Victims Group vs. Jerkass Senator Santorum
Tweet
Rick Santorum, is rebuked by SNAP – Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests on his hateful comments
Abusive clergy and complicit bishops are liberal and conservative. The crimes they commit have nothing to do with political philosophy. It is reckless and dangerous to misdiagnose the causes of this horrific crisis by trying to blame any group of individuals, especially using false assumptions and self-serving ideological blinders. This is a deeply-rooted, long-standing, cultural and structural problem within the church and affects Catholics across the globe. To suggest anything less is deceptive or ignorant.
It is very hurtful when a politician tries to minimize the extent of the clergy sex abuse scandal. It is also very hurtful when a politician implies that some vague, larger societal defects somehow caused priests, nuns and bishops to assault innocent children and vulnerable adults, and then to work hard at keeping the crimes hidden.
37 Responses to “Victims Group vs. Jerkass Senator Santorum”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Possibly, George Allen of VA is the stupidest senator–but Santorum has to be a close second.
“Jerkass Santorum”, “Bill O’Liely”, “Rush Limpballs”, “President Chimpy McCokespoon”.
If you guys spent as much time trying to come up with some ideas as you do coming up with witty nicknames, you might actually win an election or two.
Don’t mention it, glad to help. Here’s few more:
Bill O’Falafel
Sean Fatitty
President Tipsy McStagger
Tom Decay
Wow, this is just crazy. He’s basically saying that liberals are predisposed to child molestation. That’s just sick.
PSU94, you mean like “Senator Flip-Flop” or “Billary”?
Although, I’ve never heard Rush Limpballs before. That’s funny. Thanks.
PSU94,
Serious, do you really listen to the people on “your side?” Name-calling would be a step up for most right-wing politicians lately.
curmudge,
What people would those be and what’s my “side”?
I already said in another post that i live in PA and have no intention of voting for Santorum.
I’m basically a moderate Republican who feels like he doesn’t have a place in the Republican party anymore and i’m SCREAMING for a reason to vote for a Democrat. However, they’re not giving me any.
I’d really prefer to vote for someone that has a chance to win, rather than casting a protest vote for some Libertarian or Green kook, but Democrats aren’t really providing a clear alternative, except to say “we’re not right-wing religious nuts”.
hell, even the rising star of your party, Obama, said the other night in a speech in Florida that “we’re still trying to figure out our core principles”.
So, call me when you do and we’ll talk.
I fear PSU94 is using the tired, old “I’m a moderate but can’t bring myself to vote for a Dem because they’re so shrilll” schtick.
Note PSU94 can’t bring himself to condemn a GOP Senator who essentially says a liberal city is responsible for the Catholic Church’s child abuse scandal—but PSU94 can work up a righteous indignation because Santorum is called a name.
Now that the word “hate” has been injected into the discussion, rationality has gone out the window.
Take a breath Frank, the word used was “hateful” and it described the Senator’s comments, not the Senator.
In your opionion, are his comments stupid and/or unwarranted?
“Hate” or any derivative thereof…
His comments may be stupid and /or unwarranted, but hateful?
I don’t think so…
Hate to interrupt this delightful pissing match but the point remains, Santorum is an unfit candidate for dogpoop scraper. Politically he’s a dead man walking.
Santorum’s Feet
Michelle Pilecki says that Senator Rick has decided to resolve the Boston causes pedophilia stupidity by removing one foot and inserting the other. UPDATE Thanks to Oliver Willis for sharing the response from SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by
I know I am going to be accused of supporting and / or endorsing Santorum’s remarks (as witness above where my remark that prejudice against Muslims was understandable has been transmogrified into “genocide against Arabs is a understandable response to terrorism”, which I never said or even impllied), but it is important to go back to the original op – ed, which is just now materializing after three years [Why]
He did say that a sick culture is no excuse for the scandal — that deflects, IMHO, the accusation of extreme or hateful.
However, zeroing in on Boston is nonsensical.
Well, fire away!
Here’s the link to the original Op – Ed from 7/12/2002:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30
Remember, when Frank D says that genocide against Arabs is a understandable response to terrorism, or declares Bill Clinton to be a rapist, he’s just engaging in civil disagreement. But if someone were to characterize Santorum’s comments saying liberalism causes child molestation as hateful, brother THAT’S over the line! Rationality is out the window!
Hi all,
First comment here.
Santorum is simply using the well worn tactic (used soooo much by the GOPs) of scoring cheap points and trying to shift the focus of current (important) topics of investigation. That is, the high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the current administration.
This place feels so familiar.
Good to see the wingnuts here have the same *talking points memo* that is used on so many other blogs and forums. 
I have developed a blind eye to them now, they never change. I guess imaginations is missing from the illiterate wingnuts? A shame… It could be a far more interesting debate otherwise. 
Cheers.
Oh! Apologies for any unintentional offense.
That’s all I’m sayin’. The man makes no sense when he talks that stuff.
I guess if you can’t insult me, you have nothing to say. It figures.
mouse?
TomY?
JadeGold?
Hey Mac Diva, oops, sorry, I mean Jadegold, I already said i’m not voting for him. Now you’re waiting for me to “condemn” him?
Is that like in “A Few Good Men” where it wasn’t enough for Demi Moore to object, she then had to “strenuously object”?
OK, i condemn him. While we’re at it, I also condemn all the people who never visited your failed, race-hustling blog. If you were still blogging, you wouldn’t have had to change your name, and go to all sorts of other blogs claiming to work for the DOD, FBI, US Marshals, and all the other jobs you’ve claimed to have had while you troll around.
It’s hard to say anything because I have no idea what your position is. You quoted the article itself, and appear to be saying that the only false note is that it targets Boston. Are you implying that all of Liberal “culture”, not just Boston’s, is responsible for the culture of abuse in the Catholic Church?
My question was a simple one that would have required a simple yes or no answer: In your opionion, are his comments stupid and/or unwarranted?
That blockquote was supposed to end…please, please, please think about a preview function Oliver.
I agree with this (from the same article)
The most obvious change must occur within American seminaries, many of which demonstrate the same brand of cultural liberalism plaguing our secular universities
This is a tempest in a teapot — the article is three years old.
So, still no straightforward answer.
Let’s try it another way: what is this “brand of cultural liberalist plaguing our secularism”?
Is it the promotion of “moral relativism by sanctioning ‘private’ moral matters such as alternative lifestyles”?
Senator Santorum is saying that since liberal culture promotes privacy in the sexual lives of consenting adults, this amounts to moral relativism and creates a environment where priests can abuse children.
Do you agree with this, yes or no?
I think “privacy” is the wrong word in this instance, and will allow you to mark me as “opposed to choice”. Then, instead of hearing that I “favor genocide”, I’ll hear that I favor “women butchering themselves in back alleys”.
Let me rephrase Santorum my way, in what I consider to be a satisfactory answer. You may, if you wish, condense it down to ‘liberal culture promotes child abuse’, but you would be wrong
Many American seminaries demonstrate the same brand of cultural liberalism plaguing our secular universities. This must change.
Recall that “privacy”, as you use the word, really means that no standard of behavior exists beyond each person’s individual whim. This is totally unacceptable to practicing Catholics, and any number of mainline Protestant and Jewish religions. Certainly, no form of Islam allows for such “freedom of choice.”
In other words, it is the people who favor such ‘freedom of choice’, disguised as the ‘right to privacy’, who are in a very small minority.
Frank, this is where we disagree: I don’t think that Santorum is simply saying that the Catholic church needs to get back to its roots and move away from a liberal society. He is quite explicit in laying much of the blame of the crimes committed in the church at the feet of liberal philosophy, equating pedophilia with homosexuality (“alternative lifestyles”) while covering his tracks with a poorly executed “…but that’s no excuse”.
I don’t know why you are so unwilling to simply state your beliefs and answer the question that I posed more than once in very simple terms. Perhaps you’re expecting to be flamed as you have been in the past. Perhaps you’re right. But why do you care? You come here daily to post comments on a site run by a Liberal, with other Liberal commenters ready and willing to engage you in debate or battle. It’s not as if you expect us to agree with you, is it?
It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with one part of Santorum’s message while embracing the other. It is this kind of stubbornness and lack of reason that makes debate with you so enfuriating and leads to the kind of flaming you’ve experienced recently and in the past. Frankly, it reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
I also disagree with your concept of privacy, but that’s another discussion, and since you have been a blank wall so far on the subject matter I’ve tried to broach with you, I see no point in continuing further.
Light up the flamethrowers: Santorum should not be abandoning the concept of individual reponsibility now, when it is a core belief of conservatives.
(And, no I don’t expect to be “flamed”, I don’t expect to have words put in my mouth, I don’t expect to be told what my statements really mean, and I don’t expect to be told that my statements reflect deep – rooted psychological pathologies.)
So, yes, he is incorrect.
Let me remind you of something you said:
1) It is perfectly acceptable (oh, really?) to disagree with one part of Santorum s message while embracing the other. BUT
2) It is this kind of stubbornness and lack of reason that makes debate with you so infuriating and leads to the kind of flaming you ve experienced recently.
(So, it’s perfectly acceptable, but it represents a “stubbornness and lack of reason”, and “leads to … flaming… ” I bring it on myself, eh? Where have I heard that before?)
AND
3) Frankly, it reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
(I “led you” to say that, did I?)
And the final touch:
I also disagree with your concept of privacy, but that s another discussion, and since you { insert gratuitous dig } I see no point in continuing further.
So, once again, I’m to blame for your actions.
You know, it’s just occurring to me that when Sen Santorum blamed the Priests’ actions on someone else, all you lefties had a fit. But now, I’m looking over your post, and I’m thinking that you’re …
Nah… It’s completely different.
First, thank you for answering my question.
Second: I take full responsibility for every word I write here, to you or anyone else. My response to you was simply that: my response based on your own words. I don’t blame you for my choices, and if that is the impression that I am giving, then I am in error. Consider this my correction of any misstatements leading to you believe the contrary.
That said, words invite response and in that vein, I often find your words lacking in substance and my decision to respond–in any way– is my own. I could choose not to call you on your vague answers, but my choice was to do so. If you see that as a personal attack or a gratuitous dig, that is your choice and interpretation. Again, I assure you that you do not figure largely in my emotional state of mind so feel free to tell me where to go if that makes you feel good (as I believe you have, oh so subtly).
Fourth:
Frank, if after all this time all this still catches you by surprise, then I have to wonder about your ability to know your audience. I repeat: you are a social and political conservative on a Liberal blog. I can only guess why you frequent this blog on a daily basis, but I seriously doubt it’s to change hearts and minds. I highly suggest that you expect fociferous disagreement in the future, just as you have encountered it in the past.
Finally:
No, you did not lead me to say that; that is my opinion of your response(s) to my question. I may also believe that you are intellectually dishonest, but of course that does not make you so, nor is it likely to change your responses in the future. But it is entirely my prerogative to call you on your behaviour as I perceive it, as much as it is yours.
As for flaming, you make it sound like that’s a bad thing. If you don’t like it, I recommend staying away from Liberal blogs–or all blogs in general. It’s much quieter elsewhere, I’m told.
To me, there is nothing dishonest about a carefully crafted answer. By specifically responding to my remark about flaming, I assume you agree that I am right not expect those other things.
As for flaming, I make it sound like a bad thing, because it is. Why do you suppose so many sites don’t allow it? Do you think it’s because the author of the blog doesn’t want anyone to have any fun?
From Google define:flaming
A good thing?
From Google define: trolling
Why do you come here Frank?
Not to provoke an argument with no other intent than to gain attention for the sake of attention.
Keep in mind that Oliver does the posting, and I disagree with him.
Why do you come here?
To look at other viewpoints; to hone my argumentative and writing skills and to keep up with familiar commenters. I have a few favourites here who are consistently thoughtful and witty.
Once again, you obfuscate: you state why you’re not here, but don’t what you are here for. I find that interesting.
I didn’t feel like getting into another argument: Whereas JadeGold aand TomY are like badgers, never letting of a point until either it, or you bleed, you and Quaker are of a different stripe. You ask seemingly innocuous questions, and then follow up with statements that indicate that the questions were loaded and designed to bait me.
So, yes, my answers are circumspect, not obfuscatory.
This question I will answer: I come here to look at other viewpoints; to hone my argumentative and writing skills, and to let liberals know that conservatives are not “liberals waiting to be educated.”
I would like to be kind and say some commenters are consistently thoughtful and witty, but, honestly? Most of the commenters are clever by half, exceedingly and unnecessarily sarcastic, and lacking in any real sense of humor — unless your sense of humor runs to “Repug” references and “Shrub” jokes.
Thanks for the comparison to Quaker; that is indeed a compliment. Again, why would you care if we’re baiting you? If your beliefs and ideas are solid, we won’t succeed.
It’s even more interesting then that you come here to hone your argumentative and writing skills with people you hold in such low regard.
I’d say you’ve succeeded. I’ve found many conservatives don’t wish to be educated (“I’ve made up my mind, don’t confuse me with the facts types”).
I honestly hope you enjoy you stay here more than you have so far.
Again, I’ve been (deliberately?) misinterpreted…
Most liberals, many of whom inhabit these threads, are of the opinion that the difference between a liberal and a conservative is education, i.e., liberals “know the truth” about things, whereas conservatives only “believe things” to be true. That is why I try very often to supply links for my posts. The liberals on these threads generally speaking, do not, and I believe I know why: 1) They assume their opinions will not be contested, so no back – up is required {I believe that is where I have a role to play}, and 2) They have received their information from other left – wing sources that have that “‘truth – knowledge’ warranty” thing going on.
So what do I do here most?
1) Provide evidence of the conservatives’ point of view (the true point of view); and
2) Demand evidence of the liberals’ point of view — where they then run into points #1 and #2 above.
Hilarity ensues.