Rick Santorum Dogged by Google Problem and It's His Fault: Expert
Rick Santorum must take the lion's share of the blame for the fact that Dan Savage's 2003 fecal matter prank, a response to Santorum's statements comparing gay sex to "man-on-dog" sex, still sits near the top of Google's search results for his last name, a Search Engine expert tells the NYT:
Danny Sullivan, the editor of SearchEngineLand, said the blame for the results rests largely with the Web strategy of Mr. Santorum’s campaign. It is the campaign’s responsibility to make its Web site more relevant than the prank term — after all, he says, the prank is relevant to voters who disagree with Mr. Santorum’s views on gay rights.
“He hasn’t maintained any type of official ‘residence,’ if you will, for himself online,” Mr. Sullivan wrote in an e-mail. “So he can’t build up links to the right place, which in turn would help him rise, and here he is doing it again. He’s effectively redirected all the ‘calls’ to his official number and pointed them to some call center, in Internet terms.”
Today on FOX News, anchor Shepard Smith made reference to Santorum's 2003 statement, saying "I don’t think all social conservatives" share Santorum's position on 'man-on-dog sex' and homosexuality.
In related news, a video blogger noted that Mitt Romney campaign ads were appearing at the top of the Santorum prank page.
Watch both clips, AFTER THE JUMP...
@TJ: Rick and Jason are the same person.
@Jack: Learn to f'ing read. We were responding to a woman whose name is Mary.
Cripes.
Posted by: Paul R | Jan 5, 2012 1:29:03 PM
PAUL R - Yeah, I've read that before. Two peas in the same bikini, as it were. I sometimes write RICK/JASON. Perhaps I should switch to calling them "Sybil," given all of the "issues."
Posted by: TJ | Jan 5, 2012 1:46:17 PM
@TJ: Better yet, ignore him entirely. What's the point?
Posted by: Paul R | Jan 5, 2012 1:51:54 PM
Well, Savage has never been above juvenile stunts to make a point (the infamous doorknob licking another example), and it is a judgment call whether such stunts ultimately help us, hurt us, or aren't particularly significant beyond some fun at an outrageous homophobe's expense (I think more the latter).
Santorum used to be irrelevant, now he's momentarily relevant before he becomes irrelevant again, so the focus should be on challenging his radically extremist idea of not only preventing civil marriage equality (with juvenile paper towel-napkin man-dog analogies) but destroying the legal marriages of same-sex couples who are currently married. His views are the opposite of family values. (Not that the religious extremists who form his base would object to his radicalism.)
Jason/Rick is a one-trick pony, a sadsack boring one at that. "Mary" reads to me like a former TR favorite with a not quite plausible new persona (anti-gay extremism mixed with condescending empathy mixed with some awareness of how foolish right-wingers are) but only her hairdresser knows for sure. Engage trolls at the peril of your brain cells.
Posted by: Ernie | Jan 5, 2012 3:05:09 PM
Mary, on behalf of everyone i'd like to suggest you hang yourself. thanks.
Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jan 5, 2012 3:32:36 PM
oh and yeah: jack, rick, jason. same troll.
same sad resentful homosexual who never got over the fact that his father didn't want him for a son.
keep worrying about "gays that say Mary" - hehehe. they're having run lives, and you're still begging daddy not to hate you. how's it workin for you so far? yeah. exactly.
Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jan 5, 2012 3:34:11 PM
Any particular kind of rope you'd like me to use, Kiwi? Or maybe I should commit suicide by drowning myself in a pool of "Santorum?" And can I take one last look at your well-written blog or is that prohibited for a homophobe who's about to expire?
You really need to get your valium prescription refilled, son.
Posted by: Mary | Jan 5, 2012 3:51:03 PM
And Ernie, I am no "former TR favorite." I basically take the Rick Santorum view of homosexuality and have been a social conservative since early adolescence. Last year my favorite Soap opera "As the world turns" had a gay couple. I was impressed with the storyline and found myself cheering for this couple - and being totally unshocked at seeing them kiss. I'd always expected that I'd be one of the last Americans who could ever accept seeing gay people together, but apparently not. This surprised me and I decided to read up more on the subject of gay rights. This lead me to Jonathan Rauch's website. I was very impressed with his work and began reading IGF and 365gay, as well as Joe my God. Towleroad came last.
My political views have not changed, but it is hard not to have some empathy when you begin to listen to the same people every day tell their stories and express themselves. I want the gay community to do well and survive. I want to see everyone safe regardless of how things go politically. There really is no "middle ground" here that could please both someone like Santorum and someone like you, so I won't pretend there is. But if I think there are issues where I could take a politically pro-gay stance I'll do so.
As for being "not quite plausible", I started 1981 as a Catholic Democrat and because of Jerry Falwell and Richard Viguerie, I started 1982 as a Protestant Republican. I've always been "not quite plausible!"
Posted by: Mary | Jan 5, 2012 4:11:36 PM
there's no "middle-ground" for a reason, Mary.
just as there's no "middle-ground" on racial inequality issues.
you sound like old white people in the 1950s saying "why are you blacks complaining? you're not slaves anymore"
Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jan 5, 2012 4:20:21 PM
Well, Mary. good for you, it seems like you're evolving, and you might even be something like a human being. The Rick Santorum view of homosexuality is extreme, and his view that legal marriages should be undone is both extreme and dangerous. (There was a time when many would have undone a few Catholic marriages, mixed-race marriages, etc. Fortunately, those times are gone.) He's on the wrong side of history, as are you, and soon your views will be seen as shameful, because they are.
If you had been in VT last night I would have invited you to the Legal and Financial Planning Workshop for Same-Sex Couples I attended (and helped, with many volunteers, to organize). It is necessary because married same-sex couples in VT potentially put themselves in harm's way any time they travel beyond our state. And, even within our state, they face financial and other burdens straight married couples never consider. Who are these dangerous married people? Well, a bunch of older lesbians who've been together maybe 30 years and are facing elder health and financial issues, a bunch of younger and middle-aged lesbians, some with young children, who are scared what could happen if they end up in a hospital in Alabama. And a few men like myself who've been in a committed relationship for years and years. There was a lot of flannel and gray hair, a lot of parkas and warm winter boots. The idea that you, or Rick Santorum, or any other anti-gay preacher would find it acceptable to walk up to one of those couples or families and rip up their marriage license is, well, just nasty. If your political views haven't changed, you might want to ask yourself, why haven't they? You don't really need to tell us, those of us who've been around the equality block for a while have heard all your arguments, and many more. If you're not a persona, Mary, but rather a person, look in the mirror and ask yourself why you feel threatened by secure and protected gay families. How does that really affect your life? Then have a conversation with yourself. It would probably be more productive than trying to convince TR readers that we're somehow less human than you are.
Good luck, Mary, you have a chance of becoming a decent person, but it will take some work on your part.
Posted by: Ernie | Jan 5, 2012 5:39:41 PM
she already stated that she believes if gay couples can marry it will lead to future generations of bisexual males choosing male lovers over female ones.
literally. that's her "reasoning - gay marriage will make things "easier" for BISEXUALS, not gay or straight men, to choose male lovers over female ones.
that's her belief. now, how does one talk rationally with common sense and intellectual honesty to a grown-adult that thinks that kind of nonsense makes ANY sense whatsoever?
she's against gay marriage because it will lead to future generations of bisexual males choosing male lovers over female ones.
in what alternate dimension is that a legitimate concern!?!?
Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jan 5, 2012 6:03:17 PM
she might as well be saying "i, mary, oppose interracial marriage because if blacks and whites are allowed to marry then women are going to choose black men because they statistcally have bigger penises and then there will be no more white men who can find female companions and then the white race will be gone and everyone will be a shade of CARAMEL!"
literally.
Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jan 5, 2012 6:06:16 PM
No kidding, Little Kiwi, what a strange concept. I guess she doesn't have much confidence that the straight men she knows won't turn gay the minute she lets them off the leash. Personally, I'm guessing that straight men will be less interested in gay sex if they suspect it might lead to marriage. The fear of marriage takes all the fun out of those surprise gay dalliances straight men find themselves in after a few beers.
Posted by: Ernie | Jan 5, 2012 9:15:12 PM
Take Control of your yeast infection with a natural yeast infection relief option called Yeastrol.
Posted by: male yeast infection | Oct 6, 2012 2:09:48 AM