Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on I'm Sorry, So Sorry


I saw your interview, and it didn't seem very mailicious. You may have used an ugly metaphor, but it came across as a wicked figure of speech and not as a recommended political technique. All the same, in today's ready-to-be-offended climate you're probably doing the right thing by taking full responsibility.

As to why Coulter makes more money than you, it's a glass ceiling thing. She's more masculine, and thus her paychecks are higher. It's unjust, but it ain't new.

Posted by Gurldoggie | October 17, 2006 3:29 PM

Have you seen Dan's biceps lately? He's got it all over Ann.

Posted by what? | October 17, 2006 3:41 PM

Please allow me to be somewhat brusque, but as a newsperson in the media mix of today, you should know better.

You know the so-called Right will spin -- and with glee -- any loony-sounding thing a "leftist" says. Especially a leftist pervert, which you most definitely are. "We" can't give "them" an inch.

Apology accepted (IMHO), but sadly the damage is probably done.

Posted by treacle | October 17, 2006 3:47 PM

Have you seen Ann's adam's apple? I say its no contest.

Posted by Gurldoggie | October 17, 2006 3:47 PM

Treacle @3,
At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to re-post my response to Dan's original posting. I still completely agree with my own sentiments, no apologies necessary.

Dan is right on. After 20 years of taking it, maybe Democrats are finally learning to dish it out. It's a page right out of the book of Republican political techniques: fight dirty, stop at nothing, take no prisoners, destroy your enemies utterly and without scruple through any means necessary.

I'm glad Dan is blatantly hating on Santorum, I hope it really was the Democrats who leaked the Foley story, and I hope Democrats throw more of those stink bombs in the remaining weeks before the election. We can't let up until every single Republican has gone to jail or has resigned in humiliation and disgrace. Swiftboat their asses, hard!

Posted by Gurldoggie | October 17, 2006 3:57 PM

I love it that right before Dan goes into the rant he says "I don't agree with everything that comes out of my mouth"...

Posted by gnossos | October 17, 2006 4:14 PM

Well, I don't agree with every word that comes out of my mouth. Sometimes I speak before/as I'm thinking, and say something and then go, shit, whoops. Don't you? Doesn't everyone?

Posted by Dan Savage | October 17, 2006 4:17 PM

You are forgiven. Say four Our Fathers and Six Hail Marys and call me in the Morning.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay | October 17, 2006 4:23 PM
Posted by charles | October 17, 2006 4:24 PM

Because she's a man who likes to dress up as a woman professionally, and you're a man who likes to dress up as a woman recreationally for funny appearances.


She's way more serious about it than you are.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 17, 2006 4:31 PM

You should immediately enter rehab, then have your attorney announce that you were dragged behind a pick-up truck when you were a child. That should make it all OK.

Posted by Mark Mitchell | October 17, 2006 4:45 PM

Hm... I wasn't seriously blaming the booze. I blame the priests that failed to molest me when I was an altar boy.

And I haven't dressed up like a woman in ages. I blame the priests for that too.

Posted by Dan Savage | October 17, 2006 4:45 PM

I watched the video & read Dan's earlier blog about regretting the comment. While I wholeheartedly agree with Dan's take on the left’s need to be assholes when necessary, I am also relieved to see a clear apology. The first thing I thought of when Dan said, “dragged behind a truck,” was James Byrd. Then I thought of how insensitive & unproductive the comment was, because it would make my head implode if I were part of the Byrd family or anyone else with a loved one who has suffered like that. Why give fundamentalist fascists ammo to deflect the real argument?

The left/liberals/whatever need to be the intelligent, reasonable assholes in the room, and the truck bit didn’t help the cause. So bravo, Dan, because smart assholes know to fess up with they’re wrong. Keep giving interviews, keep admitting when you’re wrong and being relentless when you’re right, and who knows, maybe others will follow.

Posted by anonymous | October 17, 2006 4:47 PM

And Iraq? I was wrong about that too.

Posted by Dan Savage | October 17, 2006 5:00 PM

Thank you for the apology, Dan.

That said, you sort of blamed booze this time and sort of blamed it in a May Seattle P-I article on the 43rd District race, too.

Please either stand behind your words or flatly apologize, leaving out alcohol in both cases.

Posted by booze | October 17, 2006 5:03 PM

hey tons of things that I've said that I later don't agree with...sometimes almost immediately, sometimes not until much later. I was just noting the irony that you went almost straight from saying that to saying something you don't agree with...

Posted by gnossos | October 17, 2006 5:03 PM

... don't forget that you were under the influence during your infamous Mayor's Office visit a few months back, as well. Thanks for making gay parents look like responsible dudes!

Posted by st ides | October 17, 2006 5:22 PM

Dan has never hidden his dislike for the Greens. He is always talking about beating the smelly hippies up. It is, of course, his right ( to say it). That’s not a big deal, but what is really fucked up is that he knowingly used the “drag under the truck” statement, knowing full well that’s how James Byrd Jr. met his horrible death. The fact that, that thought was swimming around his head and he thought to use it to make a witty attack comment is fucked up. Plain and simple. Dan is a smart motherfucker, and he knew damn well what he was saying. The danger with shit like that is that one day, one loony Dem can decide to beat up a smelly hippie Green, if say, Cantwell or any other Dem loses. Not likely, but this is a crazy world.

I agree that Santorum has to go, and that everything must be done to keep his ass from returning to Washington, but maybe Dan’s beloved Dems sometimes share the blame for people not voting for them. Maybe sometimes the Dems just don’t speak for everybody or lack a spine. Maybe, just maybe, some of those people who vote Green had no intention to vote for the Dems in the first place.

I’m just saying, man.

I know most Sloggers like to kiss his ass, and kiss the ground he walks on, and praise him for his apology, as you , but sometimes the dude is just a loudmouth.

Posted by SeMe | October 17, 2006 5:23 PM

Gee, Dan, you couldn't quite make it through an apology before you started backtracking.

Keep it simple: what you said was stupid and wrong, period.

Learn from this: cover the news, don't be the news.

Posted by A Note From A Reader | October 17, 2006 5:56 PM

Yeah, lots of Dems are violent. That's why you find sooooo many battered and abused Rs all over the place. Puh-leeze.

Posted by Dan Savage | October 17, 2006 6:08 PM

Gurl @5,
I'm down with progressives calling idiots on their shit, as publically as possible. But I honestly think that dirty tricks are not the way to win. Yes, it's "working" for the Republicans (2 stolen elections and counting), but that don't make it right. And morality is their alleged issue.

Ultimately this is not a big deal. Seems like, though, saying that someone should be physically injured these days isn't actually benefitting the debate.
But then, perhaps my expectations are too high.

Posted by treacle | October 17, 2006 6:10 PM

I won't kiss the ground Dan walks on and I missed my chance to kiss his ass way back when, but I will give him credit for owning up to a mistake. Unfortunately cyberspace doesn't forget and it can be spun if someone wants to spin it.
Is Dan "just a loudmouth"? yeah, sometimes.... but keep up the fight Dan. We need more fags with some balls. Just don't be a dick about it.

Posted by roman4 | October 17, 2006 6:21 PM

Your comment was a bit extreme, but in the context (and being familiar with your modus operandi re political discourse) I don't think it was anything out of the ordinary.

Also, as a Penn student I can tell you no one here got particularly up in arms over it. And Steven Morse, the guy who interviewed you (who's also a friend of mine) said he loved interviewing you. So, props for that at least!

Posted by Megan | October 17, 2006 6:54 PM

Man, if there was ever a race that I wanted a 3rd party candidate to win, this is it. Gee, do I want the republican who wants to dictate what I can do with my body, or the democrat who wants to do the same damn thing? BUT I'm still going to do the responsible thing and vote for the democrat who I disagree with because he's less of a bigot then Santorum. /puke

Posted by Em from Philly | October 17, 2006 7:06 PM

I have long wished for someone to take the lead in the gay community and I have to keep waiting. Dan, you continue to be an embarassment to all democrats gay or straight. Think before you open your big mouth. You are doing more harm than good.

Posted by Done | October 17, 2006 7:12 PM

Thanks Dan. It takes a startle point for most people to respond to issues you would like to bring to the forefront. You have to slap them upside the head. Still. You would have made a great ACT UP faggot.

Posted by savage lover | October 17, 2006 7:32 PM

I can't believe after the whole Foley debacle that you would (even half-jokingly) blame what you did on alcohol!
This reminds me a little bit of McGavick "coming clean" about his old DUI, and then lying about it in the process.
If you want to sincerely apologize, just apologize. Plain and simple.

Posted by cite | October 17, 2006 7:35 PM

Wow, how many smug, self-righteous gits who have never done anything they regret will post on this thread before it dies?

People make mistakes. Get over it, and stop acting so high and mighty.

Posted by Foot in Mouth Syndrome is a Plague | October 17, 2006 7:41 PM

Hey CITE, how does what Savage said even compare to your Foley debacle? A journalist said some smart ass remarks and you want to equate him with a sexual predator? Get a fucking grip.

Posted by hey asshole | October 17, 2006 7:44 PM

Uh, I was an ACT UP faggot...

Posted by Dan Savage | October 17, 2006 8:03 PM

Sorry for a bad choice of words is fine. Can't accept an apology for the Iraq thing--that was some nasty shit. And just in case we've all forgotten:

You wanna make amends? Go volunteer at a VA hospital.

Posted by Uff-Da | October 17, 2006 8:09 PM

I'd like to bring up a neat relevant word I came across recently out on the series of tubes. Oralpodectomy: removal of foot from mouth.

Posted by Noink | October 17, 2006 8:36 PM

Well, by way of apology, I did raise 4K for Lamont and Casey, donated 2K to ACLU.

Posted by Dan Savage | October 17, 2006 9:26 PM

Oh good. Money fixes and forgives everything.

Posted by Boomer | October 17, 2006 9:31 PM

Hey Asshole--I compared him to a sexual predator? Um, no. I compared him to someone who fucked up and then kinda blamed alcohol in his apology. After high profile cases of this like Foley and Mel Gibson, I am just surprised he would pull that crap. When Mel Gibson blamed his anti-Semitic outburst on his being drunk, people rightly gave him grief. Being drunk might make you stupid, but it doesn't make you say hateful things about Jews or about lynching somebody. Or maybe you think it does.

Posted by cite | October 17, 2006 9:41 PM
36 long as Casey gets to have electrodes on his balls and a hood over his head while dogs bark in his face (since he is such a fan of the war), then there is nothing wrong with wishing harm on the Green candidate.

Posted by patrick C | October 17, 2006 9:49 PM

Dan, while I'm disappointed that it wasn't was one the fine craft beers from Philly, I was pleasantly surprised that you were drinking Hoegardens, a true German beer with its banana-clove aroma.
I regret that you had all three before the interview.

We all make mistakes, but most of us aren't in the limelight (by choice or not), and aren't flogged in public. Stick to your editorial instincts to fess up and consider this material for your New Years "No Regrets" column... Cheers

Posted by I Love IPA's | October 17, 2006 10:20 PM

That is the right way to deal with a misstatement. Now, go kick the establishment's ass.

Posted by harris | October 17, 2006 10:25 PM

Man, that's almost as bad as that "A.I." review!!!

Posted by SEAN NELSON, EMERITUS | October 17, 2006 10:50 PM

Wait a second...where did you get some Hoegartens (sp) anyway? I've been trying to get a six pack for a few weeks and every store is out of them, even Bottleworks. Perhaps you have a secret connection?

Posted by wait | October 17, 2006 11:37 PM

dammit people it's hoegaarden.

Posted by Charles | October 17, 2006 11:49 PM

and @40, I saw some at the QFC on broadway and pike the other day.

Posted by Charles | October 17, 2006 11:49 PM

and its not german, it's belgian.

Posted by Charles | October 17, 2006 11:51 PM

Yeah, I was just going to say that too, it's not German, it's Belgian. And it's not a "banana-clove" aroma, it's orange-coriander. Not to get all beer snobby, but you know...

Damn, that was a crazy thing that Savage said about going to war. I wasn't living in Seattle back in 2002, so I missed that. I bet he doesn't like having to re-read those words. yikes... thanks for posting, Uff-Da. I still like Savage though. He's human.

Posted by jamey | October 18, 2006 1:46 AM

Oops! I really, really messed up the beer bit. Thanks for being not all beer snobby but very correct, Jamey and others(and oops, I used Dan's spelling without checking). I obviously mixed up the brand (and style) with another. But, European beers are not my forte, because...

Posted by I love ipa's | October 18, 2006 7:17 AM

I'm totally down with the IPA, too :D

Posted by charles | October 18, 2006 10:48 AM

I think it's interesting that no one has questioned Dan's central point - which I will summarize here as "we can not afford the luxury of a third party" (For the sake of this point I'll pass over the whole "Greens as Republican tools" angle).

Either 1) this is a singular example of an Internet comment thread that has stayed on topic (mostly), or 2) folks are down with the sentiment.

I've read polling reports that have suggested that liberals are "coming home" and will concentrate on the Dem candidates. I wonder if we might be seeing a manifestation of that here. It is striking that there isn't at least one frothing Green taking up the flag here.

For the record, I'd love to have more than two legitimate parties. However, there are serious flaws in our electoral process that will not allow that. The Greens had their opportunity to go after those flaws in 2000 and they passed.

If they are suffering for it now - they have only themselves to blame.

Posted by John Galt | October 18, 2006 12:04 PM

Who is John Galt?

Posted by BostonBear | October 18, 2006 12:08 PM

Good show, Dan. You say some crazy things sometimes, but you also have enough sense to go mea culpa when you see you crossed a line.

Posted by Gomez | October 18, 2006 12:13 PM

Also, John Gault, Seattle is one of the few cities that strongly identifies with the Democratic party. Left-wingers in many places are often split between the donkies and the libertarian/green/3rd parties and being non-partisan... which would explain in part why the GOP is able to maintain a stronghold on many states. You don't see too much 3rd party support in WA: most unite with the blue party.

Posted by Gomez | October 18, 2006 12:17 PM

Fuck regret, at least Dan was blatantly honest during the interview. It's nice to hear someone's actual opinion spoken so frankly.
(And Ann Coulter is an alien, that's why she gets paid more.)

Posted by Sweet Jane | October 18, 2006 3:13 PM

In the spirit of love, peace, and rock & roll, we should accept Dan Savage's statement that he's sorry for having urged mayhem on Carl Romanelli, the Pennsylvania Green candidate for US Senate. But he still calls Carl a 'bastard' for attempting to participate in an open democratic election. Dan Savage's remarks raise some interesting questions:

-- Dan Savage, along with Daily Kos and TPM Muckraker, is outraged that part of Carl's treasury, in fact, the seed money for his campaign, was donated by Republicans. (More specifically, by personal friends of Carl who are registered Republican, with no stated or implied quid pro quo.) They seem to believe that such 'tainted' money should disqualify Carl as a valid candidate. Do Dan Savage & al. have any objection to the huge campaign contributions that Bob Casey and his fellow Democrats receive from corporations and from registered Republicans -- money that makes Carl's campaign bank account look microscopic, and which is donated to Casey in order to gain influence when Casey takes his seat in the Senate? Is money from registered Republicans tainted only when received by Greens? (Greens accept no corporate money. For more on corporate money accepted by both Dems & Repubs, visit

-- Pennsylvania has some of the most prohibitive ballot access laws in the US, enacted by Democratic and Republican politicians in a gentlemen's agreement to hinder third party and independent candidates. Candidates from the two established parties must file petitions with 2,000 signatures to get their names on the ballot. Candidates from other parties, like Carl Romanelli, and independents must hand in 67,000 signatures. Do Dan Savage, Daily Kos, and other Democratic apologists agree that such rules, which are on the books in many states, are grossly unfair and antidemocratic and should be appealed? (Corrollary question: If Democrats support such rules, shouldn't they change the name of their party? For more on rigged elections in Pennsylvania, read

-- Carl Romanelli has called for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. He supports full reproductive rights for women and national health insurance. Bob Casey, like Rick Santorum (R), takes the opposite positions on all of these. Will Dan Savage and other pro-Casey progressives apologize when Bob Casey, if elected to public office, votes to maintain the war on Iraq, limit abortion rights, or keep corporate control over health coverage? (Corrollary question: can people who claim to oppose the war on Iraq and support women's reproductive rights seriously be called 'antiwar' or 'pro-choice' when they also endorse, contribute to, and vote for candidates like Bob Casey?)

-- Isn't Dan Savage's claim of being 'sorry' for urging violence against Carl Romanelli pretty meaningless unless he apologizes to Carl himself for making such dangerous comments? Isn't Carl's physical safety ultimately more important than Dan Savage's concern about Michael Petrelis's comparison of Dan Savage with Ann Coulter?

Posted by Scott | October 18, 2006 9:47 PM

to john galt: "greens had the opportunity to go after those flaws and they passed" excuse me, but greens have gone after a lot of the flaws in the US electoral process for many years before 2000. it's not our fault that the presidential election was illegally heard by the SCOTUS.

for that matter, where was kerry when ohio was on the line in 2004? he only filed a "friend of the court" paper on the suit brought up by the greens and libertarians. he didn't want to be a part of the process to expose the problems there. he just rolled over and played dead once election night was done, just like dems have been doing for at least the last 15 years.

as for this article, it's no secret that dan has a violent hatred of the green party. but like most dems today, instead of making his own camp look good, he'd rather try to make the others look bad. the reason the GOP has such a stranglehold on american politics is because the dems are too busy waffling on the issues to try to get elected. at least with republicans you know what you're in for. the only thing the dems can offer is "not republican". and they can't even do *that* very well these days!

so to dan savage i say, fuck your "apology". it's a total bullshit apology since you not only blamed it on drinking but still managed to slip in that slapping comment at the end for good measure. it's just so much lip service so that you can feel all warm and cozy inside knowing you have the approval of your herd. give a real apology, and this time actually say it to carl romanelli like you mean it. otherwise you're just spitting in the wind...

Posted by skywise | October 18, 2006 10:39 PM

In the fourth sentence in the third paragraph of my comment posted above, 'appealed' should read 'repealed.'

Posted by Scott | October 18, 2006 10:41 PM

Skywise is correct. While John Kerry quickly conceded the day after the 2004 election and Democrats sat on their thumbs, presidential candidates David Cobb (Green) and Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) launched the Ohio and New Mexico recount campaigns. Greens raised nearly all the money for legal fees. The recount effort eventually led to the Conyers Commission, which documented the widespread reports of manipulated and obstructed votes in Ohio. (John Conyers is one of the few Dems in Congress with real integrity.) More on this at

Some Dems continue to blame Ralph Nader & the Green Party for 'spoiling' in 2000. Nader & Greens couldn't have spoiled, because Al Gore won the election. The reasons that Gore didn't enter the White House are Republican engineering of votes in Florida (and probably other states), an obviously biased Supreme Court decision, and Gore's failure to demand a recount in more than three Florida counties.

Also, let's not forget that, in Florida alone, the number of registered Democrats who voted for Bush was over four times the number that voted for Nader. This can only be blamed on Gore's weak and uninspiring campaign -- remember how much he said "I agree" to Bush during the 2000 presidential debates? Too many Dems still use the Green Party as a scapegoat for their own failures & retreats.

Posted by Scott | October 18, 2006 11:00 PM

Ahh - that's more like it.

To be clear – I do not blame the Greens for “spoiling” in 2000. I blame them for not trying to fix a system that allowed such a charge to be leveled in the first place. While it was nice for the Greens and Libertarians to take a shot at addressing the Reps fixing the vote in 2004 - that's not the root problem.

After 2000 the Greens should have made Nader a poster child for the reform of the "winner-take-all" system we have in place that keeps third (and fourth) parties out of debates and off the ballots.

You guys had a the closest thing to a golden opportunity and you didn't take it. I appreciate your efforts in Ohio and New Mexico, but that's not going to help your party influence elections. We need an IRV-like system that will allow people to both vote their conscience and vote strategically.

Without that you guys will always will always be pissing around at the fringes; eternal, virtuous losers.

I'd love to vote my conscience, but right now I'll cast my lot in with anyone who shows the slightest inclination to restore Habeas Corpus – oh, that and has a chance in hell of winning. Right now all I get from the Green party is some sort of “100-year-plan” where they end up in the White House by packing Greens into school boards. I admire the patience, but I feel things are moving a little more quickly than that.

Posted by John Galt | October 19, 2006 1:38 AM

>>Yeah, lots of Dems are violent. That's why you find sooooo many battered and abused Rs all over the place.

Well, I don't picture the Republican senators punching out the Dems on the Hill either, but both of them think sending kids to war is a pretty good idea. The Democrats gave wide support for the invasion of Iraq--that's pretty violent for starters.

Posted by kiki | October 19, 2006 10:34 AM

To John Galt: Greens have been practically screaming at Democrats to enact Instant Runoff Voting (and other election reforms) all around the US, but Dems, except in San Francisco and a few other places, have mostly ignored such appeals. For a list of Green Party press releases in which Greens have urged IRV, do a search on Instant Runoff, at the bottom of the GP's press release page (, or just paste into your browser.

If IRV were implemented, a lot of Dems who currently lose to Repubs under at-large voting would be elected to public office, and a lot more Greens would win too. The impression one gets is that Democratic politicians would rather risk defeat than tolerate a political field that includes competition from other parties.

Posted by Scott | October 19, 2006 10:43 AM

That is not an impression, it is a fact.

The Dems WOULD rather lose to Republicans than open up the political system. After all, the two are bought and paid for by the same paymasters.

Posted by Aram | October 20, 2006 12:54 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).