WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Friday came to the defense of embattled Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, praising his job performance and pronouncing him "an inclusive man" despite comments he made equating homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery.1
No surprise there. I don't doubt that Bush's personal beliefs on the subject pretty closely match Santorum's, not o mention the love match between Ashcroft and Santorum's beliefs. This is just another incident that continues to point out the deep seated bigotryand, in the case of Trent Lott, racism in the Republican party leadership. It is endemic to that party and this administration seems in some way to have given such types the green light to go public with their views. That's not to suggest that Bush et al said go make idiots of yourself in the public's eye. Instead, knowing the top people in the administration are at the least sympathetic to their views creates a false sense of security that frees them to speak their minds.
That's why we have elections. You may, however, want to read the unedited version of the interview and reconsider your position.
Posted by: Vinny on April 25, 2003 11:35 AMWhat, you don't think that Bush and Ashcroft aren't completely opposed to homosexuality? come on Vinny - they are both fundamentalist born again christians, Bush from a southern Presbyterian background (Highland Park United Methodist Church) and Ashcroft Assembly of God.
Before Bush took office he described his religious beliefs more in terms of personal transformastion (born again) now he talks about being the instrument of God - that God talks to him and that he is doing God's will. That's getting very Calvinistic and there is no room whatsoever in Calvanism for homosexuality in any way shape or form.
Ashcroft is a prominent member of the AOG. The AOG is a very fundamentalist protestant sect that is 100% oppposed to homosexuality.
At least when it comes to homosexuality the bs about love the sinner hate the sin is just that bullshit. It does not make the "believer" inclusive, it is just a 'socially acceptable" cover for bigotry.
Their religious beliefs speak for them Vinny - they've both made very clear their adherence to their beliefs. Whatever they may or may not say in an interview is basically irrelevent because answers in interviews are prepared in advance by political handlers. Bush is a politician running for re-election and Ashcroft want to continue his assault on the constitution which he can only do if Bush gets re-elected. Their statements will be tailored by their handlers to attain that goal and as such need to be taken with a hefty grain of salt.
As the top Republican Bush has to at least start off supporting his senators and congress critters until such time as the damage by doing so outweighs the advantages. So I'm not surprised for that reason as well to see him supporting Santorum.
Posted by: The Dynamic Driveler on April 25, 2003 12:41 PM1. I never said they weren't opposed to it. And frankly, as repugnant as I find that point of view, they are entitled to it. You know, the same free speech thing that people wrap themselves in at war protests?
2. I hate Ashcroft more than any liberal because he drags the party down with his religious fanaticism and police-state tactics, so believe me, you're preaching to the choir when you criticize him in front of me.
3. I didn't see any outrage from anyone left of center when Patty Murray made her remarks about Osama bin Laden being a better statesmen than anyone in our administration, Rep. Moran saying we're in this war because of "pro-Israel pressure in the administration," Charlie Rangel saying we're bombing women and children (not accidentally, purposely) to punish Saddam, and the list goes on. Santorum is attributed something into his quote that he didn't even say, and everyone on the left jumps on it, even though it's already been proven untrue.
Do you watch the show Queer as Folk? I do. One of the characters said the following: "I'd rather vote for a Republican than a Democrat. At least a Republican hates you to your face."
Santorum was honest and he has the right to think what he thinks. Elections are the final say. But your lack of criticism for anything that came out of the other mouths and criticism for something that was really a great big nothing is very disappointing.
Posted by: Vinny on April 25, 2003 08:34 PMI am not an american Vinny so I don't pay too much attention to what senators and congressmen say unless it is brought to my attention by multiple references, and the topic is something I'm interested in. That's my way of saying that your point #3 is all entirely new news to me, except a vague memory of hearing that someone had accused the administration of going to war for Israel (a comment for which there is certainly an elenent of truth).
You make unfounded assumptions regarding what people you disagree with have read or seen and then you use those asumnptions to take a pot shot at them without first confirming the basis of those assumptions. That might be a less unreasonable position if the person you are addressing is also American, given the relative homogeneity of the US media, but it is totally unreasonable when that person isn't, and as this is the Internet that is always a distinct possibility. In this case you are wrong.
Have any left of center people addressed the incidents you bring up - I don't know. Aside from not being aware of those incidences in the first place I haven't visited every left of center site out there to see if someone is criticizing them. Have you?
Shocking as it may seem to many Americans, foreign media (which fwiw is the bulk of my news sources, both traditional and Internet based), do not devote the entirety, majority, or even a large minority of their time, energy, airtime and column inches to the US particularly to what senators and congress critters might say on any given day. They tend to only cover the big news out of the US. I watch US news media when I want to get the American perspective on something, not to fill me in on what's happening in the world. I have far better sources for that function.
While I generally land to the left of center that is certainly not a given. Where I land depends on the issue and the individual circumstances. Always has always will.
Having written allmof that I thought I would go and have a look at what Patty Murray actually said. She didn't say as you suggest that
bq. Osama bin Laden (is) a better statesmen than anyone in our administration
in fact what she said was (according to the AP report):
bq. At an appearance before a high school honors class, Murray, D-Wash., offered what her spokesman called an intentionally provocative challenge for students to ponder.
bq. "We’ve got to ask, why is this man (bin Laden) so popular around the world?" Murray asked during an appearance Wednesday at Columbia River High School. "Why are people so supportive of him in many countries that are riddled with poverty?"
bq. The answers may be uncomfortable, but are important for Americans to ponder — particularly students, Murray said.
bq. "He’s been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven’t done that," Murray said.
bq. "How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"
and assuming Bin Laden has been doing what she said he has been doing (I have no idea if that's true or not)then she is dead on right. If you find that thought uncomfortable then you need to reconsider US foreign policy over hte last few decades (both Republican and Democrat), because in the countries she's talking about that's all you've done is bomb them and bring them misery. Further the attacks on her were from whatI can see took her statements somewhat out of context. THe statements were delivered to a high school crowd with the intent to get them thinking about US foreign policy. They were intended to be controversial in order to achiece the goal of making them rethink US policy. But what the hell any time FOX, Drudge et al. can take a cheap shot they will and the mindless automatons of the right will fall in behind them and ape their sentiments.
As for Charley Rangel, well I've just spent 10 minutes doing a Google search for the incident you are refering to and I can't find it unless you are refering to If so yuo can't possibly take that seriously. I took it for what it appeared to me to be, an obvious statement on the unfairness of war. That in modern society it is the small wealthy power elite class that causes or declares wars but it is a vastly diproportionate poor and lower middle class segment that does the fighting and dying. I doubt they were being serious but if they were hten they need there heads examined. As political statement it is powerful as it draws one's attentions to the indisputable inequities that exist. As serious legislation it is ridiculous in the extreme. I don't know either Rangel or Conyers so I can't say what their motivations were.. If it was some other incident you were refering to please post a link, I can't be bothered looking any further.
I've never, ever, stated that Bush, Santorum, Ashcroft et al are not entitled to their opinions or their right to say so. There is no greater supporter of free speech than myself which is why I excercise it at the drop of a hat. You fall just short of accusing me of the opposite, and that is something I will not tolerate.
So far as Santorum is concerned I have notr seen the complete interview only excerpts from it on many different sites. Feel free to post a link to an unedited version if you have one. In the meanwhile you might want to check out this and i'll draw your attention to this paragraph:
bq. The inside story is that the senator's words were even more picturesque than originally reported. Santorum's comments were so beyond the pale, the shaken interviewer had to call for a break to get back on track.
and this partial transcript of theAP interview from CNN:
bq. SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
bq. 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. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality --
Don't know how you read it but it seems to me he is stating you have no right to privacy at all in the US and it sure seems to me he is doing his damndest to equate homosexuality with everything else he thinks of as a perversion. Your interpretation may differ.
Posted by: The Dynamic Driveler on April 26, 2003 12:42 AMhttp://www.insignificantthoughts.com/archives/000130.html
Posted by: Vinny on April 26, 2003 01:18 PM