This NYT Santorum Fest is such garbage!

[Rose Siding]

Titled "The Believer", Sokolove goes on and on about his conviction, his principles, then Lieberman fleshes him out a little for them ("''People associate him just with these issues,'' he said, referring to Santorum's right-wing positions. ''But he is more complex than that. He has a faith-based concern about poverty, and he's prepared to fight for more money than the administration wants to allot.'')

BUT, not content to sing praises, there just HAS to be a well-aimed shot at Democrats -who had TRIED to be civil in their comportment. Nope, spin spin can't be civility; that would be almost *admirable* given the weasel-ness of a Santorum. It's TIMIDITY according to the Times. Pure trash!

snip>
A long list of Democratic senators declined to talk, in most cases, I was told by staff members, out of a sense of senatorial civility; if they had nothing good to say, they preferred not to be quoted. But there is another reason, perhaps, for their timidity: Santorum is associated, above all, with faith, an issue the Democrats are struggling to put words to. Taking him on would require talking about faith as forthrightly as he does; it would mean defining its place in public life without seeming to oppose religion itself. (The Democrats' difficulty with this very issue was on display in the Terri Schiavo case, when they were notably silent, and compliant, even as Republicans took positions opposed by most Americans, according to polls.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/magazine/22SANTORUM.html?pagewanted=3

TWELVE crappy pages. Maybe I'll grab a cocktail before I finish it :grr:

[dweller]

1. the guy that's never

even read the Bible?

amazing.

dp

[Rose Siding]

2. "''The notion of a right to privacy is not about the common good..."

''The notion of a right to privacy is not about the common good, but about 'me.'

That whole "ownership society" thingy must make him crazy! ;)

[mcscajun]

3. I'm really, really glad I'm not reading this article right now.

"The notion (NOTION!!!?!?!) of a right to privacy is not about the common good, but about 'me'."

:wtf:

They'll not be happy until they've 'reframed' every right we have as a way to belittle their importance and make it simple to wipe them away, one by one.

Bas-TARDS!!!

The Right to Privacy is very much about the common good. It's what keeps me from poking my nose into Santorum's backyard and putting his personal life on the Internet (aside from the fact that I want to keep my lunch down, of course.) We're all a lot happier when we all know our privacy is our own to keep, and we don't have to be looking over our shoulder for who wants to invade it. That doesn't constitute a common good? :boggle:

[Rose Siding]

5. He says bush is the first Catholic president,

that school curriculum should *not* be designed by "experts" and AFTER he was elected, he asked himself "What kind of senator am I going to be? What kind of father, husband?"

[mcscajun]

8. Ah...so he's ignorant as well as deranged.

Silly me...and I just thought he was deranged.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. It's worse than that.

the GOP wants to go after any and all legal right to privacy, specifically as enumerated in Griswold v. Connecticut, the SCOTUS ruling that said married couples have the right (!) to use birth control.

People should wake up and understand just what it is these people are after - all forms of safe, legal birth control, all forms of consenting sex between people who aren't married, the whole nine yards.

Santorum & co. are nothing short of full blown sex police, period.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. No, see, when you're talking about his brokerage account,

a healthy, greedy dose of self-centeredness is a VERY good thing.

If you're talking about crazy notions of consenting adults being left the hell alone with their own bodies and in their own bedrooms, then a "right to privacy" is clearly the enemy of decent society.

[merwin]

4. www.spreadingsantorum.com

The BEST site :-)
http://www.spreadingsantorum.com

[Rose Siding]

6. He lives paycheck to paycheck and has nothing

set aside for his kids' college.

$162,000 a year. His parents help. With their union retirement checks.

Irony takes last gasping breath...

Then there was the cash from his wife's settlement:

''I'm not against all lawsuits,'' Santorum said. ''I think they're appropriate where the case warrants it, and this one did. It was not frivolous.''

[Rose Siding]

7. An assist from Bob Kerrey

snip>
Bob Kerrey, the former senator from Nebraska and now president of New School University, had some bitter clashes with Santorum when they served together. He says now: ''I've come to believe that he is sincerely and impressively a man of faith. He is driven by his personal desire to do good. But at some point, money matters. We're not even close to spending enough to solve social problems. I don't know what he can do with his own party, but maybe he'll shame the liberals into doing more.''
======================

Well gee, Bob, the liberals and what ARMY? Not only are the libs powerless, but also the moderates and the centrists!

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Please save your copy and send it to me

I have some fish that needs wrapping.

[CatholicEdHead]

12. Weak anti-Gay Marriage argument

"o Santorum, who is married and the father of six children (as well as one who died shortly after birth), marriage is primarily about procreation and child rearing, and a union without at least that possibility need not be legally sanctioned. ''Society's interest in marriage is the future,'' he told me. ''It is the next generation. It is in providing a stable environment for the raising of children. That's why we give marriage a special status, not because people like to hang out together and have fun.''"

If marriage is just about raising kids, then he should then have no probelm with a homosexual couple raising adopted kids.

He also does not consider John F Kennedy to be a "Catholic" because of his speaking out against the Vatican's authority.

"And what about John F. Kennedy? Santorum says he believes that in a political sense, Kennedy shed his Catholicism. (Kennedy's most famous statement on church and state was: ''I do not speak for my church on public matters -- and the church does not speak for me.'') ''I can understand and even defend him in some respects for doing so,'' Santorum said. ''There was still a very anti-Catholic bias, certainly among Southerners.'' Other Catholic politicians, he continued, ''have sort of adopted that same line, that they are going to hold that part of themselves off to the side, which has led to people who want to completely separate moral views from public life, which is a dangerous thing.''"

"To a woman who wanted to know how soon Roe v. Wade could be overturned, he said it was ''not imminent''"

So, they want to keep the abortion card in the election mix as long as possible.

"In an interview that same day on CNN, Santorum aligned himself not so much with American Catholics as with more traditional-minded ones in the third world. With evident approval of Ratzinger, he said: ''What you saw is an affirmation by the cardinals that the church is not going to change, even though maybe Europe and North America want it to. It is going to stay the way it has been for 2,000 years.''"

He is also ignorant on Church history if he thinks it has been unchanging over the past 2000 years.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

13. I have the physical magazine section, & the photo of Santorum is chilling.

It should go hand in hand with the AP photo of Bush with the great seal being used as a halo. There is also a front page story on the NYT about the Ivy League Schools being the next target of the Religious Righteous.... http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/national/class/EVANGELICALS-FINAL.html

[CatholicEdHead]

14. Yep, that is obvious fake piusness

with Santorum.

Edit: either that or he has the same empty eyes as that one lady in the red shirt during the election that always sends shivers down my spine.

[Pithy Cherub]

15. Liberals, Democrats understand the separation of church and state.

This is a constitutional concept not understood by weak-kneed reporters who believe they should cater to their idea of a pre-conceived market-based audience criterion. Have they noticed the letters against their self-admiration, the audience apathy and the loss of the most needed commodity - the public trust? Oh yeah, forgot the intellectually-challenged reporters never get pass the Freedom of Speech part when reading the founding documents.

:eyes: