Vile Personal Attack on Rick Santorum’s Wife, Karen, by Leftist Media

Posted on Jan 17 2012 - 1:00am by Harrison

The Leftist rag Newsweek, which the Washington Post  sold for $1 is linking to a story on The Daily Beast about Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s wife.  On Newsweek’s site, the title of the story is the classy: Mrs. Santorum’s Love Doctor.

To sum up the story, before Karen Santorum was married to Rick, her name was Karen Garver and she lived with “a man an obstetrician and abortion provider 40 years her senior, and the man who helped deliver her.”

Rick Santorum, of course, is vehemently anti-abortion (among other things) so obviously “shacking up” and abortion are two things he’d be very against.  Rick Santorum is not mentioned much in the article save for this little bit:

Around that time, she met her future husband when he recruited her as a summer intern for his law firm; he too hadn’t been much of a practicing Catholic, but that changed soon after they married in 1990.

The article also makes the point that after her Right Wing conversion her life became sexless and, of course, joyless:

Her law-school friend the social-justice lawyer ran into Karen Santorum on Capitol Hill around then. “She greeted me warmly,” he recalls, “but I got the idea that she wasn’t allowed to embrace me or anything. By that point she was dressed like Hester Prynne.”

It doesn’t take a genius to read between the lines:  Karen and Rick are both hypocrites as are all Social Conservatives who only found their “path” because they wanted to wash away their sins.

Of course, we don’t hear similar “reporting” about Democrats like John Edwards who fathered a love child and now is said to have a potentially fatal heart condition (his wife, Elizabeth, divorced him shortly before she died of Cancer).

Leftist sites like The Daily Beast don’t like Conservatives as we showed last week when writer Michelle Goldberg went off on Michele Bachmann calling her all sorts of nasty names.

The surprising aspect is that a publication like Newsweek, which may be found in bookstores and in Safeway would “partner” with such a vindictive  site but Newsweek has fallen from its once lofty perch and now sports a cover photo of Obama with the title:  Why Are Obama’ Critics So Dumb?

It is puzzling why such a deeply personal attack on a candidate would even be considered… especially their spouse and over something that happened more than 20 years ago?

If you disagree with a man over his opinions on abortion or gays then address that… don’t go and attack the man’s wife for something she did before she met him.

Which side of the isle is injecting so much hate into the system again?

We're not biased?

24 Comments so far. Feel free to join this conversation.

  1. Steve Dennis January 17, 2012 at 2:47 AM -

    The media wouldn’t even think of making this kind of attack on Michelle Obama and if someone did they would be skewered for it, yet this doesn’t even raise an eyebrow even though this story has nothing to do with the issues or with the primaries. It was a hit piece pure and simple.
    Steve Dennis recently posted..Jon Huntsman drops out of the race and endorses Mitt Romney for president

    • Harrison January 17, 2012 at 8:22 AM -

      Disgusting, too.

  2. Sergio Veskovic January 17, 2012 at 7:52 AM -

    Really good article. Please visit my blog @…..thanks..
    Sergio Veskovic recently posted..Some things that came out of GOP debate

  3. Dean January 17, 2012 at 8:12 AM -

    It’s always worth pointing it out but to think that conservatives, especially social conservatives will ever get anything resembling a fair shake from the media-government complex is spitting into the wind.
    Dean recently posted..Another great moment in the very brief history of the "new civility"

  4. LD Jackson January 17, 2012 at 6:52 PM -

    This kind of attack is about as low and rotten as anything I have heard. And they call us bigoted, racist, etc? Yeah, they have no room to talk.

    I would also agree with Dean’s statement. There is very little chance of conservatives, social or otherwise, getting a fair shake by the media.
    LD Jackson recently posted..Why Romney is Bad for America

    • Harrison January 17, 2012 at 8:51 PM -

      A fair shake? If only it was just an unfair shake!

  5. edge of the sandbox January 17, 2012 at 7:02 PM -

    And don’t forget the way they Santorum’s dead son.
    And that Newsweek cover looks like something People’s Cube produced.
    edge of the sandbox recently posted..Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: The Book Least Likely to Change Anyone’s Mind

  6. T R Black February 9, 2012 at 11:10 AM -

    The Newsweek article on Mrs. Santorum is not a “hit piece.” It is not an editorial. It is a simple news story based on irrefutable facts, which is implicit in the editorial regarding the Newsweek piece found on this page.

    As intelligent Americans, we are free to infer whatever social implications we like, based on the facts as presented. I see the story as favorable to Mrs. Santorum and see nothing vile in her life before she married Senator Santorum. I think it makes her seem real, vibrant, and interesting. I like her better now, than before reading the Newsweek piece.

    All media is status quo, neither right nor left. Maybe some of the commenters here should man up, quit whining and face reality.

    • Harrison February 9, 2012 at 5:44 PM -

      Media is neither Left nor Right? one of the crucial skills of learning how to read is what’s between the lines (as if Newsweek is that subtle).

      • T R Black February 10, 2012 at 3:16 PM -

        Reading between the lines is drawing inferences. We are on the same page. You or I could watch the same story on Fox or MSNBC and still come to the same conclusion. We infer our own take by reading between the lines. The media is neutral. By calling the Newsweek piece “vile,” aren’t you slanting the report? They didn’t call Ms. Garver/Mrs. Santorum vile or anything of the sort. Those are your words in between the lines.

        Another issue to consider when it comes to “the media” is the filter determining which stories to cover. Again, most, whether Rush Radio or Maddow TV, seem to cover the same stories. They want to sell ads to us. By choosing which stories to follow, aren’t we the final arbiters of what the media covers?

        • Harrison February 10, 2012 at 10:26 PM -

          I hate to be the one to break it to you but the “media” is absolutely NOT neutral and Newsweek is perhaps one of the best examples of bias currently availablle. I urge you to do research on the subject, particularly a study conducted by Harvard University (and covered here).

          You can also search this site for “Newsweek” to learn more.

  7. T R Black February 11, 2012 at 12:15 AM -

    While I am always open to new ideas, I am well aware of what J Schools and Bernie Goldberg have to say on the subject. I thought you and I were above and beyond that. You and I know how to navigate media, don’t we? We can see through any agenda, right?

    In your assessment, is EVERY media outlet in the U.S. biased? Are are there ANY neutral sources of pure news? Is ALL bias wrong? Are Fox, the Weekly Standard and the National Review poor sources because of their bias? I find them to be credible.

    You still don’t make a case against Newsweek for any misreporting. And, you still don’t say what was vile about Ms. Garver? The story doesn’t call her or her current husband hypocrites. That is your reading. I don’t find anything earth shattering in the exposition of facts, in the context presented. Nor was I surprised by John Edwards (well covered in Los Angeles). These are people living lives. They are not murderers. Give them a break.

    You are better than that. Rise above the purposeful effort by most media to sell to us, to profit from our emotional bickering. Don’t give in to that element. Keep it real and honest. We are Americans, not adversaries.

    • Harrison February 11, 2012 at 7:18 AM -

      As stated in the article:

      ” If you disagree with a man over his opinions on abortion or gays then address that… don’t go and attack the man’s wife for something she did before she met him.”


      Because this website’s title has “Commentary” in it there will be commentary associated with the articles.

  8. T R Black February 11, 2012 at 9:32 AM -

    OK, Harrison. You are non-responsive and evidently don’t want to engage in meaningful dialog. That’s your prerogative. But, why?

    Are you calling your editorial an article? Your editorial does not make a credible argument that the Newsweek piece is “an attack.” There are plenty of op-ed pieces that attack Mr. Santorum for his anti-American views. The Newsweek piece adds scope so that a reader can better see the big picture.

    Like anyone, Mr. Santorum’s views are not entities disconnected from his character, essence, or soul. In order to better understand the man, especially one being vetted for the highest office in the land with the largest military force in history x ten.

    His wife’s cleavage unto her husband is evident at every campaign appearance. Surely her influence with him goes beyond breeding. Therefore, she has put herself in the public purview. Michelle Obama is criticized on a daily basis in some media. She understands this. I am sure Mrs. Santorum does, as well.

    In fact, she probably views the Newsweek piece as a confirmation of her arrival as the wife of a serious candidate for the highest office. Certainly the Santorum election team of experts knew all of this before the campaign started and will have their answer to articles like the one in which you comment here.

    I suggest you drop the complaining about unfair treatment in the media and start making your own positive case on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Santorum’s fitness for the presidency of the United States.

    • Harrison February 11, 2012 at 5:13 PM -

      The topic of this piece upon which we are commenting is simply that Newsweek (because it linked to the story) and The Daily Beast (which published it) exposed their bias in their attack on Mr. Santorum regarding something that his wife had done before she even met him. You tell me:

      “I suggest you drop the complaining about unfair treatment in the media and start making your own positive case on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Santorum’s fitness for the presidency of the United States.”

      Perhaps you missed the point of the piece. It did not concern itself with the “fitness” of Mr. Santorum for the presidency (in fact I have written here that I would never vote for the man) but that does not mean that an organization like Newsweek should be linking to or publishing “hit pieces” on a candidate’s wife, especially concerning things she did before he met her. This has zero relevance on whether he is “fit” to be president or not but because the Left despises Santorum it is ok.

      We would never read a piece like this about Mrs. Obama for example.

      From what I can tell you seem to be taking issue with things which I’m not sure shoud be an issue.

  9. T R Black February 11, 2012 at 8:33 PM -

    You keep saying, “attack” without defining what in the article is an attack. I just don’t see it. What vile things has Michelle Obama done and has anyone tried to report facts and been denied access? What are you accomplishing to better the conservative cause by sniping at Newsweek for a “hit piece” when you won’t say what the target of said piece did that was vile or horrible? What did Ms. Garver do that was illegal, scandalous, or wrong before meeting her current husband? Why do you avoid saying what code you think she violated? You just keep up a circular argument without basis. Is it possible that your implication that Ms. Garver did something vile before she became Mrs. Santorum more hurtful to her than an opinion that she did nothing wrong as reported in the Newsweek piece?

    • Harrison February 11, 2012 at 9:15 PM -

      I don’t write for the “conservative cause” I write for myself. Look, you just seem unable to see or acknowledge something which should be as clear as the nose on your face. Rick Santorum is running for the Republican nomination for president. Liberals detest him. Newsweek and The Daily Beast have a factually established Liberal bias. To run an article on what a candidate’s wife did, especially before she even met the candidate in question, is completely irrelevant. The only reason that article was written was to make Santorum look badly.

      If you can’t see these very basic things there is no point in further discussing them.

      I regret to inform you that the old Washington Post slogan appears to apply here: If you don’t get it you don’t get it.

  10. T R Black February 11, 2012 at 9:57 PM -

    I see. Evidently, you are unable to answer my simple questions in an effort to help you clarify your position. You stick to an insular, myopic position like a dog with a bone. Yet, it is me who is blind, deaf, and dumb. You resort to a trope from the liberal media (Washington Post) to dismiss me. This counts for discourse? I misread you. My bad. Best of luck with your blog, Harrison.

    • Harrison February 12, 2012 at 6:42 AM -

      Actually I have answered all of your “questions” and I see you finally agree at least one publication (WaPo) is Liberal so I suppose that is progress.

      Cheers and good day to you sir!

  11. polly March 6, 2012 at 5:02 PM -

    it is fair reporting…live with it

    • Harrison March 6, 2012 at 5:17 PM -

      Irrelevant and done with malice. The Left just further reveals itself.

  12. NavyDavy0570 March 8, 2012 at 1:25 PM -

    You reich wing/conservatives/re-pukes are so hypocritical when on almost every reich wing blog/tv show/radio show/pundit attack the President and the First Lady 24/7 365 days a year and twice on Sundays …. so when you condemn them then people, other than ur party, would take u a little more serious.

    • Harrison March 8, 2012 at 2:54 PM -

      Davy Navy you obviously missed this part of the article:

      “It is puzzling why such a deeply personal attack on a candidate would even be considered… especially their spouse and over something that happened more than 20 years ago?”

      And I’d accept objective, rational analysis from someone who says “reich wing.”

      Come back once your meds have kicked in.

      And try reading articles with titles like “My Problems with Michele Bachmann” found here: or perhaps “The Republican Party’s Problem with Evolution

      You are another typically dishonest, slandering Liberal who tries to use extremist terms to silence people.

      You have failed (again).