Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Politics / LGBTQITSLFA Slate Insults the Intelligence of LGBT Voters
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 7:40 AM
Friday at Slate, Vanessa Vitiello argued that LGBT voters have a responsibility to vote for Republican candidates—like these three cocksuckers—because why?
You can't have a healthy democracy without a minimum of two strong, functional political parties. In a country as diverse as ours, this means that both major parties need a variety of voices, and both of them need to appeal to more than just a single, ever-narrowing constituency. If the Republican Party continues to decline in relevancy, we’ll all suffer in the long term if we’re forced to default to a Democratic Party that doesn’t have to work at being better than the alternative.
The GOP doesn't have to moderate its anti-LGBT policies or kick assholes like this out of the party or remove its tongue from Tony Perkins' hateful ass. No, no, no: it's our job to save the GOP from itself.
I don't see why this argument—as fucking stupid as it is—applies just to LGBT voters. Aren't Hispanic, black, female, and pro-choice voters also obligated to support the GOP for the exact same reason?
1
That statement does not insult the intelligence of LGBT people, it insults the intelligence of humanity itself.
Making an argument that is so bereft of sense and rationality is an insult to the very bedrock of humanity, and an affront to reason itself.
Making an argument that is so bereft of sense and rationality is an insult to the very bedrock of humanity, and an affront to reason itself.
4
Yup. I've said before that a Conservative party that wasn't about corporatism, militarism, and theocracy is necessary for a healthy union.
But until we've got one, Republicans can suck it.
But until we've got one, Republicans can suck it.
5
Oh sure we have two functioning political parties: One is a right-wing cabal of corporate supremacists, and the other is the Republican party, now a neo-fascist, apocalyptic death cult. It's a diverse spectrum of views, all the way from the far-right to the looney bin.
6
To be fair, Slate insults the intelligence of all its readers most of the time.
I also contest that two parties are necessary for a healthy democracy. You need a lot more than that.
I also contest that two parties are necessary for a healthy democracy. You need a lot more than that.
7
I see her other work for slate was an odd article trying to show that we wouldn't have had so many gay-rights victories lately if it weren't for...closet cases. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/…
8
It's kind of ironic that the next piece after this one is headlines, "National Clown Shortage."
I've got a pretty good idea where the clowns went to...
I've got a pretty good idea where the clowns went to...
9
"To be sure, the Republican Party has lagged far behind the Democrats on LGBT issues" has got to be one of the understatements of the year. They don't "lag behind", they actively oppose.
The Log Cabin Republicans only exist because it allows the "big tent" storyline to be maintained. It's the same reason why the Republicans have some black, hispanic, and woman politicians.
The Log Cabin Republicans only exist because it allows the "big tent" storyline to be maintained. It's the same reason why the Republicans have some black, hispanic, and woman politicians.
10
Golly. You say "cocksuckers" like that's a bad thing. Why not just call them "assholes"? Oh wait...
11
(I know, I know. It just makes me feel bad a little bit when all the fun parts are used as bad words.)
12
Also, this is the author who said that the closet was a net positive for gay rights because it let gay men infiltrate the power structure... so ultimately the real heroes of LGBT history aren't the Mattachine Society but terrified closeted bureaucrats. Which, of course, there are Vaughn Walkers out there, but Net Positive Closet requires ignoring a rogue's gallery of history's greatest monsters like Ed Koch.
13
I'd much rather see the Republican Party split. Let the extreme, social conservatives split off into their own version of the Taliban. That could be a step toward a healthy, functioning democracy.
14
Republican homophobia isn't some weird aberration. It's the logical consequence of of conservative thinking. It isn't as if conservatives habitually champion all sorts of other minorities but make a special exception for gays. They hate gays because they hate anybody who is different. Except those who have a way, way different amount of money than the 99%.
Instead of voting for Republicans out of pity that they won't be around to be the opposition, let them die and give some breathing space for a new party on the left of the Democrats.
Instead of voting for Republicans out of pity that they won't be around to be the opposition, let them die and give some breathing space for a new party on the left of the Democrats.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
on February 18, 2014 at 8:53 AM
· Report this
on February 18, 2014 at 8:53 AM
· Report this
15
Both major parties DO need a variety of voices, and when the GOP has decided to actually LISTEN to those voices instead of defaulting to the teabaggers, then we'll consider giving them votes again, but I'm not going to waste my vote hoping to change somebody who's entire political stance is against me and mine.
16
@8, ugh. Have you checked out her "web comic" ? It's got zero comments on every post...it's just sad.
17
This is like saying gay people should support Putin (and everyone should support North Korea) because we need all kinds of countries to make up the rainbow of the United Nations. What an idiot.
19
@13 That's the basic nature of political parties that Vitiello seems to ignore. If the GOP is allowed to suffocate itself, and the Democratic party in turn gets too big to serve its constituents, new movements will start. We're already seeing the GOP split into the Tea Party and Wall Street factions, and in a few decades the Democrats will see some sort of schism too. That's how political parties in America work.
20
Even if the GOP became defunct it would not make for a less-healthy democracy. There are many groups within the democratic party with differing agendas so the democratic party would end up splitting and we would have at least two parties again. Parliamentary system all the way!
21
Hey Vanessa, 1992 called and left you a message: "Yo V, I'm the year the Dems became the moderate Repubs."
IOW, what @5 said.
IOW, what @5 said.
22
Does she advise victims of child abuse and domestic violence to stay with their abusers so that their family doesn't decline in relevancy?
23
@14 said what I was thinking.
Even if we accept the notion that we need two healthy parties for a strong democracy, why should one of them be the GOP?
We already have a semi reasonable right wing party. They are called the Democrats.
I see no need for our two party system to be made up of two right wing parties, the Democrats and the ultra right wing fascist GOP.
Why don't we let the GOP die and replace them with something at least a little left of center so that we can truly have two different points of view represented in our two party system instead of just two different degrees of right leaning in the two parties?
The GOP deserves to die. When they do something else will take their place. Hopefully something that actually brings balance to our two party system.
Of course all parties that start to gain power will slip slowly to the right until we have some real campaign reform. Until then all of them end up beholden to the deep pockets of the nation and the rest of us get kicked out into the cold eventually.
Even if we accept the notion that we need two healthy parties for a strong democracy, why should one of them be the GOP?
We already have a semi reasonable right wing party. They are called the Democrats.
I see no need for our two party system to be made up of two right wing parties, the Democrats and the ultra right wing fascist GOP.
Why don't we let the GOP die and replace them with something at least a little left of center so that we can truly have two different points of view represented in our two party system instead of just two different degrees of right leaning in the two parties?
The GOP deserves to die. When they do something else will take their place. Hopefully something that actually brings balance to our two party system.
Of course all parties that start to gain power will slip slowly to the right until we have some real campaign reform. Until then all of them end up beholden to the deep pockets of the nation and the rest of us get kicked out into the cold eventually.
24
I agree with @19. In fact I see it happening sooner than later. Obama is as happy to shred the constitution (especially the fourth) as any recent GOP president.
I'm happy that LGBT has made great strides toward equality in the last decade but overall I think our liberties have been diminished since 9/11.
I'm happy that LGBT has made great strides toward equality in the last decade but overall I think our liberties have been diminished since 9/11.
25
@14 "It's the logical consequence of of conservative thinking."
The regressive branch of conservative thought.
I may be tilting at windmills, but because there are some useful tools to be found in more traditional conservative thought, I'd like to reclaim the word from those who would see it become synonymous with Republican or other radically regressive or other schools of thought based on bogus nostalgic fantasies.
The regressive branch of conservative thought.
I may be tilting at windmills, but because there are some useful tools to be found in more traditional conservative thought, I'd like to reclaim the word from those who would see it become synonymous with Republican or other radically regressive or other schools of thought based on bogus nostalgic fantasies.
27
Dan, Dan, Dan. It is obviously your responsibility to vote Lyndon LaRouche for President! I mean, without LaRouche, how can we have vibrant democracy?
28
@25
Indeed.
Most socialist countries are, in fact, fairly conservative.
The words "liberal" and "conservative" have been abused and misused to the point of having little, if any, meaning.
Indeed.
Most socialist countries are, in fact, fairly conservative.
The words "liberal" and "conservative" have been abused and misused to the point of having little, if any, meaning.
29
"You can't have a healthy democracy with... only a minimum of two..., ... 'political' parties"
There, I fixed it for her.
France has ~60 million people, and 7 functioning political parties.
The US has ~300 million people, and only 2 functioning political parties.
Who has more democratic 'voice'? You do the math.
I want some actual democracy, not this "twin-party" corporatist bullshit masquerade. I want economic democracy.
There, I fixed it for her.
France has ~60 million people, and 7 functioning political parties.
The US has ~300 million people, and only 2 functioning political parties.
Who has more democratic 'voice'? You do the math.
I want some actual democracy, not this "twin-party" corporatist bullshit masquerade. I want economic democracy.
31
The pundits who what to stifle this discussion, like Dan, should be questioning their motives. It seems they like the status quo a bit too much to see the greater good that comes from such discussion and want maintain their soapboxes.
32
Have no fear, there will always be (at least) two parties in the U.S. Once the Republicans implode, the remaining party will have a more extreme wing that wants to take advantage of the lack of competition and move even further left, and there will be a more moderate wing, and they will eventually split. Or a more likely scenario: the GOP "establishment" will come to their senses, see that the Dems are moving a little more left than the average American giving them an opening, and they will ignore the Tea Party fantatics and leave them high and dry, to capture the middle half of the country.
33
Just look what happened when the Whigs fell apart! It lead to a civil war and the abolition of slavery!
35
Vanessa Vitiello is a freelance writer who draws the web comic Tiny Butch Adventures.Her comic sucks ass.
36
@25: Exactly. Terms like "liberal", "conservative", "socialist", and "capitalist" should not become pejoratives, or all we'll have to use will be euphemisms, buzzwords, and dog-whistles. I think we need a functioning conservative party. Unfortunately, the GOP is non-functional, and its current failure mode is catastrophic failure with severe risk to life, limb, and productivity.
40
@35, 37: That's some serious "Sweet Bro and Hella Jeff" level of awful, only probably not deliberate.
41
@31 - I certainly don't want to stifle discussion. What I would love to see, and have never seen, is anything close to an equal who will actually stick around long enough to see a point to its rational dialectical end point.
The fact is, the official voices of the right on the matter of gay rights may be intermittently less narcissistic or pugnacious than a Seattleblues, but they're just as intellectually and rhetorically deficient.
I've long since given up on finding someone smart enough to change my mind. I'd settle for someone smart enough to make me break a sweat who doesn't degenerate to name-calling within three steps because I made the poor dear try to rub two thoughts together to get a spark.
The fact is, the official voices of the right on the matter of gay rights may be intermittently less narcissistic or pugnacious than a Seattleblues, but they're just as intellectually and rhetorically deficient.
I've long since given up on finding someone smart enough to change my mind. I'd settle for someone smart enough to make me break a sweat who doesn't degenerate to name-calling within three steps because I made the poor dear try to rub two thoughts together to get a spark.
44
Vic @19, I've got to disagree with your take on "the basic nature of political parties."
You'd be right if the US had a functioning democracy, but we've had the choice limited to Coke or Pepsi for about 150 years.
In an actual democracy--such as Canada's--you do see legacy parties fade away like the old Conservative party, parties merge to form new relevant parties like the Tories and The Alliance creating the new Conservative Party, and real shifts in party power such as the waning and recent resurgence of the Liberal Party.
In the US--due to gerrymandered safe districts, and electoral and legislative systems that turn support for a third party into de facto support for the opposition--you can have a party from any point on the political spectrum that you want, so long as its center-right or far-right.
And it will stay that way until the shit really hits the fan.
You'd be right if the US had a functioning democracy, but we've had the choice limited to Coke or Pepsi for about 150 years.
In an actual democracy--such as Canada's--you do see legacy parties fade away like the old Conservative party, parties merge to form new relevant parties like the Tories and The Alliance creating the new Conservative Party, and real shifts in party power such as the waning and recent resurgence of the Liberal Party.
In the US--due to gerrymandered safe districts, and electoral and legislative systems that turn support for a third party into de facto support for the opposition--you can have a party from any point on the political spectrum that you want, so long as its center-right or far-right.
And it will stay that way until the shit really hits the fan.
45
Sometimes the other side is wrong -- back to front, stem to stern, every which way wrong -- and nothing they say contributes to the discussion.
In the case of the Republican Party, more and more of their platform is exactly this dissonant noise. The fact is, we don't need two strong parties, we just need one good conversation. As long as half of America is convinced a white guy in the sky is putting oil in the ground and throwing down tornados at Oklahoma as punishment for homosexuality in California, such a conversation is impossible.
In the case of the Republican Party, more and more of their platform is exactly this dissonant noise. The fact is, we don't need two strong parties, we just need one good conversation. As long as half of America is convinced a white guy in the sky is putting oil in the ground and throwing down tornados at Oklahoma as punishment for homosexuality in California, such a conversation is impossible.
46
Pretty sure the "good as dead" GOP is about to take both houses of congress in the mid-term elections so lending them a helping hand may be a bit premature.
47
@46 What on Earth makes you sure of that? Are you just that confident in Republican gerrymandering, or have you already forgotten their government shut-down?
48
This argument presupposes an active progressive left within the current Democratic Party, does it not?
49
@47 - gerrymandering for sure, plus the usual "base" nature of a mid-term, plus preliminary polling. The Dems defeinitely aren't taking the House and the Repubs have a better than good shot at the senate. They also seem to have learned their lesson from 2010 when they failed to take the senate ONLY because so many teabaggers lost races they should have had locked up.
51
@50: Ideally, education. Unfortunately, we're failing there, and our focus is not on critical thinking and education for being a useful citizen, but on teaching job skills.
52
I am bone weary of this right wing horse shit. When does the revolution start? I am past ready to start exercising my 2nd amendment rights all over these teabagged waterheads. Wheel the guillotines into Lafayette park! Formez les batillons! Water the tree of Liberty with the tea of headless Birthers and science deniers and gay bashers.
53
@43 Ditto on the insult to clowns. When will the republicans learn that they are not of this decade? Maybe in the '50s they had some relevancy, but not anymore.
54
Why have only GOP and Democrats to vote for?
A Green party in addition and a party of Atheists would not hurt either
A Green party in addition and a party of Atheists would not hurt either
55
This article is like saying that feminists should vote for Sarah Palin because she's, like, a woman.
56
Dan essentially says that the onus is on the GOP to evolve, that we need to kick nutbags out. But there is no real way to kick people out of a political party. If they register, they are a member. And since nutbags are essentially irredeemably set in their ways, the only way to change a party ruled by nutbags is for an influx of sane people to outnumber them.
I don't think it's the job of LGBT people to come fix the party. I'm not going to demand that anyone come over and join and vote for us until we get our shit together. But in the meanwhile, while we're working on getting our shit together, I don't think it's fair or consistent to say, in one breath, the GOP needs to evolve and in the next to bash the LGBT people who are working toward just that.
-An LGBT "Big R" Republican
P.S. @25, rock on
I don't think it's the job of LGBT people to come fix the party. I'm not going to demand that anyone come over and join and vote for us until we get our shit together. But in the meanwhile, while we're working on getting our shit together, I don't think it's fair or consistent to say, in one breath, the GOP needs to evolve and in the next to bash the LGBT people who are working toward just that.
-An LGBT "Big R" Republican
P.S. @25, rock on
57
The country would be far better off with at least two functional parties. Let's call a functional party one that tries to protect basic civil liberties and can manage the routine governance of the country. Right now, we have a fraction of one functional party. But voting for the least functional party that could actually win doesn't help us in any way to have a functional party. We need to keep not voting for Republicans until they lose enough major elections in a row to realize that they have to actually change to gain power. Until then, they will continue talking about not being able to get votes of many minorities, but saying that actually allowing minorities to have equal rights is far too much of a stretch and far too liberal to possibly allow.
And yes, they will keep the House. The House is based on land mass far more than on population. Republicans are now a minority, but they do have more land area. That plus gerrymandering guarantees them a strong hold on the House for a long time (unless the party splits), but they have very little chance at the Presidency unless they make some changes. The Senate is a bit tricky, but they are slowly losing ground in the Senate. If we can keep it that way and they cannot gain the Senate, then they will be stuck with only the House and likely will actually create the party-split they so badly need to make. Whether or not either of the parties they create will be functional is hard to say, but at least one of them is likely to be better than the current Republican party.
And yes, they will keep the House. The House is based on land mass far more than on population. Republicans are now a minority, but they do have more land area. That plus gerrymandering guarantees them a strong hold on the House for a long time (unless the party splits), but they have very little chance at the Presidency unless they make some changes. The Senate is a bit tricky, but they are slowly losing ground in the Senate. If we can keep it that way and they cannot gain the Senate, then they will be stuck with only the House and likely will actually create the party-split they so badly need to make. Whether or not either of the parties they create will be functional is hard to say, but at least one of them is likely to be better than the current Republican party.
58
@13...they even have the stock for it. I'd drool over what would happen if someone like Jon Huntsman said "to hell with it, I'm starting my own center-right party." I might even have to think for half a second about who to vote for in national elections...
59
@56: I used to vote mixed party tickets. I no longer do, because while I believe I held pretty still in my moderate positions the GOP sprinted right past me to embrace the crazy. And while the moderates slowly bled out one side of the party, moving its center ever rightward, the leadership bent over backwards to keep the Tea Party from leaving en masse. The Tea Party do not abide by Reagan's "Never speak ill of another Republican" dictum and so they are the most noticeable people critiquing the party from within... and they want to burn all the impure Republicans who just aren't conservative *enough*.
You don't get my vote back until you fix the party. I truly thought you'd do it after 2008 and emerge with an actual fiscal conservative position (this would be one that does not shut down the government in recurrent fits of pique), wary of adventures abroad and more socially moderate (one's sex life is not the government's business). All of that founded in old-fashioned conservative principles.
And lately whenever Republicans start to critique the president in a way that gets my attention, they turn out to be going the wrong way: We should have MORE drone strikes because drone strikes show we're tough. We should have MORE domestic surveillance and TSA searches because FREEDOM. Neither of these strike me as conservative in your big R Republican sense.
You don't get my vote back until you fix the party. I truly thought you'd do it after 2008 and emerge with an actual fiscal conservative position (this would be one that does not shut down the government in recurrent fits of pique), wary of adventures abroad and more socially moderate (one's sex life is not the government's business). All of that founded in old-fashioned conservative principles.
And lately whenever Republicans start to critique the president in a way that gets my attention, they turn out to be going the wrong way: We should have MORE drone strikes because drone strikes show we're tough. We should have MORE domestic surveillance and TSA searches because FREEDOM. Neither of these strike me as conservative in your big R Republican sense.
60
@58: Me too. Make it easy to tell the moderate Republicans from the loud 'n' crazy fringe--especially, show me they aren't beholden to doing whatever it takes to keep the crazy fringe happy--and I'd be delighted to take a serious look at their candidates.
More likely the moderates keep leaving the party to identify as independents.
More likely the moderates keep leaving the party to identify as independents.
61
Hah! I'm a huge fan, Dan.
Slight correction: the piece came out Monday, not Friday. (Also, I never said anyone should actually VOTE for gay Republicans. Just not dismiss them out of hand as traitors).
Slight correction: the piece came out Monday, not Friday. (Also, I never said anyone should actually VOTE for gay Republicans. Just not dismiss them out of hand as traitors).
62
The causation is exactly backwards. In a two party system, both parties will strive for 50%+1 percent of the vote (with allowances for gerrymandering and whatnot). Any time things get too far from that, the weaker party will adjust, and change the people welcomed in their "tent". The onus is not on the people to change their priorities, it is on the parties. Punishing candidates for the actions of their political party will not turn the country into a one-party, undemocratic nightmare. It will force the party to change, once they've been on the wrong side of 50%+1 long enough.
63
We don't think they're traitors, necessarily, just self-loathing unrealistic pie-in-the-sky masochists.
64
The only solution at this point is to encourage everyone you know to vote. Please VOTE. Indifference in this country is a detriment to progress. Some people think that their vote doesn't count so why waste the time. That's exactly what the conservative assholes want. There is so much money and time wasted by our elected officials just arguing about B.S. it's time to make some real changes in Govt. I realize that is a goal that will probably never happen, but taxpayers have to come to their senses soon or they might have another republican President if they don't get off their lazy asses and vote for Democrats. It's not too early for 2016, Hillary is our only hope, the only sane, qualified person to continue the battle Obama has had against the evil empire of the republican morons trying to ruin our country with their religious, ideological, homophobic and racist vomit that will end in disaster if continued.
65
@61 yeah I agree I read both the articles you wrote that have been mentioned in this thread and think folks are missing the point you were trying to make. That said, today's Republican party is rapidly devolving into nothing but pure nihilism.
66
The burden is on the GOP to expand their base, by adopting policies and rhetoric that appeal to voters who are not white, male, wealthy, selfish, and Christian.
Calling for voters who are routinely bashed by the GOP to vote against their own self-interest--like self-hating simpering apologists--in some larger battle to save the two-party system is offensive and utterly wrong-headed.
Vanessa Vitiello is my nominee for "Previously unknown pundit/analyst with head wedged most firmly up his/her ass."
Calling for voters who are routinely bashed by the GOP to vote against their own self-interest--like self-hating simpering apologists--in some larger battle to save the two-party system is offensive and utterly wrong-headed.
Vanessa Vitiello is my nominee for "Previously unknown pundit/analyst with head wedged most firmly up his/her ass."
67
Savage Insults the Intelligence of LGBT Voters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eInuuLp1…
Please folks, wake up, grow up, and opt out of the system meant to marginalize you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eInuuLp1…
Please folks, wake up, grow up, and opt out of the system meant to marginalize you.
68
Savage Insults the Intelligence of LGBT Voters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eInuuLp1…
Please folks, wake up, grow up, and opt out of the system meant to marginalize you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eInuuLp1…
Please folks, wake up, grow up, and opt out of the system meant to marginalize you.
69
Savage Insults the Intelligence of LGBT Voters:
http://www.corbettreport.com/divide-and-…
Sorry about the repost -- I hope this link works
http://www.corbettreport.com/divide-and-…
Sorry about the repost -- I hope this link works
71
Frankly neither system works for mere mortals. Oh sure it works for pundits like Dan Savage and Vanessa Vitiello who have nothing better to do that attempt to sway public opinion because they have their financial security and their worries don't match most working folks, that have to make ends meet on meager salaries or live pay check to pay check. Im gay, i used to be a democrat but Im now an independent because I vote now with my wallet - why? - because my wallet hasn't seen any significant cash increase since 2008 and since a majority of the working class are competing for resources and currency is the only thing that can buy those resources - as of today - and Im going to vote for the best candidate that can get me the most purchasing power and increase in my income and not worry about who is going to agree or disagree as to whether or not the lifestyle can seamlessly homogenize a passé institution meant to sell jewelry, flowers and catering, into the population as a whole for the sake of "love". Because, frankly, love based on those terms isn't really love but just another "political statement" meant to feed personal ego.
72
@71- Vanessa Vitiello herself might think the assumptions you make about her life are amusing. As her fiancee, I assure you, I am not as forgiving. And I'm not the writer, so I don't have to be graceful. A total of 3 published articles do not a wealthy immortal pundit make. If her (and my) financial security was so much better than common working folks she probably wouldn't be working two other jobs. Disagree with the article all you want, but please go fuck yourself with your assumptions about our life.
73
@70: Don't dismiss a criticism, however crude, as sexist just because you don't like it. Functional Atheist said nothing to imply their opinion had anything to do with your gender or with your weight.
74
@72: Stop following this thread. It may get nasty, and you don't want to get yourself bogged down in this. Walk away now.
76
@73 I didn't even think of the sexism angle- just joining in the fun. I was a regular Slate commenter before I got called up to the bigs.
While I'm at it huge LOLs @22 and @34 and right on @29
While I'm at it huge LOLs @22 and @34 and right on @29
77
Explain to me how a LGBT Republican is not like an African-American Klansman. Gay R's vote for R's who work very hard to force us back into the closet until they can Ugandize the population into calling for our executions to make Jesus smile.
78
Yow, those are bad.
Looks like she's an undergrad someplace - this kind of sophomoric writing is par for the course in any university campus newspaper. I'm sure slate is desperate for "balanced opinion" from non mouth-breathers.
Looks like she's an undergrad someplace - this kind of sophomoric writing is par for the course in any university campus newspaper. I'm sure slate is desperate for "balanced opinion" from non mouth-breathers.
79
@74- Don't worry about me, sweetie. I'm perfectly happy being angry and I'd regret not saying something a lot more.
80
@Vanessa Vitiello - You better be a troll because this is the saddest thing I've seen in years if that's the REAL VV. First homophobia, then missing the main idea of representative democracy and then go all huffy and sadz when people don't like that so you play the "But I'm the real victim" card.
81
@76: "I was a regular Slate commenter before I got called up to the bigs"
Front-page trolls are the big-time!
Front-page trolls are the big-time!
82
The thing about political parties is that they tend to come and go. If the GOP continues to dig its own grave the Democrats aren't going to suddenly have a monopoly. Other parties will rise to fill the void, just like when the Whig Party fell apart. It will likely be the Libertarians, but a new party may also form in the next few years and if it gains a decent political foothold it would help to dismantle our shitty two-party system.
83
"Gay R's vote for R's who work very hard to force us back into the closet until they can Ugandize the population into calling for our executions to make Jesus smile."
@77 ...really? No, we don't. We vote in the primaries for an R candidate who doesn't have a cross up his ass. Then, when the general election comes around, if a gay-basher got the R ticket, we vote for an L or a D. There's no pledge you make when you sign up to be an R that you will always vote for R's.
@77 ...really? No, we don't. We vote in the primaries for an R candidate who doesn't have a cross up his ass. Then, when the general election comes around, if a gay-basher got the R ticket, we vote for an L or a D. There's no pledge you make when you sign up to be an R that you will always vote for R's.
84
I've long thought that progressives of all kinds should register republican (in order to vote in their primaries) and heavily attend republican events. People of color and people from the LGBT community would be particularly valuable in this effort, as they would stand out from the customary republican crowd. They claim to be an inclusive organization -- make them prove it. Having progressives vote in republican primaries should make things more lively, and showing up at state conventions should spark some interesting interaction. Let's allow republicans to see what the real America is like.
86
@83, so you basically only register Republican to vote in Republican primaries, and then typically end up voting for a Democrat in the actual election anyway? Since it's pretty freaking rare for a non-gay-bashing Republican to actually make it to the election, so based on what you say it must be rare for one to actually get to a point you can actually vote for them for the actual office.
Why not just register as a Democrat? At least then you will have a say in which of the Democrats gets to the final round. The limited choices of Republicans you can vote for based on your criteria are never going to make it anyway, so you are just wasting your time. May as well have a say in which of the candidates you are actually going to end up voting for makes it to the real election.
If, by some miracle, a non-gay-hating Republican makes it to the final round you can still vote for them. There is no more of a mandate that someone registered Democrat has to always vote for the Democrat any more than that a registered Republican must Vote Republican.
But by switching to the party you are most likely to end up voting for in the long run you add to the dwindling numbers of registered Republicans, which just might be what sends a message to their leadership and actually instigate some change in who they choose to represent them.
Why not just register as a Democrat? At least then you will have a say in which of the Democrats gets to the final round. The limited choices of Republicans you can vote for based on your criteria are never going to make it anyway, so you are just wasting your time. May as well have a say in which of the candidates you are actually going to end up voting for makes it to the real election.
If, by some miracle, a non-gay-hating Republican makes it to the final round you can still vote for them. There is no more of a mandate that someone registered Democrat has to always vote for the Democrat any more than that a registered Republican must Vote Republican.
But by switching to the party you are most likely to end up voting for in the long run you add to the dwindling numbers of registered Republicans, which just might be what sends a message to their leadership and actually instigate some change in who they choose to represent them.
87
Dan, hopefully you read the editorial that was in the Times by former governor Dan Evans. Read it Danny,if you haven't, and then come to this dyed in the wool Democrat, a man who would almost cut off his arm than vote Republican, and then tell me there aren't decent people in the GOP.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Don't Just Sleep There, Do Something! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: You Can't Please Everybody by Dan Savage
-
The Morning News: Drivers Don't Understand the Cycle Track, Customers Don't Want Amazon's New Phone by Christopher Frizzelle
-
The NFL, Domestic Violence, and #WhyIStayed by Anna Minard
-
I, Anonymous: Suicidal Ideation on World Suicide Prevention Day by David Schmader
-
RIP, Slogger Rhett Oracle by Dominic Holden
-
RIP: Apple iPod™ "Classic" by Mike Nipper
-
The Bird-Feeding in Cal Anderson Park Is Out of Control by Christopher Frizzelle
-
A Man Fell From This Makeshift Homeless Encampment and Died by Dominic Holden
-
Apple Unveils Bigger iPhone and New Smartwatch by Ansel Herz
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Comments (87) RSS