privacy. That is something many states have decided to give. Some states explicitly give privacy to heterosexuals but withold it from homosexuals. Both Montana and Texas explicitly state Homosexuals do not have the right to privacy. These laws are in place so as to enforce sodomy laws designed to punish homosexuals. The sad thing is it is entirely legal in Texas (although the Montana Supreme Court stated the sodomy laws in Montana regarding homosexual acts is unconstitutional).

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-04-25 07:56pm

Ah, so Santorum screwed up big time. Too bad people won't be able to vote him out of office until 2006. But if it hasn't been forgotten, he's screwed, as Pennsylvania isn't West Virginia, where an ex-klansman can hold a Senate seat for decades. But then again, they can always recall him or force him to resign.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-04-26 03:52am

we'll see by next week if Santorum gets to skate. It all depend on media coverage. But if I were running the democrat side, I'd play it smart and say nothing at all. (They should've never run their mouth at Lott in January either)

If Lott didn't resign, Bush would be having even more problems now than he is with Frist. As it is Lott did Bush a big favor by trying to make an old man happy, he removed himself from the equation. The Democrats equally did Bush a favor by harping on Lott nonstop demanding he resign his position, which eventually worked.

Had the democrats had the appropriate foresight, they'd have waited till 2004, and turn around and point to the Republicans and say: "look, they're a bunch of racists and biggots, you can't trust them to police themselves, a racist (Lott) is running the majority position on the Senate, and a bigot (Santorum) holds one of the more powerful Senate position. The Republicans claim to be a party of compassionate conservatives, but obviously, it's a bold face lie since they can't even police their own racist and bigotted elements, Bush must be a bigot and a racist by default because he hasn't got the balls to do anything about it." Or something to that effect. That should give them some serious in roads against Bush down the line.

After all, like everything else, politics is about picking your target and choosing the right bullets.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-04-26 04:37am

Here's a section from the Texas penal code:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes ... e002.21.06

Apparently homosexuality is illegal, but beastaility in the confines of your home isn't. Go figure.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-04-26 12:43pm

Durran Korr wrote:He does seem to have been moving rightward after 9/11, but historically he's been fairly moderate. His voting record has pretty frequently been opposed to the Republican party line, especially on spending/taxes issues.

Oh, fun!

Act like a democrat on spending, and act like a Christian Rightist on 'moral' issues. The Worst of the Worst...

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-04-26 12:48pm

Glocksman wrote:I'm pretty sure these Republicans disagree.

My boyfriend is one of those...

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-04-26 12:54pm

But if it hasn't been forgotten, he's screwed, as Pennsylvania isn't West Virginia, where an ex-klansman can hold a Senate seat for decades

Guess what's between Philadelphia and Pittsburg?

Alabama.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-04-26 01:51pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Guess what's between Philadelphia and Pittsburg?

Alabama.

This is pretty close to true. It's like Alabama with a twist of German.