Misplaced Pages

Campaign for the neologism "santorum": Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:38, 10 May 2011 editDragonlady9256 (talk | contribs)6 edits Recognition in media← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:13, 2 December 2024 edit undoGoingBatty (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers637,539 edits clean up, replaced: 2023 → 2023Tag: AWB 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Campaign to create the neologism "santorum" started in 2003 by LGBT rights activist Dan Savage}}
The word '''''santorum''''' is a sexual ] for a "frothy mixture of ] and ] that is sometimes the ] of ]," and was proposed by readers of American humorist and sex-advice columnist ] in 2003 to "memorialize" then-] ] ] from ], prompted by ].<ref name="Savage Love June 12">{{cite news | url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14566 | title=Savage Love: Gas Huffer | author=Dan Savage | date=June 12, 2003 | publisher=] | accessdate=2006-12-19}}</ref> Savage asked his readers to submit new definitions for the term.<ref name="Savage Love June 12">{{cite news | url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14566 | title=Savage Love: Gas Huffer | author=Dan Savage | date=June 12, 2003 | publisher=] | accessdate=2006-12-19}}</ref> The word became a successful ] when Savage created a website for it, which unseated the Senator's official website as the top search result for his surname on the ] ].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/15130708.htm | title=No thanks, Casey donor told: The campaign found sex columnist Dan Savage too hot to handle. His $2,100 check has been returned. | author=Carrie Budoff | publisher=] | date=July 27, 2006 | archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20060906031529/http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/15130708.htm | archivedate=2006-09-06}}</ref><ref name="rollcall11">(16 February 2011). , ''Roll Call''</ref>
{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2022}}
]
The '''campaign for the neologism "santorum"''' started with a contest held in May 2003 by ], a sex columnist and ]. Savage asked his readers to create a definition for the word "santorum"<ref>{{cite book |title = And Then There's This: How Stories Live and Die in Viral Culture| last=Wasik| first=Bill| publisher = Viking Adult |edition=First|year = 2009| page=64 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=cLCHP91oR_MC&pg=PT64| isbn=978-0-670-02084-3}}</ref><ref name=sl031503/> in response to then-US senator ]'s views on homosexuality and comments about ]. In his comments, Santorum had stated that "n every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."<ref name="Corvino2013">{{cite book|last=Corvino|first=John|title=What's Wrong with Homosexuality?|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UjJPBF7sm5EC&pg=PP120|access-date=April 24, 2013|date=January 4, 2013|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=9780199323913|page=120}}</ref> Savage announced the winning entry, which defined "santorum" as "''the frothy mixture of ] and ] that is sometimes the byproduct of ]''." He created a web site, ''spreadingsantorum.com'' (and ''santorum.com''), to promote the definition, which became a top internet search result, displacing the senator's official website on many ], including ], ], and ].<ref>{{cite news|work=]
|url=http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/02/rick_santorum_has_come_to_term.html |title=Rick Santorum Has Come to Terms With His Google Problem |date=February 16, 2011 |first=Dan |last=Amira |access-date=May 27, 2011}}
*{{cite news |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/16/rick-santorum-google-prob_n_824117.html |work=]|title=Rick Santorum's 'Google Problem' |date=February 16, 2011 |access-date=May 27, 2011 |first=Jason |last=Linkins}}</ref>


In 2010, Savage said he would take the site down if Santorum donated US$5 million plus interest to ], a group advocating legal recognition of ]s.<ref name="MotherJones" /> In September 2011, Santorum asked ] to remove the definition from its search engine index. Google refused, responding that the company does not remove content from search results ].<ref name="Burns" />
==Background==
{{Details|Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality}}
In an April 2003 interview with the ], Santorum stated, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to ], you have the right to ], you have the right to ], you have the right to ]."<ref name="CNN20030422">{{cite news|first=Sean|last=Loughlin|url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/22/santorum.gays/|title=Santorum under fire for comments on homosexuality|publisher=CNN|date=2003-04-22|accessdate=2007-10-02}}</ref> Santorum further stated that he believed consenting adults do not have a constitutional ] with respect to sexual acts.<ref>{{cite news|author=]|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84862,00.html|title=Raw Data: Excerpts of Santorum's AP Interview|publisher=]|date=2003-04-22|accessdate=2007-10-02}}</ref>


==Santorum's comments on homosexuality==
Critics of the statement included the ], whose leader argued that comparing gay sex to the other acts mentioned was outside the mainstream.{{citation needed|date=December 2010}} Also, the ] demanded that Santorum resign as chairman of the Republican Senate Caucus, with a committee spokesman calling Santorum's comments "divisive, hurtful and reckless."<ref name="reckless1">(23 April 2003). , '']'', Retrieved December 21, 2010</ref> In contrast, ] agreed with Santorum's comments in a written statement.<ref name="CNN20030422"/>
{{main|Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality}}
]
In an interview with the Associated Press on {{#formatdate:April 7, 2003}}, Santorum said there is a relationship between the ] and ] and ]. He argued that ] involves accepting any adult consensual behavior in the privacy of people's homes, even if the behavior might otherwise be considered deviant. Santorum believes this attitude leads to an unhealthy culture.<ref name=USATodayApril232003/>


Santorum said that, while he had no problem with homosexuality, he did have a problem with ], "as I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual." He continued: <blockquote>We have laws in states, like the ], that has ] and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to ], you have the right to ], you have the right to ], you have the right to ]. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.<ref name=USATodayApril232003>{{cite news |url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm |title=Excerpt from Santorum interview |newspaper=USA Today |issn=0734-7456 |date=April 23, 2003}}</ref></blockquote>
==Contest==
Savage, who is ] and has had a history of political activism supporting ] and sexual rights, angrily addressed Santorum's comments in an ] published in the '']'' on April 25, 2003 titled "G.O.P. Hypocrisy." He linked Santorum's comments to the broader agenda of his party, saying "Mr. Santorum, who holds the No. 3 position in the Senate leadership, was only repeating what many Republicans have already said."<ref>{{Cite news | last=Savage | first=Dan | author-link=Dan Savage | title=G.O.P. Hypocrisy | newspaper = The New York Times | date = 2003, April 25 | url = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE5D7163DF936A15757C0A9659C8B63 | postscript=<!--None-->}}</ref> Savage next handled the matter in his sex-advice column, ''Savage Love'', on May 8, saying:


Santorum said he was arguing against any relationship, other than heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman, which he viewed as the basis of a stable society, when he listed homosexuality, ], and ] as examples of what marriage was not.<ref name=USATodayApril232003/>
<blockquote>Striking down an insulting, discriminatory, unconstitutional law will not, as Santorum fears, open the doors to incest, adultery, bigamy, and bestiality. Straight people blew those doors off their hinges long, long ago.<ref name="family ties">[http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=14193 Savage Love
Family Ties by Dan Savage], From The Stranger May 8 – May 14, 2003 issue.</ref></blockquote>


The interview prompted an angry reaction from gay rights activists<ref name="defends comments">{{cite news|title=Santorum defends comments on homosexuality|url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/23/santorum.gays/index.html|publisher=CNN|date=April 23, 2003|access-date=March 13, 2008}}</ref> and some politicians.<ref name=Brewer/> A spokesman for the ] described Santorum's views as "divisive and reckless",<ref name=CNN20030422>Loughlin, Sean. , CNN, April 22, 2003.</ref> while conservative activists saw them as a "principled opposition to same-sex marriage".<ref name=Brewer/>
Letters on the Santorum controversy began to arrive, "assuming correctly that the incident was right up Savage’s sex-politics alley," according to Liz Spikol of the '']''.<ref name="Spikol">{{cite news | url=http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/cover-story/38419699.html | title=Savage Politics | author=Liz Spikol | publisher=] | date=October 4, 2006 | accessdate=2006-12-19}}</ref> As Rick Santorum's anti-gay comments were forgotten about by the media, a writer under the pseudonym "Sex and Rick Santorum" urged Savage to organize a reader contest to determine a definition for the word "santorum."<ref name="Savage Love May 15" /> The reader reasoned that since Santorum had invited himself into the bedrooms of homosexuals, they should be "inclusive" and name a gay sex act for him.<ref name="Savage Love May 15" /> Savage agreed, after pointing out that there are no "gay" sex acts, saying:
<blockquote>There's no better way to memorialize the Santorum scandal than by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head.<ref name="Savage Love May 15" />


==Response by Savage==
</blockquote>
On {{#formatdate:April 25, 2003}}, in a '']'' ], Savage responded to Santorum's comments, arguing that the remarks amounted to an overt ] appeal to ] voters.<ref>{{cite news |last=Savage |first=Dan |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/25/opinion/gop-hypocrisy.html |title=G.O.P. Hypocrisy |newspaper=] |issn=0362-4331 |date=April 25, 2003}}</ref> A reader of Savage's column, '']'', subsequently suggested a contest to create a new definition for "santorum".<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14267| title=Bill, Ashton, Rick| access-date=2012-02-29| publisher= Savage Love}}</ref> Observing that he had previously sought to coin the sexual ] "]", Savage agreed, writing on May 15, "There's no better way to memorialize the Santorum scandal than by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head."<ref name=sl031503>{{cite news |url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14267 |title=Savage Love: Bill, Ashton, Rick |first=Dan |last=Savage |newspaper=] |issn=1935-9004 |date=May 15, 2003}}</ref><ref name=dwyer>{{cite news |last=Dwyer |first=Devin |url=https://arielis.com/news/article/rick-santorums-google-problem-resurfaces/ |title=Rick Santorum's 'Google Problem' Resurfaces with Jon Stewart Plug. |publisher=ABC News |date=May 10, 2011 |access-date=November 25, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161126064728/https://arielis.com/news/article/rick-santorums-google-problem-resurfaces/ |archive-date=November 26, 2016 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="CMMH">{{cite news |title=Rick Santorum vs. the internet |first=Meg |last=Heckman |url=http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/262299/rick-santorum-vs-the-internet?CSAuthResp=%3Asession%3ACSUserId%7CCSGroupId%3Aapproved%3ABA4A9537C4BF4594E11F4B09D8217743&CSUserId=94&CSGroupId=1 |newspaper=The Concord Monitor |location=Concord, NH |date=June 12, 2011 |access-date=June 22, 2011 |quote=The less vulgar include...}}</ref>
Savage noted that the column had previously succeeded in creating a sexual slang word, "]," by getting the definition to begin appearing in dictionaries of sexual slang.<ref name="Savage Love May 15">{{cite news | url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14267 | title=Savage Love: Bill, Ashton, Rick | author=Dan Savage | date=May 15, 2003 | publisher=] | accessdate=2006-12-19}}</ref> "I threw it out there to my readers," Savage later said.<ref name="Spikol" /></blockquote>


He said on {{#formatdate:May 29}} that he had received 3,000 suggestions, and posted several nominees for readers to choose from.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14422 |title=Savage Love: Do the Santorum |first=Dan |last=Savage |newspaper=] |issn=1935-9004 |date=May 29, 2003}}</ref> On {{#formatdate:June 12}} he announced the winner as "that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex".<ref name=Brewer>{{cite book |last=Brewer |first=Paul Ryan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=U34pJTdF-VcC&pg=PA67 |title=Value War: Public Opinion and the Politics of Gay Rights |year=2008 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=978-0-7425-6210-3 |lccn=2007037833 |ol=10721857M |pages=67–68, 86}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14566 |title=Savage Love: Gas Huffer |first=Dan |last=Savage |newspaper=] |issn=1935-9004 |date=June 12, 2003 |access-date=May 16, 2009 |archive-date=November 11, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061111053605/http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14566 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
Savage published several definitions suggested by readers in subsequent columns.<ref name="Savage Love May 29" /> The winning definition was submitted by "Wipe Up That Santorum, Anal Pokers" in the May 29 column.<ref name="Savage Love May 29">{{cite news | url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14422 | title=Savage Love: Do the Santorum | author=Dan Savage | date=May 29, 2003 | publisher=] | accessdate=2006-12-19}}</ref> Votes were collected by e-mail, and the winning definition was announced June 12; Savage concluded by asking for questions about santorum, and urged his readers to get the word out.<ref name="Savage Love June 12" /> Savage has said that the winner was a "perfect fit," as there was no prior name for it.{{citation needed|date=December 2010}} ''Santorum,'' he explained, is "unwelcome. If you’re doing right, it’s not gonna happen, and if it happens, it’s a bit of a killjoy, which is what it would be if the actual senator strolled into the room."<ref name="Spikol" />


Savage set up a website, ''spreadingsantorum.com'', to spread awareness of the term;<ref name=Brewer/> the site features the definition over a brown splattered stain on an otherwise-white page. Savage also set up another website, ''santorum.com'', that displays the same content. '']'' reported in July 2006 that the site appeared at the top of a Google search for Santorum's name. When asked whether he was concerned about the effect on Santorum's children, Savage responded that gays and lesbians also have children, who are required to listen to comparisons of gay relationships to ] and ]. He also said, "The only people who come at me wringing their hands about Santorum's children are idiot ] who don't get how serious the ] is about destroying us."<ref name=Spikol>{{cite news |last=Spikol |first=Liz |url=http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/cover-story/38419699.html |title=Savage Politics |newspaper=] |date=October 4, 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130131145524/http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/cover-story/38419699.html |archive-date=January 31, 2013 }}</ref> Savage offered in May 2010 to remove the site if Santorum donated $5 million to Freedom to Marry, an advocacy group for ].<ref name=MotherJones>{{cite journal |last=Mencimer |first=Stephanie |url=http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/rick-santorum-google-problem-dan-savage |title=Rick Santorum's Anal Sex Problem |journal=Mother Jones |issn=0362-8841 |date=September–October 2010}}</ref>
==Web activism==
Savage set up a website, santorum.com.<ref name="Spikol"/> The site, also known as Spreading Santorum, gives the definition of the term "santorum," under which a brown, splattered stain appears on the otherwise-white page. After this ], the site features letters to Savage tracking the dissemination of the term. The site includes a video of a person asking Santorum about the term at a ]-style forum and a letter that Santorum sent to a man in ] outlining his objections to the "obscenity" of the website. Savage considered he had met his goal of "rubbing it in nose."<ref name="Spikol" />


In February 2011, Savage said he would revive his campaign.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Dan Savage Vows to Revive 'Santorum' Campaign|work=Roll Call|url=http://www.rollcall.com/news/-203600-1.html|first=Steve |last=Peoples|date=February 23, 2011}}</ref> {{as of|2012|1}}, the sexual term was still the top result for Santorum's name on several search engines, including Google, ], and ].<ref name="MotherJones"/><ref name=AmiraFeb162011>{{cite journal |last=Amira |first=Dan |url=http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/02/rick_santorum_has_come_to_term.html |title=Rick Santorum Has Come to Terms With His Google Problem |journal=New York Magazine |issn=0028-7369 |date=February 16, 2011}}</ref><ref name="Interview with Rick Santorum">{{cite news |url=http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/06/santorum-hopes-google-will-do-something-about-filth-on-the-internet/ |title=Interview with Rick Santorum |work=The Daily Rundown |publisher=MSNBC |date=June 9, 2011 |access-date=June 19, 2011 |archive-date=June 12, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110612223152/http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/06/santorum-hopes-google-will-do-something-about-filth-on-the-internet/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>
==Political impact==
'']'' noted in January 2006 that "gay activists use name to denote something indescribable in a family newspaper."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=E1_VPGDJRD | title=The political year: Will lightning strike the Republicans? | date=January 5, 2006 | publisher=The Economist | accessdate=2006-12-19}}</ref><ref name="Onion AV Club">{{cite news | url=http://www.avclub.com/content/node/45150 | title=Interview: Dan Savage | author=Tasha Robinson | publisher=] AV Club | date=February 8, 2006 | accessdate=2006-12-19}}</ref> In April 2006, the '']'' reported that the "disgusting" definition was "spreading like ] on the internet." The ''Inquirer'' described the Savage coinage and other references to Santorum in '']'' and '']'' as illustrating his name's evolution into "cultural shorthand ... for ]."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmtpi/is_200604/ai_n16257060 | title=What's in a name? Simply 'Santorum' says plenty | author=Thomas Fitzgerald | publisher=] | date=April 2006 | accessdate=2006-12-19}} {{Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=H3llBot}} (No specific date is provided in source.)</ref> The regional gay newspaper '']'' said in August 2006 that Savage had "succeeded in turning into an oft-Googled slang term."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://baywindows.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=008EC9FBCFF24AD18614290016BE1303&nm=Current+Issue&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=6467D686C6C24D6ABDD78A4B9557AFD0 | archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20070927234602/http://baywindows.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=008EC9FBCFF24AD18614290016BE1303&nm=Current+Issue&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=6467D686C6C24D6ABDD78A4B9557AFD0 | archivedate=2007-09-27 | title=So they say | publisher=] | date=August 10, 2006 | accessdate=2006-12-19}}</ref> According to the '']'', writing in October 2006, the term "gained real traction" and "found its way into salacious dictionaries &mdash; and books published on actual paper," with Savage admitting that he "worked pretty hard" to get it out there.<ref name="Spikol" />


In a July 2011 video on '']'', Savage proposed redefining Santorum's first name if Santorum did not stop criticizing homosexuality.<ref name=McGlynn>{{cite news |first=Katla |last=McGlynn |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/dan-savage-rick-santorum-video_n_910924.html |title=Dan Savage Has A New Name For Rick Santorum |work=]|date=July 27, 2011}}</ref><ref name=Rovzar>{{cite journal |first=Chris |last=Rovzar |url=http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/07/dan_savage_threatens_to_re-def.html |title=Dan Savage Threatens to Re-Define Rick Santorum's First Name, Too |journal=New York Magazine |issn=0028-7369 |date=July 28, 2011}}</ref> In his {{#formatdate:August 17, 2011}} column, Savage observed that "Santorum hasn't laid off the gay bashing, as it's all he's got," and endorsed a reader suggestion to re-define "rick" as a verb, thus making 'Rick santorum.' into a complete sentence.<ref name=SL-01-11-2012>{{cite news |url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=9539475 |title=Savage Love: www.humpseattle.com |first=Dan |last=Savage |newspaper=] |issn=1935-9004 |date=August 17, 2011 |quote=The definition I proposed in my video was a little too long and involved, so I vote for adopting yours, HTH.}}</ref><ref name=SL-08-17-2011>{{cite news |url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=11589595 |title=Savage Love: Santorum Surges |first=Dan |last=Savage |newspaper=] |issn=1935-9004 |date=January 11, 2012 |quote=To "rick" is to remove something with your tongue—the "r" from "remove", the "ick" from "lick"...}}</ref>
Indeed, the ] included the full definition in a reprint of an item from ''Gay City News''.{{citation needed|date=December 2010}} The article noted that Savage had donated $2,100 to the campaign of Santorum's challenger in the ], ], but Casey had not accepted the donation.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/15728935.htm | author=Catherine Lucey | title=Sex-columnist Savage goes live on Santorum | publisher=] | date=October 11, 2006 | accessdate=2006-12-19 | quote=After all, it was his no-holds-barred column that spawned the infamous sex term named after Sen. Rick Santorum. (No, really, we can't print it. Just look it up on Google.) In fact, Savage's raunchy reputation meant that Santorum's opponent, Bob Casey Jr., refused a $2,100 donation that the Seattle-based writer tried to give to his campaign earlier this year.}}</ref>{{Dead link|date=December 2009}}<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=33551&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm | title=Rick Santorum’s Flip Flop on Bias | author=Andy Humm | publisher=Gay City News | date=August 9, 2006 | accessdate=2006-12-19}} Reprinted by the ].</ref>{{Dead link|date=December 2009}} According to the ] '']'', Casey returned the money after hearing of Savage's promulgated definition of ''santorum,'' saying that Savage had gone "over the line" demarking political civility.{{citation needed|date=December 2010}} Savage gave the money instead to an anti-Santorum ].<ref>{{cite news | <!--url=http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16991211&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6 | accessdate=2006-12-19 |--> title=Casey: Donor "over the line" | author=Borys Krawczeniuk | publisher=] | date=August 1, 2006}}</ref>


Starting from 2023, santorum.com ] to spreadingsantorum.com, which itself seems to have become an ], with the ] "Spreading Daily News", and no longer displays the neologism.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-06-22 |title=Home - Spreading Daily News |url=https://spreadingsantorum.com/ |access-date=2024-11-26 |language=en-US}}</ref>
Subsequently, Casey defeated Santorum in the 2006 election for a ] seat from the state of ].<ref>{{cite news | <!--url=http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17442994&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6 | accessdate=2006-12-19 |--> title=Casey dominated like no one before | author=Borys Krawczeniuk | publisher=] | date=November 9, 2006 }}</ref> Although a California weekly suggested that the campaign's "ripples were felt strongly by the outgoing senator himself in the recent midterm elections",<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.vcreporter.com/article.php?id=4127&IssueNum=104 | title=Html & the new journalism: How the blog flourished in 2006 | author=Saundra Sorensen | publisher=] | date=December 28, 2006 | accessdate=2007-03-12}}</ref> and Mark Morford of the '']'' declared that "Dan Savage helped kill Rick Santorum",<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/17/DDGIKNJ7K71.DTL | title=Thoughts to keep you warm when it's cold | author=Mark Morford | publisher=San Francisco Chronicle | date=January 17, 2007 | accessdate=2007-03-12}}</ref> Savage himself says "you can't really measure impact."<ref name="Onion AV Club" />


==Reception and political impact==
In a celebratory column, though, Savage wrote:
] referencing the neologism.|alt=A cartoon caricature of Rick Santorum looking at his hands— which are contaminated with a brown substance —in horror, while saying "My god… it’s… me!"]]
<blockquote>While Santorum would have been defeated even without a filthy, lowercase definition of his last name floating around out there, having a name that can barely be mentioned in polite company anymore didn't help.... We helped to make Rick Santorum into a national laughingstock &mdash; with an invaluable assist from Rick Santorum, of course.<ref name="Savage Love November 16">{{cite news | url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=105207 | title=Make a Joyful Noise | author=Dan Savage | publisher=] | date=November 16, 2006 | accessdate=2007-03-12}}</ref></blockquote>
The word ''santorum'', as defined, has been characterized as "obscene",<ref name="Time170511">{{cite news |title=Rick Santorum: The GOP's Most Undervalued Presidential Candidate |first=Michael |last=Grunwald |url=https://swampland.time.com/2011/05/17/please-do-not-google-the-name-of-this-undervalued-republican-candidate/#ixzz1TEEBqZ2Z |newspaper=Time |date=May 17, 2011 |access-date=December 1, 2011 |quote=The "serious" Republican candidates for President, apparently,...}}</ref> "unprintable",<ref name="WaPo042011">{{cite news |title=Should we have a right to be forgotten online? |first=Elizabeth |last=Flock |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/should-we-have-a-right-to-be-forgotten-online/2011/04/20/AF2iOPCE_blog.html |newspaper=The Washington Post|date=April 20, 2011 |access-date=December 1, 2011 |quote=Spain's Data Protection Agency has caved to the demands...}}</ref> or "vulgar".<ref name=Kors_Huff>{{cite news |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-kors/dan-savage-interview_b_859172.html |title=Q&A With Dan Savage: On Obama, Fox News' Shepard Smith and Success of 'It Gets Better' Project |first=Joshua |last=Kors |date=May 8, 2011 |work=]|access-date=July 26, 2011}}</ref>
Savage gleefully pointed to ], conservative columnist and editor of the '']'', as an example of his success.<ref name="Savage Love November 16" /><ref> November 14, 'Reader Comments on Rick Santorum's Election Defeat'</ref> In her election day column, Lopez described Santorum as "the politician most successfully victimized by nasty Internet political tactics" and predicted that "some angry people will get the chance to celebrate ... I don’t mean people who disagree with him on a federal marriage amendment. I mean people who think it’s pretty funny that when you Google the senator’s name, you get a repulsive lower-case version of his last name."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWY3ODJhNzM0YjllMTgzMjQ4ZTFkMjAwZmU1ZDRiZTY= | title=The Poll that Matters: Will Pennsylvania voters defy conventional wisdom and reelect Santorum? | author=] | publisher=] | date=November 7, 2006 | accessdate=2007-03-12}}</ref>


The ] chose "santorum" as the winner in its "Most Outrageous" category in the society's 2004 "Word of the Year" event,<ref>, American Dialect Society, January 7, 2005, p. 2.</ref> as a result of which several newspapers reportedly omitted that category from their coverage of the announcement.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Sheidlower |first=Jesse |url=http://www.slate.com/id/2112150/ |title=Linguists Gone Wild! Why "wardrobe malfunction" wasn't the word of the year |periodical=] |date=January 11, 2005 |quote=We dismissed one potential problem—that newspapers wouldn't print the term if it won—on the grounds that we shouldn't censor ourselves. And indeed, in the afternoon's voting, ''santorum'' did win, but many newspapers simply skipped this category in their coverage.}}</ref>
Santorum has been contemplating a campaign for the Republican nomination for ] in 2012. The high Google ranking of Savage's site in searches for his name has been seen as a potential roadblock. One reputation management professional who specializes in helping individuals with such issues commented, "It's devastating. This is one of the more creative and salient Google issues I've ever seen."<ref>{{Cite news| last = Mencimer| first = Stephanie| author-link = Stephanie Mencimer | title = Rick Santorum's Anal Sex Problem| newspaper = ]| date = September/October 2010| url = http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/rick-santorum-google-problem-dan-savage | accessdate = 2010-09-12}}</ref> In February 2011, the political newspaper '']'' wrote an article on his "Longtime Google Problem."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_84/-203455-1.html|work=Roll Call|title=Santorum Talks About Longtime Google Problem|date=February 16, 2011|accessdate=February 16, 2011}}</ref> and Maureen O'Connor of media blog ] commented, "The question is whether you can actually get over something like that. You know, it's one thing to try to bury a negative article about you, but it's something different to bury your name when you're getting Googled."<ref>{{Cite |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgnT-bTDxdA |accessdate=2011-02-19 |people=T.J. Holmes, Maureen O'Connor |title=Rick Santorum's Google Problem |date=February 19, 2011 |series=Newsroom |network=CNN}}</ref>


''Google Current'' reported in 2006 that the word had inspired punk rock and blues songs;<ref>, ''Google Current'', July 15, 2006.</ref> '']'' columnist Liz Spikol wrote that it had begun appearing on bumper stickers and T-shirts.<ref name=Spikol/> ] mentioned it on '']'' more than once; his reference to it in May 2011 caused the word to be one of the most queried search terms on Google the following day.<ref>Stewart, Jon. , ''The Daily Show'', July 12, 2006.
==Response by Rick Santorum==
*Stewart, Jon. , ''The Daily Show'', May 9, 2011.
Rick Santorum discussed the "santorum" phenomenon in a February 2011 interview with the publication '']''.<ref name="stevepeoples">{{cite news|url=http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_84/-203455-1.html|accessdate=9 May 2011|title=Santorum Talks About Longtime Google Problem|work=]|last=Peoples|first=Steve|date=February 16, 2011}}</ref> The former Senator explained to ''Roll Call'', "It’s one guy. You know who it is. The Internet allows for this type of vulgarity to circulate. It’s unfortunate that we have someone who obviously has some issues. But he has an opportunity to speak."<ref name="stevepeoples" /> He pointed out to ''Roll Call'' what he viewed as a ] regarding the response to the phenomenon, "It’s just a sad commentary. You want to talk about incivility. I don’t know of anybody on the left who came to my defense for the incivility with respect to those things."<ref name="stevepeoples" />
*Stewart, Jon. , ''The Daily Show'', May 9, 2011.
*Hughes, Sarah Anne. , ''The Washington Post'', May 10, 2011.
*, ABC News, May 10, 2011.
*Friedman, Megan. , ''Time'' magazine, May 10, 2011.</ref> ] of '']'' also referred to it on more than one occasion.<ref>Colbert, Stephen. , ''The Colbert Report'', February 21, 2011.
*Sehgal, Ujala. , ''Business Insider'', February 22, 2011.
*Colbert, Stephen. , ''The Colbert Report'', April 24, 2011.</ref>


{{quote box|align=right|width=30em|An example of deliberate coining is the word "santorum" ... In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage.|''The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English'', 2006}}
On April 28, 2011, Rick Santorum said to '']'' about the issue, "I don’t see it as a problem at all."<ref name="chrismoody">{{cite news|last=Moody|first=Chris|work=]|title=Santorum says he has no plans to fix his ‘Google problem’|date=April 28, 2011|url=http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/28/santorum-says-he-has-no-plans-to-fix-his-google-problem/|accessdate=9 May 2011}}</ref> ''The Daily Caller'' reported that Santorum's ] had paid money for a ] advertisement to appear when individuals input a search term of "Rick Santorum".<ref name="chrismoody" /> Former Senator Santorum commented, "That’ll take care of itself over time and if this campaign takes off and we decide to do this my guess is we’ll have lots of other things that will transplant things like that. And if it maintains, it will just show a rather disgusting side of politics, unfortunately. What will change, that is if we decide to move forward, I’m sure will be writing a lot of things and there’ll be lots of links to other things that will far supersede some nasty people that are trying to be crude."<ref name="chrismoody" />


Savage's campaign was widely discussed in the media, according to ''The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English'' in 2006.<ref>{{cite book |editor1-first=Tom |editor1-last=Dalzell |editor2-first=Terry |editor2-last=Victor |title=The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English |publisher=Routledge |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-415-21258-8 |ol=7486776M |pages=x–xi |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4YfsEgHLjboC&q=santorum&pg=PR10 |volume=1 |quote=An example of deliberate coining is the word "santorum", purported to mean "a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage.}}</ref> The 2007 update of this work, '']'', does not contain an entry for "santorum".<ref name="PartridgeDalzell2007">{{cite book |editor1-first=Tom |editor1-last=Dalzell |editor2-first=Terry |editor2-last=Victor |title=The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English |year=2007 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-415-21259-5 |lccn=2007028776 |ol=10187548M}}</ref>
==Recognition in media==
The print journal ''Gay and Lesbian Humanist'' noted the contest in its Summer 2003 issue, but before a definition had been selected.{{Citation needed|date=July 2008}} At its annual meeting in January 2005, the ] selected ''santorum'' as the ''Most Outrageous Word of the Year'' for 2004. Lexicographer ] later wrote in '']'', "This year the strongest contender was ''santorum''.... We dismissed one potential problem &mdash; that newspapers wouldn't print the term if it won &mdash; on the grounds that we shouldn't censor ourselves. And indeed... ''santorum'' did win, but many newspapers simply skipped this category in their coverage. So much for academic freedom."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.slate.com/id/2112150/ | title=Linguists Gone Wild! Why "]" wasn't the word of the year. | author=] | date=January 11, 2005 | accessdate=2006-12-19}} Not surprisingly, posting comments on the Wall Street Journal would require intentionally misspelling the Senator's name (eg. Santorrum) since santorum "does not comply with community standards."</ref>


Stephanie Mencimer wrote in '']'' in 2010 that "some observers even suggested may have contributed to Santorum’s crushing 18-point defeat in his 2006 campaign against ]."<ref name=MotherJones/> Savage had attempted to contribute $2,100 to Casey's campaign, but the donation was returned.<ref>{{cite news |last=Budoff |first=Carrie |url=http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/15130708.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060906031529/http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/15130708.htm |archive-date=September 6, 2006 |newspaper=The Philadelphia Inquirer |title=No thanks, Casey donor told |date=July 27, 2006}}</ref>
The word appeared as a humorous aside in a college newspaper,<ref>{{cite news | url=http://gauntlet.ucalgary.ca/supplements/79/index.php?sid=6535 | title=Frosh Supplement 2003: Glossary | publisher=] Gauntlet | author=Gauntlet Staff | date=September 4, 2003 | accessdate=2006-12-19}} "Sex: The most effective method of study avoidance. Common side effect, santorum."</ref> and even in a music review.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/021005/disc.html | title=Disc of the week: Antony and the Johnsons, I Am a Bird Now | publisher=] | date=February 10–16, 2005 | accessdate=2006-12-19}} "Boy George, Rufus Wainwright, Lou Reed and Devendra Banhart lend extra sparkle to this graceful glitter-opera, which climaxes with "Fistfull of Love," a glorious slip 'n' slide of a soul song that's well worth the Santorum stain."</ref> The term's popularity as a political epithet has extended to ]s and ]s.<ref name="Spikol" />


Noam Cohen of '']'' described the situation as a hijacking of online identity. He questioned whether automatic search algorithms should be entirely devoid of human discretion.<ref>{{cite news |last=Cohen |first=Noam |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/business/media/an-identity-hijacked-on-the-online-highway.html |title=Dealing With an Identity Hijacked on the Online Highway |newspaper=] |issn=0362-4331 |date=September 25, 2011}}</ref>
'']'' movie reviewer Jim Nintzel wrote in April 2006 that he introduced the word to ] of '']'', noting that "Despite his high-ranking position as a member of the media elite, Corddry wasn't aware of this important linguistic development."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Cinema/Content?oid=oid%3A81291 | title=Trigger Happy: Rob Corddry stars in the 'Schindler's List' of paintball movies | author=Jim Nintzel | publisher=] | date=April 20, 2006 | accessdate=2006-12-19}} The Daily Show correspondent and I were talking on the phone the other day and--as it so often does--the subject of ''santorum'' came up. As regular Weekly readers know, ''santorum'' was the name given to "the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" by readers of the nationally syndicated Savage Love column to honor U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.</ref> Subsequently the show referenced the term in its July 12, 2006, December 11, 2006, and May 9, 2011 episodes<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-11-2006/headlines---exit-strategies |title=Headlines - Exit Strategies |date=12/11/06 |work=The Daily Show with Jon Stewart |publisher=Comedy Central |accessdate=22 February 2011}}</ref>.<ref name="Spikol"/>{{Dead link|date=July 2009}} '']'' also covered the ]ing of the term on July 15, 2006.<ref name="Spikol"/>{{Dead link|date=July 2009}}<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.current.tv/google/GC01679 | title=Santorum | publisher=] | date=July 15, 2006 | accessdate=2006-12-19| archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20061111035016/http://www.current.tv/google/GC01679| archivedate = November 11, 2006}} Current declined to cite the definition themselves.</ref>


The issue resurfaced during the ] in which Santorum was a candidate. A commentary in '']'' suggested a difficulty in avoiding ]s when writing about Santorum because of Savage's campaign.<ref>{{cite news |last=Heer |first=Jeet |title=Can Rick Santorum become U.S. president if his name isn't even safe for kids to Google? |url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/can-rick-santorum-become-us-president-if-his-name-isnt-even-safe-for-kids-to-google/article2294581/ |access-date=January 7, 2012 |newspaper=The Globe and Mail |date=January 6, 2012 |location=Toronto}}</ref>
On February 21, 2011 ] of '']'' called attention to the term in response to Senator Santorum's public dismay that when his name is searched by Google, the above definition is still the first search result.<ref name="colbertfeb2011">{{cite news|url=http://www.businessinsider.com/colbert-rick-santorum-chris-lee-craigslist-video-2011-2|accessdate=9 May 2011|work=Business Insider|title=COLBERT: Rick Santorum's Long-Term Google Sex Term Problem Is Not As Bad As Chris Lee's "Short-Time Craigslist Problem"|date=February 22, 2011|first=Ujala |last=Sehgal}}</ref> The comedian also referred to the "frothy mixture" on his April 25, 2011, show in a sketch about having a beer with various Republican candidates, and called on people to once again "Google it." On May 9, 2011, John Stewart of "]" also mentioned the term without defining it and then told the puzzled portion of his audience/viewers to google it. When guest Kiera Knightly appeared for her interview, she admitted she had googled it and now felt "as if had lost her innocence/" <ref>http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-may-9-2011-keira-knightly<ref>

===Santorum's reaction===
Santorum discussed the issue in a February 2011 interview with '']'': "It's one guy. You know who it is. The Internet allows for this type of vulgarity to circulate. It's unfortunate that we have someone who obviously has some issues. But he has an opportunity to speak."<ref name=Peoples>{{cite news |last=Peoples |first=Steve |url=http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_84/-203455-1.html |title=Santorum Talks About Longtime Google Problem |newspaper=Roll Call |date=February 16, 2011}}</ref>

In a June 2011 interview, Santorum said, "There are foul people out there who do horrible things. It's unfortunate some people thought it would be a big joke to make fun of my name. That comes with the territory."<ref name="RawStory06-09-11">{{cite web |url=http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/06/santorum-hopes-google-will-do-something-about-filth-on-the-internet/ |title=Santorum hopes Google will do something about 'filth on the Internet' |author=David Edwards |date=June 9, 2011 |publisher=] |access-date=July 24, 2011 |archive-date=August 11, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110811073806/http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/06/santorum-hopes-google-will-do-something-about-filth-on-the-internet/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>

In July 2011, Santorum said that news coverage of this matter would be very different if he were liberal instead of conservative: "The Mainstream Media would hit the roof—and rightly so!"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ricksantorum.com/blog/2011/07/dan-savage-and-his-obscene-attack |title=Dan Savage and His Obscene Attack |work=ricksantorum.com |access-date=September 30, 2011 |quote=I can only imagine if this happened to a liberal. Maher and his friends in the Mainstream Media would hit the roof—and rightly so! But when it happens to a conservative, they applaud and laugh. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111009060114/http://www.ricksantorum.com/blog/2011/07/dan-savage-and-his-obscene-attack |archive-date=October 9, 2011 }}</ref>

==Google-bombing==
''The New York Times'' reported in 2004 that people had tried to use ]s to link the names of several American politicians, including George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Rick Santorum, to what it called "unprintable phrases".<ref>{{cite news |last=McNichol |first=Tom |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/22/technology/circuits/22goog.html |title=Your Message Here |newspaper=] |issn=0362-4331 |date=January 22, 2004}}</ref> Bloggers linking to ''Spreading Santorum'' caused it to rise in Google's rankings.<ref name=MotherJones/>

In 2010, Michael Fertik of ] (now ''Reputation.com''), a company to help people influence their online presence, described the search engine issue as "devastating" and said it was "one of the more creative and salient Google issues" he had ever seen.<ref name=MotherJones/> Mark Skidmore of ] said Santorum would find it difficult to shift Savage's site, because Savage had over 13,000 inbound links against 5,000 for Santorum's own site.<ref name=MotherJones/> Chris Wilson in '']'' described the situation as a "classic 'Google bomb'."<ref>{{cite journal |first=Chris |last=Wilson |url=http://www.slate.com/id/2298206/ |title=Lube Job: Should Google associate Rick Santorum's name with anal sex? |journal=] |date=July 1, 2011 |access-date=August 1, 2011}}</ref>

===Santorum's request for intervention by Google===
When asked in June 2011 whether ] should step in to prevent the definition appearing so prominently under searches for his name, Santorum said they should intervene only if they would normally do so in this kind of circumstance.<ref name="Interview with Rick Santorum"/> In September 2011 Santorum asked Google to intervene by altering the indexing of the content, saying, "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 have a business allow that type of filth to be purveyed through their website or through their system is something that they say they can't handle but I suspect that's not true."<ref name="Burns">{{cite web |url= http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63952.html |title=Rick Santorum contacted Google, says company spreads 'filth' |first=Alexander |last=Burns |work=]|date=September 20, 2011 |access-date=September 21, 2011}}</ref> In response to Santorum's request, a Google representative said Google does not "remove content from our search results, except in very limited cases such as illegal content and violations of our webmaster guidelines."<ref name="Burns" />

According to ] (TPM), "Google did crack down" on google-bombing in the past.<ref name="Sullivan" /> In an interview with TPM, search engine expert ] stated that Santorum mischaracterized the campaign as a "Google bomb", when it was actually a relevant use of the search query ''santorum'' to create "a new definition for the word".<ref name="Sullivan" /> Sullivan argued that, in a Google bomb, pranksters persuade Google's algorithm to send the wrong results for a certain term (e.g., when pranksters caused the search term "]" to point to the Bush ] website's ] page). In Santorum's case, on the other hand, the term "santorum" still points to a web page about a "santorum"—which happens to be Savage's neologism instead of the Senator from Pennsylvania. Sullivan concluded that, "for to say Google could get rid of it would be like him saying, 'I don't like the word 'unicorn' and I think that that definition should go away.'"<ref name="Sullivan">{{cite web |last=McMorris-Santoro |first=Evan |url=http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/search-engine-expert-rick-santorums-new-crusade-against-google-is-total-nonsense.php?ref=fpb |title=Search Engine Expert: Rick Santorum's New Crusade Against Google Is Total Nonsense |work=] |date=September 20, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110923213141/http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/search-engine-expert-rick-santorums-new-crusade-against-google-is-total-nonsense.php?ref=fpb |archive-date=September 23, 2011 }}</ref>

Some sources describe the neologism campaign as a ].<ref name="Rolph">{{cite news |last=Rolph |first=Amy |url=http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2011/09/22/rick-santorum-wants-google-take-down-frothy-mix-definition/ |title= <!--Seattle's Big Blog:-->Rick Santorum wants Google to take down 'frothy mix' definition |newspaper=] |date=September 22, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Zorn |first=Eric |url=http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2011/09/poor-rick-sntorum.html |title=Poor Rick S@ntorum |newspaper=]|date=September 21, 2011}}</ref> However, despite three times as many inbound links,<ref name=MotherJones/> observers have noted that search engines ] and ] had been presenting the offending links second behind Santorum's web site.<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/googles-hypocritical-anti-bully-pulpit/ |title=Google's Hypocritical Anti-Bully Pulpit |first=Penny Young |last=Nance |publisher=Fox News |year=2011 |access-date=September 27, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Albanesius |first=Chloe |url=https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2393604,00.asp |title=Santorum's 'Google Problem' Persists, Should Link Be Removed? |journal=] |issn=0888-8507 |date=September 26, 2011}}</ref>

=== 2012 ranking algorithm changes ===
In February 2012 the link to the site briefly vanished from the first page of Google search results for "Santorum" after Google changed its ] algorithm.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/santorums-embarrassing-google-problem-no-longer-no-1-294760 |title=Santorum's embarrassing 'Google problem' no longer No. 1 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120305013217/http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/santorums-embarrassing-google-problem-no-longer-no-1-294760 |archive-date=March 5, 2012 |first=Helen A. S. |last=Popkin |work=MSBNC}}</ref><ref name="SantorumResultDisappears02292012">{{cite news |url= http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Spreading-Santorum-vanishes-from-Google-3371167.php |title='Spreading Santorum' vanishes from Google |first=Joel |last=Connelly |date=February 29, 2012 |access-date=February 29, 2012 |work=Seattle Post-Intelligencer}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |first=Noam |last=Cohen |url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/santorums-google-problem/ |title=Santorum's Persistent Google Problem |work=The New York Times |date=March 1, 2012}}</ref><ref name="Bingham">{{cite news | last = Bingham | first = Amy | title = Santorum's Google Problem: Nasty Definition Sinks in Search | publisher = ABC News | date = March 1, 2012 | url = https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/santorums-google-problem-nasty-definition-sinks-search/ | access-date = March 3, 2012}}</ref> A further change restored the site to the first page of Google results, and its ranking on other search engines underwent no significant changes.<ref>{{cite web | last = Sullivan | first = Danny | title = Santorum's Changing "Google Problem"—& Search Engine Land—Make The Rachel Maddow Show | publisher = Search Engine Land | date = March 8, 2012 | url = http://searchengineland.com/santorum-google-problem-rachel-maddow-show-114060 | access-date = 2012-03-09}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/02/29/rick-santorums-google-problem-subsides/|title=Rick Santorum's Google Problem Subsides|work=The Wall Street Journal|first1=Ian |last1=Sherr |first2=Geoffrey A. |last2=Fowler|date=February 29, 2012}}</ref><ref name=Miller20120301>{{cite web|url=http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2156606/Spreading-Santorum-Loses-Its-Frothy-Spot-Atop-Google|title=Spreading Santorum Loses Its Frothy Spot Atop Google|author=Miranda Miller|publisher=Search Engline Land|date=March 1, 2012}}</ref> The placement of the site in search returns may vary depending on who is searching.<ref name="Bingham"/> Google stated that the change was not the result of manual intervention.<ref name=Miller20120301/>


==References== ==References==
{{reflist|2}} {{reflist}}


==External links== ==External links==
{{wiktionary|santorum}} {{Wiktionary|santorum}}
*{{Commons category-inline}}
* {{cite web|title=SpreadingSantorum.com|url=http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/}}
*{{usurped|1=http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/|date=May 2023}}
* {{cite web|url=http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/sodomy/santorum/|title=''Santorum'' on Rotten.com|accessdate=2006-08-22}}
*


{{Dan Savage}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Santorum (Sexual Neologism)}}
]
]
]


{{DEFAULTSORT:Campaign For Santorum Neologism}}
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 16:13, 2 December 2024

Campaign to create the neologism "santorum" started in 2003 by LGBT rights activist Dan Savage

Dan Savage at the Webby Awards, holding his award and wearing a t-shirt that reads "GOOGLE SANTORUM".
Savage wearing a shirt referencing the neologism campaign

The campaign for the neologism "santorum" started with a contest held in May 2003 by Dan Savage, a sex columnist and LGBT rights activist. Savage asked his readers to create a definition for the word "santorum" in response to then-US senator Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality and comments about same sex marriage. In his comments, Santorum had stated that "n every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." Savage announced the winning entry, which defined "santorum" as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." He created a web site, spreadingsantorum.com (and santorum.com), to promote the definition, which became a top internet search result, displacing the senator's official website on many search engines, including Google, Yahoo! Search, and Bing.

In 2010, Savage said he would take the site down if Santorum donated US$5 million plus interest to Freedom to Marry, a group advocating legal recognition of same-sex marriages. In September 2011, Santorum asked Google to remove the definition from its search engine index. Google refused, responding that the company does not remove content from search results except in very limited circumstances.

Santorum's comments on homosexuality

Main article: Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality
A bust-length formal portrait of Rick Santorum.
Rick Santorum

In an interview with the Associated Press on April 7, 2003, Santorum said there is a relationship between the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal and liberalism and relativism. He argued that moral relativism involves accepting any adult consensual behavior in the privacy of people's homes, even if the behavior might otherwise be considered deviant. Santorum believes this attitude leads to an unhealthy culture.

Santorum said that, while he had no problem with homosexuality, he did have a problem with homosexual acts, "as I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual." He continued:

We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the 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. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.

Santorum said he was arguing against any relationship, other than heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman, which he viewed as the basis of a stable society, when he listed homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality as examples of what marriage was not.

The interview prompted an angry reaction from gay rights activists and some politicians. A spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee described Santorum's views as "divisive and reckless", while conservative activists saw them as a "principled opposition to same-sex marriage".

Response by Savage

On April 25, 2003, in a New York Times op-ed, Savage responded to Santorum's comments, arguing that the remarks amounted to an overt Republican appeal to homophobic voters. A reader of Savage's column, Savage Love, subsequently suggested a contest to create a new definition for "santorum". Observing that he had previously sought to coin the sexual neologism "pegging", Savage agreed, writing on May 15, "There's no better way to memorialize the Santorum scandal than by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head."

He said on May 29 that he had received 3,000 suggestions, and posted several nominees for readers to choose from. On June 12 he announced the winner as "that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex".

Savage set up a website, spreadingsantorum.com, to spread awareness of the term; the site features the definition over a brown splattered stain on an otherwise-white page. Savage also set up another website, santorum.com, that displays the same content. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported in July 2006 that the site appeared at the top of a Google search for Santorum's name. When asked whether he was concerned about the effect on Santorum's children, Savage responded that gays and lesbians also have children, who are required to listen to comparisons of gay relationships to incest and bestiality. He also said, "The only people who come at me wringing their hands about Santorum's children are idiot lefties who don't get how serious the right is about destroying us." Savage offered in May 2010 to remove the site if Santorum donated $5 million to Freedom to Marry, an advocacy group for same-sex marriage.

In February 2011, Savage said he would revive his campaign. As of January 2012, the sexual term was still the top result for Santorum's name on several search engines, including Google, Bing, and Yahoo.

In a July 2011 video on Funny or Die, Savage proposed redefining Santorum's first name if Santorum did not stop criticizing homosexuality. In his August 17, 2011 column, Savage observed that "Santorum hasn't laid off the gay bashing, as it's all he's got," and endorsed a reader suggestion to re-define "rick" as a verb, thus making 'Rick santorum.' into a complete sentence.

Starting from 2023, santorum.com redirects to spreadingsantorum.com, which itself seems to have become an online newspaper, with the masthead "Spreading Daily News", and no longer displays the neologism.

Reception and political impact

A cartoon caricature of Rick Santorum looking at his hands— which are contaminated with a brown substance —in horror, while saying "My god… it’s… me!"
A cartoon by Zach Weinersmith referencing the neologism.

The word santorum, as defined, has been characterized as "obscene", "unprintable", or "vulgar".

The American Dialect Society chose "santorum" as the winner in its "Most Outrageous" category in the society's 2004 "Word of the Year" event, as a result of which several newspapers reportedly omitted that category from their coverage of the announcement.

Google Current reported in 2006 that the word had inspired punk rock and blues songs; Philadelphia Weekly columnist Liz Spikol wrote that it had begun appearing on bumper stickers and T-shirts. Jon Stewart mentioned it on The Daily Show more than once; his reference to it in May 2011 caused the word to be one of the most queried search terms on Google the following day. Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report also referred to it on more than one occasion.

An example of deliberate coining is the word "santorum" ... In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage.

The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, 2006

Savage's campaign was widely discussed in the media, according to The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English in 2006. The 2007 update of this work, The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, does not contain an entry for "santorum".

Stephanie Mencimer wrote in Mother Jones in 2010 that "some observers even suggested may have contributed to Santorum’s crushing 18-point defeat in his 2006 campaign against Bob Casey." Savage had attempted to contribute $2,100 to Casey's campaign, but the donation was returned.

Noam Cohen of The New York Times described the situation as a hijacking of online identity. He questioned whether automatic search algorithms should be entirely devoid of human discretion.

The issue resurfaced during the 2012 presidential primaries in which Santorum was a candidate. A commentary in The Globe and Mail suggested a difficulty in avoiding double entendres when writing about Santorum because of Savage's campaign.

Santorum's reaction

Santorum discussed the issue in a February 2011 interview with Roll Call: "It's one guy. You know who it is. The Internet allows for this type of vulgarity to circulate. It's unfortunate that we have someone who obviously has some issues. But he has an opportunity to speak."

In a June 2011 interview, Santorum said, "There are foul people out there who do horrible things. It's unfortunate some people thought it would be a big joke to make fun of my name. That comes with the territory."

In July 2011, Santorum said that news coverage of this matter would be very different if he were liberal instead of conservative: "The Mainstream Media would hit the roof—and rightly so!"

Google-bombing

The New York Times reported in 2004 that people had tried to use Google bombs to link the names of several American politicians, including George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Rick Santorum, to what it called "unprintable phrases". Bloggers linking to Spreading Santorum caused it to rise in Google's rankings.

In 2010, Michael Fertik of ReputationDefender (now Reputation.com), a company to help people influence their online presence, described the search engine issue as "devastating" and said it was "one of the more creative and salient Google issues" he had ever seen. Mark Skidmore of Blue State Digital said Santorum would find it difficult to shift Savage's site, because Savage had over 13,000 inbound links against 5,000 for Santorum's own site. Chris Wilson in Slate described the situation as a "classic 'Google bomb'."

Santorum's request for intervention by Google

When asked in June 2011 whether Google should step in to prevent the definition appearing so prominently under searches for his name, Santorum said they should intervene only if they would normally do so in this kind of circumstance. In September 2011 Santorum asked Google to intervene by altering the indexing of the content, saying, "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 have a business allow that type of filth to be purveyed through their website or through their system is something that they say they can't handle but I suspect that's not true." In response to Santorum's request, a Google representative said Google does not "remove content from our search results, except in very limited cases such as illegal content and violations of our webmaster guidelines."

According to Talking Points Memo (TPM), "Google did crack down" on google-bombing in the past. In an interview with TPM, search engine expert Danny Sullivan stated that Santorum mischaracterized the campaign as a "Google bomb", when it was actually a relevant use of the search query santorum to create "a new definition for the word". Sullivan argued that, in a Google bomb, pranksters persuade Google's algorithm to send the wrong results for a certain term (e.g., when pranksters caused the search term "miserable failure" to point to the Bush White House website's presidential biography page). In Santorum's case, on the other hand, the term "santorum" still points to a web page about a "santorum"—which happens to be Savage's neologism instead of the Senator from Pennsylvania. Sullivan concluded that, "for to say Google could get rid of it would be like him saying, 'I don't like the word 'unicorn' and I think that that definition should go away.'"

Some sources describe the neologism campaign as a prank. However, despite three times as many inbound links, observers have noted that search engines Bing and Yahoo had been presenting the offending links second behind Santorum's web site.

2012 ranking algorithm changes

In February 2012 the link to the site briefly vanished from the first page of Google search results for "Santorum" after Google changed its SafeSearch algorithm. A further change restored the site to the first page of Google results, and its ranking on other search engines underwent no significant changes. The placement of the site in search returns may vary depending on who is searching. Google stated that the change was not the result of manual intervention.

References

  1. Wasik, Bill (2009). And Then There's This: How Stories Live and Die in Viral Culture (First ed.). Viking Adult. p. 64. ISBN 978-0-670-02084-3.
  2. ^ Savage, Dan (May 15, 2003). "Savage Love: Bill, Ashton, Rick". The Stranger. ISSN 1935-9004.
  3. Corvino, John (January 4, 2013). What's Wrong with Homosexuality?. Oxford University Press. p. 120. ISBN 9780199323913. Retrieved April 24, 2013.
  4. Amira, Dan (February 16, 2011). "Rick Santorum Has Come to Terms With His Google Problem". New York. Retrieved May 27, 2011.
  5. ^ Mencimer, Stephanie (September–October 2010). "Rick Santorum's Anal Sex Problem". Mother Jones. ISSN 0362-8841.
  6. ^ Burns, Alexander (September 20, 2011). "Rick Santorum contacted Google, says company spreads 'filth'". Politico. Retrieved September 21, 2011.
  7. ^ "Excerpt from Santorum interview". USA Today. April 23, 2003. ISSN 0734-7456.
  8. "Santorum defends comments on homosexuality". CNN. April 23, 2003. Retrieved March 13, 2008.
  9. ^ Brewer, Paul Ryan (2008). Value War: Public Opinion and the Politics of Gay Rights. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 67–68, 86. ISBN 978-0-7425-6210-3. LCCN 2007037833. OL 10721857M.
  10. Loughlin, Sean. "Santorum under fire for comments on homosexuality", CNN, April 22, 2003.
  11. Savage, Dan (April 25, 2003). "G.O.P. Hypocrisy". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
  12. "Bill, Ashton, Rick". Savage Love. Retrieved February 29, 2012.
  13. Dwyer, Devin (May 10, 2011). "Rick Santorum's 'Google Problem' Resurfaces with Jon Stewart Plug". ABC News. Archived from the original on November 26, 2016. Retrieved November 25, 2016.
  14. Heckman, Meg (June 12, 2011). "Rick Santorum vs. the internet". The Concord Monitor. Concord, NH. Retrieved June 22, 2011. The less vulgar include...
  15. Savage, Dan (May 29, 2003). "Savage Love: Do the Santorum". The Stranger. ISSN 1935-9004.
  16. Savage, Dan (June 12, 2003). "Savage Love: Gas Huffer". The Stranger. ISSN 1935-9004. Archived from the original on November 11, 2006. Retrieved May 16, 2009.
  17. ^ Spikol, Liz (October 4, 2006). "Savage Politics". Philadelphia Weekly. Archived from the original on January 31, 2013.
  18. Peoples, Steve (February 23, 2011). "Dan Savage Vows to Revive 'Santorum' Campaign". Roll Call.
  19. Amira, Dan (February 16, 2011). "Rick Santorum Has Come to Terms With His Google Problem". New York Magazine. ISSN 0028-7369.
  20. ^ "Interview with Rick Santorum". The Daily Rundown. MSNBC. June 9, 2011. Archived from the original on June 12, 2011. Retrieved June 19, 2011.
  21. McGlynn, Katla (July 27, 2011). "Dan Savage Has A New Name For Rick Santorum". Huffington Post.
  22. Rovzar, Chris (July 28, 2011). "Dan Savage Threatens to Re-Define Rick Santorum's First Name, Too". New York Magazine. ISSN 0028-7369.
  23. Savage, Dan (August 17, 2011). "Savage Love: www.humpseattle.com". The Stranger. ISSN 1935-9004. The definition I proposed in my video was a little too long and involved, so I vote for adopting yours, HTH.
  24. Savage, Dan (January 11, 2012). "Savage Love: Santorum Surges". The Stranger. ISSN 1935-9004. To "rick" is to remove something with your tongue—the "r" from "remove", the "ick" from "lick"...
  25. "Home - Spreading Daily News". June 22, 2020. Retrieved November 26, 2024.
  26. Grunwald, Michael (May 17, 2011). "Rick Santorum: The GOP's Most Undervalued Presidential Candidate". Time. Retrieved December 1, 2011. The "serious" Republican candidates for President, apparently,...
  27. Flock, Elizabeth (April 20, 2011). "Should we have a right to be forgotten online?". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 1, 2011. Spain's Data Protection Agency has caved to the demands...
  28. Kors, Joshua (May 8, 2011). "Q&A With Dan Savage: On Obama, Fox News' Shepard Smith and Success of 'It Gets Better' Project". Huffington Post. Retrieved July 26, 2011.
  29. "Most Outrageous", American Dialect Society, January 7, 2005, p. 2.
  30. Sheidlower, Jesse (January 11, 2005). "Linguists Gone Wild! Why "wardrobe malfunction" wasn't the word of the year". Slate. We dismissed one potential problem—that newspapers wouldn't print the term if it won—on the grounds that we shouldn't censor ourselves. And indeed, in the afternoon's voting, santorum did win, but many newspapers simply skipped this category in their coverage.
  31. "Santorum", Google Current, July 15, 2006.
  32. Stewart, Jon. "Indecision 2006: No-Mentum", The Daily Show, July 12, 2006.
  33. Colbert, Stephen. "Rick Santorum Internet Search", The Colbert Report, February 21, 2011.
  34. Dalzell, Tom; Victor, Terry, eds. (2006). The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. Vol. 1. Routledge. pp. x–xi. ISBN 978-0-415-21258-8. OL 7486776M. An example of deliberate coining is the word "santorum", purported to mean "a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage.
  35. Dalzell, Tom; Victor, Terry, eds. (2007). The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-21259-5. LCCN 2007028776. OL 10187548M.
  36. Budoff, Carrie (July 27, 2006). "No thanks, Casey donor told". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on September 6, 2006.
  37. Cohen, Noam (September 25, 2011). "Dealing With an Identity Hijacked on the Online Highway". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
  38. Heer, Jeet (January 6, 2012). "Can Rick Santorum become U.S. president if his name isn't even safe for kids to Google?". The Globe and Mail. Toronto. Retrieved January 7, 2012.
  39. Peoples, Steve (February 16, 2011). "Santorum Talks About Longtime Google Problem". Roll Call.
  40. David Edwards (June 9, 2011). "Santorum hopes Google will do something about 'filth on the Internet'". The Raw Story. Archived from the original on August 11, 2011. Retrieved July 24, 2011.
  41. "Dan Savage and His Obscene Attack". ricksantorum.com. Archived from the original on October 9, 2011. Retrieved September 30, 2011. I can only imagine if this happened to a liberal. Maher and his friends in the Mainstream Media would hit the roof—and rightly so! But when it happens to a conservative, they applaud and laugh.
  42. McNichol, Tom (January 22, 2004). "Your Message Here". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
  43. Wilson, Chris (July 1, 2011). "Lube Job: Should Google associate Rick Santorum's name with anal sex?". Slate. Retrieved August 1, 2011.
  44. ^ McMorris-Santoro, Evan (September 20, 2011). "Search Engine Expert: Rick Santorum's New Crusade Against Google Is Total Nonsense". Talking Points Memo. Archived from the original on September 23, 2011.
  45. Rolph, Amy (September 22, 2011). "Rick Santorum wants Google to take down 'frothy mix' definition". Seattle Post Intelligencer.
  46. Zorn, Eric (September 21, 2011). "Poor Rick S@ntorum". Chicago Tribune.
  47. Nance, Penny Young (2011). "Google's Hypocritical Anti-Bully Pulpit". Fox News. Retrieved September 27, 2011.
  48. Albanesius, Chloe (September 26, 2011). "Santorum's 'Google Problem' Persists, Should Link Be Removed?". PC Magazine. ISSN 0888-8507.
  49. Popkin, Helen A. S. "Santorum's embarrassing 'Google problem' no longer No. 1". MSBNC. Archived from the original on March 5, 2012.
  50. Connelly, Joel (February 29, 2012). "'Spreading Santorum' vanishes from Google". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved February 29, 2012.
  51. Cohen, Noam (March 1, 2012). "Santorum's Persistent Google Problem". The New York Times.
  52. ^ Bingham, Amy (March 1, 2012). "Santorum's Google Problem: Nasty Definition Sinks in Search". ABC News. Retrieved March 3, 2012.
  53. Sullivan, Danny (March 8, 2012). "Santorum's Changing "Google Problem"—& Search Engine Land—Make The Rachel Maddow Show". Search Engine Land. Retrieved March 9, 2012.
  54. Sherr, Ian; Fowler, Geoffrey A. (February 29, 2012). "Rick Santorum's Google Problem Subsides". The Wall Street Journal.
  55. ^ Miranda Miller (March 1, 2012). "Spreading Santorum Loses Its Frothy Spot Atop Google". Search Engline Land.

External links

Dan Savage
Activism
Bibliography
Columns and podcast
Newspaper editor
Books
Theatre
Categories: