Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Smearing Of Senator Santorum: Time To Fight Back!
CNSNews.com ^ | April 24, 2003 | Paul M. Weyrich

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




TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; paulmweyrich; ricksantorum; smear
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

1 posted on 04/24/2003 5:31:47 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Does Paul Weyrich know that this scumbag reporter is said to have INSERTED the word "gay" into the quotation from Senator Santorum? The one word that got him into trouble in the first place? That's what Rush Limbaugh said yesterday, and I doubt that he would have made it up.

If not, somebody should tell him.
2 posted on 04/24/2003 5:37:30 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: TonyRo76
People are missing the point. Santorum's actual comments are scarier than what the AP article reported. 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.

Real conservatives should be very worried by this. Privacy is inherent to our Libertarian roots.

4 posted on 04/24/2003 5:49:53 AM PDT by honest injun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Santorum should hold his ground and retract nothing.

When T. Lott made his remarks, the left did not want to accept that he "didn't mean for it to come out that way", and I must admit that they were correct. Taking his remarks at face value is really the only option.

Now the loony lefties are riding on the other side of the road and are accusing Mr. Santorum of having an underlying meaning to what he said. He to must be taken at face value, after all the argument before the SCOTUS is about "personal privacy" not specific sexual acts.
5 posted on 04/24/2003 5:51:28 AM PDT by HEY4QDEMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HEY4QDEMS
Absolutely! Personal privacy is the issue. Santorum says states have the right to regulate ANY private behavior they deem unhealthy to the family. Imagine being arrested for having oral sex with your wife? Imagine being arrested for adultery? This is what Satorum is saying.

6 posted on 04/24/2003 5:59:41 AM PDT by honest injun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: honest injun
I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the Senator.

The Gay community is upset because they have come to the conclusion that he somehow equates their behavior with other lifestyle that Gays (get this) find disgusting and this is what all the media buzz is about.
7 posted on 04/24/2003 6:07:44 AM PDT by HEY4QDEMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: honest injun
"Real conservatives should be very worried by this. Privacy is inherent to our Libertarian roots.
"

You are not honest, I doubt you are an 'injun' which is far more derogatory than 'squaw', and privacy is not found in the Constitution...anywhere.

Privacy 'rights' are doled out by legislative fiat, not blanket proclamation.

8 posted on 04/24/2003 6:08:51 AM PDT by lawdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lawdude
and privacy is not found in the Constitution

Perhaps you should read it again.
9 posted on 04/24/2003 6:12:16 AM PDT by HEY4QDEMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: honest injun
Oh, nonsense. How often are the anti-adultery statutes invoked? How often are the anti sodomy statutes invoked? Probably the recent case in Texas was a set-up.

The government has a perfect right to encourage behavior that will build a more stable society, keep families together, and protect children. If they go overboard enforcing the law against private behavior, they will soon be thrown out of office. But that doesn't mean we should say that anything goes, and one form of behavior is as good as another. It's not, because children and families get hurt and the whole society suffers.

There is such a thing as a happy mean between extremes.
10 posted on 04/24/2003 6:16:25 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
I want to know what homosexuals have against polygamy? Are they polyphobes?
11 posted on 04/24/2003 6:16:43 AM PDT by Cobra Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: Stand Watch Listen
The same bogus RACIST RACIST RACIST tactic "conservatives" cynically used to replace Trent Lott as Senate majority leader is now going to be used against one of their own.

What a surprise.

Justice comes home to roost.

13 posted on 04/24/2003 6:20:41 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lawdude
You are apparently unaware of the Griswold case involving contraception. This set the privacy precedent.

Now argue how contraception is more pro-family than gay sex.

Ready for your sophistry.....
14 posted on 04/24/2003 6:29:33 AM PDT by honest injun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: TonyRo76
IMO-The state has a right to limit private, in home consensual adult activity only if it harms or could potentially harm someone else.


16 posted on 04/24/2003 6:33:16 AM PDT by honest injun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: TonyRo76
If a group of terrorists are plotting to kill people—but they are plotting in the "privacy" of their den

Where I agree with you to some degree, I think you are going a little overboard with this analogy, the premise is about actions between mutually consenting adults. I'm fairly certain that the people about to be killed are not consenting to take part.
18 posted on 04/24/2003 6:34:26 AM PDT by HEY4QDEMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: honest injun
bullshit...he said if in the house sex was untouchable legally, incest and the like would too.....his point is universal in that queers doing each other is a door to keeping the house sealed but if illegal activity oddures the LAW can come get ya...that was the point,not what has democratically evolved.......a story based on lies....
19 posted on 04/24/2003 6:34:50 AM PDT by cars for sale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: honest injun
sorry. These comments were directed to Lawdude, not Stand Watch Listen.
20 posted on 04/24/2003 6:35:33 AM PDT by honest injun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson