Head of Concerned Women for America: Google Has 'Smeared' Santorum

Penny Penny Young Nance, the head of Concerned Women for America, does not spell out exactly what santorum means in her column this weekend for Fox News. But she does say that Google has "defaced" and "smeared" Rick Santorum with its "bloodied" hands, which is more than vivid enough.

Nance argues that Google is a monopoly, that it's biased toward liberals, and that it's allowing Santorum to be "bullied."

Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) is the father of seven children, a devout Catholic, and current GOP presidential candidate.  But when someone types his name into the Google search box, the very first result that appears is a website detailing a sex act “by-product” named after the senator.  In fact, the Senator’s own website is the fourth result.  

By contrast, Rick Santorum’s website is the first result that both Yahoo and Bing give the user. According to SEO Researcher, it’s estimated that over 56 percent of users click on the first result that comes up in their search, and only 13 percent click on the second result. Beyond that, the click-thru numbers are miniscule. 

Nance doesn't say so, but Dan Savage's santorum-defining website is the second result on Yahoo and Bing. And the Chinese search engine, Baidu, lists Savage's website in front of Santorum's campaign page. So the problem isn't limited to Google, and it isn't the result of bias - unless you think Baidu has it out for Rick Santorum too.

Sen. Santorum said that he suspects “if something was up there like that about Joe Biden, they’d get rid of it. … To have a business allow that type of filth to be purveyed through their website or through their system is something that they say they can’t handle, but I suspect that’s not true.” I tend to agree with the senator.

If Google is biased, why did it defuse the Google bomb that made George W. Bush's campaign website come up on a search for "miserable failure"? Google defended a Republican.

But then the question becomes: why does Google defuse the Bush bomb but leave Santorum to stew in his own juices? The answer is that the anti-Santorum campaign isn't technically a Google bomb. It didn't become the first result through artificial linking so much as through bona fide popularity. This website explains it better than I can.

Then there's her final argument:

Google needs to do the right thing as a company and deliver what is best for the consumer when they type in “Santorum.”  If someone wants another result, they can ask for it; but no one searching on the senator’s name should be subjected to the hatred and hypocritical bullying of Dan Savage and a left-leaning company who refuses to correct an injustice.

Actually, Nance, if you don't like the search results, you can change them. Just set the Google SafeSearch setting to "strict," and your eyes will be spared santorum.

But that wouldn't be good enough for Nance, because she wants the search results censored according to  "consumer" (read: her) sensibilities. Yet Santorum's own campaign adviser put it best when he said Savage is simply engaged in free speech protected by the First Amendment.

Finally, Nance, the campaign against Santorum is not bullying. He's a big boy. He's a presidential candidate in the public eye. He's not a gay student on the playground. And he chose to compare gays with donkey-lovers and said their behavior should be criminalized. And he said this to the whole nation. He had it coming to him, so to speak.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. She's using "Santorum" for a lip gloss.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Sep 25, 2011 1:41:34 PM


  2. If you don't like Google's results then use Yahoo. It is called freedom of choice. It is really much more American than her proposed censorship. How can anyone who is on Fox News ever talk about skewed information?

    The only adult bullying I have seen lately is of that teacher in Covina by his mean girl principal.

    Posted by: Joey | Sep 25, 2011 1:45:53 PM


  3. NOM’S CHILD RAPE PROBLEM
    NOM’S CHILD RAPE PROBLEM


    by Scott Rose


    The National Organization for Marriage is jumping on the bandwagon, demanding Google alter search results, such that the link to Rick Santorum’s campaign site should appear above results containing his nickname.


    We must not forget, or ever allow NOM to forget, that Dan Savage redefined Santorum in response to Santorum’s 2003 interview with Associated Press reporter Lara Jakes Jordan. The first topic of that interview was the Catholic Church’s crimes of enabling child rapists. Santorum dismissed the subject by duplicitously alleging that all instances of priest-on-child sexual violence had been matters of consensual relations between adult and teenaged homosexuals.


    Santorum was parroting a line the Church used at the time and often attempts to use still. That line of propaganda denies that 1) certain priests raped pre-pubescent children including females; 2) certain nuns raped children, including males; 3) it is not appropriate for Rick Santorum to allege that teenage rape victims were having consensual relations with the priests that raped them; 4) statutory rape laws do not apply to heterosexuals exclusively, and; 5) many courts of law have found that the Catholic Church is liable to its child rape victims.


    What this all amounts to is that the National Organization for Marriage is actively giving political support to somebody who seeks 1) to shield child rapists from prosecution, and 2) to prevent rape victims from seeing justice done. That Santorum concurrently seeks to demonize gay people is secondary to the issue of his seeking to enable and to empower child rapists. There have, for example also been female rape victims of Catholic priests.


    The Church deceptively claimed to have enacted adequate reforms, yet additional Church child rape crimes keep coming to light. A March 4, 2011 New York Times headline read “In Philadelphia, Fears That Abusive Priests Are Still Active.” In an indictment involving the Philadelphia Archdiocese, 37 of the priests named can not be prosecuted because of the statutes of limitations.


    Maggie Gallagher’s close associate in political gay-bashing, Archbishop Timothy Dolan when in Wisconsin successfully fought against proposed legislation that would have lifted the statutes of limitations on the prosecution of child rape cases there. After scoring those successes, Dolan was promoted to New York and made President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. He is notorious for fighting against similar proposed legislation in New York.


    Apparently, the National Organization for Marriage sees nothing wrong with shielding child rapists from prosecution. In vain does one look for statements from NOM demanding that Archbishop Dolan politic in favor of the lifting of statutes of limitations on the prosecution of child rape. This is a big money matter to the Catholic Church and it will fight tooth and nail to keep those statutes of limitations in place.


    It also is a signal indicator of the National Organization for Marriage’s utter depravity. Though the anti-gay hate group is adamant that each child has a “right” to two opposite sex, heterosexual parents, (and that therefore, gay Americans must be denied the civil right to marry), it apparently believes that the complaints of the Catholic Church’s child rape victims can all be written off with the fraudulent assertion that all of those child rapes were “consensual.” NOM certainly is seeking to protect and to defend Rick Santorum against the negative nickname he was assigned in part because of his obnoxious statements about the Catholic Church’s child rape crimes. If this is how NOM promotes child welfare, then nobody should allow their children near any NOM board member, employee or supporter.


    All decent Americans must relentlessly and uncompromisingly demand to know whether the National Organization for Marriage supports or opposes the lifting of the statutes of limitations for the prosecution of child rape. And we must demand that, until we have a yes or no response from NOM. Then, if NOM alleges it favors lifting the statutes, we must demand that it demand of Archbishop Dolan that he support the political effort to get the statutes lifted. If Dolan can send a menacing letter to President Obama over marriage equality, warning of a "national conflict," then he can get involved politically with lifting the statutes of limitations on child rape or face a national conflict over them. NOM does not hesitate to coordinate politically with the Catholic Church against marriage equality, it must here be noted. On what moral grounds would NOM refuse to coordinate with the Church towards lifting the statutes of limitations for child rape prosecutions? NOM does allege an interest in child welfare and the family. It therefore is justified for us to inquire whether NOM acknowledges the overwhelming and negative impact of Church child rape on the victims’ families.


    Alternately, if NOM says it does not support the lifting of those statutes of limitations, then we must let the public know that the National Organization for Marriage abets the Catholic Church and Rick Santorum in shielding suspected child rapists from prosecution and in otherwise enabling child rapists.

    Posted by: Scott Rose | Sep 25, 2011 1:51:32 PM


  4. I'm sure Santorum loves this free publicity! Oops - until everyone who hasn't yet Googles "santorum."

    Posted by: Craig | Sep 25, 2011 2:09:09 PM


  5. I guess she missed that Google sponsored the Republican debates.

    Posted by: Alpha | Sep 25, 2011 2:14:55 PM


  6. How is Google a monopoly exactly? I can head over to Bing if I want to do a search, and I can buy ads on yahoo's network or iAd with Apple.

    Santorum should be nicer to people, and perhaps they wouldn't all link to the popular culture definition of Santorum.

    Posted by: Alpha | Sep 25, 2011 2:17:02 PM


  7. Yes, Rick Santorum has seven children. And not all of them are heterosexual.

    You gotta love how the bigots ignore that.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Sep 25, 2011 2:52:47 PM


  8. Drip, drip, drip of homophobia on a daily basis... and then it backfires.

    So, does anyone say, "Santorum should never have made such ignorant comments"?

    Nope. Instead they blame others for outsmarting them at their own game.

    Go F yerself!

    Posted by: Pete n SFO | Sep 25, 2011 3:04:45 PM


  9. If you are quiet about this Nance then maybe people won't go over to Yahoo and Bing and click on that icky result for santorum and make it come up number one on those search engines as well.

    Funny thing, I looked up "nance" and it turns out if often means homosexual man. Ironic, huh?

    Posted by: Advice for the loser | Sep 25, 2011 3:36:19 PM


  10. her teeth are dangerous!

    Posted by: stevenelliot | Sep 25, 2011 3:36:23 PM


  11. Bing and Yahoo first results are the same as google. She again (SURPRISE) is lying.

    Posted by: JIm | Sep 25, 2011 3:53:54 PM


  12. I don't care who he is or how anacceptable are the things he says he believes. There is absolutely no excuse for a gay person to engage in such a tasteless and vulgar attack on a person's name. We of all people know very well what it means to be ridiculed and belittled.

    The struggle for gay rights is a struggle for human rights. To see so many people applauding the tactics of a shameless publicity whore who hijacks their struggle to promote his own media career is beyond ugly.

    Posted by: ct | Sep 25, 2011 4:03:49 PM


  13. Suck it up.

    And as far as the words "smear" and "deface", I think that refers to Penny Nance's makeup.

    Concerned women? Concerned about what? Concern yourselves with your own problems and quit telling everyone else how to live.

    Posted by: Bart | Sep 25, 2011 4:15:59 PM


  14. "had it coming to him"

    Nice.

    Posted by: PaulR | Sep 25, 2011 4:22:08 PM


  15. Perhaps Nance had better watch her own homophobia or she could become infamous via Google, too. Ewwwwww!

    Posted by: HadenoughBS | Sep 25, 2011 4:23:06 PM


  16. if you want to make dumbass statements don't expect people not to respond. if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen. these group of repuks during these debates have proven they are unqualified to be president.

    Posted by: walter | Sep 25, 2011 4:33:19 PM


  17. Hey, when I search on "Santorum" I WANT that brown-splotched page to pop up first, because that's what this man deserves. This Concerned Woman Penny Nance needs a new definition attached to her name, I'm thinking.

    Posted by: Abel | Sep 25, 2011 4:36:21 PM


  18. HEHEHE - Savage should write a book entitled "Sodom and Santorum"...

    Let's see...not only maintaining Santorum's website's dismal placement by elevating yet ANOTHER website with the appropriated definition to the front of the line...but then Sodom and Santorum will catapult to a higher spot in Amazon than Santorum alone could hope to achieve in their search engine.

    Dan...you out there? It doesn't even matter the subject matter...the title is fun enough as it is! ;-)

    Posted by: Jay | Sep 25, 2011 4:36:21 PM


  19. It's such an old story: the hypocrits get to pick on their favorite whipping boy until someone says, "That behavior is unjustified." Then they whine about how abused they are, ratcheting up the complaint until it's a world wide conspiracy to oppress them. They can't guess that maybe they're simply wrong and shouldn't have been abusing anyone else in the first place. Hypocrits, bullies, and blackmailers; that's who populates the TeaBagger Republicans.

    Posted by: Chuck Mielke | Sep 25, 2011 5:01:01 PM


  20. I'm listening to "Cry Me A River" I think its fitting.

    Posted by: Akula | Sep 25, 2011 5:13:16 PM


  21. Holy Fecalface!!! What a wacky world we live in!!

    Posted by: kodiak | Sep 25, 2011 5:16:31 PM


  22. Which religious bigot organization keeps this bigot in panties? Just askin.

    Please help me to get the WH to stop taxes funding ant-gay religious violence http://wh.gov/gSE

    Posted by: Mykelb | Sep 25, 2011 5:19:08 PM


  23. the next cowardly little homo like CT that says "this isn't fair! we shouldn't be making fun of his name!" deserves every ounce of anti-gay bigotry they're guaranteed to experience in life.

    for real. grow a pair and stop being such a low-thinking wuss.

    we get it. you choose to dislike dan savage. but dan savage didn't make Santorum look bad. Rick Santorum made Rick Santorum look bad.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Sep 25, 2011 5:37:26 PM


  24. Nance, the putrid vaginal discharge that is sometimes the result of inner bigotry and bile, combined with post-menopausal bitterness.

    Posted by: Hdtex | Sep 25, 2011 6:13:15 PM


  25. Republicans equal facist dictators. Nothing's good unless it's wing-nut leaning. She's a stepford politician--she looks just like Bachman, Palin et al. "you will all be assimilated. We are Borg!"

    Posted by: woodroad34d | Sep 25, 2011 6:22:11 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «WATCH: Alec Baldwin Plays "Who's on Top" on SNL« «