These guys have a santorum reference prominently displayed at the top of their home page. I just thought that you would like to know.
The spector of your influence looms large. You go guy.
Have a great day.
Given the current decisions in Massachusetts, Canada and San Fran, and the President's speech yesterday, I would implore you to take up an additional campaign to your successful and hilarious bitch slapping of Senator Santorum.
I think that nation is ripe for a mass nonviolent civil rights movement for gay rights and marriage. Shrub has thrown down his gauntlet in the form of an asinine constitutional amendment. That could fuck things up for decades to come. We must match him. It’s time to take to the streets and chapels and courts to demand equal rights for gays and lesbians the marriage movement that is currently taking place in California needs to spread and not pitter out into nothing.
They Have the President and the Terminator. Who do we have to lead us?
Liberal Straight Dude
First, fuck George W. Bush. I watched his little "must protect the sanctity of marriage speech" yesterday morning, then I watched the big finale to "My Big, Fat Obnoxious Fiancé" later that same night. Yep, that's one sacred ol' institution, that marriage stuff. Wouldn't want to fuck it up by letting homos get hitched, now would we?
As for your suggestion, LSD, I'm all for a sustained campaign of non-violent civil disobedience. While the marriages in San Francisco are thrilling to watch from afar, those of us who live in big, liberal cities where our mayors aren't willing to walk their talk on gay rights—unlike foxy Mayor Newscome—don't have the option ofmarrying just yet. That's why I think gays and lesbians should start crashing straight marriages and wedding receptions. Not to disrupt them, heaven forbid. We should sneak in during the first dance and, Grinch-like, sneak off with all the presents. I'm not sure what statement swiping all the gifts would make but, shit, it's the only way any us are ever going to get any wedding presents at this rate.
I made some oblique references to santorum in my web comic. I spent three days on the subject and no one has complained. Check it out.
I made it kind of vague because I didn't feel like getting kicked off the site. I shouldn't have worried. If they'll put up with a homophobic Christian mouse they won't have any problem with me. As I said vague but I did manage to tell people how to get to spreadingsantorum.com if they're willing to do the work.
Thanks for sharing, Erik.
I was out on a date recently. As the evening progressed we were making-out and things were getting hot 'n heavy. He then said to me, "What should we do from here?" With no forethought or hesitation and with complete spontaneity I replied, "We should whip up some santorum." With equal spontaneity and without hesitation he says, "Your place or mine?" We are very happy together and owe this in no small measure to that pathetic right-ring senator. As a thank you to him for our bliss and that of all others across the U.S. (indeed the world!) I think Dan Savage should pick a week and declare it "Santorum Week." During this week, people everywhere should be encouraged to create santorum and put a sample of the "frothy mix" in a small plastic baggy and mail it to the Senator. They should clearly label this fresh frothy mix as Straight, G,L,B T (or "Questioning") santorum so the senator can record the santorum by category, which he no doubt will do as he is so obsessed with people's private sexual behavior. I bet the media would grab onto this one. If you don't like my idea, perhaps you could sponsor yet another contest with the winner proposing the best idea for a Santorum Week. This is a senator who needs his own week
Chicago Sassy In Rogers Park
P.S. The Santorumphobes should read elsewhere. Or, you should start a Savage Love II column that is devoted exclusively to all that is S/santorum.
I include here my rebuttal to your response to my letter. I posted this on my website yesterday but maybe you have not time to check in yet. (I appreciate that in your response you were very polite - especially for a Liberal.)
I also include the letter I wrote this morning to Senator Santorum just to show I am impartial in this matter and am tackling head on the danger to future innocent Santorums at both ends of the problem.
Savage: "I’ll meet your Geneva Convention and raise you a First Amendment. "
a) It is always refreshing to meet a Liberal who agrees 100% with our president that domestic US law should always trump International treaties. However I cannot help thinking that while this notion works fine as regards silly little things like global warming, steel tariffs and missile defense, probably when it comes to serious business like engagement in war we had better agree to play by the same rules as everyone else. Of course that is only my feeling, but I cannot help thinking that your legal arguments probably wouldn't play too well in front of an international court at The Hague. But hey - who cares! Right? They'd have to come here and get you first!
b) I must own up to a mistake I put in my first letter referring to the Santorum campaign as "illegal". Technically I can't make that stand up and am even surprised to see I put it there.
All I am really saying is the campaign is immoral, and demonstrably so with reference to time-honored moral precepts. Now to take your argument that your Freedom of Speech absolves you of your moral duties, that's nonsense. Under freedom of speech you might be entitled to loiter outside a schoolyard and call all the heavy pupils "Lard-ass" in front of their friends. Does that make it morally OK to do that? I would say no. In the same way your freedom of speech does not absolve you of your moral duty not to engage in collective punishment. It's that simple.
“If Susie and David Santorum of Reno, Nevada, should be angry with anyone, they should be angry with the Senator, not me just as Hillary and Robert Hitler should be mad at Hitler, not the Allies.”
Nice rhetoric Mr. Savage, but short on logic. My complaint with your campaign is largely about school children who might get bullied because their name now means something unsanitary. Do you think schoolchildren were already getting bullied because of the disrepute into which they had been dragged by Mr. Santorum? Hmmm. I wonder.
Let's put it this way - if 20 years down the line schoolchildren are getting teased because of the actions of Rick Santorum ("Na! Na! Na! You compare homosexuals to dog-lovers! Na! Na! Na!"), then you'll be right and we should blame Mr. Santorum. If however, (and unless school bullies have changed a lot since I went to school this is the more likely scenario!) children are getting teased because of your campaign ("Na! Na! Na! You are a smelly and disgusting sexual by-product! Na! Na! Na!"), then it will be YOUR fault, and we should blame YOU. Fair enough?
“I'm not punishing any Santorums, not even Rick Santorum. I'm merely exercising my free speech rights.”
Objection your honor! Stricken for nonsense. You are taking steps to invoke retribution against Rick Santorum for actions that you have adjudged to be immoral. That is "punishment" Mr. Savage; you can't spin your way out with that line.
And AGAIN "free speech" does not mean you aren't "punishing". The two are not mutually exclusive. If you were cruelly dumped by a lover, and in revenge you tell everyone that that lover has a small penis then that is (a) an exercise of your free speech rights; and (b) punishment. It's that simple.
"Why should I have any sympathy for the poor, unfortunate souls who share Santorum's last name? I don't recall seeing a press conference on C-SPAN at which these innocent Santorums condemned the Senator for his hateful remarks, and sought to distance themselves from his homophobia."
You did not graduate highly in an ethics and morals class, did you Mr. Savage? Thisis the moral equivalent of saying "Why shouldn't America blow up an Afghan village? I don't recall seeing them all distance themselves from 9/11"
No one has a moral obligation to distance themselves from any action for which they were not directly responsible. Should I travel the world looking for every immoral action of the last several decades and then hold YOU accountable if you didn't specifically condemn every one of them?
There should be no need to distance yourself from someone just because they have the same name. Most people have moral sense enough to appreciate that a person's mere surname should not mark them out as a target. Unfortunately, it seems Mr. Savage, that "most people" does not include you!
To conclude, it is very obvious that the vast majority of your belief in your right to run this campaign is based on the actions of Rick Santorum, which you deplore. I have no problem with your taking extreme exception to them. As a heterosexual, and one whose only relationships with dogs and minors have been entirely platonic, his remarks did not personally offend me, but I can appreciate how they obviously offended you and it would seem a large number of your constituents.
But just as the terrible actions perpetrated upon this nation on 9/11 did not morally allow us to just say "Osama did something really bad to us - let's nuke Afghanistan even if it kills mostly innocent people too", so the grave wrong done to you by Mr. Santorum does not entitle you to take a similar attitude to all the Santorums.
I also noticed on Mr. Santorum's site this response from one of his readers, Santorum Mapper:
I looked through the phone book and I saw only 21 unique addresses out of about 100 million where an innocent couple or individual named Santorum lived. [W]orry not, 21 in 100 million is a pretty low rate for such a high impact effect.
This is like if I looked at a map of Palestine and said, "We're going to kill this entire suicide bomber's family in retribution. Look - out of millions of Palestinians his family only has 10 people in it. So 'worry not'"
[ END REBUTTAL ]
[ LETTER TO SENATOR SENTORUM ]
Senator Rick Santorum
511 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Santorum,
I write to you as a lifelong Republican voter, as an avid Richard Nixon fan, as the manager of the pro-Bush website Red, White and Right www.RedWhiteAndRight.blogspot.com, and as someone who has acknowledged your existence for longer than I could care to remember.
First of all I would like to thank you for all the innumerable good things you have done for our country, which would be impossible for me to name.
Secondly and more seriously I wanted to discuss the troubling campaign run at the Liberal website www.SpreadingSantorum.com, which I am sure you are aware has become intent on forever associating the good name "Santorum" with an extremely unsanitary sexual by-product. Obviously this is a delicate matter so I will not go into details of which I am sure in any case you are aware, nor can I understand why people can't just have a good bath beforehand, thus entirely alleviating the matter.
Like most conservatives, undoubtedly, I was shocked at the content of this website - even though watching Liberals lower the standard of discourse in this country has become a daily spectacle, I was surprised they would go this far.
I instantly wrote off a letter of complaint to the person running the site, a Mr. Daniel Savage. Of course I knew from the first instance that there was no point in suggesting he drop it just because it was completely disgusting - since in the first place he was obviously brazenly aware it was disgusting, and in the second place, since he was a Liberal that was obviously something of a bonus.
Instead I appealed to his better nature as a Liberal pointing out how if the word "Santorum" became forever associated with a disgusting and unsanitary byproduct this would affect not just you, with whom he takes issue, but also with every single Santorum in the country, even including Santorums as yet unborn. Mr. Savage and myself are currently engaged in a debate over this issue, which I am winning because I am a better debater. Unfortunately, I cannot help feeling this fact may not be enough.
The truth is Senator Santorum, that while I know right is on my side in this issue, I cannot help but feeling certain remarks you may have made in the past, which apparently provoked Mr. Savage into fomenting his campaign are somewhat undermining my argument and obscuring the real issue here. While I can appreciate that you never intended other Santorums to be affected by your remarks that have offended homosexuals. Nonetheless plainly they WILL be affected, and may continue to be affected up until you withdraw the offending comments:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have a right to consensual 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."
It seems to me, Senator, with our noble President poised on the brink of banning gay marriage for good, that we Republicans are already doing more than enough to cater toward the gay-hating contingent in our party, even from the very highest branches of government. Banning gays from marrying AND comparing their activities to incest might look just a bit like pandering to the haters (a mere fringe group after all!), a move which could ultimately be seen as contrasting with the Republican party's longstanding image as a party of tolerance and inclusion.
In that spirit I would like to request that for the good of the image of the Republican Party, and the good of the image of the Santorum name, that you withdraw those remarks.
This I feel would remove the last thin veil of legitimacy that hangs over the SpreadingSantorum campaign and would shatter even Mr. Savage's moral fervor, thus sparing yourself and generations of future Santorums a lifetime of potential ignominy and embarrassment.
I look forward to your response,
P.S. I wondered if I might also prevail on you to ask another favor. I have heard many conservatives fulminate at length on their belief that the Gay Agenda is intended to undermine America. I would very much like to weigh in on this debate but I have thus far been unable to procure for myself a copy of this document. It occurs to me since you have taken a broad interest in the activities of homosexuals that you are very likely to have a copy around youroffice. If you could in your response, please also forward me a copy of the Gay Agenda I would be extremely grateful.
One way or another I hope this matter should be resolved presently.
P.S. If you yourself would see fit to forward me a copy of the Gay Agenda I would be grateful to have a look to see what its all about. Or is it just a hoax like the Protocols of Zion?
What the hell do you do for a living? I mean, I don't even have the time to read your letter, to say nothing of actually generating something this long and involved. Remember, kiddo, this is primarily a prank, a joke, a little gay revenge on the asshole Senator.
Senator Sanatorum is a good Catholic, god-fearing man, who is just trying to preserve morality in America. He's totally right, gay sex is disgusting and comparable to incest. But, I also understand that you and your kind are the tool of the devil to shoot down good men like Rick Sanatorum and find great joy in the fact that you sir, are destined to lose and be chained eternally to the lake of fire. Hope you enjoy it!
Another God fearing Catholic man
No one has proposed "shooting down" the Senator. I think he has a right to speak his mind (it shouldn't take long, should it?), just as I have a right to speak mine. And I speak for those who were crying out for a word to describe that frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.
I looked through the phone book and I saw only 21 unique addresses out of about 100 million where an innocent couple or individual named Santorum lived. Enclosed is a map of these locations in blue. As an added bonus the locations of the Senator are marked with a brown splodge.
Hence to those worried about the collateral damage caused by this whole affair, worry not, 21 in 100 million is a pretty low rate for such a high impact effect. Note though that there are 2 other Richard Santorums outside PA (in NC and NY) that I have presumed innocent through all this.
Thank you for researching this issue. Clearly the whole "innocent Santorums" issue is overblown. If any of the "blue" Santorums out there reading this would like to share their thoughts on "brown" santorum, I invite them to write in. In the meantime, the campaign continues-and will only intensify, I might ad, after the elections this November. Sen. Santorum will be up for re-election in 2006, and I intend to keep santorum-the-noun in the public eye (eewww), and in the Senator's face (EEEWWW!) until the voters of Pennsylvania wise up and throw the bum out.
Just a thought... Now that spreadingsantorum.com is the first entry for "Santorum," maybe you should concentrate on other keywords. For instance, a search for "Rick Santorum" and "Senator Santorum" both produce results with spreadingsantorum not in its rightful number one spot. I'm no computer expert, but it should be relatively easy to add the keywords "Rick" and "Senator" to the keywords. Feel free to add in anything else too...say "Pennsylvania"
spreadingsantorum.com is moving up on all keyword searches, and I hope to overtake all of Senator Santorum's official websites soon—with the help of my readers and spreadingsantorum.com fans, of course.
You should buy santorum.com and just point it to your website, or point spreadingsantorum.com to santorum.com. You'll get a lot of conservative asshats that way.
Eh... I thought about it for, oh, an instant, Holly, until I saw that the current owners of santorum.com want almost two grand for the address. While I'm enjoying this campaign, and while I despise everything Santorum stands for, I'm not made of money. I'm still waiting for George Soros to come through with the dosh to do www.spreadingsantorum.com billboards in D.C. Come on, George!
I thought you might like to know that santorum is mentioned in the March issue of Jane Magazine. It's on page 63 in an interview by Joshua Lyon with Sarah Polley about "Dawn of the Dead":
Lyon: I heard you did a take where you referred to some old coffee as "santorum," columnist Dan Savage's new term for a mixture of lube and fecal matter, named after homophobic U.S. senator Rick Santorum.
Polley: [Cracks up.] We did. I doubt it will make it in.
I love your column. Keep up the good work!
Mr. Savage: I suppose you probably get a lot of inarticulate hate mail from outraged conservatives over your Rick Santorum site. So fearing redundancy I deleted my first couple of drafts.
You probably think because I am a Bush Voter that I disapprove of the very excretion you have begun your campaign to name. Well you're right. But that isn't the point I wanted to make. And this is not a "does God approve of homosexuals" email either - no doubt you could quote scripture at me from noon until night making arguments I wouldn't even want to rebut in the first place, even if I had read the Bible, as I am not in any way anti-gay!
Instead I thought I should appeal to your better judgment as a liberal, which I believe is something you claim to be. Under international law and commonly understood precepts of "natural law" collective punishment is unethical and unlawful. However if your campaign to make the word "Santorum" mean something so unsanitary is successful, then not just conservative pundit Rick but all his family, immediate and distant, young and old—indeed completely unrelated, and even UNBORN Santorums for generations to come will be blighted and so collectively punished. Punishing innocent people for the actions of others is reprehensible and cruel in addition to being illegal under international law and a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
I have often heard Liberals wail about GW Bush breaching international law as if this was the worst thing anyone could do, but here you are, Mr. Dan Savage, a Liberal, acting like article 4 of the Geneva Convention never existed!
Anyway I hope you will give consideration to this mail and call off your misguided, unethical and illegal campaign.
We've been over this issue before. I am not the original defiler of the good name Santorum. Senator Rick Santorum—through his idiotic insistence that the state has a right to meddle in the intimate affairs of Americans, by insisting that Americans, gay and straight, have no right to privacy, and by comparing gay men and lesbians to dog fuckers (and thus incurring our wrath)—brought his own name, and the names of his family members, born and unborn, and distantly related Santorums, as well as not-related-at-all Santorums into disrepute. If Susie and David Santorum of Reno, Nevada, should be angry with anyone, they should be angry with the Senator, not me—just as Hillary and Robert Hitler should be mad at Hitler, not the Allies.
As for your mention of the Geneva Convention, I’ll meet your Geneva Convention and raise you a First Amendment. I'm not punishing any Santorums—not even Rick Santorum. I'm merely exercising my free speech rights. I'm free to blacken (or brownen) Rick Santorum's name, just as he's free to smear my good name, and the good names of all the God-fearing, tax-paying, red-blooded American gays and lesbians he compared to dog fuckers.
And finally, why should I have any sympathy for the poor, unfortunate souls who share Santorum's last name? I don't recall seeing a press conference on C-SPAN at which these innocent Santorums condemned the Senator for his hateful remarks, and sought to distance themselves from his homophobia.
There's an mp3 of my band The Peppermints new song "Santorum (Cookies 'n' Creme)" at www.pandacide.com
Keep up the good work. We will support your mission however we can. Cheers-
-Have Your Human Spayed Or Neutered-
On a whim, I thought I'd check and see if anyone felt a need to inform others of santorum through a website. Apparently, the site name is for sale. Anyone feeling creative?
I'm already running one santorum website -- now #1 on Google! -- and I don't have the time to run two. But if anyone else is interested, you're welcome to join the party. Let's pile on the Senator!
SPREADINGSANTORUM.COM IS NOW #1 ON GOOGLE!!!
I bet you're probably already aware of this, but I didn't see any mention of it on the santorum website, so I thought it was worth mentioning. You have successfully google bombed the senator, and spreadingsantorum.com is now the #1 result on google when searching for "santorum"! Congradulations!
We're number 1...we're number 1
I wrote this and it ran in our university newspaper Friday the 30th. Just doing my part of spreading santorum:
Thanks for doing your part, Kevin!
Just nine days ago, you expressed your satisfaction that your web site was the fourth one listed in a Google search for "santorum" -- right after three links to Senator Santorum's own web site.
Well, you no longer can say that you are "bringing up Senator Santorum's rear." As of today (Saturday, January 31), www.spreadingsantorum.com has reached the
#2 spot -- nestled snugly between two links to the asshole's home page (www.senate.gov/~santorum and santorum.senate.gov). You're no longer
bringing up the rear; you have slid up and are now completely surrounded by the asshole.
Congratulations on your most recent triumph!
I'm no longer bringing up the Senator's rear! That's good news. I'm not sure I like being in the middle of a Santorum sandwich, however, and one day soon I hope to be right on top of that asshole. We're #2 now... can #1 be far behind?
I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but Santorum is being spread in the Netherlands. In October I read about it in your Savage column and wrote about it for the Dutch gay magazine sQueeze. It's in the January issue. A scan is attached.
Marijke StreefkerkView the image
Thanks for the heads up, Marijke, and thanks for doing your part, sQueeze!