Campaign for the neologism "santorum": Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
JakeInJoisey (talk | contribs) m restore wikilink |
Studentat40 (talk | contribs) Santorum; the respectable surname of a candidate for the office of the President of the United States of America. |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Santorum; the respectable surname of a candidate for the office of the President of the United States of America. |
|||
{{pp-move-dispute|expiry=8 January 2013|small=yes}} |
|||
In 2003, in response to comments by then-[[United States Senate|U.S. Senator]] [[Rick Santorum]] that were [[Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality|criticized as anti-gay]] by gay rights groups and some politicians,<ref name=Brewer/> sex columnist and [[gay rights]] activist [[Dan Savage]] began a campaign to establish Santorum's surname as a [[sexual innuendo]].<ref name=McGlynn /> |
|||
Santorum made his comments in an April 2003 interview with the [[Associated Press]]. Discussing a [[Lawrence v. Texas|recent United States Supreme Court decision]] striking down an [[Sodomy law|anti-sodomy law]], Santorum said: |
|||
<blockquote>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… It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution... You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families... In 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. It is one thing.<ref name=USATodayApril232003/></blockquote> |
|||
Savage subsequently asked his readers to coin a definition for ''santorum'' that would "memorialize the Santorum scandal".<ref name=sl031503>Savage, Dan. [http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14267 "Savage Love: Bill, Ashton, Rick."] ''The Stranger'', May 15, 2003.</ref> He announced the winner as "the frothy mixture of [[personal lubricant|lube]] and [[feces|fecal matter]] that is sometimes the byproduct of [[anal sex]]" and created a web site to promote this definition, which became a prominent search result for Santorum's name on several [[web search engine]]s. In 2010 he offered to take the website down if Santorum donated US$5 million to [[Freedom to Marry]], a group advocating legal recognition of same-sex marriages. |
|||
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=Raw Story |accessdate=July 24, 2011}}</ref> In September 2011 he asked Google to remove the definition from its search engine index. In response, Google said that the company does not remove content from search results except in very limited circumstances.<ref name="Burns" /> |
|||
==Santorum's comments on homosexuality== |
|||
{{main|Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality}} |
|||
In an interview with the Associated Press on April 7, 2003, Santorum said there is a relationship between the [[Catholic sex abuse cases|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.<ref name=USATodayApril232003/> |
|||
He 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: <blockquote>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.<ref name=USATodayApril232003>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm "Excerpt from Santorum interview"], ''USA Today'', April 23, 2003.</ref></blockquote> |
|||
He said he was arguing against any relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman, the basis in his view of a stable society: "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=USATodayApril232003/> |
|||
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|accessdate=March 13, 2008}}</ref> and some politicians.<ref name=Brewer/> A spokesman for the [[Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee]] described Santorum's views as divisive and reckless<ref name=CNN20030422>Loughlin, Sean. [http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/22/santorum.gays "Santorum under fire for comments on homosexuality"], CNN, April 22, 2003.</ref> while conservative activists saw them as a "principled opposition to same-sex marriage."<ref name=Brewer/> |
|||
==Campaign by Dan Savage == |
|||
[[File:Dan Savage Provided.jpg|175px|thumb|Dan Savage]] |
|||
In an April 25, 2003 [[op-ed]] in ''[[The New York Times]]'', Savage responded to Santorum's comments, arguing that the remarks amounted to an overt [[Republican]] appeal to [[homophobia|homophobic]] voters.<ref>Savage, Dan. [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE5D7163DF936A15757C0A9659C8B63 "G.O.P. Hypocrisy"], ''The New York Times'', April 25, 2003.</ref> 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 (sexual practice)|"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."<ref>Dwyer, Devin. [http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/rick-santorums-google-problem-resurfaces-with-jon-stewart-plug/ "Rick Santorum's 'Google Problem' Resurfaces with Jon Stewart Plug."] ABC News, May 10, 2011.</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 |accessdate=June 22, 2011 |quote=The less vulgar include...}}</ref><ref name=sl031503/> |
|||
He said on May 29 that he had received 3,000 suggestions, and posted several nominees for readers to choose from.<ref>Savage, Dan. [http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14422 "Savage Love: Do the Santorum."] ''The Stranger'', May 29, 2003.</ref> On 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>Brewer, Paul Ryan. [http://books.google.com/books?id=U34pJTdF-VcC&pg=PA67 ''Value War: Public Opinion and the Politics of Gay Rights'']. Rowman & Littlefield, 2008, pp. 67–68, 86, footnote 54.</ref><ref>Savage, Dan. [http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14566 "Savage Love: Gas Huffer."] ''The Stranger'', June 12, 2003.</ref> |
|||
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. ''[[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 [[Left-wing politics|lefties]] who don't get how serious the [[Right-wing politics|right]] is about destroying us."<ref name=Spikol>Spikol, Liz. [http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/cover-story/38419699.html "Savage Politics"], ''Philadelphia Weekly'', October 4, 2006.</ref> 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]].<ref name=MotherJones>Mencimer, Stephanie. [http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/rick-santorum-google-problem-dan-savage "Rick Santorum's Anal Sex Problem"], ''Mother Jones'', September/October 2010.</ref> |
|||
In February 2011, Savage said he would revive his campaign.<ref>{{cite web|title=Dan Savage Vows to Revive 'Santorum' Campaign|publisher=Roll Call|url=http://www.rollcall.com/news/-203600-1.html|author=Steve Peoples|date=February 23, 2011}}</ref> 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]].<ref name="MotherJones"/><ref name=AmiraFeb162011>Amira, Dan. [http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/02/rick_santorum_has_come_to_term.html "Rick Santorum Has Come to Terms With His Google Problem"], ''New York Magazine'', February 16, 2011.</ref><ref name="Interview with Rick Santorum">[http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/06/santorum-hopes-google-will-do-something-about-filth-on-the-internet/ Interview with Rick Santorum"], ''The Daily Rundown'', MSNBC, June 9, 2011.</ref> |
|||
In a July 2011 video on ''[[Funny or Die]]'', Savage proposed to redefine Santorum's first name if Santorum did not stop criticizing homosexuality.<ref name=McGlynn>Katla McGlynn. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/dan-savage-rick-santorum-video_n_910924.html Dan Savage Has A New Name For Rick Santorum]. ''[[The Huffington Post]]'', July 27, 2011</ref><ref name=Rovzar>Chris Rovzar. [http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/07/dan_savage_threatens_to_re-def.html Dan Savage Threatens to Re-Define Rick Santorum's First Name, Too]. [[New York (magazine)|''New York'']] magazine, July 28, 2011</ref> 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".<ref name=SL-08-17-2011>Dan Savage. {{cite web |url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=9539475 |title=Savage Love:www.humpseattle.com. |date=August 17, 2011}}</ref> |
|||
==Reception and political impact== |
|||
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=http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/17/please-do-not-google-the-name-of-this-undervalued-republican-candidate/#ixzz1TEEBqZ2Z |newspaper=Time |date=May 17, 2011 |accessdate=December 1, 2011 |quote=The “serious” Republican candidates for President, apparently,...}}</ref> "unfit to print"<ref name="WaPo042011>{{cite news |title=Should we have a right to be forgotten online? |first=Elizabeth |last=Flock |url=http://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 |accessdate=December 1, 2011 |quote=Spain's Data Protection Agency has caved to the demands...}}</ref> or "vulgar."<ref name=Kors_Huff>{{cite web |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 |author=Joshua Kors |date=May 8, 2011 |publisher=Huffington Post |accessdate=July 26, 2011}}</ref> |
|||
The [[American Dialect Society]] chose "santorum" as the winner in its "Most Outrageous" category in the society's 2004 "Word of the Year" event,<ref>[http://www.americandialect.org/2004_Words_of_the_Year_Final_Vote_.pdf "Most Outrageous"], 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>Sheidlower, Jesse. [http://www.slate.com/id/2112150/ "Linguists Gone Wild! Why "wardrobe malfunction" wasn't the word of the year"], ''Slate'', January 11, 2005.</ref> |
|||
''[[Google Current]]'' reported in 2006 that the word had inspired punk rock and blues songs;<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20061111035016/http://www.current.tv/google/GC01679 "Santorum"], ''Google Current'', July 15, 2006.</ref> ''[[Philadelphia Weekly]]'' columnist Liz Spikol wrote that it had begun appearing on bumper stickers and t-shirts.<ref name=Spikol/> [[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.<ref>Stewart, Jon. [http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-12-2006/indecision-2006---no-mentum "Indecision 2006: No-Mentum"], ''The Daily Show'', July 12, 2006. |
|||
*Stewart, Jon. [http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-may-9-2011-keira-knightly "The Daily Show: Keira Knightly"], ''The Daily Show'', May 9, 2011. |
|||
*Hughes, Sarah Anne. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/rick-santorum-gets-google-boost-from-jon-stewart/2011/05/10/AFmQPbgG_blog.html "Rick Santorum gets Google boost from Jon Stewart"], ''The Washington Post'', May 10, 2011. |
|||
*[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/rick-santorum-google-problem-on-the-daily-show-13571274 "Return of Rick Santorum's 'Google Problem'"], ABC News, May 10, 2011. |
|||
*Friedman, Megan. [http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/05/10/watch-jon-stewart-reminds-internet-of-rick-santorums-google-problem "Watch: Jon Stewart Reminds Internet of Rick Santorum's 'Google Problem'"], ''Time'' magazine, May 10, 2011.</ref> [[Stephen Colbert]] of ''[[The Colbert Report]]'' also referred to it on more than one occasion.<ref>Colbert, Stephen. [http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/374851/february-21-2011/rick-santorum-internet-search "Rick Santorum Internet Search"], ''The Colbert Report'', February 21, 2011. |
|||
*Sehgal, Ujala. [http://www.businessinsider.com/colbert-rick-santorum-chris-lee-craigslist-video-2011-2 "Colbert: Rick Santorum's Long-Term Google Sex Term Problem Is Not As Bad As Chris Lee's 'Short-Time Craigslist Problem'"], ''Business Insider'', February 22, 2011. |
|||
*Colbert, Stephen. [http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/mon-april-25-2011-ron-paul "Ron Paul"], ''The Colbert Report'', April 24, 2011.</ref> |
|||
{| class="toccolours" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; background:#c6dbf7; width:30em; max-width: 27%;" cellspacing="5" |
|||
|style="text-align: left;" |"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." |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="text-align: left;" |''The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English'', 2006 |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="text-align: left;" | |
|||
|}Savage's campaign was widely discussed in the media, but the word itself did not gain wide acceptance, according to ''The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English'' in 2006.<ref>''The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English''. Routledge, 2006, pp. x–xi: "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, ''[[The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English]]'', does not contain an entry for "santorum."<ref name="PartridgeDalzell2007">{{cite book|author1=Eric Partridge|author2=Tom Dalzell|author3=Terry Victor|title=The concise new Partridge dictionary of slang and unconventional English|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9780415212595}}</ref> |
|||
Stephanie Mencimer wrote in ''Mother Jones'' in 2010 that "some observers even suggested [the neologism] may have contributed to" Santorum's 2006 defeat by [[Bob Casey, Jr.|Bob Casey]].<ref name=MotherJones/> Savage had attempted to contribute $2,100 to Casey's campaign, but the donation had been returned.<ref>Budoff, Carrie. [http://web.archive.org/web/20060906031529/http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/15130708.htm ''Philadelphia Inquirer'',"No thanks, Casey donor told"], July 27, 2006.</ref> |
|||
[[Noam Cohen]] of the ''[[New York Times]]'' described the situation as a [[page hijacking|hijacking]] of online identity. He questioned whether automatic search algorithms should be entirely devoid of human discretion.<ref>Cohen, Noam. "[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/business/media/an-identity-hijacked-on-the-online-highway.html Dealing With an Identity Hijacked on the Online Highway]", ''[[New York Times]]'' (September 25, 2011).</ref> |
|||
The issue resurfaced during the [[Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012|2012 presidential primaries]] in which Santorum is 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.<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=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/can-rick-santorum-become-us-president-if-his-name-isnt-even-safe-for-kids-to-google/article2294581/|accessdate=January 7, 2012|newspaper=Globe and Mail|date=January 6, 2012}}</ref> </blockquote> |
|||
===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."<ref name=Peoples>Peoples, Steve. [http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_84/-203455-1.html "Santorum Talks About Longtime Google Problem"], ''Roll Call'', February 16, 2011.</ref> After announcing he might stand for the 2012 presidential nomination, he told ''[[The Daily Caller]]'' in April 2011 that he had not hired anyone to help move Savage's website lower in search results, but hoped his possible run for president would shift his own site to the top organically.<ref>Moody, Chris. [http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/28/santorum-says-he-has-no-plans-to-fix-his-google-problem "Santorum says he has no plans to fix his 'Google problem'"], ''The Daily Caller'', April 28, 2011.</ref> Santorum says 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>[http://www.ricksantorum.com/blog/2011/07/dan-savage-and-his-obscene-attack Dan Savage and His Obscene Attack], ricksantorum.com. Accessed September 30, 2011.</ref> |
|||
==Google-bombing== |
|||
''The New York Times'' reported in 2004 that people had tried to use [[Google bomb]]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>McNichol, Tom. [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/22/technology/circuits/22goog.html "Your Message Here"], ''The New York Times'', 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 [[ReputationDefender]], a company that helps people influence their Web 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 [[Blue State Digital]] said Santorum would find it difficult to shift Savage's site, because Savage had over 13,000 [[Backlink|inbound links]] against 5,000 for Santorum's own site.<ref name=MotherJones/> Chris Wilson in ''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]'' described the situation as a "classic 'Google bomb'."<ref>Chris Wilson, "[http://www.slate.com/id/2298206/ Lube Job: Should Google associate Rick Santorum's name with anal sex?]", Slate, July 1, 2011. Accessed August 1, 2011.</ref> |
|||
===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, he 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=[[Politico (newspaper)|Politico]]|date=20 September 2011 |accessdate=21 September 2011}}</ref> In response to Santorum's request, a Google spokesperson asserted that 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 [[Talking Points Memo]] (TPM), "Google did crack down" on google-bombing in the past.<ref name="Sullivan" /> In an interview with TPM, search engine expert [[Danny Sullivan (technologist)|Danny Sullivan]] stated that Santorum mischaracterized the campaign as a Google Bomb, when it was actually a successful redefinition of Santorum's name.<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 "miserable failure" to point to George W. Bush's website). 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 [Senator Santorum] 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">McMorris-Santoro, Evan. [http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/search-engine-expert-rick-santorums-new-crusade-against-google-is-total-nonsense.php?ref=fpb "Search Engine Expert: Rick Santorum's New Crusade Against Google Is Total Nonsense"], [[Talking Points Memo]] (September 20, 2011).</ref> |
|||
Sources that characterize the neologism campaign as "Google bombing", as well as sources that do not characterize it that way, describe the neologism campaign as a [[practical joke|prank]].<ref name="Rolph">Rolph, Amy. "[http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2011/09/22/rick-santorum-wants-google-take-down-frothy-mix-definition/ Rick Santorum wants Google to take down 'frothy mix' definition]", ''[[Seattle Post Intelligencer]]'' (September 22, 2011).</ref><ref>Zorn, Eric. "[http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2011/09/poor-rick-sntorum.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed2Fchangeofsubject+29 Poor Rick S@ntorum]", ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'' (September 21, 2011).</ref> Observers have noted that search engines [[Bing]] and [[Yahoo]] had been presenting the offending links second behind Santorum's web site.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/24/googles-hypocritical-anti-bullying-pulpit/ |title=Google's Hypocritical Anti-Bully Pulpit |first=Penny Young |last=Nance |work=foxnews.com |year=2011 [last update] |accessdate=27 September 2011}}</ref><ref>Albanesius, Chloe. "[http://mobile.pcmag.com/device2/article.php?CALL_URL=http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2393604,00.asp Santorum's 'Google Problem' Persists, Should Link Be Removed?], ''[[PC Magazine]]'' (September 26, 2011)</ref> |
|||
==References== |
|||
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}} |
|||
{{Dan Savage}} |
|||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Santorum Google Problem}} |
|||
[[Category:American political neologisms]] |
|||
[[Category:Dan Savage]] |
|||
[[Category:Political campaigns]] |
|||
[[Category:Search engine optimization]] |
|||
[[Category:Rick Santorum]] |
|||
[[Category:Words coined in the 2000s]] |
|||
[[Category:2003 introductions]] |
|||
[[la:Santorum]] |
|||
[[nl:Spreading Santorum]] |
|||
Revision as of 04:25, 10 January 2012
Santorum; the respectable surname of a candidate for the office of the President of the United States of America.