Sen. Rick Santorum

[Art]

Gbear,

The Equal Protection clause arose out of an era where whites owned blacks. It is written in a beautiful way to say that all citizens are provided equal weight and protection under the law. Since the Texas law is written to say that ALL Texas citizens have a right to sodomy, they are encompassing the whole of the population of the state. The law allows all people to have sex in most any way they want with someone of the opposite sex. That includes gays.

The only way the Equal Protection clause can apply here for gays is if they qualify as a special race of people. Since they have the same rights as everyone else, what they want is additional rights to have sex with same sex people. Hetrosexuals are also banned from that. So, again, the law is consistent and applies equally for every citizen. The only way to say that the law violates the Equal Protection clause is to say that gays are a race and that race has the same rights as any other, which includes the ability to be sexually active.

The law does not outlaw action for one person but not another. It does allow gays to have sex with the opposite sex. It doesn't allow straight people to have sex with the same sex. The law consistently applies across the board. Everyone is treated equally under the law. Unless gay people are a classified race of people different from the rest of society. As long as the law allows a gay person to have sex with someone of the opposite sex, just as it allows a straight person to, then you are not in violation of the Equal Protection clause because everyone has the same right. Some may chose not to avail themselves of the benefit of that right.

For the court to classify this as an Equal Protection violation it would have to say that gay people are born the way they are and have no choice in the matter and must have their activities protected as a specific class of people and that is the dangerous area I'm hopeful we don't find ourselves touching.

[gbear]

Does the Texas law allow for sodomy with hetero couples? It's an honest question because I haven't read it. If not:

Can't a case be made that the enforcement of a law must be equal for all people?

If you use a law only on one group of people and fail to enforce the law on another group of people, isn't that a violation of equal protection?

In other words, once Texas charges a hetero couple with sodomy, they can claim the same laws apply to everyone. However, if they only target gays for enforcement...

[JackC]

"I've actually seen people say since the Texas law forbids sodomy for gays but not for hetrosexual couples, that the Court could strike it simply by citing the 14th Amendment. This, to me, is a far more dangerous thing to consider. Essentially you'd be immediately making gay people a race. I don't think that's going to happen here. But, that's my biggest fear. As it is gay and straight people can engage in sodomy all they want. So can whites and blacks and hispanics and the rest. They just have to find someone of an opposite sex to do it with. "

Art,

I was under the impression the Texas law applied to everyone. This is just a case where a law is put on the books very likely by people who wish to force their morality on others. In this case the law is an ***.

For the record I don't believe the government has any business deciding how to support or even what is the "family". It sure doesn't say anything about that in the constitution. States are not free to pass any law they wish. I believe there might have been a war fought over some of these issues already.

Either way I still can't understand why anyone would think it's OK for the Texas government to have a law like this. At least I haven't heard anyone defend it very well. Everyone wants to make the arguement about something else. (like sex with animals) Why would anything two guys in El Paso do in their bedroom harm any familiy in Lubbock? I don't get it.

[Kilmer17]

The Constitution does say what defines a family and what's good for said family.

It's right after the seperation of church and state.

[NavyDave]

So Jack, what was your score on the butt pirate test?

I don't see the big deal.

What he said was right.

For the abortion ruling some guy convinced some fools that somewhere in the right of privacy that killing your unborn child is there when it is not.

You eliminate Roe V Wade and it becomes a State issue instead of a federal one.

He doesnt want the Supreme Court to set a precedent where other deviants can use the case get with Fido or pervs like R Kelly can get away with P***** on minors.

And I understand and agree with the states and the people of the state having their laws and the Supreme court not becoming activist and finding something that isnt there to interpret

[JackC]

Originally posted by NavyDave

So Jack, what was your score on the butt pirate test?

I don't see the big deal.

What he said was right.

For the abortion ruling some guy convinced some fools that somewhere in the right of privacy that killing your unborn child is there when it is not.

You eliminate Roe V Wade and it becomes a State issue instead of a federal one.

He doesnt want the Supreme Court to set a precedent where other deviants can use the case get with Fido or pervs like R Kelly can get away with P***** on minors.

And I understand and agree with the states and the people of the state having their laws and the Supreme court not becoming activist and finding something that isnt there to interpret

Typical response from you ND. (Not that there's anything wrong with that)

This has nothing to do with Abortion or child sex. My score on "what" test? Sad tactic but not unusual for you. (Although I hear you're a real pretty man! )

[NavyDave]

My score was 16% then 10%

Go to the other forum and take it.

He was talking about moral relativity and that includes abortion as well as deviant sex.

He mentioned butt pirates while talking about the slipperry slope when it comes to sodomy since sodomy also means bestiality,pedophillia,necrophillia and multiples.

There are forms of consenting bondage that involves using choking for gratification and in some cases death that are deviant acts that should be policed also.

[JackC]

You're right NavyDave,

We should make laws to stop all of this stuff. I hear some things make you go blind so let's outlaw them too!

Why don't you conservatives just push Mr Santorum to the front. Maybe he can be the VP on the Bush ticket next time. I would hope for that!

[NavyDave]

JackC the laws are already on the book.

Frankly I dont care if you want to give your friend a hummer as long as its not in front of my house

[TheKurp]

Art and Kilmer,

MYTH: Separation of church and state is not in the U.S. Constitution.

FACT: It is true that the literal phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but that does not mean the concept isn't there. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

What does that mean? A little history is helpful: In an 1802 letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson, then president, declared that the American people through the First Amendment had erected a "wall of separation between church and state." (Colonial religious liberty pioneer Roger Williams used a similar phrase 150 years earlier.)

Jefferson, however, was not the only leading figure of the post-revolutionary period to use the term separation. James Madison, considered to be the Father of the Constitution, said in an 1819 letter, "[T]he number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church and state." In an earlier, undated essay (probably early 1800s), Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church, State and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American people....[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that 'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles."

Thus, it is entirely appropriate to speak of the "constitutional principle of church-state separation" since that phrase summarizes what the First Amendment's religion clauses do-they separate church and state.

Originally posted by Art

Kurp,

If Santorum wants children to be able to say the Pledge, or the kids at Columbine to put religious messages like, "God will always love you," on a permanent reminder of the events there, or of he wants to allow religious charities to play a role in government supported charity, or, any number of things of this sort, I can see nothing wrong with it and I find it tortured and painful to see you attempt to draw some correlation to these types of things and an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq.

Hmmmm... about as "tortured and painful" as it is for Santorum to attempt to correlate harmless sexual acts between two consenting adults to child molestation.

You know what Art? I find this defense of Santorum by you and others to be akin to blind Republican homerism. The transcript posted here on the Tailgate clearly defines the intent and meaning behind Santorum's words. Yet you and others are doing your best to spin this in a favorable light by dissecting each of Santorum's sentences and singularly applying logic.

While I expect this from some of the right-flying conservatives on this board, I expect more from you Art. Perhaps you don't always recognize a spade when it's dealt face up.

[Kilmer17]

What's amazing is that you believe that spew.

Any negative connotation has to be inferred. And wrongly so. If you cant understand the context and the meaning of his words, then you are not as intelligent as I thought or you are simply the witch hunting liberal I suspected you were at first.

Just as the Sepration of Church and state has to be interpreted into the meaning of the COnstitution, so too can the meaning and purpose of protecting the family. Neither are specifically mentioned, but both have been upheld by various laws, statues, and court decisions.

[luckydevil]

I thought this was a pretty good article.

http://nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz042403.asp

Defending Senator Santorum

The Pennsylvania Republican has been subject to shameful treatment.

I come to the question of homosexuality and public policy from a different perspective than U.S. Senator Rick Santorum. I would like to see sodomy laws abolished, and have said so publicly. I should also note that I am not religious, and do not see homosexuality as sinful. Nonetheless, I am convinced that Sen. Santorum's recent remarks on homosexuality have been badly distorted by both the Democratic party and the mainstream press. The shameful public response to Sen. Santorum's statements is a sad and revealing example of liberal media bias at its worst.

The chief charge against Santorum is that he has "equated" homosexuality with bigamy, polygamy, and incest. That charge is a serious distortion of Santorum's point. In his most widely quoted (and excoriated) remark, Santorum says, "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 incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

Clearly, Sen. Santorum is making a classic slippery-slope argument here — a fact that has been completely lost amidst the claims that he has "equated" homosexuality with, say, incest. In his statement, Santorum gives a number examples, all different, yet all cases in which he claims that the government has some legitimate interest in regulating sexuality. Sen. Santorum is obviously concerned that, if the Supreme Court rules that the state has no right to regulate sexuality in the case of sodomy, a court might someday deny the state the right to regulate even incest.

This is not a new argument. In fact, it has been ably put forward by National Review senior editor, Ramesh Ponnuru in his essay, "Sexual Rights," which discusses the sodomy case currently before the Supreme Court. In "Sexual Rights," Ponnuru makes the following statement, "If all private morals laws are to be held unconstitutional [as the friend-of-the-court brief by the libertarian Institute of Justice asks] it is hard to see how laws against prostitution or, even more, incest could be maintained." Clearly, this is the same point that Santorum was making. Yet no one claimed that Ponnuru was "equating" homosexuality and incest.

In fact, Ponnuru makes it clear in "Sexual Rights" that, while he approves of incest laws, he opposes sodomy laws, and would vote to repeal them (legislatively, not judicially). Obviously, then, the slippery-slope argument invoked by both Santorum and Ponnuru does not in any way depend upon an "equation" of sodomy and incest. On the contrary, as in all slippery-slope arguments, the implication is that some steps on the slope are more radical than others. And as Ponnuru shows, Santorum's underlying constitutional point can be accepted either by those who do — or who do not — favor sodomy laws.

THE MEDIA'S STORY

A reader of Wednesday's New York Times would have found accounts of the Santorum controversy in three places — a news article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, a short unsigned editorial, and an op-ed piece by Maureen Dowd. Yet in none of these places (most unforgivably, in the news article) was there even a glimmer of an indication of the real meaning of Santorum's slippery-slope argument.

There is no excuse for this omission. After all, Santorum clearly explained his meaning in the statement issued on Tuesday. According to that statement, "In the interview, I expressed the same concern as many constitutional scholars, and discussed arguments put forward by the State of Texas, as well as Supreme Court justices. If such a law restricting personal conduct is held unconstitutional, so could other existing state laws." So not only was Santorum's initial slippery-slope argument misconstrued and distorted by his Democratic opponents, and by reporters, his own explanation of his remarks was — inexcusably — left out of every one of the New York Times' accounts of the dispute.

We already know that, during the controversial early days of the war in Iraq, the New York Times omitted two critical words from an infamous quote by Lieutenant General William Wallace. Instead of saying that, "The enemy we're fighting [in Iraq] is different from the one we war-gamed against," Lt. Gen. Wallace actually said, "The enemy we're fighting is a bit different than the one we war-gamed against." The failure to clearly convey Santorum's explanation of his slippery-slope argument may not be precisely the same as omitting critical words from a quotation. In my view, however, the journalistic sin of omission in this case is at least as damning, if not more so.

It is true that Santorum also said that, "...all of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family." I will explain in a moment why this statement does not "equate" homosexuality with polygamy or incest. But even if someone wanted to make the argument that this brief phrase did make that equation, they would not be arguing fairly or honestly unless they clearly acknowledged the slippery-slope argument being put forward in Santorum's supposedly insulting earlier remark. The fact that the press and the Democrats have failed to acknowledge this critical point about the slippery-slope argument — even after Santorum has clearly affirmed it — reveals the bad faith behind their distorted accounts of his interview.

The technique of Sheryl Gay Stolberg's hit job in the New York Times deserves closer attention. Of course, there's no hint of Santorum's claim to be making a slippery-slope argument — and no attempt to confirm or disconfirm that claim by, say, interviewing experts on the constitutional issues involved in sodomy cases. Instead, Stolberg's piece is built around the claim that the Santorum controversy is just one more in a line of lamentable Republican insults to gays.

Before the Santorum case even gets mentioned, Stolberg sets the reader up for anger against the senator by recalling that Dick Armey once called prominent gay congressman Barney Frank, "Barney Fag." Then, after presenting Santorum's controversial quotes — with no real explanation of their meaning — Stolberg goes on to detail numerous cases of rude or insulting remarks by lawmakers — particularly Republican lawmakers — against gays. The effect is to invoke guilt by association, without ever examining, or allowing the reader to consider, the real meaning of Santorum's remarks.

ARE CHRISTIANS FIT FOR OFFICE?

The truth is, throughout his interview, Santorum was defending two things: the current law of the land (i.e. that sodomy laws, whether advisable or not, are indeed constitutional), and the widely held views of Catholics (and other religious people) about homosexuality. Catholic doctrine holds that individuals with a homosexual orientation are to be loved and nurtured. Yet Catholic doctrine also admonishes against these acts, and considers that homosexual acts, along with other forms of sexual activity outside of marriage, are "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family." So if the Democrats or the mainstream press believe that Santorum's remarks mean that he must step down from his leadership position, then they are saying that no traditional Christian ought to hold a position of political leadership in this country.

No doubt, this is exactly what many Democrats and members of the mainstream media do in fact believe, although they would never put it so baldly. Then again, maybe they would. After all, Democratic objections to the appointment of Attorney General John Ashcroft, objections to the president's prayer breakfasts, and objections to Education Secretary Rod Paige's recent remarks on Christian education, are all part of a pattern in which Democrats do directly complain about traditional Christians in positions of leadership. In the case of Santorum's remarks, this litany of unfounded Democratic objections to the presence of traditional Christians in government is at least as relevant as Sheryl Gay Stolberg's litany of Republican insults to gays — indeed, more relevant. The failed and completely illegitimate efforts to force Secretary Paige's resignation are simply being repeated with Santorum.

Many will claim that the views of traditionally religious folk about social issues should have no place at all in determining public policy. That is nonsense. Throughout American history, public policies of all kinds have been shaped by the religious views of individual American citizens. Naturally, non-believers cannot and should not be swayed by religious arguments. But the fact is, traditional Christian views about marriage and sexuality can be separated from their religious context.

As I argued in my piece on cloning, "Missing Link," when the pope says that sexual relations not directed toward reproduction within the context of marriage tend to threaten the structure of the traditional family, he is absolutely right. It is not necessary to be Catholic — or religious — to grant the acuity of the pope's sociological insight. In fact, it is not even necessary to agree with the pope about the need to limit non-marital sexual relations to see the validity of the connection he is making. The truth is, a whole series of non-marital or non-reproductive practices that have gained social approval over the last 30 years — from birth control, to abortion, to premarital sex, to homosexuality — have in fact helped to undermine the structure of the traditional family. That is true, whether or not you are religious, and whether or not you think that these developments have been positive or not.

So when Santorum says that "all these things" (homosexuality, polygamy, etc.) tend to undermine the traditional family, he is absolutely right. And I can agree with Santorum about this, even if I personally happen to believe that the tradeoff in family instability happens to be worth it in the case of sodomy laws, which I think should be abolished. We all need to decide — individually, and as a society — how to balance the complex tradeoff between family stability and personal freedom. But the tradeoff is real, and there is nothing wrong with any individual consulting his religious beliefs to help him decide how to balance these competing goods. In this case, moreover, I believe that Santorum's religiously derived wisdom contributes to the public debate by reminding naive secularists that there is in fact a tradeoff between sexual freedom and family stability.

As I've noted elsewhere, even many gay thinkers believe that there is a tradeoff between social acceptance for homosexuality and the stability of the family. In his book, The Pleasure Principle, gay activist Michael Bronski makes exactly this point. Bronski happens to believe that the traditional family is oppressive and outdated, and so looks forward to the day when increased acceptance of homosexuality will help to put an end to traditional family patterns for everyone, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Agree or not, the tradeoff is real.

Nothing in this argument implies that homosexuality is "equivalent" to, say, incest. True, homosexuality, adultery, polygamy, and incest, insofar as they contravene traditional norms, all tend to destabilize the traditional family. They have that in common, but they are still by no means "equivalent." Legalized group marriage, for example, would be more damaging to the traditional family than gay marriage. But gay marriage could nonetheless put us on the slippery slope to legalized polyamory. There is a relationship here, but by no means an equivalence. And nothing in Santorum's remarks implies otherwise.

In short, Santorum has made a slippery-slope argument against the abolition of sodomy laws by court order. Many conservatives have offered the same argument, and I happen to agree with it. Unlike Santorum, I would like to see the abolition of sodomy laws by legislative action on the state level. But as Santorum makes clear in his interview, while he may personally favor sodomy laws, he would gracefully accept the decision of any state to abolish such a law. For the rest, Santorum's statement about the trade-off effect between sexual freedom and family stability seems to me to be entirely justified, even if I would balance these goods differently than he would. And Sen. Santorum's acceptance of a homosexual orientation, combined with doubts about the act itself, is just a classic statement of "loving the sinner but hating the sin." I don't happen to share that view, but it is ludicrous to claim that holding it should disqualify a man from high office.

There is something terribly wrong about the way that the Democrats and the press are treating Santorum. As I've argued, much of this stems from partisanship and bad faith. But there is something more. This vexed issue of homosexuality and public policy truly does bring out the worst in our press. The profound ignorance in the mainstream media about conservative arguments on social issues — be these arguments constitutional, sociological, or religious — hamstrings the press's ability to perform its job with even minimal fairness. Above all, it is the secular character of the mainstream media which is blinding . (For more on this, see the extraordinary piece, "Our Secular Democratic Party," by Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio, in the Fall 2002 issue of The Public Interest.)

Nowadays, it is fashionable for liberals to complain about the rise of the conservative counter-media. Supposedly, the mainstream media does their best to be fair, while the conservative counter-media are free to be partisan. Had the mainstream media honestly opened itself to conservative reporters, as it has to liberals, things might have turned out differently. But so long as the mainstream media keeps producing the sort of partisan and ignorant nonsense it has deployed in its effort to destroy Sen. Santorum, it will deserve all the criticism from conservatives that it gets.

— Stanley Kurtz is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

[TheKurp]

I thought THIS to be a pretty good article.

Santorum's Stumble

By Howard Kurtz

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, April 23, 2003; 8:56 AM

At least Trent Lott had the good sense to apologize.

Rick Santorum doesn't seem to grasp why people are upset by his corrosive comments about gays.

Is it still acceptable, in 2003, to depict gays as some kind of strange, deviant group, as weird as those who have sex with relatives? We're about to find out.

Santorum, by the way, is not just a senator from Pennsylvania; he's the third-ranking member of the Republican leadership.

The media, once again, seem to be a bit slow. We couldn't find the Santorum story in yesterday's USA Today. The New York Times ran a wire story on the bottom of page A21 in some editions. The Washington Post had a short, staff-written story on the bottom of Page A4; the Los Angeles Times had a wire story on Page A13 of the national edition.

What did Santorum say? Let's start with yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer report:

"Outraged gay-rights groups called on Senate Republicans to consider removing Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) from his leadership post after comments in which he compared gay sex to incest.

"The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay advocacy group, and several Pennsylvania-based gay-rights organizations said Santorum's remarks, concerning a challenge to a Texas sodomy law under review by the Supreme Court, were an affront to millions of Americans.

"'It is stunning, stunning in its insensitivity,' said David Smith, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign. 'Putting homosexuality on the same moral plane as incest is repulsive.'

"Smith was reacting to a recent interview in which Santorum was quoted as criticizing legal initiatives to overturn the Texas sodomy law.

"'If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] 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,' Santorum said in the interview with the Associated Press.

"Santorum spokeswoman Erica Clayton Wright said yesterday that Santorum had no problem with gay relationships. 'Sen. Santorum was specifically speaking about the right to privacy within the context of the Supreme Court case,' she said, explaining that he did not want to elevate gay sex to the level of a constitutional right."

That explanation, to put it politely, is rather tangled.

Santorum has "no problem" with gays – some of his best friends, etc. – but believes they have no constitutional right to engage in consensual activity, the way that heterosexuals do?

In other words, he has no problem with gays except for the sexual behavior they engage in. He thinks it should be illegal.

He would no more grant gays legal protection for consensual sex than he would those who engage in incest.

Keep in mind, this isn't one of those tricky public-policy conundrums – like gays in the military or gays in the Boy Scouts or whether gays should be protected against workplace discrimination – that involve other people and institutions. It's about what gay people do in the privacy of their home.

Is this George Bush's vision of compassionate conservatism (or Dick Cheney's for that matter, since he has a daughter who's a lesbian)?

No knuckle-rapping from the White House, at least not yet. Ari Fleischer ducked the question yesterday, saying he hadn't seen the interview and hadn't discussed the matter with Bush.

How can Lott talking about a segregationist candidate in '48 be more offensive than Santorum disrespecting gays in '03?

The New York Times casts the Santorum spat as something of a GOP problem:

"In the long and conflicted history between gays and Republicans, Senator Rick Santorum – caught in a storm over his remarks equating homosexuality with polygamy and incest – is writing a new chapter.

"Eight years ago, Dick Armey, then the House majority leader, referred to Representative Barney Frank, the prominent gay lawmaker, as Barney Fag. Three years later, Senator Trent Lott infuriated gays when he likened them to kleptomaniacs.

"Now it is Mr. Santorum, of Pennsylvania, who is being accused of having a tin ear – or worse."

Here's the AP follow-up in this morning's Inquirer:

"Rick Santorum, the Senate's third-ranked Republican who is under fire from gay-rights groups and Democrats, says he has 'no problem with homosexuality – I have a problem with homosexual acts.'"

Boy, that oughta make everyone feel better. Kind of like saying you have no problem with disabled folks, it's just those blasted wheelchairs.

"In an interview on the Fox News Channel, Santorum did not back down. 'I do not need to give an apology based on what I said and what I am saying now,' he said. 'I think it is a legitimate public-policy discussion.'

"Conservative Republicans, including former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, rallied to Santorum's defense."

The Chicago Tribune has more reaction:

"William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said that such comparisons are 'disingenuous' and that the comments accurately reflect 'the Christian understanding of marriage.'

"Former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer also came to Santorum's defense. 'I think that while some elites may be upset by those comments, they're pretty much in the mainstream of where most of the country is.'

"However, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is charged with electing Democrats to the Senate, called on Santorum to resign as the Republican Party's conference chairman, the third-highest ranking position in the GOP Senate leadership."

In Salon, Andrew Sullivan finds the senator's legal theory chilling:

"Santorum's position is therefore that there should be no constitutional restraint on the power of government to regulate sexual morality – even within your own bedroom. The only restraint – especially against any sexual minorities – would be mandated by majority decisions. . . .

"What Santorum is proposing is far more radical. It is not simply that we should have public standards for morality, but that this can and should be imposed even on people in their private homes. He would not simply assert a social norm; he would enforce it with the power of the state. . . .

"Notice one other thing. Santorum also believes it should be legitimate for the government to police adultery."

Um, what about that constituency? Don't they vote?

"We now know where Santorum stands. But what about his party?"

In the world of finance, looks like the maestro may be sticking around for awhile:

"President Bush surprised the financial world yesterday by signaling his willingness to appoint Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to a fifth term as leader of the United States' central bank," says the Los Angeles Times.

"Observers thought Greenspan had angered Bush earlier this year by offering tepid support for the president's latest tax cut proposal. They assumed the White House would seek to install its own choice when Greenspan's four-year term expires in June 2004."

We just found it odd that Bush would make his remarks on the day the 77-year-old chairman had prostate surgery. Maybe he was trying to reassure the markets, which shot up yesterday.

Newt has a new target, and it's not Democrats:

"Former House speaker Newt Gingrich unleashed a broadside yesterday against the State Department for alleged diplomatic failures, intensifying the ideological trench warfare that has long characterized the Bush administration," reports USA Today.

"In a speech at the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Gingrich accused the State Department of being responsible for the global unpopularity of U.S. policies in Iraq and contrasted that with the success of the Pentagon's military campaign.

"The State Department 'failed . . . to such a degree that 95% of the Turkish people opposed the American position,' Gingrich said. 'Despite a pathetic public campaign of hand wringing and desperation,' he said, the department failed to gain the votes it needed for a second United Nations Security Council resolution paving the way for war in Iraq.

"Gingrich, a close associate of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, asserted that his harsh criticism had nothing to do with Secretary of State Colin Powell personally. But Gingrich also attacked Powell directly by saying his decision to visit Syria soon was 'ludicrous.'"

And who does Colin Powell work for, by the way?

You might think that, postwar, Bush is riding high. But to American Prospect editor Harold Meyerson, 43 is "The Most Dangerous President Ever":

"At heart, the current Bush is a warrior for a region, a faction, a part of America. No national calamity has tempered his zeal for his factional agenda. His determination to reward the 'investor class' (that is, still, the rich), to appoint socially reactionary judges, to favor his business cronies has not waned in wartime. His desire to make Americans reliant on the market, rather than social savings, has not been deterred by the worst decline in the markets since the Great Depression. . . .

"This factional tilt is partly a matter of strategy. Bush and his political consigliere, Karl Rove, place great stress on rewarding the Republican right-wing base. As they see it, George Bush Senior was defeated in 1992 because he broke his pledge never to raise taxes, thereby alienating the conservative activists without whom a Republican cannot win. In fact, the senior Bush's failure to alleviate, or even address, a serious recession is what cost him the election, but Rove is convinced that by governing on the right, providing military security for all and voicing a threadbare rhetoric of compassion, his boy George can win re-election.

"And so, by strategy, inclination and conviction, George W. Bush has been pursuing a reckless, even ridiculous, but always right-wing agenda – shredding a global-security structure at a time requiring unprecedented international integration, shredding a domestic safety net at a time when the private sector provides radically less security than it did a generation ago. No American president has ever played quite so fast and loose with the well-being of the American people. . . .

"For Bush himself, overthrowing Saddam Hussein serves political, ideological and personal agendas. Politically, Hussein is the best available substitute for the unlocatable bin Laden – and even if we can't find Hussein, we can at least, as is not the case with bin Laden, depose him. Ideologically, the war and the doctrine of preemption express the militarism, unilateralism and fear of international institutions that characterize much of the Republican base in the South and the Mountain States. Personally, by overthrowing Hussein in this manner, Bush completes the unfinished work of his father while consigning to history Bush Senior's world of alliances and multilateralism."

Saddam's largesse may have extended further than we realized. London's Telegraph has this potential bombshell:

"George Galloway, the Labour backbencher, received money from Saddam Hussein's regime, taking a slice of oil earnings worth at least 375,000 pounds a year, according to Iraqi intelligence documents found by The Daily Telegraph in Baghdad.

"A confidential memorandum sent to Saddam by his spy chief said that Mr Galloway asked an agent of the Mukhabarat secret service for a greater cut of Iraq's exports under the oil for food programme.

"He also said that Mr Galloway was profiting from food contracts and sought 'exceptional' business deals. Mr Galloway has always denied receiving any financial assistance from Baghdad.

"Asked to explain the document, he said: 'Maybe it is the product of the same forgers who forged so many other things in this whole Iraq picture. Maybe The Daily Telegraph forged it. Who knows?'"

"Who knows"? He'll have to do better than that.

Nation Editor Katrina van den Heuvel doesn't much like America's up-and-coming preacher:

"With America's leading evangelist in the White House, is it any wonder that Christian preacher Franklin Graham and his relief agency, Samaritan's Purse, are 'poised and ready' to bring their missionary zeal to the Iraqi people?

"Franklin Graham, Billy's son, has, like his father, earned the title of 'pastor to presidents.' He has also earned widespread criticism from Muslims for calling Islam a 'very evil and wicked religion' bent on 'world domination.' Such statements have made many people, not only Muslims, question the decision to give him a role in the Middle East. Nevertheless, Graham and his relief agency are about to head into Iraq, eagerly awaiting, in the words of Maureen Dowd, 'to inveigle Iraqi infidels with a blend of kitchen pantry and Elmer Gantry.'

"And, in the meantime, Donald Rumsfeld invited Graham to deliver this past week's Good Friday prayer service to a packed audience at the Pentagon--over the objections of the lay leader of the Pentagon's Muslim community, who charitably called Graham a 'divisive' figure, and a number of Muslim Pentagon employees.

"Yes, let's raise tough questions about Graham's divisive statements and what they augur for his missionary work in Iraq. But, let's remember that it's our President, Evangelist #1, who bears ultimate responsibility for the religious right's strength--at home and abroad."

ABC's Note deconstructs a New York Times piece in which the Bushies get to whack away at certain Democratic contenders:

"The Times men describe John Kerry as 'the Democrat that many of Mr. Bush's advisers see as the most likely to win the nomination. . . . In assessing Mr. Bush's potential opponents, Mr. Bush's advisers said Mr. Kerry could be presented as ideologically and culturally out of step, both because of his liberal positions on some issues as well as his Boston lineage and what some Bush advisers described as his haughty air.'

"'Marc Racicot, the Republican national chairman, said recently that Mr. Kerry "is going to have a hard time translating out of New England." Another Bush adviser said of Mr. Kerry, "He looks French."' We look forward to hearing from Note readers about that.

"What, precisely, does it mean in the context of Senator Kerry to look 'French'? 'Unpatriotic'? 'Arrogant'? 'Slim'?

"'Several said that another leading Democratic contender, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, could be the one Democrat who could compete with Mr. Bush in the South. But they argued that Mr. Edwards was open to attack both for his close ties with trial lawyers and for his lack of experience in government.'

"'Mr. Racicot said Mr. Edwards could be portrayed as "slick and shallow," while another Bush associate described Mr. Edwards as the Breck Girl of politics, a reference to the shiny-hair model for a popular shampoo in the 1960's.' . . .

"Jennifer Palmieri, spokesperson for the Edwards campaign says sagely: 'Don't misunderestimate the Breck girl. . . . '"

Hey, good hair counts in politics.

[Kilmer17]

Is it still acceptable, in 2003, to depict gays as some kind of strange, deviant group, as weird as those who have sex with relatives? We're about to find out.

Of course it's not. Santorum didnt say anything like this.

Im still wondering where these groups were when A Democrat made an OPENLY anti-semitic remark. They, of course, were silent.

The witch hunt only applies to GOPers.

[Art]

Kurp,

Thomas Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written. Further, we've already discussed the Danbury letter. First, the Constitution doesn't contain the contents of the Danbury letter. Now, while I consider the contents of the Danbury letter strikingly different than the legislative Supreme Court did as discussed earlier on this board:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21468&perpage=15&display=&highlight=Jefferson%20Danbury&pagenumber=4

Read my thoughts there on this, but it is worth saying, the "wall of separation" Jefferson discusses is a one-way wall. It is a wall that keeps government out of religion. It doesn't keep religion out of government. But, for the record, none of that matters. Let's assume Jefferson, who was a religious man, thought religion and government must be clearly restricted from ANY comingling at all. Let's assume that's 100 percent true. Let's further assume that Jefferson was around for the writing of the Constitution. So what?

Is it not possible that one politician at the time thought something different than a majority of others and the majority of others wrote the Constitution to accomodate the majority, rather than the minority? America was founded on a principle of religious freedom. If the government says students CAN'T say the Pledge, they are clearly abridging the student's right to freedom of expression. The government simply can't establish a state church. This is what the Danbury letter spoke to. One religion in Mass. getting screwed because another was in control. Jefferson hated that. The founding fathers didn't want a situation, as with in England, where any religion was persecuted for expressing their beliefs. The governemnt, however, has ALWAYS been able to support and encourage ALL religions equally. You know this. But, in the future, when you want, quote the Constitution with words from the Constitution. If you want to talk about the Establishment clause, do so. Don't make stuff up as you did here. There is no "separation of church and state" as you wrote. Thus, it is NEVER appropriate to speak to a constitutional separation of church and state where none exists. At best, even if you could prove people who helped write the Constitution were for this premise, and spoke those words, those words aren't in the document for a reason.

More probably though, the founders didn't believe in a separation in the slightest. They believed the government must never be allowed to hinder the free expression of religion. They believed in religious freedom. They did believe there should be no state church. And there has never been a separation between church and state while those men were alive.

As for the rest, you wrote, "Hmmmm... about as "tortured and painful" as it is for Santorum to attempt to correlate harmless sexual acts between two consenting adults to child molestation."

In fact, that is not present at all in Santorum's words. In order to draw that correlation, which I agree with you IS tortured and painful, between gays bedroom activities and child molestation you must actually add words. You must create intent. You must actually IGNORE the words and make them mean something else.

You must ignore content completely. Santorum was speaking about the fictional Right to Privacy that doesn't exist in the Constitution. He argued, clearly, that if this so-called right can be invoked to protect the private actions of gays, it can be invoked to protect the private actions of any number of other abnormal behaviors. Again, here are his words, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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. All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution."

Santorum clearly says that the whole discussion comes from, in his view, this right to privacy that does not exist in the Constitution. He says that using this right to privacy argument to cover gay sexual activity that you open the door to the same argument being used to cover a number of other perversions. Hell, he even spoke about "adultery" here and there are more adulterers in this country than gay people.

My personal belief is that the state government probably should avoid passing laws of this nature. But, the government does have the right to do so if the laws apply equally across the board. If the people of a state do not like it they must change it or leave the state to another that is more in tune with their views. I believe, as Santorum does, that the right to privacy issue doesn't exist. It shouldn't be used to argue this case on a Federal level because it could be used to argue any number of other crimes.

In his quote, Kurp, he didn't say child molestation. He said incest, which is against the law in places even between consenting adults. He said adultery, which is between consenting adults as well. He said bigamy which can also be between consenting adults. He specifically spoke to areas in which consenting adults could use the right of privacy argument to defend their actions.

So, while you find my defense of Santorum blind Republican homerism, I find your continued unwillingness to stick to the words he actually said typical hysterical liberalism. You refuse to actually speak to the content of the words because you believe in an agenda and your ONLY argument to further that agenda is that this person is somehow tainted by comparing actions by one set of consenting adults against actions of several other consenting adults. Sadly you've had to expand his words to have a point. And you have the audacity to chastise me for bothering to stick to the comments. This is all your issue Kurp and none of mine.

You are doing everything you can possibly do to twist these comments into more than they were and you are astounding I'm not going to bother to address your fiction when I can continue to point to the reality of his words and wonder how come you have had to create so many words that weren't there just to get outraged?

Granted though, if the above quoted Santorum statement had mentioned some of the things you've mentioned, you'd have one heck of a point. Since it doesn't, you're just arguing against facts and are mad I won't play with you.

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Of course it's not. Santorum didnt say anything like this.

What do you make of this quote then...taken from the transcript.

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.

I am no two bit hack journalist - but even I can see that he is comparing sodomy with other behaviors (polygamy, adultery, etc.) that he feels isn't healthy to families.

[Kilmer17]

What's wrong with that quote? All of those things are unhealthy to a "traditional family".

Note, he did not mention child molestation, he mentions incest. Two completely seperate issues. He mentions polygamy and adultery. All of those happen between 2 consenting adults. And I think we would all agree that they dont help create a "traditional family".

The original firestorm was over his statements specific to the case in front of the court regarding the right to privacy. The left has succeeded, unfortunately, in creating a witch hunt in an attempt to continue their demonization of the GOP.

Again I'll ask, where was this firestorm when one of their own made openly anti-semitic remarks? They were silent.

[jbooma]

The law is the law, doesn't mean it is right or not, but the law is stated as so.

Here in VA you know everyone could be arrested for having sex in a car, oral sex, or even having the women on top. These are laws that still exist that no one has tried to change or get rid of.

Maybe in a different way Santorum was trying to bring something like this in the public's thoughts so then they can go about and finding these laws and updating them. I just love how everyone tries to jump on someone's littlest slip up, or mispoken word. It seems we are losing our freedom of speech since we get attacked now for what we say, even if it isn't right, and even if it is taken out of context.

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Again I'll ask, where was this firestorm when one of their own made openly anti-semitic remarks? They were silent.

You mean the DEMS didnt force Moran to quit his job as Democratic Whip?

And for whats it worth - Moran was a MORON to make those comments - and he did - apologize for his stupidty.

Now whether the apology is enough is questionable.

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

What's wrong with that quote? All of those things are unhealthy to a "traditional family".

Since you guys are so good at quoting the Constitution - perhaps you can show me where it defines "traditional family" in it.

Maybe I am missing it - but I honestly don't see it.

[Kilmer17]

Since you guys are so good at quoting the Constitution - perhaps you can show me where it defines "traditional family" in it.

It's right next to the "Seperation of Church and State" provision the left always trots out.

The Dems not only didnt ask him to step down, they didnt do ANYTHING. Neither did the mainstream leftist media.

Let's all take a step back and remember what the CONTEXT of what he said.

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

The Dems not only didnt ask him to step down, they didnt do ANYTHING. Neither did the mainstream leftist media.

Actually, Moran WAS forced to resign as the regional whip of the mid-Atlantic region by the DEMS - its supposedly a pretty high ranking "junior" position - whatever that means.

I believe only the DEMS could have forced him out of that position (since they determine who there "whips" are) - so I guess they did "slap him on the wrists" so to speak.

[Art]

TEG,

As far as I can tell Santorum doesn't attribute the traditional family to the Constitution. I believe he attributes the traditional family to tradition. A mom. A dad. Kids. That's not only the traditional family, but remains what a person imagines if asked to imagine a family.

So, again, liberals on this board and elsewhere have to falsely attribute a statement that doesn't exist in order to have a point. Can you have a point simply by being correct? Let's put it this way, if anyone, anywhere, had spoken about the traditional family as a part of the Constitution, you'd have a powerful point as to how dumb that person is. As no one has said that, and you've still asked the question, that reflects badly on you.

It is true and without contrary answer that adultery is not good for the traditional family depicted both in the first paragraph here and in your mind's eye. It is true and without contrary answer that hooking up with one's parent, even as an adult, is bad behavior for the traditional family. It is true and without contrary answer that being married simultaneously to more than one other person is a detracting thing for the traditional family. It is true and without contrary meaning that gay relationships are antithetical to the traditional family.

Over time there is little doubt the traditional family will change. But, a divorced couple is also antithetical to the traditional family as well. In each case what Santorum is saying is correct. That doesn't mean you have to think his view is all there is. You can want to expand that to say that a loving gay couple can be every bit the family that a loving straight couple can be. And, you could even be correct. That doesn't change the fact that gay relationships are antithetical to the traditional family. If you have a great value on the traditional family, this will be moving to you. If you don't have a great value on that, it won't.

But, in no case is what was stated something that should cause people to go into hysteria over. But, some are just more prone to such responses I suppose.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Art

TEG,

As far as I can tell Santorum doesn't attribute the traditional family to the Constitution. I believe he attributes the traditional family to tradition. A mom. A dad. Kids. That's not only the traditional family, but remains what a person imagines if asked to imagine a family.

Spin this one Art.

"My discussion ... was about the Supreme Court privacy case, the constitutional right to privacy in general, and in context of the impact on the family. I am a firm believer that all are equal under the Constitution," Santorum said.

So, again, liberals on this board and elsewhere have to falsely attribute a statement that doesn't exist in order to have a point. Can you have a point simply by being correct? Let's put it this way, if anyone, anywhere, had spoken about the traditional family as a part of the Constitution, you'd have a powerful point as to how dumb that person is. As no one has said that, and you've still asked the question, that reflects badly on you.

I expect an apology and a retraction will be forthcoming?

[Kilmer17]

TEG- I stand corrected.

Kurp, that is precisely what I have been saying. It was a very contextual remark.