Eleanor Clift injects her opinion on the hateful remarks by the “inclusive” Senator Santorum:
Lott was in trouble because the base of the party was not firmly with him. They thought he made too many deals with the Democrats, and they didn’t trust him to keep his word. The base identifies with Santorum. He’s their champion. At the first hint of controversy, powerful figures on the right flooded the White House with calls warning “not to walk away from Rick.”
The White House is behind Santorum. More than anybody in the leadership, he’s their guy. Hardcore and ambitious, he goes to the wall for every Bush initiative and for every right-wing cause. He’s leading the party’s fight against reproductive cloning and stem-cell research, and is working to pass an exclusion to allow faith-based groups that receive federal money to practice discrimination in hiring that would otherwise be illegal.
Bush knows that to break with Santorum would cost him dearly with his conservative base. Asked for Bush’s reaction to Santorum’s broadside against gays, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer reached new heights of verbal gymnastics. He said the president doesn’t typically comment on Supreme Court cases. When the reporter pointed out that Bush had spoken out quite a lot about the Michigan affirmative-action case currently before the court, Fleischer said, “That’s why I said—typically.” Fleischer did say, though, that the president thinks Santorum is “an inclusive man.” When it comes to entertainment, Fleischer is on his way to matching the Iraqi information minister.
This is a familiar dance for Bush. First you please your base, then you offer gestures to reclaim the center. During the 2000 primaries, he refused to meet with the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay GOP group. Then he had Arizona Rep. Jim Kolbe, who is openly gay, speak at the GOP convention. Delegates bowed their heads and prayed during Kolbe’s speech. Bush will stay silent about Santorum and will avoid press availabilities over the next several days that might result in embarrassing questions. He doesn’t spend a lot of time with the press anyway, so his absence won’t be noted. Then in a few weeks or a few months, he’ll do the necessary repair work, inviting the leaders of gay groups to the White House or meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans.
She caps it off:
It’s worth noting, since Santorum brought up “man on dog,” that Texas doesn’t have a law against bestiality.
Meanwhile, over at The Weekly Standard (don’t get me started on these guys), an article by J. Bottum seems to say that he was right, but he shouldn’t have said it that way.
… within moments of his interview, the attack on Santorum as an anti-homosexual bigot was roaring–pushed primarily by the editorial page of the New York Times and kept bubbling by a steady stream of comments from homosexual and libertarian bloggers. A response from Santorum’s office created the occasion for another round of excoriation. The AP’s release of the full transcript of the interview was yet another. Jay Leno’s jokes about the brouhaha on the “Tonight Show” were still another.
To read the whole transcript is to wonder what Santorum thought he was doing. Did the number-three Republican in the Senate really need to allow an AP reporter to lead him off into contemplations of the relative morality of bestiality, incest, and adultery? He lacks the training as a natural-law theorist to carry it off–and he’s supposed to have the training as a politician to know better than to try.
Ooh! The Weekly Standard did a hatchet job a few months ago on my employer, National Council for the Social Studies (using untrue rumor and innuendo… but I digress), and now they’ve included me on their pages – the homosexual blogger. ::grin::
One more thing – why in the world was this article penned by the Books & Arts Editor?! I can only guess that they think he’s more likely to understand those queer homosexuals and their agenda.
