Social Question

ETpro's avatar

Why does redirect to Rachel Maddow's blog?

Asked by ETpro (34584points) May 27th, 2011

That’s and of course it is a tease directed at Rick Santorum, who is one of the Republican presidential hopefuls this year.

I know, what the redirect is all about but I want to see who else either already knows, or is adept enough at sleuth work to figure it out. There’s some dry (or maybe not so dry) humor in the explanation. Happy hunting.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

23 Answers

Nullo's avatar

Immaturity someplace.

ETpro's avatar

@Nullo Where. In that answer?

Mamradpivo's avatar

Don’t you know about santorum? Santorum is one of the least-enjoyable side-effects of anal sex. It’s really too bad that the former Senator spent so much of his political career focusing on trying to ban gay people from being themselves: we could have had a much simpler phrase for santorum.

Buttonstc's avatar

Yeah. Is Rachel Maddow trying to ride on the humor coattails of Dan Savage’s brilliant Google bombing campaign to make sure that his definition comes up first whenever Santorum’s name is Googled (with the help of all of his dedicated readers, of course)

That would be my first guess.

Anybody who still doesn’t know what THAT is all about, just pop his name into Goog and be prepared for a good laugh.

Or if you want to read the history of it from the beginning just click below…..

One of the most creative victories against a loudmouth judgemental politicians ever. And the best part is that every time Santorum makes the mistake of complaining about it, it just results in a new flurry of people Googling madly to see what all the fuss is about.

That’ll teach him to equate being gay with bestiality and pedophilia. What a dimwitted jerk.

Judi's avatar

Saw it on Rachel Maddow show last night.

ETpro's avatar

@Buttonstc No, but you’re on the right track. It is something about GOogle keyword density.Thanks for the link to Very funny, and what a just comeuppance for his judgmentalism.

@Judi You can wait out domeone Googling up the right answer if you wish. But it’s fair to post the answer however you came to know it. :-)

Buttonstc's avatar

I saw the same thing Judi did but I guess I just interpreted it differently.

Rachel’s reference to Dan Savage’s campaign was a bit oblique but definitely intentional since it results in yet another round of Google searches for those who were unfamiliar with what she was referencing.

Basically Santorum told a little anecdote about a sweet little old lady’s dog peeing on his lap while he was going door to door campaigning. He used that to bring home the point that in spite of his wet crotch, he was just going to “soldier on”.

Rachel’s interpretation was that he told it purposely to deflect from the previous negative publicity associated with “Spreading Santorum”.

However, she opined, that it was an unfortunate choice of story to tell since it again involved a dog which just brought back memories of his infamous quote about gay marriage paving the way for acceptance of all other types of perversions (including “man- on-dog” sex).

Not such a smart move after all since that was the phrase which raised the ire of Dan and the rest of the gay community for equating being gay with bestiality.

She stopped short of going into the full details of it all but the irony of the unfortunate choice of a “dog story” was definitely not lost on anyone familiar with the previous “dog” quote.

When I said she was riding on the humor coattails of Dan’s previous campaign, I certainly did not mean it in a disparaging way at all but rather as a “tip of the hat” to her cleverness and prompt action in registering the domain. She is one quick smart lady.

And she and Dan Savage are certainly not exactly strangers to each other since he has appeared on her shows several times and they are both out and proud gay professionals.

And I couldn’t help but think that should Dan ever in the future find a clever way to use “even dog pee can’t stop Santorum” I doubt she would be adverse to loaning him the domain name :)

Plus, this serves to keep it out of the hands of the less worthy (such as members of Santorum’s campaign staff).

I’m assuming that she was the originator of the phrase since it made it’s first appearance on her show?

I can’t do links from iPhone so hopefully someone can link to the clip which is on the web where she quotes his little story verbatim and her interpretation of it’s significance.

For lovers of irony, here’s another cute little tidbit:

Evidently he’s going to stick with the new catchphrase for his campain since it’s still plastered across his homepage.

Fighting To Make America America Again.

Interestingly, this is a direct quote from a poem by Langston Hughes, a black author widely presumed to be gay (even tho he never explicitly said so). But there weren’t even any white folks coming out of the closet during that time period (and presumably he wished to live a long happy life without fear of being killed) so that’s certainly understandable.

But you would think that whoever was the “genius” on his staff who decided this would make a good catchphrase, might have run it through a Google search to see if it was already in existence?

Or maybe Santorum and all of his staff still have an extreme case of Google-Phobia :)

And the hits just keep coming for Santorum. You couldnt make this stuff up if you tried. Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.

Buttonstc's avatar

In the interest of full disclosure, I really didn’t need to do much Googling at all since I used to live in PA.and was regularly subjected to far too many quotes of his pontificating on the evening news. He really is an absolute dimwit and always was even before all of his stupid calumny He is (and was) totally clueless.

No small wonder his poll numbers currently fall below the choices of “Nobody” and “Anybody Else” which Rachel pointed out. I’m also a Rachel fan.

And I was also a regular reader of The City Paper which carries Dan Savage’s column. I was still in PA during the height of Dan’s campaign and I laughed my ass off regularly.

And I laughed even harder when he was defeated for reelection to another term by Bob Casey. I’m sure Spreading Santorum helped in that effort.

And then I laughed even harder when Colbert picked up on his complaining about it all a while ago and resurrected another round of Google searches.

And that definition is STILL the first item on the page when Googling Santorum.

Dan and Rachel are frickin’ geniuses :)

ETpro's avatar

OK, here’s Rachel filling in the details that @Buttonstc didn’t include in that great discussion.

Buttonstc's avatar

I just listened to it again and evidently the Sarasota Herald first used the new domain as a headline and Rachel was the one to jump on it and register it.

And her “warning” not to Google Santorum while at work or in the presence of your Mother absolutely guarantees yet another round of prolific Googling, much to Santorum’s dismay.

She does get points for discretion while getting the job done and arousing enormous curiosity to a new bunch of fans.

”...a man, a dog, and a warm sensation…”. Indeed.

But at least Ricky learned his lesson from the Colbert incident and realizes that complaining about it will just fan the flames even more.

Can you imagine President Santorum? Not in a million years.

Every foreign dignitary would be valiantly trying to suppress a snicker just saying it for the first time.

And he brought it all on himself with his abysmal ignorance.

Nullo's avatar

@ETpro There is a certain class of political commentator who takes delight in likening his opposites to genitalia and related concepts. Bathroom humor (for lack of a better term), even in politics, smacks strongly of immaturity; wouldn’t you agree?

ETpro's avatar

@Buttonstc I live for the day when all the McCarthy style demagogues, no matter what topic they pick, get the same treatment for their evil intent. At least back then, there were Republicans of personal integrity serving in the US Senate who finally had enough of Joe McCarthy’s demagoguery and censured him. Sadly, I do not think the party any longer has any room for such integrity. Santorum is just their kind of guy.

Buttonstc's avatar


It was Santorum himself who first chose to inject genitalia into the discussion to begin with. “Man-on-dog” was HIS OWN phrase uttered in 2004.

Regardless of how one feels about the issue of gay marriage, insinuating that it paves the way for any type of perversion including “man-on-dog” sex is kind of hitting below the belt and rather unneccessary, don’t you think?

There are many reasons people have given for their oposition to same sex marriage, primarily religious. But isn’t man-on-dog taking it to a new low in marginalizing gay people.

There have been tons of judgemental comments made about “gay promiscuity” as it is. And then when you have some gay people wanting monogamy and raising a family, they’re slammed for that too and relegated to bestiality.

So whose dragging in the genitalia? Here’s a hint: it wasn’t Rachel Maddow. She was just direct quoting Santorum’s OWN EXACT WORDS both recently and back in ‘03.

Do you know of any gay people engaging in “man-on-dog”. I don’t. Gay people are attracted to each other NOT to animals.

Do you honestly think that any gay partnered couple raising a few adopted kids are going to teach them how to get it on with the family pooch. Come on. I have to believe that you are far too intelligent to think that. Even the strictest conservatives recognize how preposterous that is.

I don’t know if Santorum honestly thinks that or just said it to be provocative and grab some headlines. Regardless, if he wanted publicity for a crack like that, he certainly got it.

People should be more careful what they wish for. He created his own problem in his eagerness to drag all gay people through the gutter. He’s the one who chose to involve genitalia with that ridiculous image.

Whatsoever you sow, that shall you also reap.

He could benefit from reading his Bible a little more thoroughly rather than just the six clobber passages.

Buttonstc's avatar


Be that as it may, I don’t see a whole lot of present day Repubs lining up behind Santorum for that ridiculous crack.

Some of them can even frame their opposition to same sex marriage with a modicum of dignity and logic (at least logic from their viewpoint) rather than pandering to hysteria.

I think that if the govt. could have the good sense to LEGALLY equate a civil union with all the same rights, in all states, as for a marriage that could eliminate the religious aspect of it from the entire picture.

I read an article where the writer made the comparison with the issue of divorce. Even tho there are church groups vehemently against divorce, the govt. has bypassed their various dictates and kept it a legal and civic procedure.

Isn’t this part of what separation of Church and state is all about?

Why not do the same here. Call it whatever else you want OTHER THAN MARRIAGE, but keep the legal rights equivalent and the problem is done.

Marriage is a church ceremony and can and should be kept that way. Govt. should have no part of it.

That made a lot of sense to me when I read it. I’ll try to find it again if anyone is interested. The author explains it much better than my brief attempt here and based his logic upon the Constitution.

But even for those so vehemently against gay marriage, it isn’t necessary to drag it to gutter level as Santorum did. I’ve had many a respectful RL discussions with other Christians who were able to frame their discourse without resorting to gutter level nonsense.

ETpro's avatar

@Buttonstc When I mentined McCarthyism I was thinking of the broad range of right-wing demagoguery and demonization, the stuff about all liberals , progressives and Democrats hating America, being traitors, unpatriotic, communists, socialists, Nazis, etc., etc. But when the same-sex marriage issue was put on the ballot here in Massachusetts after our Supreme Judicial Court decided forbidding it was discriminatory and unconstitutional per our state Constitution; the religious right came in here with the usual pack of lies about man-dog-sex, homosexuals becoming teachers and recruiting all kids to their ways, etc.

When I was a kid, there was a neighborhood bully that tormented me for several years. It didn’t stop till one day I had had more than enough, and I turned on him in a rage and beat the liveing tar out of him. I’;m about at that point with divisive politics like Santorum was trying to exploit with his man-on-dog comment. When they strike, don’t just take the pucnch. Don’t ever believe that if you give enough, you can appease them. Hit back.

I have read that argument too, perhaps not from the same source, but the same thought. I would agree that it would be more logical to have civil unions be the state approval of a couple’s union, and leave marriage to various religious organizations, but what about us atheists? Do we need to set up churches for those with no religion? There are a handful of such churches currently serving mainly as a place to gather with like-minded individuals and study morality and philosophy. Maybe the civic togetherness is a good thing whether worship of a particular God is involved or not.

Buttonstc's avatar

Atheists are not inherently deprived of any attendant benefits of marriage (as long as one is a man and the other a woman) if they choose to bypass any church ceremony at all and just to before a JoP and submit all the required paperwork.

So I’m trying to figure out why you ask the Q “what about atheists”. Obviously they can bypass religion altogether as far as their official status in the eyes of the law. They still receive the exact same benefits as married people even if they just call it a civil union.

And if the same were true for gay couples (with all the legal benefits regardless of which state they reside) it would be pointless to continue to lobby for “marriage” since that’s the sticking point for conservatives.

Right now it’s this crazy quilt patchwork which varies from one location altogether. If they could be assured of being able to be with their partner when hospitalized (the way husbands and wives are allowed) and have the same presumption of both parents being regarded equally in regards to their childrens custody, be able to inherit their spouses property after death, get health benefits for their spouse etc. etc. and tons of other issues just the same way hetero coupes are automatically accorded legally, why would they care what it’s called. As long as they had the exact same rights (and responsibilities) as any other spouse there would NOT be a need to call it marriage.

They could call it Apple Pie or Jabberwocky for all the difference it would make (altho domestic partnership would make more sense :)

Let those for whom a church sanction is important claim the word Marriage. As long as whatever it is has the same legal status, the govt. could handle it the same as they do divorce. No church necessary.

So atheists gays and anybody else who doesn’t want a religious sanction can deal with their govt. paperwork and go live as they wish without requiring tons of lawyers and additional paperwork just to have the same rights for their union as anybody else.

It’s unfortunate that the govt. can’t see their way clear to simplify the issue and take “marriage” out of it altogether.

Call it Applesauce and let gay folks have their family and raise their kids with the same legal security and peace of mind as any other spousal couple. The majority of my gay friends would be just fine with that and not need to call it marriage.

As long as they don’t need to go through lawyers and the hassle of legal paperwork every time they move to a different state with different policies, i’m sure they would be quite happy to never have to go to another demo, protest or rally just to be treated like any other couple.

ETpro's avatar

@Buttonstc I brought up the question “What about atheists?” in relation to the suggetion that we resolve the gay marriage issue by separating marriage and civil unions, and leaving marriage entirely up to the church. If we did that, most atheists, even man/woman couples, would be unable to marry, as they have no church.

As to why can’t they settle for civil unions, why couldn’t blacks settle for “separate but equal.”

Buttonstc's avatar

Hmmm…that’s an interesting way to phrase it.

So does the word marriage or the ceremony of it hold that much importance to most atheists as long as the rights and responsibilities are exactly the same? I’m just curious.

And with the ability of just about anyone to be ordained over the Internet by the Universal Life Church which includes the ability to legally perform marriages, wouldn’t that take care of the problem?

I mean there are plenty of people nowadays getting married in all sorts of non-traditional settings from beaches to hot air balloons by JoPs and/or ministers why couldn’t atheists design any type of celebration they wish.

And the biggest problem with the “separate but equal” concept historically when applied to integration was that the equal part was in name only. Financially, resource-wise etc. the different facilities were anything but equal. Coexisting separately but definitely not equal in any meaningful way at all. It was just a phrase to put nice window dressing on the ugly reality.

That was not any kind of parallel to what I’m referencing at all. I’m going to have to hunt up that article because this minister expressed it far more accurately and eloquently than I’ve been able to do.

I was talking about real true LEGAL EQUALITY (where the rubber meets the road in real life situations. Not a pale imitation of the farce which propelled the Civil Rights Movement.

As long as the government provided the civil legal power to apply the law equally, that wouldn’t prevent partners be they gay, atheist or nondescript from styling their celebration in any way they choose and referring to it as marriage if they so choose.

But it likewise also provides protection from lawsuits for any minister who chooses not to officiate at any celebration that he does not feel theologically comfortable with. I think that’s a valid concern for those with very conservative beliefs who would not choose to officiate at any celebration.

I don’t share their position but I do understand their concerns regarding this. Right now the only way for gay folks to automatically accrue equal spousal rights is through “marriage” (in states which permit it).

Anyhow, I’m off to Goog to hunt up that very well thought out article.

ETpro's avatar

@Buttonstc Whenever you set something up in a society as desirable, and then restrict it to only one privledged class and prohibit it from others, it has power. It makes people ask, what’s wrong with me. Why must I be treated unequally. Our Constitution is quite clear on the subject. The law is to apply to everyone equally. We’ve fallen far short of that lofty mark, but that is no reason to quit striving for equality. Everyone in America should enjoy equal opportunity. Not equal rewards or equal outomces or any such nonsense as that. Equal opportunity.

I’m a man who has been married to one woman for going on 35 years now. As far as I know, all my children and grandchildren are straight. I don’t take this position because it’s a personal struggle for me, but because I know what is right, and fair, and just. When I was a kid, interracial marriage was illegal in many US states. That was wrong too.

Buttonstc's avatar

I agree with you, ET and perhaps my imperfect viewpoint is hopelessly naive, but right now this issue is splitting churches apart and creating so much alienation and misunderstanding between gay folks and the church as a whole that there has to be a better way.

It’s not like the Armed Forces who simply decreed a new policy and everybody who’s a member had to either fall in line or leave.

And that’s what happened regarding segregation and now being able to serve openly for gays. Wouldn’t it be nice if it could work that way in the rest of society as well ?

I found the article and fortunately the link was simple enough for me to type out manually.

I’d be very interested in your thoughts on Gaddy’s perspective.

It’s not really a short quick read but well worth it and quite thought provoking.

When you do find the time, I’d be very interested in your perspective as well as anyone else who takes time to read it.

ETpro's avatar

Revernd Gady’s point is well taken. I haven’t had time to read it all yet, but I am familiar with Dr. Gaddy position, as I have heard him speak on several occasions.

Every religion should be free to define what constitutes the contract of marriage for their own belief system. Catholics can forbid divorce and other Christians can recognize it. Where turn away from our Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law is when one particular brand of religion seeks to define marriage for everyone, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Muslim or atheist.

Wouldn’t it be great if all of society were egalitarian? You bet it would. And it isn’t so now. But that is where the trend of history is clearly pointing. We’ve come a very long way from the dark Ages, feudalism, and the horrors of the Inquisition. And looking back, it is clear that those who stand for equality are on the right side of history, and those who stand for discrimination and hate are supporting a slowly losing cause.

Buttonstc's avatar

How interesting. I’ve never had the opportunity to hear him speak in person. How fortunate for you.

I only recently became aware of his point of view (through Rachel Maddow BTW) and when I read this paper of his it just clicked. It just made so much sense to me so I adopted his viewpoint on this issue and made it my own as well. And he richly deserves all the credit for his brilliant articulation of it.

And yes, it would be nice if all in our society could be this egalitarian :)

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther