Outrageous Behavior

The blogosphere has been humming with reaction to an article written by Sen. Rick Santorum (R - Pennsylvania) in 2002. In this article, Sen. Santorum links the clergy sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church to the relativism found in Boston - "a seat of academic, political, and cultural liberalism in America." Blue Mass. Group offers - with outrage - the following extended quote

It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

Blue Mass. Group links this comment to those made recently by Karl Rove, the close aide to President Bush, in a speech to the New York state Conservative Party. Rove said

Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.

Blue Mass. Group feels that conservatives like Santorum and Rove beat up on liberals "because they can." I look at these comments through a different lens. In politics, timing is just about everything. Thus, I ask the question about both sets of comments "why now?"

The dissemination of three year old comments that include very inflammatory material by a Senator who faces re-election next year will likely assist efforts to raise funds and otherwise support efforts to mount an effective campaign against the Senator. The origin of the spreading of these comments seems to have been a blog called CapitolBuzz. It is reasonable to ask whether CapitolBuzz has any association with the Democratic Party - say, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. There is nothing wrong with efforts to inform the public about Sen. Santorum's record. He is, in fact, an embarassment to the Senate and to Pennsylvania. However, if CapitolBuzz is, in fact, associated with the Democratic Party, such efforts should be made with more transparency.

With respect to Karl Rove's comments, I do not think that Rove was taking shots at liberals because he could and because it felt good. Rove was pursuing a deliberate political strategy - to rouse the conservative base, particularly for fundraising purposes, in advance of the 2006 mid-term elections - elections that promise to be very tough for the President and the Republican congressional leadership. Opponents of the President and the right wing leadership of Congress should also now be pursuing tactics to galvanize their base - but such tactics should be executed in the open.

Comments

[sco]

I was curious, too, as to why the comments recieved such wide play today. I looked into it, and it seems that it all started with John Baer's article in The Philadelphia Daily News. This was the first time that those particular remarks appeared in any mainstream publication. That's why this is all breaking now. I suppose the folks at CapitolBuzz saw the article, tracked down Santorum's original piece and let it loose on the blogosphere.

You can see the article, which appeared Friday here: http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/columnists/john_baer/11972921.htm

[Charley on the MTA]

Hi David,

You know, the fact that the article was three years old did give me pause -- Is this really news? And in the end, I decided to post on it, because if folks didn't know about it before, then it's news to them, as it was to me. And the remarks are certainly outrageous. It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with using a person's own words against him -- honestly and in context -- in a Senatorial campaign or otherwise.

There's a similar argument that the mainstream press has made against covering the Downing Street Memo: Oh, it's old, old news, nothing we don't know about, etc. The memo/minutes may indeed be old, but they provide an insight into the degree of deception that we didn't know before. The events may be old, but if the insight is new, then it's news, in my view.

Also, it seems to me that you're using an ad hominem argument against whoever would publicize those remarks -- that is, conjecturing if they've got an ulterior motive. Well, full disclosure on my political leanings is hardly necessary ... :) I don't like Santorum, never have. So maybe I've got an ulterior motive, too.

But *he* wrote that article, the ideas that he has are either correct or incorrect on their own merits, and up to now it has not been much noticed or commented upon. As a matter of intellectual honesty, it doesn't matter when he made the remarks or who publicized them for what reason. As far as we know, no one put a gun to his head to say those stupid things, and he should be held accountable for his own ideas. The proper place for that is the public sphere (i.e. here) and at the ballot box.

Anyway, thanks for the ping and the thoughtful commentary.

[Anon]

Santorum blames parents of sodomized rape VICTIMS because they're liberal! That's what the headline should have read above the fold in the NYT or WAPO.

10 year-old victim screams out to pederast priest: Molest me father! It's okay because we're in liberal Boston! That should be the Enquirer headline.

What an ass. How do I challenge him to a fistfight?