Will Rick Santorum’s “Frothy” Google Problem Return?

As the former senator launches his presidential campaign, sex columnist Dan Savage mulls whether to revive his “Spreading Santorum” campaign.

Illustration by Zina Saunders

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Poor Rick Santorum. The former Republican senator from Pennsylvania is announcing his second presidential run today at a manufacturing company in Butler County, Pennsylvania. But he will be doing it without much help from those who bolstered his campaign in 2012. The Duggars have ditched him for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (though they might not be much help to Huckabee these days). And Chuck Laudner, the influential Iowa conservative operative who drove the candidate around the state in 2012 in the “Chuck Truck,” has thrown his lot in with Donald Trump.

It seems Santorum, who won Iowa’s GOP caucuses in 2012, has been forgotten. But not by Dan Savage.

Savage, the syndicated sex columnist, has been Santorum’s No. 1 nemesis for 12 years, ever since Savage launched the world’s most famous Google bomb against the former senator and turned his name into a sexual neologism.

Santorum’s Google problem began in 2003, when he compared homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia, saying the “definition of marriage” has never included “man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.” The ensuing controversy prompted Savage, who’s gay, to start a contest, asking readers to propose slang terms to “memorialize the scandal.”

The winner suggested giving Santorum’s name to describe “the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.” Savage launched a website, www.spreadingsantorum.com, and a meme was born. Though mainstream news outlets would never link to it, Savage’s site rose in the Google rankings, thanks in part to bloggers who posted Santorum-related news on the site or linked to it from their blogs. Eventually Savage’s site eclipsed Santorum’s own campaign site in search results. This meant that when folks searching for information on Santorum Googled that name, they turned up Savage’s site, not Santorum’s. Some observers suggested Savage’s stunt may have contributed to Santorum’s crushing 18-point defeat in his 2006 campaign against Bob Casey.

Santorum’s efforts to get Google to take the site down or at least to bury it in the rankings not only failed, but generated more ridicule (not to mention more links, which then kept the site high in the Google rankings). The website continued to plague Santorum during his 2012 presidential campaign. It was occasionally suggested that he was running solely to fix his Google problem. Savage hasn’t updated his Spreading Santorum site since 2012, but today it still pops up on the first or second pages of search results for Santorum’s name.

Santorum’s announcement that he’s running in 2016 may drive Savage to update his site and gin up traffic. But he hasn’t decided yet. “Maybe we’ll crank up the Wurlitzer one more time,” he says. “But maybe not. The rest of the Republican Party and the rest of the world has moved on.”

Whether he juices up the machine again really doesn’t matter, though. The neologism is so entrenched in popular culture at this point that the website, says Savage, is “just on autopilot.” Political reporters keep the links coming in, and Santorum’s entry into the presidential race only guarantees that the site will get more exposure, says Savage.

Previously, Savage had jokingly offered Santorum an out: If Santorum would donate $5 million to the same-sex-marriage advocacy group Freedom to Marry, then Savage would shut down the site. Naturally, Santorum did not accept the offer. He has claimed to wear Savage’s attacks as a badge of honor, and he has continued to oppose same-sex marriage. (Recently, Santorum said he wouldn’t attend the marriage of a gay loved one because of his Catholic faith.)

Santorum’s window of opportunity for buying his way out of his Google problem, though, is quickly coming to a close. The founder of Freedom to Marry, Evan Wolfson, has said if the US Supreme Court rules in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage next month, as seems probably, he will close up shop. Mission accomplished.

Savage, too, has declared victory over Santorum. “We win. We got marriage, and he is a joke,” he says.

The end of the war over same-sex marriage may leave Santorum without a key issue. But he still has aggressive Islamophobia. He recently called for bombing “ISIS back to the seventh century.”

Savage says that it would be virtually impossible for Santorum to somehow reinvent himself. Rather than running for president, Savage suggests that Santorum stick to making his “alternate reality movies for people like him.” (In 2013, Santorum became the CEO of a Christian film company.) “Rick Santorum profited politically and you could say financially by attacking queer people,” Savage says. “He’s defined by his anti-gay animus, his homophobia. What else has he got?”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate