Catholic priest sex scandal: It's all the liberals' fault

[Nate Harris]

Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, refused yesterday to back off on his earlier statements connecting Boston's ''liberalism" with the Roman Catholic Church pedophile scandal, saying that the city's ''sexual license" and ''sexual freedom" nurtured an environment where sexual abuse would occur.

''The basic liberal attitude in that area . . . has an impact on people's behavior," Santorum said in an interview yesterday at the Capitol.

''If you have a world view that I'm describing [about Boston] . . . that affirms alternative views of sexuality, that can lead to a lot of people taking it the wrong way," Santorum said.

Santorum, a leader among Christian conservatives, was responding to questions about remarks he made three years ago on a website called Catholic Online. In those comments, Santorum said, ''It is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political, and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm" of the clergy sexual abuse scandal. The junior senator is chairman of the Senate Republican Conference and is considered a possible candidate for his party's presidential nomination in 2008, if he wins reelection to a third Senate term next year.

''I was just saying that there's an attitude that is very open to sexual freedom that is more predominant" in Boston, Santorum said yesterday.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/13/santorum_resolute_on_boston_rebuke?mode=PF

 

[It's On A Slab]

I know this is all political, but......

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/13/santorum_resolute_on_boston_rebuke?mode=PF

If Kennedy was upset with Santorum, why did it take him three years to express his disagreement?

Has Santorum's statements been buried for the three years?

 

[NBF_Bama_Cavalry]

If Kennedy was upset with Santorum, why did it take him three years to express his disagreement?

Has Santorum's statements been buried for the three years?

Three years, three words...

Mary Jo Kopechne

She would have been 65 years of age this year.

When Sen. Ted Kennedy was merely just another Democrat bloating on Capitol Hill on behalf of liberal causes, it was perhaps excusable to ignore his deplorable past. But now that he's become a leading Republican attack dog, positioning himself as Washington's leading arbiter of truth and integrity, the days for such indulgence are over.

It's time for the decent people to stand up and remind America why this chief spokesman had to abandon his own presidential bid in 1980. It's time to say the words 'Mary Jo Kopechne' out loud.

As is often the case, Republicans have deluded themselves into thinking that most Americans already know the story of how this "Conscience of the Democratic Party" left Miss Kopechne behind to die in the waters underneath the Edgartown Bridge in July 1969, after a night of drinking and partying with the young blonde campaign worker. But most Americans under 40 have never heard that story, or details of how Kennedy swam to safety, then tried to get his cousin Joe Garghan to say he was behind the wheel.

Those young voters don't know how Miss Kopechne, trapped inside Kennedy's Oldsmobile, gasped for air until she finally died, while the Democrats' leading Iraq war critic rushed back to his compound to formulate the best alibi he could think of.

Neither does Generation X know how Kennedy was thrown out of Harvard on his ear 15 years earlier for paying a fellow student to take his Spanish final. Or why the US Army denied him a commission because he cheated on tests.

As they listen to the Democrats' "Liberal Lion" accuse President Bush of "telling lie after lie after lie" to get America to go to war in Iraq, young voters don't know about that notorious 1991 Easter weekend in Palm Beach, when Uncle Teddy rounded up his nephews for a night on the town, an evening that ended with one of them credibly accused of rape.

It's time for Republicans to state unabashedly that they will no longer "go along with the gag" when it comes to Ted's rants about deception and moral turpitude inside the Bush White House. And if the Republicans don't, let's do it ourselves by passing this forgotten disgrace around the Internet to wake up memories of what a fraud and fake Teddy really is.

The Democratic Party should be ashamed to have the national disgrace from Massachusetts as their spokesman.

 

[CrimsonChuck]

How did this thread suddenly become about Ted Kennedy? I am not his biggest fan, but he was not even mentioned in the article. This was about Rick Santorum’s comments, which were terrible and indefensible IMHO. Is anyone here willing to defend his statements? They are similar to our very own stammerman80’s comments about hurricane Dennis. The reason why Boston saw more cases of church abuse than anywhere else is quite simple. Boston has one of the largest concentrations of Catholics in the country. They might even have the most, although I am not sure about that. The population is definitely up there though. If Santorum’s comments were true, then how come San Francisco did not see an usually high number of church abuse cases? San Fransisco is definitely more liberal than Boston.

I have never in my life donated to a politician. Bob Casey (or whoever is running against Santorum) will be the first. Even if I am not too crazy about Casey, I will donate my money and maybe even my time. I actually don’t know much about Casey yet, but I do know that we need Santorum out of the Senate.

 

[It's On A Slab]

How did this thread suddenly become about Ted Kennedy? I am not his biggest fan, but he was not even mentioned in the article. This was about Rick Santorum’s comments, which were terrible and indefensible IMHO. Is anyone here willing to defend his statements? They are similar to our very own stammerman80’s comments about hurricane Dennis. The reason why Boston saw more cases of church abuse than anywhere else is quite simple. Boston has one of the largest concentrations of Catholics in the country. They might even have the most, although I am not sure about that. The population is definitely up there though. If Santorum’s comments were true, then how come San Francisco did not see an usually high number of church abuse cases? San Fransisco is definitely more liberal than Boston.

I have never in my life donated to a politician. Bob Casey (or whoever is running against Santorum) will be the first. Even if I am not too crazy about Casey, I will donate my money and maybe even my time. I actually don’t know much about Casey yet, but I do know that we need Santorum out of the Senate.

I'm not a fan of Santorum, either.

I hope you do elect a sensible moderate of either party to replace him.

Though, I still can't figure why he's being attacked for something he said three years ago. Has this op-ed that he wrote been buried during previous campaigns?

 

[jthomas666]

How did this thread suddenly become about Ted Kennedy? I am not his biggest fan, but he was not even mentioned in the article. This was about Rick Santorum’s comments, which were terrible and indefensible IMHO. Is anyone here willing to defend his statements? They are similar to our very own stammerman80’s comments about hurricane Dennis. The reason why Boston saw more cases of church abuse than anywhere else is quite simple. Boston has one of the largest concentrations of Catholics in the country. They might even have the most, although I am not sure about that. The population is definitely up there though. If Santorum’s comments were true, then how come San Francisco did not see an usually high number of church abuse cases? San Fransisco is definitely more liberal than Boston.

Good post. NBF is just trying to divert attention from the topic--namely, Santorum's abhorrent statements, which shoe not only his intolerance, but his exceptionally weak deductive skills.

 

[NBF_Bama_Cavalry]

Good post. NBF is just trying to divert attention from the topic--namely, Santorum's abhorrent statements, which shoe not only his intolerance, but his exceptionally weak deductive skills.

Nice try jt, but I was only responding to the question:

If Kennedy was upset with Santorum, why did it take him three years to express his disagreement?

posed by Slab.

And Kennedy has injected himself into it, his arrogance would not allow him to let it lie...

 

[It's On A Slab]

Kennedy wasn't mentioned in the Globe article, but he has been

Nice try jt, but I was only responding to the question:

posed by Slab.

And Kennedy has injected himself into it, his arrogance would not allow him to let it lie...

the loudest critic of Santorum over this op-ed piece.

My question was: Why did it take them 2-3 years to get p.o.'d about it?

It's politics. But I wished they had save the ammo for his opponent to use in November.

I've got a sneaking suspicion that he's going down in November.

 

[CrimsonChuck]

I have no idea why did not come out for three years. It really should have been a story back then. And I have no idea why the Democrats are bringing it up now. I am guessing that it may have something to do with the Supreme Court vacancy?

Also (as I stated before), I am not about to defend Ted Kennedy here.

All that nonwithstanding, it does not change the fact that Santorum wrote those bigoted remarks.

 

[jthomas666]

Nice try jt, but I was only responding to the question posed by Slab.

Whatever. Your "response" had nothing to with the question. It's like someone asked you, "What's 2 + 2?' and you answered "commutative". And the thing is, Slab posed a valid question--why didn't Kennedy condemn Santorum's remarks when they were initially made?

And Kennedy has injected himself into it, his arrogance would not allow him to let it lie.

OK. So, Santorum makes bigoted, hateful remarks about Kennedy's constituents, and Kennedy's arrogance makes him respond? Again, that makes no sense. If someone on this board denounced all bikers as bigoted rednecks, would it be arrogant for you to come to their defense?

You don't like Kennedy. I get that. I'm not a big fan myself. But that doesn't mean that his charges against Santorum do not have merit--because they do.

And the fact that the timing of Kennedy's comments almost certainly ties in with Santorum's shaky re-election bid doesn't change the ignorance of Santorum's remarks.

 

[NBF_Bama_Cavalry]

Yeah, whatever.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

Whatever. Your "response" had nothing to with the question. It's like someone asked you, "What's 2 + 2?' and you answered "commutative". And the thing is, Slab posed a valid question--why didn't Kennedy condemn Santorum's remarks when they were initially made?

OK. So, Santorum makes bigoted, hateful remarks about Kennedy's constituents, and Kennedy's arrogance makes him respond? Again, that makes no sense. If someone on this board denounced all bikers as bigoted rednecks, would it be arrogant for you to come to their defense?

You don't like Kennedy. I get that. I'm not a big fan myself. But that doesn't mean that his charges against Santorum do not have merit--because they do.

And the fact that the timing of Kennedy's comments almost certainly ties in with Santorum's shaky re-election bid doesn't change the ignorance of Santorum's remarks.

Fish in a barrel, my friend.