Posted on 04/24/2003 5:31:47 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
The Associated Press used to be known for having reporters who kept their opinions out of the story. But when Senator Rick Santorum sat down with an AP reporter to discuss his eight year record in the United States Senate, the interview ended up including his views on privacy and the tension between individual freedom and the traditional family values necessary to maintain a healthy society.
Expressing his viewpoint, which is no doubt shaped by the faith that he shares with millions of his Pennsylvania constituents, Senator Santorum discussed a case before the Supreme Court in which the constitutionality of a Texas law regulating sodomy is being challenged.
So, what happened?
The remarks that Senator Santorum made about the legal case were placed in the third paragraph and, once the story appeared, homosexual rights organizations launched attacks against Senator Santorum for what he said in the interview.
Given that the writer, Lara Jakes Jordan, is the wife of Jim Jordan, the manager of John Kerry's presidential campaign and a former executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, it is worth asking whether the AP is going to review the work of this reporter.
Is Mrs. Jordan bringing bias into her reporting?
The lead paragraph in another story that she had published recently credited the Fellowship, sponsors of the National Prayer Breakfast, with being a "secretive religious organization." The Fellowship maintains a home on Capitol Hill in which six members of Congress -- conscientious Catholics and Protestants -- live.
Current tenants include Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Rep. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN), and Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA). They are able to obtain convenient housing at a good price. More importantly, they are able to find Christian fellowship in a city preoccupied with hardball politics. There are weekly discussions about the role that religion plays in their daily lives.
Mrs. Jordan's use of quotes -- particularly one from Rev. Barry Lynn, the head of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State - and some of her own descriptive phrases in the story make the organization sound rather shadowy, perhaps just a little bit sinister. Its mission is to bring Christian elected officials in this country and others together in prayer. Even after one of the Fellowship's board of directors is quoted explaining its goals as an organization, she sees fit to mention that "few in the Fellowship are willing to talk about its mission."
Will the AP have an ombudsman investigate to see why Mrs. Jordan highlighted Senator Santorum's quotes about a Supreme Court case, rather than concentrate more on what Senator Santorum has been saying and doing during his eight years in the United States Senate? Is there any way in which her reporting might have been conducted in a way to help Senator Kerry in his quest for the nomination or the groups that are his allies?
These are questions worth asking.
Not just because Senator Kerry, as one might expect from a presidential candidate, criticized Senator Santorum's remarks. But so did the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee along with the Human Rights Campaign and other pro-homosexual special rights organizations. The DSCC and the Human Rights Campaign have tried to embarrass Senator Santorum by calling on him to resign his post as Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.
A Human Rights Campaign official actually went so far as to allege the Senator's remarks would "fuel prejudice that can lead to violence" against homosexuals. Frankly, I wonder how many people would have read or heard about the remarks if not for the Human Rights Campaign's effort in attacking them so vociferously. If the Senator's remarks are so likely to lead to violence against homosexuals, why is the Human Rights Campaign so eagerly publicizing them?
Maybe the real answer is that the Human Rights Campaign, by trying to instigate a media feeding frenzy similar to the one that devoured Trent Lott, is attempting to fuel its own publicity and fundraising efforts.
Many of the people who are represented by Rick Santorum agree with him, and they derive their views from their religious faith and belief in traditional values, particularly when it comes to acknowledging the importance of the traditional family in maintaining a stable and orderly nation. They take very seriously the admonition to love the sinner, but hate the sin. They do not commit violence; they express themselves in policy debates in a respectful manner.
What the tactics of the Human Rights Campaign are really aiming to accomplish is political extortion, not a rightful redress to a grievous wrong. Unless a public official agrees completely with the positions advocated by the Human Rights Campaign and other homosexual rights organizations then he or she will be tarred as being "intolerant" and a "bigot."
Senator Santorum is absolutely right to make clear that he has no intention of resigning from the chairmanship of the Senate Republican Conference. He is absolutely right not to give in to this attempt at political extortion. He is absolutely right to remain steadfast in his support for the traditional family.
It's time conservatives stopped being cowed by these accusations of "hate" and "intolerance" when we are addressing in a calm and thoughtful manner the philosophical and legal questions surrounding the social policy issues of the day. If we cannot do this without having our reputations eviscerated, then where is our society heading?
As far as I am concerned, the Human Rights Campaign owes Senator Santorum an apology for impugning his character. There, I've said it. I hope more conservatives and fair-minded Americans will start sounding this call too.
We're mad about what's happened. And we shouldn't have to take these kinds of attacks any longer.
(Paul M. Weyrich is chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.)
Free Congress Foundation
You're exactly right, but the GOP jumped on the bandwagon about Lott's innocent remarks because there were still many (many right here on this forum) who were still pissed at him for not getting rid of CLinton. They had an agenda, and they saw Lott's words at an old man's birthday party as the excuse to run him out of the Majority Leader's job.
No. That genie's out of the bottle. I knew this was going to happen when Republicans were leading the charge against Trent Lott. Now, anything misconstrued is going to lead to this kind of witch hunt.
Anything does go if laws are not enforced.
Why have laws on the books that are not enforced?
In community property states, adultery is not sufficient to nullify the rights of the cheating spouse to half the property. That's the way it is in Texas, anyway.
Be careful here. Even Rehnquist has said that "precedent" should carry weight in consideration of cases.
The use of the euphemism "policy debates" hides the fact that Mao Zedong was simply being honest about the nature of government power. Thus, this is a distinction without a difference.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
What I find worrying is ideas cannot be discussed without the fascistic Left stooping to vilification and smear tactics to gain political advantage.
Santorum was expressing his opinion, and I agree with him entirely.
First off, REAL conservatives cannot be Libertarians, who are atheist and individualist in the extreme.
REAL conservatives believe that there is a moral order which SHOULD be protected, promoted, and defended by the State.
Libertarians think heroin use is just fine, as long as it doesn't Hurt Anyone Else.
You probably want to re-think your admiration of Libertarianism before you define them as Real Conservatives--because they are NOT.
...and not by coincidence the mean is a just and merciful enforcement of the 10 Commandments.
First off, your finding of "privacy" in the Constitution is as bogus as the "logic" used in Griswold.
Secondly, gay sexual activity and contraception are identical: they both are violations of nature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.