I'm glad that Sen. Man-on-Dog is in the public eye after the release of his ridiculous book. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that he's just not ready for the big time. If he gets the nomination in '08, he'll lose. That of course, is presuming that he retains his Senate seat next year, which I doubt. Anyway, check out this bizarre stretch of a CNN interview, which I'm reprinting mostly because it's so incoherent:
BROWN: I want to talk about the thing you said about Boston for a second.
BROWN: OK. I don't know if we have this. We can put it on the screen, but you said "when the culture is sick, every element becomes infected. While it is no excuse, the scandal" -- referring to the priest abuse scandal -- "it is no secret that Boston, the seat of academic, political, cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."
First of all, wasn't that a little over the top?
SANTORUM: Well, what's over the top is taking a three-year-old article...
BROWN: What's the context?
SANTORUM: And the context was, I was writing about the priest scandal and condemning the priest scandal, condemning the church...
BROWN: Well, of course you were condemning it. No one supports it.
SANTORUM: ... and talking about concrete things we need to do to fix it. I was out there. No other United States senator...
BROWN: Why so -- why Boston?
SANTORUM: Because, again, context. What was going on in 2002 -- not 2005, but in 2002 -- that's where the scandal was. It wasn't anywhere else. We weren't talking about it. In 2002, it was the epicenter.
Is Santorum trying to claim that the culture of Boston in 2002 is different enough from the culture of Boston in 2005 such that one was encouraging pedophilic priests and the other wasn't? I'm sure that's not what Santorum is saying, but I don't think Santorum himself has a clear idea of what he really means. Kind of sad, really.
By the way, did it occur to anyone that the sex abuse scandal was centered there because it has an unusually large Catholic population? I'm no statistician, but that's my guess anyway.
We didn't have the report by the bishops conference. We didn't have...
BROWN: So now you wouldn't say that?
SANTORUM: I wouldn't -- well, no, there's a lot of other cities that were involved. But the point is that cultural liberalism and what I talked about is a contributing factor to how people view sexual activity. And I am not the one that says that. Robert Bennett, in the report that he issued on behalf of the bishops conference, called the Bennett report, said exactly my words, except the word Boston wasn't in it.
Actually, Bennett doesn't say anything about cultural liberalism as far as I know. The report does say that "the apparent significant increase in acts of sexual abuse of minors by priests in the 1960s and 1970s cannot be viewed without acknowledging significant changes in sexual behavior in the culture at large during the same time period." I don't know if this is true or not (you'd have to show me some evidence), but leave it to a republican to equate "cultural liberalism" with "changes in sexual behavior."
For the record, it seems like Bennett actually blames the screening process: "Well, I think what we found was that many dysfunctional men, psychologically, sexually... immature men were admitted into the seminaries without any screening in those... in that time period. And it was as if nobody would question somebody's calling from God. And a lot of very dysfunctional people applied and were admitted." But why tell the truth, Senator, when you can blame it on the Dems?
BROWN: OK. But you wouldn't say that about Boston now. Is that right? Based on what we know about the scandal.
SANTORUM: I said it then, it was the...
BROWN: Not then, now?
SANTORUM: ... yeah, it was the epicenter, and there are many other cities that that would apply.
This is great. I don't have a clue what he's saying. That makes me optimistic for 2008. Because surely the country wouldn't elect such an inarticulate republican with such poorly thought out views to the presidency.