What's the genesis of the "Rick 'Man on Dog' Santorum" phrase?

[marmar]

Rachel Maddow uses that term all the time but I don't have any idea what it's referring to. Does anyone know? :shrug:

[tpsbmam]

1. He equated gay sex......

with "man on dog" sex and "man on child" sex. Charming, huh?

[marmar]

2. That figures....

Thanks for the knowledge. Psychotic + Big Asshole = :scared:

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. Maybe that explains why he looks like the back end of a puppy.

[KurtNYC]

9. So if the Foley hypocrisy is any indication then we know what

Santorum likes. Call the ASPCA!

[izzie]

4. I have never heard it before. Then I am a hick from Maine.

Is it a local thing? Maybe just a thing like Bush and the top guys on that side. If you ever lived in the South you sort of know what they are saying. This type thing has often been used.

[WinkyDink]

7. NO, IT IS NOT!!! Pennsylvanians do NOT speak like this carpet-

bagger!

[izzie]

10. OK. My uncle comes from the state and I have never heard it

I guess I mean even more local. Sometimes things are used in a very small place.

[kenny blankenship]

5. Rick Santorum had a dog and bingo was its name-o

[charlyvi]

6. It comes from an interview he did with AP.....

Here ya go:

...snip...

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. 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. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.




http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm

[marmar]

8. Thanks for that...

Just confirmation that he's :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: