Slog

I don't get the "all my fault" comment. The link is to the article. What did I miss?

Dan Savage started the war in Iraq, according to many Slog commenters.

Dan Savage SUPPORTED initially the war in iraq.

That makes him a typical american dumbass, not "at fault" per se.

Nothing would have stopped the Cheney Administration from invading Iraq.

The divvying up process between Sunni and Shi'ite factions has begun in earnest. Ditto the shooting and bombs and wholesale killing that accompanies this. The question for the U.S. seems to be whether to leave our soldiers in the line of fire while this process continues.

Papayas: "All my fault" is Dan's mea culpa for endorsing this war at the onset and calling everybody who disagreed dirty stinky hippie cowards. Clearly he feels embarassment at so forcefully arguing a position based on such an overly credulous reading of the pre-war "flawed intelligence" designed to scare everybody into supporting this ill-advised adventure. Not sure if there's any real sense of responsibility implied there (and it does seem unquestionably true that strenuous objections coming from a gay sex-advice columnist would not have prevented the Bush administration from prosecuting whatever damn war they wanted to) but definitely embarassment. Perhaps exasperation at the frequency with which this particular criticism is leveled by Slog commenters.

i should have added: He supported the Iraq Invasion with an essay in the Stranger, saying that if we didn't go in now, we were going to have to go in later.

it was shockingly shortsighted.

yes, yes! dan, darling! you were able to release the "hey faggot" part of you so easliy...please, for christ's sake, let the I Know It's All My Fault thing GO. let. it. go. i cringe every time i read it. please. i ask so little. oh, and It's All Christopher's Fault, too.

I'm pretty sure Iraqis had the right to yell "Death to America" in the streets even under the "former regime".

I actually find the whole it's-all-Dan's-fault mantra a bit amusing.

Papayas, Dan Savage initially supported going to war in Iraq. He bought the arguments made by Powell/Bush/Rummy/Cheney, just like a majority of the population. In hindsight now, most of us know it was all bullshit, and support for the war is now around 30% and falling. Dan, like roughly half the population, realized his early support of the war was based on lies and was a mistake. And has said so.

But now of course, whenever Dan says something against the war, the hawks love to jump him, accusing him of being a hypocrite and a flip flopper. And a few radical lefties all but blame him entirely for us getting in teh war in the first place, and to them his progressive cred is compromised.

I find this all amusing because while I think Savage amusing and a good story teller, and a pretty good sex-advice columnist, I would hardly take advice from him over something like WAR. He is not an expert in military strategy, nor a historian, nor a scholar of the middle east. He is no more nor less qualified to make those kinds of judgements than any other reasonably well informed man on the street. He came to a different conclusion than I did at the time, but I can hardly blame him, given the propaganda we were being fed. Most people bought it then.

Unlike the angry blatherers on the right and the left, I'm actually heartened to see that Dan actually has the fortitude to reexamine his previous position, and based on a new set of facts, change his mind. It is called rational thinking. It is a refreshing to see that in the face of our president who stubbornly pursues a failed policy that is growing more untenable by the day. Bush seems utterly incapable of admitting that he has ever made any sort of mistake, of reexamining his position on anything, or of changing tactics to suit the current reality. He will undoubtedly stubbornly continue his current course until his last day in office.

@3 - I agree, it is all Dan's fault.

Thanks everyone. Yes, I do remember Dan supporting the war. It was when I was only reading Savage Love, not The Stranger/Slog.

I thought Dan's comment might be a reference to the racist, sexist, homophobic guy from Stanford who was on the Colbert Report a few months ago. What was his name? Started with a D...

I'm sure Dan has got plenty of "I Told You So's", let's just hope that he has learned from his mistake, won't make it again, and has payed the appropriate penance in personal embarrassment (Same for the rest of the American public, but I have to admit, I have more faith in Dan than the American population at this point).

Next time listen to the people trying to avoid death and destruction, as well as the people who can spot a liar a mile away (sorry, couldn't resist).

For what it's worth, I remember that Savage's support for the war started flagging pretty early. I forgive him his early support for the war -- I think we've all forgotten what a weird time in history that was.

For what it's worth, I remember that Savage's support for the war started flagging pretty early. I forgive him his early support for the war -- I think we've all forgotten what a weird time in history that was.

"We've all forgotten what a weird time in history that was."

Are you fucking kidding me?

Dan's absolutely right to always bring up his initial, utterly stupid support of the Iraq invasion--and if he ever forgets, it should be immediately brought up and thrown right in his face. How many thousands of U.S. troops and support killed? How many Iraqis dead? How many wounded? How many lives ruined? This is hardly a forgive-and-forget kind of mistake, and no one who supported this war should be absolved of their guilt and remorse.

Live with it, and live with it in agony.

Oh--and for the complete wince-inducing article, click this link:

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=12237

"Nothing would have stopped the Cheney Administration from invading Iraq. "

Do I smell LaRouche in here? It stinks... bad.

Well, of course, it's his fault! That's settled, the question now is what punishment. Personally I favor pulling his ribs out with red-hot tongs(a favorite of Ivan the Terrible).

Hello dousche-bag Dan Savage,

I wrote you a few weeks back concerning your oh-so sympathetic appearance on NPR's "Talk of the Nation" show wherein you described your beliefs concerning the use of derogatory language after Michael Richards' and that black actor on ER racist and homophoblic statements were publicized.

I asked, how do you justify your concerns against your racist and murderous statements about the Pennsylvania green candidate, Carl Romanelli that had an eerie similarities to the horrible death in Texas of an innocent person named James Bird who was given the same treatment you prescribed for Roman elli.

LA,La La, you fucking dickhead, you never replied.

Imagine my joy upon learning that your cruel and asinine comments have been preserved in a student documentary about the legitimate struggle of a third party candidate to reman in the race.

You've got "Santorum" all over your face, and I will use all my meager skills to remind people of your latent hypocrisy and ignorance and overall ignorance.

HA HA, Doh!

**************************************************************************************

Romanelli’s campaign plight hits big screen

Student’s film follows Green Party candidate
through 2006 race

RORY SWEENEY rsweeney@timesleader.com
Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania), April
10, 2007
http://www.timesleader.com/news/20070410_10romanelli_ART.html

PHILADELPHIA – Carl Romanelli, a perennial
political activist who has stated professions
varying from railroad consultant to family court
official, can add another to his resume: movie
star.

Well, at least the focus of “Ain’t Easy Being
Green,” a sympathetic documentary filmed by a
University of Pennsylvania student.

The film tracks Romanelli, who gained brief, but
national, notoriety in 2006 when he jumped into
what pundits considered one of the nation’s most
controversial U.S. Senate campaigns between
former Sen. Rick Santorum and current Sen. Bob
Casey Jr.

As a Green Party candidate, Romanelli was
expected to siphon votes away from Casey.
Republican activists responded by supporting
Romanelli. Democrats successfully challenged many
of the signatures the Romanelli campaign
collected, resulting in his being unceremoniously
booted from the ballot.

More than 100 people showed up Monday for the
film’s first public viewing at Penn, creating an
assembly of preppy college students, scruffy,
bespeckled hippies and well-heeled scholars
decidedly unlike the average political rally.

Latching on to Romanelli’s characteristic
verbosity, filmmaker Stephen Robert Morse
followed the Wilkes-Barre resident through his
ill-fated senatorial run, often highlighting the
ridiculous rhetorical sparring that typifies
campaigns.

The film poses thoughtful questions about the
apparent death lock of the major parties and yet
remains humorous, often at the expense of
Santorum and Casey. With his quirky attitude,
Romanelli proves his own comedic foil, often
resorting to what seems like futile
rabble-rousing rather than realistic campaigning.

Morse joins in at the end, helping Romanelli
ambush Casey as he arrives for an interview at
WYOU. With a camera in Casey’s face, he demands
as a constituent to know why Casey, “a rich man,”
hasn’t dropped a court decision against
Romanelli, “a poor man,” of $80,000 for legal
fees incurred in the signature challenges.

Scenes of Wilkes-Barre are splashed throughout
the film, at times affirming its coal-town roots.
Chuckles rippled through the crowd when one woman
said she sympathized with Romanelli for being
blocked from the “rebates,” obviously meaning
“debates.”

Morse said he decided to follow the race through
Romanelli after “I realized I could get a lot
more access to Carl.” Being a reporter for Penn’s
student paper helped him get political celebrity
sound bites, including an outrageous gem from
homosexual Seattle columnist Dan Savage, who
said, “Carl Romanelli should be dragged behind a
pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the
rope.”

Romanelli, who saw the film for the first time on
Monday, seemed pleased, saying it depicted the
insurmountable odds third-party candidates must
overcome.

The filmmakers are submitting the film to
festivals and scored one victory so far, having
been accepted to the Rainier Independent Film
Festival in May.

After the showing, a panel of three Penn
professors discussed the film and its
implications on American politics.

Jack Nagel, a political science professor, called
the film a “compelling portrait of an
excruciating dilemma” third-party candidates face
by running on platforms that might steal votes
from the major-party candidates they’d otherwise
prefer.

“There was nothing to fear from Carl Romanelli,”
said Walter Licht, a history professor, noting
the Democrats’ overreaction. “I think it was a
hangover from 2000. There wasn’t going to be a
third-party candidate in Pennsylvania.”

But David Eisenhower, a historian and
communications professor, said what perhaps
epitomizes major-party followers’ sentiment
toward independents. “I spent the day reading
about the Green Party so I’d have something to
say tonight.”

Hello dousche-bag Dan Savage,

I wrote you a few weeks back concerning your oh-so sympathetic appearance on NPR's "Talk of the Nation" show wherein you described your beliefs concerning the use of derogatory language after Michael Richards' and that black actor on ER racist and homophoblic statements were publicized.

I asked, how do you justify your concerns against your racist and murderous statements about the Pennsylvania green candidate, Carl Romanelli that had an eerie similarities to the horrible death in Texas of an innocent person named James Bird who was given the same treatment you prescribed for Roman elli.

LA,La La, you fucking dickhead, you never replied.

Imagine my joy upon learning that your cruel and asinine comments have been preserved in a student documentary about the legitimate struggle of a third party candidate to reman in the race.

You've got "Santorum" all over your face, and I will use all my meager skills to remind people of your latent hypocrisy and ignorance and overall ignorance.

HA HA, Doh!

**************************************************************************************

Romanelli’s campaign plight hits big screen

Student’s film follows Green Party candidate
through 2006 race

RORY SWEENEY rsweeney@timesleader.com
Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania), April
10, 2007
http://www.timesleader.com/news/20070410_10romanelli_ART.html

PHILADELPHIA – Carl Romanelli, a perennial
political activist who has stated professions
varying from railroad consultant to family court
official, can add another to his resume: movie
star.

Well, at least the focus of “Ain’t Easy Being
Green,” a sympathetic documentary filmed by a
University of Pennsylvania student.

The film tracks Romanelli, who gained brief, but
national, notoriety in 2006 when he jumped into
what pundits considered one of the nation’s most
controversial U.S. Senate campaigns between
former Sen. Rick Santorum and current Sen. Bob
Casey Jr.

As a Green Party candidate, Romanelli was
expected to siphon votes away from Casey.
Republican activists responded by supporting
Romanelli. Democrats successfully challenged many
of the signatures the Romanelli campaign
collected, resulting in his being unceremoniously
booted from the ballot.

More than 100 people showed up Monday for the
film’s first public viewing at Penn, creating an
assembly of preppy college students, scruffy,
bespeckled hippies and well-heeled scholars
decidedly unlike the average political rally.

Latching on to Romanelli’s characteristic
verbosity, filmmaker Stephen Robert Morse
followed the Wilkes-Barre resident through his
ill-fated senatorial run, often highlighting the
ridiculous rhetorical sparring that typifies
campaigns.

The film poses thoughtful questions about the
apparent death lock of the major parties and yet
remains humorous, often at the expense of
Santorum and Casey. With his quirky attitude,
Romanelli proves his own comedic foil, often
resorting to what seems like futile
rabble-rousing rather than realistic campaigning.

Morse joins in at the end, helping Romanelli
ambush Casey as he arrives for an interview at
WYOU. With a camera in Casey’s face, he demands
as a constituent to know why Casey, “a rich man,”
hasn’t dropped a court decision against
Romanelli, “a poor man,” of $80,000 for legal
fees incurred in the signature challenges.

Scenes of Wilkes-Barre are splashed throughout
the film, at times affirming its coal-town roots.
Chuckles rippled through the crowd when one woman
said she sympathized with Romanelli for being
blocked from the “rebates,” obviously meaning
“debates.”

Morse said he decided to follow the race through
Romanelli after “I realized I could get a lot
more access to Carl.” Being a reporter for Penn’s
student paper helped him get political celebrity
sound bites, including an outrageous gem from
homosexual Seattle columnist Dan Savage, who
said, “Carl Romanelli should be dragged behind a
pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the
rope.”

Romanelli, who saw the film for the first time on
Monday, seemed pleased, saying it depicted the
insurmountable odds third-party candidates must
overcome.

The filmmakers are submitting the film to
festivals and scored one victory so far, having
been accepted to the Rainier Independent Film
Festival in May.

After the showing, a panel of three Penn
professors discussed the film and its
implications on American politics.

Jack Nagel, a political science professor, called
the film a “compelling portrait of an
excruciating dilemma” third-party candidates face
by running on platforms that might steal votes
from the major-party candidates they’d otherwise
prefer.

“There was nothing to fear from Carl Romanelli,”
said Walter Licht, a history professor, noting
the Democrats’ overreaction. “I think it was a
hangover from 2000. There wasn’t going to be a
third-party candidate in Pennsylvania.”

But David Eisenhower, a historian and
communications professor, said what perhaps
epitomizes major-party followers’ sentiment
toward independents. “I spent the day reading
about the Green Party so I’d have something to
say tonight.”

Sorry. I mispelled douchebag...