Press Mum on Kerry Tie to Santorum Controversy

NewsMax.com ^ | Thursday, April 24, 2003 6:14 p.m. EDT | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[Jean S]

News that Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign manager just happens to be married to the reporter whose interview of Sen. Rick Santorum created the political firestorm of the week hasn't gotten much mainstream press attention.

The word on reporter Lara Jakes Jordan, whose decision to insert the word "[gay]" into Santorum's comments made it appear that he was gay bashing, is that she recently married Kerry campaign chief Jim Jordan.

Coincidentally [of course], Sen. Kerry just happened to be among the first to slam Santorum over the remark, a comment so innocuous it likely would have gone completely unnoticed except for Jakes Jordan's creative editing.

"These comments take us backwards in America," Kerry told the New York Times on Wednesday, before turning his fire on the Bush administration.

"The White House speaks the rhetoric of compassionate conservatism but they're silent while their chief lieutenants make divisive and hurtful comments that have no place in our politics."

Another coincidence [of course] is the fact that the AP decided to sit on its creative scribe's report until the Iraq war was over.

With the media now desperately searching for a new topic, Santorum's remark became instant headlines. But had the AP covered the Pennsylvania Republican's comment on April 7, when Jakes Jordan obtained it, it would have had to compete with news that the U.S. troops had just reached Baghdad - a development so big that the Santorum "scoop" would have been instantly forgotten.

Though the Jakes Jordan-Kerry connection is easily the most intriguing aspect of the entire story, to date only UPI, the Fox News Channel, Hotline and Salon.com have reported the detail, a Lexis-Nexis search shows.

Of the hundreds of other press reports on the Santorum brouhaha, not a single mainstream outlet decided to mention the Kerry tie-in.

[Bob J]

---

UNSPUN! With AnnaZ and Guest Co-host FINESWINESUKSASS!

ON NOW! Listen while you Freep!

Join Anna and Finey as they talk with Larry Pratt from the Gun Owners of America! Also, CRBs and Bone-Headed Lie-Beral Quotes

 

Click the ON AIR sign or here at broadcast time to start listening live!

Click here for the broadband feed (when and where available)

Click here for the Radio Freerepublic Chat Room

Radio FreeRepublic shows archives are available here!

---

To be notified of upcoming shows and announcements, join the Radio FreeRepublic mailing list!

To Subscribe to this list send a blank email to:

RadioFreeRepublic-Subscribe@radioactive.kicks-ass.net

To Unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to:

RadioFreeRepublic-Unsubscribe@radioactive.kicks-ass.net

---

[anniegetyourgun]

Wow...learn somethin' new everyday. But that's as far as I should probably comment, lest someone accuse me of being offensive. (Self-appointed FR comment police are roving in packs and congratulating each other as of late.) But thanks for posting this Jean.

[Congressman Billybob]

What I'd like to see is the exact quote as Senator Santorum made it, and the exact quote as the reporter put it in the story. A one-word change CAN make all the difference, but I'd like to see it for myself.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, now up on FR, "Who's Next?"

Latest book(let), "to Restore Trust in America."

[Freee-dame]

What I'd like to see is the exact quote as Senator Santorum made it, and the exact quote as the reporter put it in the story.

so would I...

[cake_crumb]

Thanks for posting this. I'm really angry that Senator Santorum was deliberately misquoted and his words twisted totally out of context in order to give Kerry a campaign platform.

Speaking of misquotes, here's a cute one I found today:

David Smith, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay advocacy organization is quoted as saying of Santorum's remarks: "They were stunning in their sensitivity."

Stunning in their SENSITIVITY?? Wow, THANK you Mr Smith!! Of course, Smith will probably insist he was misquoted in the article. Well, so was Rick Santorum. Of course, we won't see a manufactured leftist media flap over Smith's apparent SUPPORT of Senator Santorum.

Source: Gay rights reaction (headline mine, because I can't remember the one from this morning.)

I hope the article is still there. And not mysteriously corrected, because the words in quotes were copied and pasted from the article. I sent it to O'Reilly this morning. I hope he runs with it.

[Jean S]

I posted that AP article on 4/21. Fortunately we have it archived on Free Republic in case they change it.

Gay Groups Ask Senate GOP to Reconsider Santorum Post After 'insensitive' Remarks

[Ciexyz]

USA Today reported Santorum's comment in a negative fashion in today's paper. A headline of "Senator makes anti-gay slur". Reading the small paragraph about the incident, you got the impression that they were reporting another incident of gay-bashing. (Sorry, I don't have the paper in front of me now to give an exact quote.)

[cake_crumb]

I only have his exact quote. They were discussing Lawrence v. Texas, which is to be heard by the SCOTUS. I've never read Jakes' original artical, only the flak the press is generating.

AP: "OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?"

SANTORUM: "We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

[cake_crumb]

Thanks for the link.

[celmak]

Does anyone think this story will continue to the Sunday morning news shows?

[Brett66]

BTTT.

[cake_crumb]

"Does anyone think this story will continue to the Sunday morning news shows?"

Depends on how many votes they think they can get out of it and whether the Party of Rats has enough intelligence to know when they'd better pick up their cards and leave the table.

The POLYGAMISTS have weighed in:

Polygamists criticize Santorum's comments as defiling their beliefs

Salt Lake City-AP -- A Republican senator criticized by gay groups now is also under fire from polygamists.

The criticism comes after Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum lumped together polygamy -- or multiple marriages -- with homosexuality and incest. Santorum said they are all in opposition to a healthy, traditional family.

The head of a Utah church says Santorum was wrong to put polygamy on that list. Owen Allred heads one of Utah's largest polygamist sects and says the practice of one man marrying several women is a moral and religious tradition dating back to Abraham.

He tells The Salt Lake Tribune when Santorum compared the practice with homosexuality or incest, he defiled it as "immoral and dirty."

....Who's next I wonder? The beastialists? Or whatever they're called? NAMBLA must have hammered out a press release by now.....

[DED]

What's next, you ask?
Pedophilia. There's a group called the "man-boy love society" that's been arguing for years that sex with children is a good thing. Lately, some "experts" have actually been claiming that it isn't the sex with children that's bad, it's the adults negative reaction to it.
TOLERANCE in our society is going too far; wicked is as wicked does!