Google says nix to santorum plea over spuz-bomb

 

(Rick Santorum was someone you worried about until Dan Savage made him into something you wipe).

Rick Santorum, the Christian fundamentalist also-running for president has famously been the victim of a hilarious prank created by Seattle's own Dan Savage in a pioneering a technigue now known as a Google-bomb.

(Ed "Choch" Mañana, BlatherWatch plumbing and religion consultant said: "Me and the missus were planning on voting for Rick Santorum until we read on the Internet that he was but a bit of residual anal spuz! What a turn-off!")

Politico is reporting that the sanctimonious Santorum, who claims to be a serious presidential candidate went crying to Google:

“I suspect if something was up there like that about Joe Biden, they’d get rid of it. If you're a responsible business, you don't let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country.”

To no avail. Google said in a statement that users who want "content removed from the Internet should contact the webmaster of the page directly."

"Google’s search results are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the web. Users who want content removed from the Internet should contact the webmaster of the page directly," the spokesperson said. "Once the webmaster takes the page down from the web, it will be removed from Google’s search results through our usual crawling process."

Comments

[Pete]

If you're a responsible business, you don't lie. And Santorum wants Google to lie - by telling people that Savage's definition of his name doesn't exist.

Savage has said any number of times that he'll call off Santorum's Google problem, just as soon as Santorum starts supporting gay civil rights. Ricky would rather appeal to corporate authority. Actually, he'd probably rather die. Take the hypocritical, sanctimonious, arrogant bigot out of Rick Santorum and there's nothing left.

[For Your Information]

Really Rick, your only one Google search away from the presidency.

[Radio Queen]

Rick, if you can't take that little bit of heat, you have no business running for President, where the flame burns tenfold.

[fremont]

I support "Choch" Manana for president...or goddess!

[Bill Lawson Nazole]

I'd vote for anal schmaltz over Rick Santorum.

[KS]

I'd support "Cheech" Marin...

bwahahahaha

[Sleeping with bears]

Santorum hit it right on the mark about the gays in the military issue. Its a social experimentaion by Obama and the military should not play a role in this experimentation. well said.

[sparky]

Another fine evening for the peanut gallery at the Republican debates. First it was applauding the death penalty numbers in Texas, then it was a few yelling "Let him die" referring to a hypothetical person without health insurance. Last night, a young soldier named Stephen Hill was pre-recorded asking about DADT and revealed he is gay. The audience booed. Way to support the troops!

[Radio Queen]

Sparky, too bad you were focused on the peanut gallery, instead of paying attention to the candidates. We'd better all start listening... because if things keep going the way they are, we're going to have a republican president. I, for one, want to be sure we're putting up the best candidate-- and Santorum ain't it. (had to put that last phrase in to keep "on topic.")

[Johnny Sombrerro]

Santorum was too focused looking for Dan Savage in the audience to pay attention to Rick's claque of rabies infested followers yelling 19th century insults at a Jumbotron.

[KS]

There's a real possibility that Chris Christie might run for POTUS - it just made news today. He has been courted by many and realizes that the current frontrunners are not cutting it. Christie is pragmatic, socially moderate and a leader. I'd like to hope that it turns out to be true, and if he did, I think he would do just fine in the debates against whoever.

I am underwhelmed at the two top GOP candidates (some of the lower tier ones are better, but unfortunately don't have much of chance because of the way the system is set up). While I agree with Radio Queen, I'll add that the GOP is perfectly capable of losing even if things don't improve- if they nominate the next in line like they did last time.

[BlackRhino]

KS, I’d like to understand, why would a new candidate make a difference?

"I'd say that Perry has all of the GOP candidates beat if he decides to get in the race."

----------------------------------------------------Posted by: KS | June 14, 2011 at 06:59 PM

You can hope then change, but you’ll never hope and change, KS.

[Sleeping with bears]

Sparky, if you want to know the guy is not in the military anymore. So in light of that i dont think you can say they were booing a soldier and dont support the troops. They were booing the question he asked which if you listened carefully, Santorum answered superbly.

[KS]

Perry turned out to be a dud - it happens, just like it did for Howard Dean in 2004.

BR - After hope and change in 2008, it has turned into hope for a change in 2012. That's reality.

[BlackRhino]

“if you want to know the guy is not in the military anymore.” “i dont think you can say they were booing a soldier”

---------------------------------------------------Posted by: Sleeping with bears | September 23, 2011 at 10:33 PM

A damn noble reason to disrespect a military person. What would you think if this was a Purple Heart recipient? Where does your nobility start and end?

[BlackRhino]

You didn’t answer my question KS, why would another candidate make a difference? Your previous prediction didn’t mean much then, why now?

[sparky]

The taped question from the soldier started with the words "FROM IRAQ" printed across the screen and showed the map of that country...who told you he isnt a soldier?

"After a day of criticism from media and conservatives, Santorum told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly that he did not hear the boos, and that he is, in fact, thankful for the soldier’s service:

SANTORUM: I condemn the people who booed that gay soldier. That soldier is serving our country. I thank him for his service to our country. I’m sure he’s doing an excellent job. I hope he’s safe and I hope he returns safely and does his mission well."

[BlackRhino]

So…. Santorum changed his tune, which Santorum is correct?

[sparky]

Rick is conflicted when it comes to sex.

[Puget Sound Blathers]

You didn’t answer my question KS, why would another candidate make a difference? Your previous prediction didn’t mean much then, why now?

Posted by: BlackRhino | September 23, 2011 at 11:13 PM

BR,
For some, Perry looked like a break through candidate. It's part of the primary process. KS was right, this is very similar to Howard Dean on the far left of the Dem Party. Eventually he had his 'scream' moment and after that folks (I am guessing the ones in the DLC) in the Dem Party moved momentum/money towards Kerry as the one who could beat Bush.
Same thing is happening now. The breakthrough candidate hasn't emerged.
OF the folks up there, I view Romney as the best candidate but at this point I am in no way sanguine about his chances to beat Obama in 2012.

[Sleeping with bears]

Damn you are right Sparky. I just watched it again and now realized what megyn was saying when she told Santorum...

"So what would you do with soldiers like Stephen Hill. Now he's out. What would you do as president?"

I thought she meant he was out of the military. Now i get it that he is just out of the closet. I think i need to take my own advice and take a second look before posting. Booing a soldier is not acceptable. Especially one serving in Iraq. Nor was spitting on them in the 70's after they came home from Vietnam.

[KS]

If Christie does not get in, and I'd be surprised if he did, a good look at Jon Huntsman is in order. Up until the last debate, I had written him off, although I knew he had good credentials. From what I heard,
I like his stand on foreign policy - (out of Afghanistan and let's focus our resources on fixing America) maybe better than any other candidate and he said the right things about education also.

He is articulate, nuanced, coherent and is one of the few candidates that would not make liberals too uncomfortable in supporting. He is more toward the center and not as much limited government as some, but think that he has his priorities aligned in the right place kinda like that of Romney except that he is more believable than Mr. Romney.

[KS]

Right now, I'd go for Huntsman over Romney. Rubio is still #1 for VP. Herman Cain would be a good fit in the cabinet dealing with monetary policy or business and #2 for VP.

[sparky]

9-9-9..

9 Pizzas 9 toppings 9 bucks

[Puget Sound Blathers]

I agree KS, Huntsman is the one I prefer and in a general election he is electable/votable for the great center of this Country. Pair him with Rubio and you got a nice combo. Rubio is a little more conservative but that is a perfect set up.
It'll be interesting to see what the 'vetting' process is for Huntsman.

In regards to 9-9-9, the Pizza Man sure delivered in Florida. What say you about having Chris Christie as the Secretary of Education, Sparky?

[KS]

Probably too much speculation here - the election is over 13 months away. Do you remember who the top two GOP candidates were at this stage in the 2008 campaign ?

Rudy Guilliani and Fred Thompson, neither of whom amounted to a bucket of warm spit in the nomination process.

[Puget Sound Blathers]

KS
spot on. that is a very good point.

so yeah, all candidates can do at this point is take themselves out. Perry's performance last night was best labeled by Brit Humes as 'Perry threw up over himself'

[Puget Sound Blathers]

a pretty funny skit on SNL on the Repub Debates.
I like the start with Shep Smith saying he comes from a town of 'secrets.'

Sat Night Live Debate

[KS]

PS - Classic SNL - they have been cranking out the presidential debates since when Carvey did Bush 1 and Ross Perot.

Sadly, the media mainstream takes their cues from SNL about who the only candidates who could get nominated are and have no curiosity or incentive for reporting relevant issues that might favor any GOP candidate - their game is transparent and they have a rectal-cranial inversion and a narcissistic bent when it comes to working for the people instead of doing their own self-flagellation.

[The Original Andrew]

You'll notice they had to exagerate very little. The comedy wrote itself.

[Puget Sound Blathers]

agreed. politicians seldom need much. for example, the clinton parodies on SNL have been some of the spot on funniest ones around.

like this 'jim, they'll be a whole bunch of things we won't be telling misses clinton. fast food will be the least.'
Candidate Clinton circa 1992

of course, Reagan the 'evil mastermind' does give one pause...wonder how much 'truth'
Iran Contra circa 1987

or the spoof on Hillary's 3 am phone call. But given the direction of Pres Obama Administration maybe a kernel or two of buyers remorse?
Candidate Clinton circa 2008

[Puget Sound Blathers]

so they hit both sides. like john stewart. recalling the reaction of some to when he goes after hypocrisy that hits a sacred cow, it is telling. 'he's one of ours' was a refrain of one usual poster here. he didn't care for Stewart when he went after Pres Obama.
Of course, for years the constant refrain from the Repubs was that Stewart only went after them.

[KS]

The SNL parody on the debate represented how a good of America sees the candidates. The public perceived Mr. Cain as an expert of getting pizza to be delivered, but that's about all - hmmm..message ? Actually, there is a message for all of the candidates to be had from SNL.

SNL must like Sheperd Smith, who I would rate as the top news reader (better than the rest on ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN).

[KS]

oops..the 1st sentence should read;
The SNL parody on the debate represented how a good deal of America sees the candidates.

[The Original Andrew]

"agreed. politicians seldom need much. for example, the clinton parodies on SNL have been some of the spot on funniest ones around."

It's always amusing when you have to use the way-back machine and travel all the way to 1992 to make a fair comparison.

[Puget Sound Blathers]

i was trying to cover a variety of periods to show snl historically went after politicians on the right or left. the hillary ad was from the last presidential race.
i could pick any number of snl skits of a more recent vintage that make dems look bad. of course, john stewart has been even harder over the past two years.

[KS]

This election could be the craziest one since 1992, except I don't see a major third party candidate like there was then.

[BlackRhino]

SNL exposed the republican choices to late night America. Fair thee well republitards, fair thee well.

[Puget Sound Blathers]

not to worry, BR. the american people have President Obama's record to work off of.
you can have your SNL crowd, the folks suffering 9 percent unemployment may have something to say in this upcoming presidential election.
as they say, 'are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?'

[Puget Sound Blathers]

clearly unfair to give him all the blame, but that's political reality.

so BR, how do you answer the qtn: 'are you better off now than you were four years ago?'

[BlackRhino]

No thanks to the “NO” republican congress.

[BlackRhino]

Why would you ask? The republicans believe in allowing everyone who can’t succeed to die. What’s the point?

[BlackRhino]

Hell, I wasn’t doing so well 4 years ago either.

[KS]

No thanks to the “NO” republican congress.

The republicans believe in allowing everyone who can’t succeed to die

Posted by: BlackRhino | September 26, 2011 at 08:24 PM

Bogus talking points and a false argument - yawn. Divided government is always better than one-party control. If there is a GOP president in 2012, it would be better if the Dems still stay in control of the Senate. The GOP wants spending cuts to restore fiscal health, but an increase in revenue should not be ruled out - Obama and Reid say no - they want to make more folks dependent on Government so they can buy their votes. The Dems do not want to revise the tax code, while the GOP does because they know that a simpler tax code would increase revenue, but it really needs to be a bipartisan effort. However, Mr. Obama does not want to be bipartisan as demonstrated by his actions or lack thereof.

A majority of the American people also want spending cuts. It's all about political posturing by Mr. Obama who has not done diddly squat about cutting the deficit and the unemployment rate is over 9% and a fair question for his opponent to ask is "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago ?"

[The Original Andrew]

How can anyone honestly blame Obama for being ineffectual when Boehner and his henchmen have so effectively blocked his every move by threatening to shut down the government and default on America's debts? You get a black president in there and suddenly you see Republicans willing to burn the fucking place down just to ensure he has no victory to his name.

[Puget Sound Blathers a few facts]

Orig Andrew
For the bulk of his first two years of his Presidency, Barrack Obama had overwhelming Veto Proof Majorities. It was Dems who kept tripping him up, all of them lining up ala Sen Ben Campbell. T
he Repubs weren't even players. And when Scott Brown was elected in he only made it 41 Repub Sen and the House still was veto proof.

Pres Obama made it a point not to meet with Sen Min Leader McConnel or House Min Leader Boehner during the first 18 months of his Presidency they were so insignificant to him and his staff.

The comment about suddenly you get a black president is just too silly. You don't really believe that, now do you Orig Andrew?

[KS]

How can anyone honestly blame Obama for being ineffectual when Boehner and his henchmen have so effectively blocked his every move by threatening to shut down the government and default on America's debts?

Someone who appreciates check and balance, that's who ! Why be a knee-jerk partisan and a reactionary with statements like that ? It's time to put the brakes on progressivism - their style of bloated Fed. Government has brought the country to its knees.

[Puget Sound Blathers--Reagan too moderate for GOP today?]

thought this was interesting.

"Michael Reagan, the son of former U.S. president Ronald Reagan, told Fox News on Tuesday that his father might not able to win the nomination in today’s GOP.

“If you look at my father and you just knew him as governor — raised taxes, signed an abortion bill, no-fault divorce, and a few other things — today, the argument against him would come from the right, not from the left,” Reagan said. “He would have trouble getting his own nomination, but yet he ended up being the greatest president in our lifetimes.”

“We need to look at the whole package, the whole picture, everybody, and stop nit-picking ourselves to death,” he continued."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/27/michael-reagan-my-dad-might-be-too-moderate-for-todays-gop/#ixzz1ZCEtcSLS

[sparky]

Rhino and Andrew, I admire your perseverance.

[Puget Sound Blathers]

nice to see you catching the new spirit, sparky.