Re: Ostracize Dan Savage
First, let me say that I don't like the "Santorum" coinage thing. In the long run, I think we should deal directly with one another's political propositions and not engage in personal attacks and shame. That's what the coinage thing was. Still, I can only see two options here. Either, on the one hand, you're not informed on the library of Ann Coulter's polemical bombshells, or on the other you really do see an equivalence between what Savage did on that show (saying he wanted to have sex with Santorum, jokingly) and with the unfortunate coinage of Santorum's name, with what Coulter routinely says.
In the first case, I only have so much time in my life and can't argue over the rhetorical habits of Ann Coulter, since if someone doesn't already see the state of affairs the way I do it reflects too deep a rift to solve with one or two conversations - even if the conversations are deep and involved.
If the second option is the state of affairs, (the relative rhetorical comparison of Coulter to Savage), then I have to point out that Santorum said that he thought homosexual acts were inherently wrong, and that people had no legal right to do them in the privacy of their homes, and that they shouldn't because it's wrong (not to mention he said the abuse in the Catholic Church was illustrative of a basic gay relationship).
Now, if someone came along and said heterosexual behavior was wrong, and that heterosexuals don't and shouldn't have the right to have heterosexual sex in the privacy of their home, I would feel pretty hostile toward that person. I get annoyed each time I hear quotes from the most extreme end of feminism that talks of all hetero sex as rape and marriage as an *inherently* unjust institution and the like. Fortunately for me, I don't have to listen to things like that very much, since it's usually woolly-headed fringe leftists who have no technical power that say such things, instead of United States Senators.
If the second option prevails, then to you none of this ameliorates Savages rhetoric toward Santorum, such that it's on par with Coulter's routine.
I know this doesn't prove you wrong, but there's no where I can go with this, because we disagree on a fundamental moral level that's so deep we can't appeal to rational standards; we're at bottom. Ross admitted that the conversation with Dan had gotten down to bottom at one point, so it happens. It's nice to find bottom like that actually, so people can line up behind who they share their most deeply held sentiments with.
Suffice it to say, one cannot avoid a substantive moral judgment in calling Bob a hypocrite on the Coulter-Savage issue. And as evidenced in this comment section, that moral judgment is controversial.
I don't have anything else for you.