HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » I think the "Santoru...

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 07:26 PM

I think the "Santorum" joke is all played out.

I mean, if someone can come up with a new twist, good on ya. But where it's just repeating "surging" and "running" and "coming from behind" allusions to that substance that metaphorically resembles the former Senator, I just don't find it funny anymore. All the jokes about "Romney plans to smear Santorum with a Superpac," are graphic, but just not clever anymore. Again, my overwrought opinion only.

Perhaps it's just my refined upper class upbringing among the social elites of Gotham City, but in the short time that I had with my late parents (don't get me started!) they taught me there's a difference between good natured teasing among friends and the relentless taunting of others. As a child I often played with the children of the hired help when their parents brought them out to our stately family manor; and Mother always insisted that I treat them just as if they were as good as us. Good breeding and good character are best shown by one's generosity, she'd tell me during my alloted play-time.

And so I see a parallel with the constant state of personalized scorn directed toward Rick Santorum. I mean, it's not like Rick Santorum or his children read DU--their loss--but there's more victims that just the beset-upon when one devotes so much time and effort toward scorning others. It cultivates a smallness of temperament in us if we acculturate ourselves to always spewing potty-languages invectives at our political opponents. I don't argue that Republicans deserve better; culturally, they are a wellspring of ill-mannered hatreds and unpatriotic divisiveness. Rather, I argue that we owe it to ourselves not to sacrifice our liberality of character, that is, not to sink into the self-degrading hatreds that mar the moral characters of far too many conservatives.

Let me offer a flawed analogy, yet a comparison worthy of your consideration. As a concerned limosine liberal, I may believe in "getting tough" on al-Qaeda, but I do not condone the use of torture or the use of other tactics that betray the core values of egalitarian Americanism. We ought not sacrifice the moral high ground when fighting malreligious reprobates who dwell in moral gutters. We may remain unsullied when we adhere to our values throughout the fight, because the fight itself is a test of those values. Likewise, though not all Republican reprobates are of the malreligious stripe, when we conduct political fights against the incivility of Tea Partyism and neoconservatism and the tribal anti-progressivism of the political Right, we should strive to retain our liberality and generosity, no matter how tough we have to get with them.

We should bet angry, but not hateful, at the injustice they champion. We should hammer them with facts and truthtelling, but not cross the line into divisiveness or sectional chauvinism. We should fight their grotesque ideologies with reason and philsophy, but not erect counter-ideologes that prize a tribal conformity over fact and social cohesion. These are the social goals that most conservatives oppose--tolerance, unity, and compassion. We shouldn't sacrifice these values in the causee of defeating those who oppose them.

Don't get me wrong: there's nothing wrong an occasional snicker at a naughty joke told at an opponent's expense. But the liberal spirit, I think, requires a social sense of moderation wherever we razz the other team. Conservatives I think of as wayward children of our shared national family--we seek to best them, but not destroy them. It's a fine line. I guess, I'm saying it's a little tougher being liberal. I think it's worth the effort. I think the glacial progress of building a more civil society requires us to leave room at the table, that after we trounce them in the next election, we make it easier for them to reclaim the civility they seem to scorn whenever a Democrat wins the White House.

As my old sensei Kirigi told me, "Choose your enemies wisely, for you may become them." If our group identity as Democrats is best defined by loathing our opponents, what will we have won when we win? What, my old chums, will we have lost in our victory?

28 replies, 6149 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 28 replies Author Time Post
Reply I think the "Santorum" joke is all played out. (Original post)
Bruce Wayne Feb 2012 OP
rfranklin Feb 2012 #1
LineReply :
liberal N proud Feb 2012 #2
Bruce Wayne Feb 2012 #4
morningfog Feb 2012 #3
hlthe2b Feb 2012 #5
Fozzledick Feb 2012 #6
Bruce Wayne Feb 2012 #7
Fozzledick Feb 2012 #9
LeftofObama Feb 2012 #8
Bruce Wayne Feb 2012 #10
Bluenorthwest Feb 2012 #19
Bruce Wayne Feb 2012 #22
DCKit Feb 2012 #11
Bruce Wayne Feb 2012 #12
DCKit Feb 2012 #13
bluerum Feb 2012 #14
TBF Feb 2012 #15
provis99 Feb 2012 #16
Warren DeMontague Feb 2012 #17
The Velveteen Ocelot Feb 2012 #24
HopeHoops Feb 2012 #18
Iggo Feb 2012 #20
LineNew Reply .
snagglepuss Feb 2012 #21
AtomicKitten Feb 2012 #23
Enrique Feb 2012 #25
Jennicut Feb 2012 #26
bigwillq Feb 2012 #27
Ikonoklast Feb 2012 #28

Response to Bruce Wayne (Original post)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 07:30 PM

1. There is a great tradition of political personal attacks....

 

At the other end of American history, some of our most revered Founding Fathers came in for pretty awful abuse. Consider George Washington, the object of bitter political attacks. Anti-Federalist newspapers called him a horse beater, a gambler, a tyrannical monster, a most horrid swearer and blasphemer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/political-bookworm/post/is-political-mudslinging-worse-today/2011/08/19/gIQAoz3zPJ_blog.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Original post)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 07:31 PM

2. :

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 07:34 PM

4. Word of caution:

that's not butter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Original post)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 07:34 PM

3. Santorum and his ilk deserve no seat at the table. They

 

espouse bigoted, hateful and dangerous opinions. Their positions are antithetical to justice, equality and democracy.

Their ideologies should absolutely be destroyed. They are of no inherent or positive value in our public discourse. I have no problem with Santorum, and anyone who buys into his antiquated thinking being ridiculed, mocked and scorned until they shut the hell up and quit threatening public police with their theocracy.

The only place for Santorum in in the toilet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Original post)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 07:42 PM

5. Santorum & his ilck want to turn me and all women into chattel...

He wants to dismantle clean air and water protections and all other regulatory actions that help you, your family, your children remain healthy. The man would very likely be happy to imprison GLBT or worse. He is a purveyor of poison--all justified in his bastardized interpretation of "Christianity."

So, forgive me if I have a shortage of sympathy for his "google problem"....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Original post)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 07:50 PM

6. I'm getting really sick of hearing about Santorum surging from the rear.

I think we need to focus on Ayatollah Santorum's plans to replace our democracy with a theocratic dictatorship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fozzledick (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 08:04 PM

7. Yes, that seems fair.

He's dangerous--or at least his ideas are. Fortunately, he's not at danger of being elected to anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 08:19 PM

9. Two problems with a Republican candidate so incompetent that only an idiot would vote for them:

1. Ronald Reagan

2. George Bush


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Original post)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 08:05 PM

8. Hmmmmmm Interesting...

Mr. Santorum and those of his caliber have all but called for public hangings/stonings of GLBT people. They view women and minorities as nothing more than breeders to provide a permanent slave class for the 1%, and you think we shouldn't, at the very least, have a chuckle at his expense? Please!

Another thing I found interesting about your post...

"As a child I often played with the children of the hired help when their parents brought them out to our stately family manor; and Mother always insisted that I treat them just as if they were as good as us. Good breeding and good character are best shown by one's generosity, she'd tell me during my alloted play-time."

No offense to you or your mother, but those children ARE just as good as you! Money is not an indicator of good breeding or good character.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftofObama (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 08:21 PM

10. I admit my peice was long, but...

I said the exact opposite of "we shouldn't, at the very least, have a chuckle at his expense." I explicitly wrote that there's nothing wrong with that. What I am talking about is moderation. That is, we need to avoid the unending torrent (sorry about the allusion) of Santorum jokes, while keeping in mind that we're trying to win because we're better than those who, like Santorum, wallow in hatred.

I don't recommend pulling punches in a fight, which I fear a few posters in this thread accuse me of. If you knew the real me, you'd know I don't pull punches. I just don't want to sacrifice my humanism just because a few conservative humans happen to piss me off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 12:34 PM

19. You are recommending pulling punches, to the point that you are on Rick's side.

 

You came into the fight late, years late. Take your moderation and stick it. This man is a hate monger. When you call for kind treatment of him, you are promoting that which he says as much as if you said it yourself. 'Don't tease the haters' you say. Sick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 02:37 PM

22. Are you insane? What did I say to delude you that I'm on "Rick"'s side?

Seriously, you're engaging in a form of Democratic McCarthyism here. If I'm not 100% against them--as defined by you--then I'm with them? You want to start issuing loyalty oaths next?

It's sad when people get so addicted to scorning the "enemy" that they abandon liberal values like humanism, compassion, and setting examples for a more rational way of conducting politics. It doesn't mean go soft, as I think you fear; it just means fight smarter. As Lincoln once said, "If I win over a new friend, haven't I destroyed my enemy?"

Sadly, you're exhibiting the very sort of absolutist tribal identity politics that my essay was warning about. The difference between us is that you want to beat them and I just want to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Original post)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 08:34 PM

11. Those of us who have followed the franchise know you have a dark side.

 

Despite that, should Santorum win the Republic primary, there are a lot of people who haven't Googled 'Santorum' just yet. The hilarity will continue.

Everything will be new again, thanks to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCKit (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 08:37 PM

12. Darkseid?

I assure you, there's not affiliation there! Gracious...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 08:49 PM

13. Yes, that's exactly what I said in my unedited post. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Original post)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 09:25 PM

14. I think it's just getting started.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Original post)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 09:54 PM

15. lololol ... for real? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 10:30 PM

16. no kidding..

 

a concern troll bringing up false equivalency nonsense. These guys are a dime a dozen around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 04:50 AM

17. You're right. We should stop saying "Santorum" and "Shit-Laden Anal Lube" in the same sentence.

especially on the internet.

In fact, every time words like Santorum and Feces Filled Frothy Mix are posted, publicly, on the internet, search engines such as this google thing pick them up with their little mechanical spiders that I've heard patrol the tubes which comprise the interweb. So by saying things like "Santorum means frothy filled shit lubricant", we are, sadly, unwittingly, continuing to promulgate this low-brow meme which is, yes, beneath us.

It behooves us- yea, behooves I say- to STOP saying things like "Google Santorum, Because Santorum can be a word for shit-filled leaky ass lube" or "Santorum, The Flavor Conservatives crave, i.e. shit"

See, it's hurtful, and really, we're better than that.

So. Please. When on the internet, do the right thing, and don't repeat words like

Santorum Shit-filled lube shit-filled ass luble santorum santorum crap river santorum frothy fecal mix santorum rectal poo river of crapilicious craphoundiferous crap-fest.

I mean, that last one doesn't even make any sense. Heavens!

I guess what I'm saying is, we need to stop mentioning that Santorum can mean shit-filled lubricant. We know that Santorum can mean shit-filled lubricant. And every time we say "Santorum means shit-filled lubricant" on the internet, we perpetuate a bad, tasteless (although not as bad and tasteless as, yes, shit-filled lubricant) joke which really deserves a graceful end that can never be provided as long as people keep saying, on the internet, that Santorum means shit-filled lubricant.


Thank you, thank you!!! for reminding us how important it is that we not do this anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 06:52 PM

24. Best laugh I've had all day.



And no, I'm not better than all that, and I don't want to be. Come on, little patrol spiders scurrying through those Internet tubes! Find the words and bring them back to your Google den! Tie them up in your web for everyone to see!

Now, fetch! Santorum Shit-filled lube shit-filled ass luble santorum santorum crap river santorum frothy fecal mix santorum rectal poo river of crapilicious craphoundiferous crap-fest!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 10:49 AM

18. I don't. Mr. Frothy is just as disgusting as the definition.

 

On top of that, the definition fits him perfectly. I honestly can't understand why any woman would even consider voting for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 01:05 PM

20. When he goes away, then maybe.

Til then, Sir Frothy it is.

EDIT: Also, I agree with this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/125114382#post17

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 01:27 PM

21. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 02:38 PM

23. Google Santorum.

 

Yep, still funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 06:54 PM

25. Rick, is that you?

shouldn't you be out campaigning?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 07:10 PM

26. Santorum is nuts.

I can't be reasonable with an unreasonable nutball. As a woman, his views actually make me so angry and sad (men actually have this view on women in 2012? Really???) that I need to laugh when I hear his name. So be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 07:37 PM

27. I think it's funny every time I hear it!

 

LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bruce Wayne (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 09:25 AM

28. Put down the bong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread