I'm not disagreeing about the attention span of the modern media and its readers/viewers/listeners in the 24-hour news cycle.
However, I'm not (yet) convinced this line of complaint about use of “BS” language is over, and I have a feeling it's going to come back to bite later in the campaign. Look at the posts on this thread, especially #92 and #94 by Bramps, #96 by PsychoFreep, and #106 and #107 by JediJones.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2864772/posts?page=82#82
Christians, for better for for worse, get held to a high standard by their political opponents. That's not necessarily a bad thing — I would severely criticize a Christian candidate who brings his faith into disrepute by his conduct.
The problem here is that the bar is being moved. McCain could use that sort of language against fellow Senators and all he got was a reputation for being hard to get along with. Rick Santorum is being accused of being un-Christian, hypocritical, and un-Presidential for using gutter language, and that's likely to be a theme that gets repeated by people who are looking for things with which to attack him.
Those are three different types of accusations.
The un-Presidential accusation may have some merit, but it proves more than many of its advocates intend because it's well-known that numerous nationally known Republicans and Democrats have had pottymouths in the past. McCain (who was proud of his mouth) and Nixon (who wasn't once he got caught on tape) are only two of the better-known examples because for them swearing was standard practice.
The accusation of hypocrisy is probably bogus. I don't know of any history on Santorum’s part criticizing other candidates for using gutter language but now using it himself. The fact of the matter is that language which I would prefer not be used in public has now become common in many contexts, including on Free Republic. Much worse words have been said in threads here than what Santorum said there.
The third accusation of being un-Christian is related to but distinct from the hypocrisy allegation. Santorum used gutter language; he didn't blaspheme God. There is a difference. As bad as “F-this” or “S-that” may be, that's quite different, biblically speaking from taking God's name in vain. That may seem like a minor point to non-Christians, but it's an important point for people who take the Bible seriously. I'd rather see a construction worker shout excretory language all day long than see him use blasphemous language — and that includes, by the way, calmly and in a quiet voice taking an oath in God's name in court with no intent to actually tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
When Christians complain about gutter language, I'll grant their point. While it's not taking God's name in vain, there are other passages of Scripture that, at the very least, indicate it's not a good idea.
The problem is that some people are attacking Santorum for being hypocritical and un-Christian by using such language. I believe that comes in some and perhaps many cases from the wrong idea that Christians are supposed to be some sort of feminized weak-willed wimp. Severe terms of ridicule and rebuke are used in Scripture, and there's nothing wrong with condemning people in using strong language when that condemnation is warranted.
Santorum didn't use language I consider appropriate, but I'm afraid it's going to get used against him — not just by conservative Freepers who may have legitimate concerns but also by enemies who are liberals and are merely looking for something to attack.
In this case, the critics who call Santorum hypocritical and un-Christian are wrong and need to be challenged on that point, while simultaneously agreeing with the critics that Santorum’s language was unwise, unfortunate, and shows much about how civil discourse in our society has degenerated greatly during the last few decades.
Of course, I live outside a large Army installation where I hear profanity, blasphemous language, sexual innuendo, and gutter language fairly often in public, not only on the streets but also in stores and restaurants with young children around, and even out of the mouths of elected officials in government meetings with numerous reporters listening. “BS” is pretty mild compared to what certain elected officials I know say in public, and what they say in private is laced with far worse words.
Maybe it's just conservative former military people who talk that way? Maybe the standards of language are better in Greenwich Village or DC or San Francisco?
Nah, I didn't think so.
This type of language, for better or for worse, is quickly becoming the “new normal.” I don't like it, and I would be very unhappy if Santorum gets elected president and his choice of words starts to legitimize calling stuff “bullshit” in public, just like Clinton's activities made public discussion of oral sex acceptable. But that shift in language is already well under way and to criticize Santorum for being a “pottymouth” is ludicrous given the sort of language past presidential candidates have used.