Another Senator self-destructs.

Apparently foot-in-mouth disease, while not getting as much media attention as SARS, is still a deadly ailment affecting some of our leaders on Capitol Hill. The latest Senatorial gaffe was made by Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum, who conveniently happens to be the Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. In other words, he is the third-highest ranked leader in the Republican Party. According to an article I read in the Washington Post, the senator was being interviewed by the Associated Press and, during a discussion about a Texas sodomy law currently being considered by the Supreme Court (boy, those Supremes must get some interesting reading material!), Santorum basically equated homosexuality with bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. Here's the quote:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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." (here's the article: Washington Post)

Hmmm.

Any surprise that there was an immediate outcry by nearly all of the Gay rights organizations? Well, I wasn't surprised. But it gets me that Santorum and his people were. So he issued a statement, claiming that the AP article was misleading and he even goes on to compare himself to other "constitutional scholars" and implythat his quote was taken out of context.

Okay. "Scholar", eh? Maybe he should go back to school and consult a dictionary and compare the definitions of those words he used.

Here's a bit from his statement: “When discussing the pending Supreme Court Case Lawrence v. Texas, my comments were specific to the right to privacy and the broader implications of a ruling on other state privacy laws.’

“In the interview, I expressed the same concern as many constitutional scholars, and discussed arguments put forward by the State of Texas, as well as Supreme Court justices. If such a law restricting personal conduct is held unconstitutional, so could other existing state laws.’

“Again, my discussion with the Associated Press was about the Supreme Court privacy case, the constitutional right to privacy in general, and in context of the impact on the family. I am a firm believer that all are equal under the Constitution. My comments should not be misconstrued in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles.”
(full text of statement)

Hmmm, again.

I get, from his statement, that Santorum was merely using those words to illustrate a point, the point being that if the Supreme Court says behavior H is okay in the privacy in one's home, then behaviors B, P, I and A have to be considered okay, as well. Well, I call bullshit on his analogy and bullshit on his statement. Of course, I don't claim to be a "constitutional scholar", so maybe I'm not qualified to comment. Bullshit.

Why don't these guys get it? Why is it so hard for them to understand that all they have to do is apologize, retract the statement, and all will be well? What's so hard about saying "Sorry, didn't mean to go THERE"? Like Lott, Santorum insists on taking the hard road, asserting that what he said, whether it offends a million Americans or not, is fine and dandy. Take it or leave it. He must not have been paying attention when Lott got booted. The same boot is headed for his rear end.

More to the point: I predict that in less than 2 weeks, Senator Santorum will relinquish his position in the Republican Party, for the good of the Party of course, and someone more aligned with Frist and Bush will take his place, just in time for the kickoff of the '04 re-election campaign.

Wow. This is almost as exciting as the NBA Playoffs!

More later...
Paul