View source for Biology:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"

{{short description|Campaign to create the neologism "santorum" started in 2003 by LGBT rights activist Dan Savage}}
[[File:Dan Savage receives Webby Award 01 (cropped to Savage).jpg|thumb|Savage wearing a shirt referencing the neologism campaign.|alt=Dan Savage at the Webby Awards, holding his award and wearing a t-shirt that reads “GOOGLE SANTORUM”.]]
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"<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 [[Biography:Rick Santorum|Rick Santorum]]'s views on homosexuality and comments about same sex marriage. In his comments, Santorum had stated that "[i]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 lube and [[Medicine:Human feces|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 [[Company:Google|Google]], [[Software:Yahoo! Search|Yahoo! Search]], and [[Software:Bing (search engine)|Bing]].<ref>{{cite news|work=New York
|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=Huffington Post|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 Freedom to Marry, a group advocating legal recognition of [[Social:Same-sex marriage|same-sex marriage]]s.<ref name="MotherJones" /> In September 2011, Santorum asked [[Company:Google|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.<ref name="Burns" />

==Santorum's comments on homosexuality==
[[File:Rick Santorum official photo.jpg|thumb|Rick Santorum|alt=A bust-length formal portrait of Rick Santorum.]]
In an interview with the Associated Press on {{#formatdate:April 7, 2003}}, Santorum said there is a relationship between the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal and [[Philosophy:Liberalism|liberalism]] and [[Relativism|relativism]]. He argued that [[Philosophy:Moral relativism|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/>

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: <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 [[Religion:Polygamy|polygamy]], you have the right to [[Social:Incest|incest]], you have the right to [[Social:Adultery|adultery]]. 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>

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.<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|access-date=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/>

==Response by Savage==
On {{#formatdate:April 25, 2003}}, in a ''{{wipe|The New York Times}}'' op-ed, Savage responded to Santorum's comments, arguing that the remarks amounted to an overt Republican appeal to homophobic 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={{wipe|The New York Times}} |issn=0362-4331 |date=April 25, 2003}}</ref> A reader of Savage's column, ''Savage Love'', 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 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."<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=The Stranger |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>

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=The Stranger |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=The Stranger |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 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 [[Social:Incest|incest]] and bestiality. He also said, "The only people who come at me wringing their hands about Santorum's children are idiot [[Social:Left-wing politics|lefties]] who don't get how serious the [[Social:Right-wing politics|right]] 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=Philadelphia Weekly |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 [[Social:Same-sex marriage|same-sex marriage]].<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>

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, [[Software:Bing (search engine)|Bing]], and Yahoo.<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>

In a July 2011 video on ''[[Company:Funny or Die|Funny or Die]]'', 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=Huffington Post|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=The Stranger |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=The Stranger |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>

{{As of|2022|January|df=US}}, santorum.com and spreadingsantorum.com are still owned by Savage and display the neologism.

==Reception and political impact==
[[File:Santorum artwork by Zach Weinersmith.gif|thumb|A cartoon by [[Biography:Zach Weinersmith|Zach Weinersmith]] 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!”]]
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 |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=Huffington Post|access-date=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>{{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=Slate |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>

''Google Current'' reported in 2006 that the word had inspired punk rock and blues songs;<ref>[https://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/watch/mon-may-9-2011/indecision-2012---good-luck-motherf--kers-edition---blather-for-elephants "The Daily Show: Indecision 2012 – Good Luck Motherf@*kers Edition – Blather for Elephants"], ''The Daily Show'', May 9, 2011.
*Stewart, Jon. [http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-9-2011/keira-knightley "The Daily Show: Keira Knightley"], ''The Daily Show'', May 9, 2011.
*Hughes, Sarah Anne. [https://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.
*[https://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>

{{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}}

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, ''The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English'', 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>

Stephanie Mencimer wrote in ''Mother Jones'' in 2010 that "some observers even suggested [the neologism] may have contributed to Santorum’s crushing 18-point defeat in his 2006 campaign against Bob Casey."<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>

Noam Cohen of ''{{wipe|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.<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={{wipe|The New York Times}} |issn=0362-4331 |date=September 25, 2011}}</ref>

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 entendre|double entendre]]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>

===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>{{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=The Raw Story |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 [[Social:Google bomb|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>{{cite news |last=McNichol |first=Tom |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/22/technology/circuits/22goog.html |title=Your Message Here |newspaper={{wipe|The New York Times}} |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 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.<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 inbound links against 5,000 for Santorum's own site.<ref name=MotherJones/> Chris Wilson in ''Slate'' 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=Slate |date=July 1, 2011 |access-date=August 1, 2011}}</ref>

===Santorum's request for intervention by Google===
When asked in June 2011 whether [[Company:Google|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.<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|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 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 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 "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 [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">{{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=Talking Points Memo |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 prank.<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=Seattle Post Intelligencer |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=Chicago Tribune|date=September 21, 2011}}</ref> However, despite three times as many inbound links,<ref name=MotherJones/> observers have noted that search engines [[Software:Bing (search engine)|Bing]] and Yahoo had been presenting the offending links second behind Santorum's web site.<ref>{{cite news |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 |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=PC Magazine |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 [[Software:SafeSearch|SafeSearch]] 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==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*{{usurped|1=http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/|date=May 2023}}


{{DEFAULTSORT:Campaign For Santorum Neologism}}
[[Category:Internet memes]]
[[Category:Body fluids]]

{{Sourceattribution|Campaign for the neologism &quot;santorum&quot;}}