The Smearing Of Senator Santorum: Time To Fight Back!

CNSNews.com ^ | April 24, 2003 | Paul M. Weyrich

[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

[ninenot]

The Supremes have always considered themselves to be gods. The Casey re-affirmation of Roe (written by Kennedy) proves just how much they think of themselves.

Nobody in flyover country worships the Supremes...

[ninenot]

The way I read your post #9, you seem to think that privacy is found in the Constitution. You are wrong. It was "found" in Griswold, among certain 'penumbras and emanations.'

Well the emanations are, in substance, farts.

[honest injun]

So you believe Griswold will be overturned based on the pending Texas case? If so, what moral basis do you propose being the benchmark of future state laws designed to limit private consensual behavior? Or, is it simply a matter of majority opinion?

It also sounds like you approve of outlawing contraception. Is this a general conservative position?

[HEY4QDEMS]

I was referring to being secure in my person and personal effects, as well as the retention of non enumerated fundamental rights to the people.

[honest injun]

I guess Goldwater would not qualify as conservative.

"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "

[Edit35]

Santorum's argument was simply that the "right to privacy" as interpreted by statutory law into the constitution, is not absolute.

For example, using Santorum's own rational, one cannot expect to have incest with one's own mother or father in the privacy of their own bedroom - and then claim that the government has no right to intervene because of "their right to privacy."

Santorum also argued that polygamy, sodomy (and several other practices I cannot remember) are things which do not not necessarily create a healthy, stable society.

By doing so, he simply reiterated what many constitutional thinkers, lawmakers and theologians have expressed for years.

It's only the knee-jerk race and sex-baiting reactionaries who are trying to make this into a horrific thing.

[ninenot]

Yup, Goldwater was wrong. But he's a nice guy.

Goldwater made these statements in his dotage in some sort of defense of one of his children who was a queer.

[ninenot]

1) I stated that this decision could begin the overturning of Roe v Wade. Maybe Griswold, too...but Roe is the first one which will logically fall.

2) Contraception is immoral and strictly speaking should be illegal. It is un-natural. Having said that, there's little enthusiasm for putting a law against it on the books and it won't happen.

This case is about States' Rights, not about Federal "rights" to immorality. If it were about Federal Rights to be Immoral, the IRS would be history.

[jonalvy44]

I have already contacted him thru www.congress.org and have spread the word on the internet...this is an example of PC run amuck and the left attempting to curb freedom of speech...If they don't like the man, vote him out. To call for his resignation for speaking his mind is ridiculous and offensive to me.

[DianaN]

Libertarianism is not an excuse for wrong doing. Does Libertarianism mean incest is okay since it's a "private activity"? Ger real! Homosexuality and sodomy is wrong PERIOD. Trying to smear people of faith, for a political purpose, with the scary paintbrush of violence is a despicable practice and nothing more than political terrorism disguised in the garb of "human rights".
We are not going to blackmaile or scared by purported Libertarians that are, in all probability not what they seem to be-Libertarians.
If you are a genuine Libertarian, everything is NOT okay in the name of "individual choice". Law is based upon moral law also. There is a difference, or should be, between Libertarianism and utter anarchy.
Diana

[honest injun]

I agree the gay lobby is morphing this into somehing it isn't. It still leaves Santorum's disturbing comments. I fear any politician believing laws that have nothing to do with the purpose of governing.

Yes, overruling the Texas law on privacy grounds will open a can of worms. But the red herring argument about incest, is a non-starter. Incest involves possible procreation which does involve the state. Same with bigomy/polygamy. That is a marriage issue.

[lugsoul]

Wow - that's an interesting view. The GOVERNMENT gives us our right to privacy. The gov't giveth, the gov't taketh away.

[honest injun]

"This case is about States' Rights, not about Federal "rights" to immorality"

Something we can agree. The Texas law will be struck down on equal protection. As you stated, there is "little enthusiasm" for outlawing contraception so, overturning Griswold is errrr, not politically practical?

So much for logical consistency.

[honest injun]

You are inconsistent. either you are for individual privacy or you are not. "Moral law" is arbitrary as it differs based on theology. A position a secualr government should oppose.

[honest injun]

You are inconsistent. either you are for individual privacy or you are not. "Moral law" is arbitrary as it differs based on theology. A position a secualr government should oppose.

[cogitator]

What Santorum suggests is that states have the right to limit ANY and ALL private activity when a majority deems the activity unhealthy to the family unit. THis includes hetero sex.

Adultery, Incest, Whatever

"So here we have a prominent Republican legislator advocating the right of states to sic their police on two consenting adults in their own home. You don't have to be pro-"anything" to know what's wrong with this. Bigamy and polygamy are not questions of privacy; they are regulated by the state as violations of a legal marriage contract. Whether states should sanction homosexual marriage is also a question of civil law, and a controversial one. But Mr. Santorum isn't taking on that question; he's advocating the criminalization of private behavior between two men or two women that (unlike, often, adultery) has no victims. The fact that many people disapprove of it does not justify sending the police to knock down doors and barge into bedrooms."

[cogitator]

In an interesting side note, I did a bit of checking and
discovered that Texas tossed out the law against heterosexual sodomy in 1974.

[cogitator]

Secondly, gay sexual activity and contraception are identical: they both are violations of nature.

So are certain acts that you can perform with your wife. Most states have repealed the laws against those acts by now.

[harpo11]

Can't trust CNN, and obviously can't trust AP reporters. Do you remember when Connie Chung pulled that stunt on Newt Gingrich's Mother? She said Newt's Mom's comment concerning how the House Speaker feels about Mrs. Clinton would be "off the record". Yeah right.

Now when a Republican Senator gives a forthright interview what he doesn't say is now inserted by a women with an agenda that goes well beyond her paygrade.

[lilylangtree]

Absolutely. Have all ready sent emails to my two senators. Unfortunately, both are female RAT ditz' and toe the RAT party line. No hope in that quarter. Anything else?