Rick Santorum must wish he’d never suggested that legalizing gay sex (repealing anti-sodomy laws) would lead directly to Man-on-Dog sex, because his name is still associated with “the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.” In fact, if you Google “santorum,” that is still the first result you will find. Santorum was asked how he feels about being associated with something so gross.
“It’s one guy. You know who it is. The Internet allows for this type of vulgarity to circulate. It’s unfortunate that we have someone who obviously has some issues. But he has an opportunity to speak.”
That one guy is Dan Savage, but he had a lot of help. The definition of ‘santorum’ was selected from a long list of suggestions submitted by Savage’s witty readers. It all began when one reader suggested that a gay sex act be named after Santorum in revenge for his hateful stupidity, Agreeing, Savage remarked, “There’s no better way to memorialize the Santorum scandal than by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head.”
Eight years later, Santorum wants to be president but he can’t shake Savage’s prank. Mother Jones dedicated an article in its September/October issue to “Rick Santorum’s Anal Sex Problem.” Author Stephanie Mencimer wrote:
I wanted to ask Santorum whether he had a strategy for scrubbing his Web presence, but he didn’t return my calls. So instead, I asked a few experts. “This is an unusual problem,” says Michael Fertik, CEO of ReputationDefender, which specializes in helping individuals maintain a positive Web presence. “It’s devastating. This is one of the more creative and salient Google issues I’ve ever seen.”
The article goes on to consider possible ways that Santorum could fix his Google problem, but none of them are likely to work. His only rock-solid chance is to submit to Savage’s blackmail.
Savage has not forgiven Santorum for his seven-year-old comments: “Rick would have prevented me and my partner from being able to adopt my son,” he points out. But Savage does have a deal for the politician. “If Rick Santorum wants to make a $5 million donation to [the gay marriage group] Freedom to Marry, I will take it down. Interest starts accruing now.” Santorum may want to consider Savage’s offer. Otherwise, he’s kinda screwed.
Kinda screwed in the ass, I’d say.
But, hey, if Santorum can’t even fix his own problems, how can we expect him to fix the country’s problems? Right?
And why is this important?
This, on the other hand, is important:
It’s important because whichever social conservative gains the upper hand in Iowa is going to win the caucuses and be in position to sweep the South. Ricky Santorum could be the nominee for president if he can beat back Palin, Bachmann, and if Huckabee doesn’t run.
But he has a little problem.
Isn’t this about 10 months premature. The Republican zoo hasn’t settled down enough to know who is running in Iowa. I have a hard time seeing Santorum winning primaries in the South. Momentum out of Iowa is not as relevant to the South because South Carolina is an early primary. Haley Barbour, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul would be more likely to have strong showings in the SC primary than Santorum. And that would set the pace for the South. There are enough country club Republicans in the South that Huntsman might come out strengthened.
Thinking that all Republicans in the South are from the Religious Right is a huge mistake. Although a large part of the base, the Religious Right probably is around 30% of Republican voters. Secular “good ole boy” libertarians, small businessmen and farmers who hate taxes and regulations, and country club Republicans make up the remainder.
Santorum’s job is to win Iowa and let his socially conservative ompetition die-off from lack of funds. If he isn’t the darling of the social conservatives by the time they get to South Carolina, then he isn’t winning the nomination.
If he goes into the Palmetto State with Huntsman and Romney as his competition, he’s in good shape.
Booman, I get a chuckle out of this story (and that’s not nothing), but I think I agree with TarheelDem that it’s not a very important story at this time.
One of the lessons of the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign (I think Al Giordano had this first) is that a candidate who can raise enough money by the end of the third quarter this year, and can win Iowa or New Hampshire, has a good shot at the nomination—even if he/she is an “underdog”.
Insurgent campaigns have tended to founder on the shoals of Super Tuesday and the impossibility of having a campaign organization in place to take advantage of the money that flows to early caucus/primary winners. Three months before the Iowa caucuses, Obama had raised enough money, and built enough of a supporters’ list, to start organizing in the Super Tuesday states.
Now, that was the “last war”. What has changed in the past four years, particularly on the Republican side, that will make “this war” different?
Excellent point.
The question is who the big money from the Citizens United groups will flow to in the early primaries. I would be surprised if that were Santorum.
Also, who the big money from the CU groups will flow to in the “invisible primary” over the next nine months.
There’s still lots of jockeying by states over when primaries and caucuses will be held. However, if the parties are able to stick to a calendar that has Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, followed by Super Tuesday, then the “Obama ’08 scenario” is one to watch for.
So, for example, if Santorum doesn’t have a bunch of contributions to report on his 3rd quarter ’11 FEC report, then he’s probably in tough shape. (Unless a bunch of CU groups hold onto their money until October 1, in which case candidates don’t have to report it until January, right?)
So if I link to http://www.santorum.com I’ll boost its Google rating, right?
Yup.
TBogg chimes in.