[widget]

You may disapprove of these tactics, but they are more or less standard. Applying labels to one's political opponents is a huge part of politics.

I fail to see what is particularly sick about this tactic. The new meaning of santorum is fairly disgusting, but I don't think it's anywhere near as sick as attempting to brand one's opposition as traitors, conspirators, terrorists, baby killers, etc.

I especially fail to see how one's opinion on this particular word re-definition has anything to do with whether a new employee is worth hiring. Being amused by a childish bit of humor doesn't strike me as a particularly good way to judge either aptitude or character.

[bugsy]

"they are standard"

That is not the truth, it is a lie.

"The new meaning of santorum..."

That is not the new meaning. It is a propaganda tactic. It is not used in books nor does it appear in newspapers or dictionaries.

"amused by a childish bit of humor"

This goes way beyond that. It's closer to the realm of advocating pedophilia.

[widget]

Smear campaigns are, in fact, standard. Swift boat veterans, Birthers, Abortion doctors as baby killers, comparing homosexuals to pedophiles are all examples of exactly this sort of behavior on the right. Similar examples exist on the left, but you can look them up yourself.

It is a new meaning. It has appeared in numerous publications, and has achieved a pretty wide spread. The fact that it was started as a "propaganda tactic" is immaterial.

Advocating pedophilia? I don't know why I'm feeding such an obvious troll. A group of people called someone who they had a (justified) dislike for a bad name and it stuck. Santorum has compared gay sex to bestiality and pedophilia, I think both of those associations are far worse than being associated with the "frothy mix". Giving someone an insulting nickname is a bit childish, but it's harmless and in this case, a response to Santorum using essentially the same tactic to attack the gay community.