AP STILL OUT TO GET SANTORUM

The Associated Press kicked off the Santorum non-controversy by sending a reporter connected to John Kerry to conduct a interview with a covert agenda. Then they adding words to a out-of-context quote rather than providing proper legal context. Now they're still up to no good.

They're still adding the malicious parenthetical "gay" to Santorum's quote in order to "clarify" what he didn't really mean and fuel the controversy:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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," Santorum said.

A reporter without a malicious agenda wouldn't add the word "gay" to that quote. Either explain it properly in the context of a slippery slope argument, or maybe quote something like this:

If the Supreme Court says that you have the [Constitutional] right to [unrestricted] 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

Otherwise it looks like a hit piece. The AP is also still saying he "compared" homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. That's again misleading, because he just said they were all forms of sexual relationships that are outside the definition of a traditional family as society defines it, and can be restricted by states.

If Santorum said serial murders and car accidents are both unfortunate ways that a life can be cut short, no responsible journalist would report simply that he compared car accidents to serial murder. That would make him look foolish, and stripped of context. Democrats would then run around saying he "morally equated" bad drivers with serial killers while the AP reporter laughs all the way to her next dinner party.

Then the AP also now says of Santorum:

He also said the right to privacy does not exist in the Constitution.

The Right to Privacy? Which amendment was that? I guess we're supposed to take it from the AP that the Senator is a fool who doesn't even know the Constitution. What "right to privacy" is this? Do they mean the one that guarantees last-minute abortions as a baby tries to grab it's first breath? The one that allows Hugh Hefner to marry his harem? The one that allows me to refuse to wear my seat-belt? The one that makes Internet and Tivo monitoring a federal crime? The one that keeps me from being spammed and called by telemarketers? None of the above. It's a "right to privacy" because it doesn't exist in the Constitution except in the minds of a few liberal judges who supposedly found privacy in a penumbra. The states currently get to make the privacy call on almost all issues, exactly as Santorum argues.

Then the AP drops this snide paragraph to end their article about Bush saying Santorum is an "inclusive man."

The White House expressed confidence in the leadership of Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., in the immediate aftermath of his defense of a 1948 pro-segregation presidential ticket. As the remarks drew backlash, President Bush admonished Lott for them and said it was up to the Senate to decide whether he should remain as majority leader.

Lott resigned soon after. About Santorum, Fleischer said the Senate picks its leaders.

Actually, first the voters decide whether or not we think it's a big enough deal (not the AP). Trent Lott made a mistake with what he said, and bloggers of all political parties decided he should go for various reasons related to his incompetence as a leader. The mainstream media then picked up our voices, reported the buzz of a legitimate groundswell, and Trent Lott was gone. In this case, Rick Santorum's only mistake was dealing with the wife of a Democrat operative who was "reporting" for the Associated Press. There is hardly anyone with a mind that can grasp the legal argument that thinks Santorum was wrong on the facts. The only question is whether or not he's entitled to his religion. As with Bush, Ashcroft, and Secretary of Education Rod Paige, radical Democrats say no:

"This goes far beyond homosexuality," said U.S. Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, D-Pa. "He is saying that to impose his value system, he has the right to use the entity of government ... and that is not acceptable."

Yeah, that's what he said, Kanjorski. This guy gives me an idea. Let's instead go the the voting booth and eliminate illiterate politicians who see government as the one true God, with Bill Clinton as their prophet.

UPDATE: Santorum is right