Slog
News & ArtsFriday, October 26, 2012
Two-Block Radius / 2012 / LGBTQITSLFA Log Cabin Republicans Did a Little Postering Around Our Offices Last Night
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:41 AM
2
Seems like these would be the people for the Democrat Establishment should be reaching out to and brining into Obama's camp.
How does ridiculing them help?
How does ridiculing them help?
3
I've never understood this weird hatred amongst gay men of bottoms, and especially power bottoms- it seems like a holdover from hetero male culture against women and assertive ("bitchy") women in particular.
6
@3, Seattle has too many bottoms as compared to the number of tops...well tops anyone would sleep with
7
@2
Because it worked quite quite well to mock and ridicule the Greens who helped elect, and then re-elect, George W. Bush. Notice you don't hear much about them any more? Ever wonder why? Because we kissed their asses? No. Because we called them dupes? Yes.
Because it worked quite quite well to mock and ridicule the Greens who helped elect, and then re-elect, George W. Bush. Notice you don't hear much about them any more? Ever wonder why? Because we kissed their asses? No. Because we called them dupes? Yes.
10
@ 5, notice the use of the noun "Democrat" as an adjective?
Not a concern troll, just a normal troll.
Not a concern troll, just a normal troll.
11
@2, it's okay - isn't Nordstrom the closest any Log Cabin Republicans get to the two-block radius?
12
@ 7, actually, they came roaring back. "Ipso Facto" and "dirac" are two of the more regular ones here on Slog. They may not be "Greens" in terms of party membership, but that's where their hearts dwell.
14
@7, what states went to Bush instead of Gore or Kerry because of the green party? And can you cite your source? I googled it and can't find one
17
@2 yes. Because all 280 of those log-cabin dip shits will really put Obama over the top.
We should also stop ridiculing Idaho Neo-nazis. It's so mean. How does that help? You'd think we'd want them in our "camp." Right?
And for Pete's sake, stop ridiculing those poor people who believe the earth is only 8000 years. We need their mighty intellects!
And UFO abductees! STOP MAKING FUN OF THEM! We need that powerful clear-thinking constituency for our coalition.
We should also stop ridiculing Idaho Neo-nazis. It's so mean. How does that help? You'd think we'd want them in our "camp." Right?
And for Pete's sake, stop ridiculing those poor people who believe the earth is only 8000 years. We need their mighty intellects!
And UFO abductees! STOP MAKING FUN OF THEM! We need that powerful clear-thinking constituency for our coalition.
18
I don't think it's ridiculing power-bottoms whatsoever. The sign merely assumes that anybody who is gay AND supports RMoney does so because they want to get fucked REALLY HARD. (by his policies)(cough).
Obviousman - Away!
Obviousman - Away!
19
@12
I didn't say internet loudmouth dopes are any less loud. I mean you don't hear much about them being a factor in the election from non-kook sources.
@14
Jesus. Listen to yourself.
I didn't say internet loudmouth dopes are any less loud. I mean you don't hear much about them being a factor in the election from non-kook sources.
@14
Jesus. Listen to yourself.
20
@ 14, Florida did. As you know, the final tally gave Bush a mere 537 vote margin. Ralph Nader got 97,488 votes. While many undoubtedly came from hard lefties who would never have voted for Gore, many thousands also came from progressives who WOULD have, but were angry about the swing to the center that occurred under Clinton and wanted to take the opportunity to let the Dems know this. The fact that these were usually dependable Democratic voters is born out by the fact that the Greens received a much, MUCH smaller number of votes in the preceding and succeeding elections.
22
Count me as another who doesn't like the use of "bottom" as an insult. May the gods bless all the bottoms; power bottoms, passive bottoms, kinky bottoms, vanilla bottoms, what ever bottoms.
There are plenty of ways to insult Romney with out denigrating bystanders. Particularly the bystanders that the non-bottoms should be praising and treating like gold, because what the hell is the point of being a top if you don't have any bottoms to express that with?
I would have used "willing victim", because that is what these folks are.
There are plenty of ways to insult Romney with out denigrating bystanders. Particularly the bystanders that the non-bottoms should be praising and treating like gold, because what the hell is the point of being a top if you don't have any bottoms to express that with?
I would have used "willing victim", because that is what these folks are.
23
Seriously, you guys. You're STILL blaming the Green Party for Bush? What about Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush conspiring to deny minorities right of entrance at the polls and throwing away votes from overseas military personnel? What about the Supreme Court handing away the election to George W. Bush? The biggest goddamn election fraud perpetrated in this country ever and you're still blaming Ralph Nader and the goddamn Green Party?
Ugh. Way to miss the forest for the trees.
Ugh. Way to miss the forest for the trees.
26
@10 I dunno.... His disingenuous post @14 seems far more 'concern' than 'troll.'
"I just googled Romney/Ryan, looking for a quote that they would draw & quarter every lgbt person in America, and I just *can't* find it! Then lgbt people should be completely supportive of their candidacy!"
And that moniker, 'FDR'? Puh-leaze...
"I just googled Romney/Ryan, looking for a quote that they would draw & quarter every lgbt person in America, and I just *can't* find it! Then lgbt people should be completely supportive of their candidacy!"
And that moniker, 'FDR'? Puh-leaze...
27
@6,
I've heard the same thing about San Francisco. Maybe there are just too many bottoms in general.
@13,
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that a power bottom is extremely demanding. They may be a "bottom" in the strictest sense of the word, but they control the sexual encounter to such a degree they may as well be a top.
I've heard the same thing about San Francisco. Maybe there are just too many bottoms in general.
@13,
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that a power bottom is extremely demanding. They may be a "bottom" in the strictest sense of the word, but they control the sexual encounter to such a degree they may as well be a top.
28
@ 23, Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush wouldn't have had the opportunity to steal the election if not for the Greens.
The election was stolen by them and the Supreme Court, but only because of a close vote that wouldn't have been close enough without Nader and the Greens.
The election was stolen by them and the Supreme Court, but only because of a close vote that wouldn't have been close enough without Nader and the Greens.
29
@ 13 I always understood it to be not just a bottom, but the kind of bottom who that can't get enough, a borderline pathological bottom. But I'm not sure where I got that, and I could be wrong.
30
@27, basiThe way I always understood it, a power bottom is a bottom who is very aggressive about it. Not necessarily that they want to be in control of the sexual encounter, but rather that they really, really WANT it. The power bottom doesn't see their role as being there to pleasure the top, but rather the top is there equally, or primarily, to pleasure the bottom.
A bottom who likes to be in control is a Bossy Bottom.
A bottom who likes to be in control is a Bossy Bottom.
31
Power-bottoms like to get railed really, really hard. There's no shame in that, although I have never heard of this bottom-hatred everyone is talking about here. My first thought was as @18's -- the gay dudes for Romney just wanna get fucked really, really hard. Metaphorically.
32
@23, I'm with @28 Ralph (completely unelectable)Nader's ego will be judged by history as a major cause of the War in Irag. Nader's hubris will also be cited as the main reason 3rd parties have such a bad rap in the USA for decades to come.
33
@30,
Thanks for the clarification. I'm thinking Dan should publish a dictionary for these things. It would be so much more useful than Urban Dictionary (blergh).
Thanks for the clarification. I'm thinking Dan should publish a dictionary for these things. It would be so much more useful than Urban Dictionary (blergh).
34
@18, 30 & 31 have the right thoughts re: power bottoms. They just wanna get screwed really hard, those wittle Log Cabinettes.
Me- I'll take my screwing the regular way, thanks.
Me- I'll take my screwing the regular way, thanks.
35
Yes, by God, the true outrage here is that some people voted for a third-party candidate rather than choosing to participate in the corruption-ridden dump heap that we all know to be our two-party system. Yes, that's the thing that progressives should get pissy about, rather than the perpetration of a massive scale voter fraud.
Please. Of the whole 2000 Florida debacle, and all of the disparate events that went into it going down successfully, the people who chose to vote for Nader were the only people acting legally and within their rights. And you're going to pin the whole thing on them? Good God, sometimes I feel like progressives deserve to be shat upon by the right-wing assholes of this country. You guys are like the kid who gets beat up on the playground and then goes home and takes his anger out by torturing his little brother.
Please. Of the whole 2000 Florida debacle, and all of the disparate events that went into it going down successfully, the people who chose to vote for Nader were the only people acting legally and within their rights. And you're going to pin the whole thing on them? Good God, sometimes I feel like progressives deserve to be shat upon by the right-wing assholes of this country. You guys are like the kid who gets beat up on the playground and then goes home and takes his anger out by torturing his little brother.
36
Let's get real. There is nothing wrong with wanting an alternative to the two party system entrenched in American politics, but it is ridiculous to think that a 3rd party can win at the national level. Also *which* 3rd party? Libertarian, Green, Good Sapceguy? Any group wanting to build a viable 3rd party could do far worse than work from the neo-con playbook. After all, the ultra-right went from a largely ignored fringe of the GOP to a major force in 2 decades. 1: Start local, start small; run 3rd party cadidiates for seats like school boards, utilities districts, county councils and etc. 2. Build on the name recognition garnered by these candidates to win elections for more powerful positions. 3. Build your constiuency as you go.
37
The Republicans loooooooooove the Green Party, that's why they fund Green Party candidates.
When Republicans aren't laughing at the Greenies behind their hands,that is, and running homeless people as Green candidates.
The Green Party: Electing Republicans Since Whenever!
When Republicans aren't laughing at the Greenies behind their hands,that is, and running homeless people as Green candidates.
The Green Party: Electing Republicans Since Whenever!
38
@ 35, see what you did there? You tried to change this from a discussion about Nader and the Greens to the people who voted for them. You're also very falsely saying that I'm saying something (that it's ALL the Greens' fault) when I very clearly said it wasn't (that the GOP stole it).
The people who decided to vote Green instead of Democratic aren't the issue. They're just the proof of the reality of Third Party politics in America - that they draw votes from the far wings of either party to the benefit of the other.
If you're going to deny the culpability of the Greens in the election of George W. Bush, you're going to have to stick to the realm of fact and make a case. But just refusing to accept it and resorting to goalpost shifting and false attribution of statement is puerile.
The people who decided to vote Green instead of Democratic aren't the issue. They're just the proof of the reality of Third Party politics in America - that they draw votes from the far wings of either party to the benefit of the other.
If you're going to deny the culpability of the Greens in the election of George W. Bush, you're going to have to stick to the realm of fact and make a case. But just refusing to accept it and resorting to goalpost shifting and false attribution of statement is puerile.
39
...I believe that the LCReps are indeed shooting themselves in the foot and that Mr. Savage's term, "House Maggots," is both amusing and resonant. However...
I saw the poster and I thought, "Now THAT is how you take a joke and turn it your way."
Well played, house maggots, well played.
I saw the poster and I thought, "Now THAT is how you take a joke and turn it your way."
Well played, house maggots, well played.
40
What on earth is wrong with the person in the receiving position being in charge of the encounter? It seems just as legitimate as the lodging of the agency with the person in the performing position. Insisting on predetermined roles all the time - unless one is wired with absolutely no flexibility - just seems so... dreary?
42
@32. Oh please. The Greens are not responsible for the war in Iraq. In fact, the war in Iraq has been going on since 1990; during the Clinton years we continued to bomb the shit out of them and imposed crippling sanctions which killed 500,000 Iraqi children. (Remember when Madeleine Albright went on 20/20 to announce the "price was worth it"?)
To suggest that Nader voters are responsible for the plight of the Iraqis is thus bullshit; the whole D.C. establishment--Democratic and Republican alike--is responsible for that.
To suggest that Nader voters are responsible for the plight of the Iraqis is thus bullshit; the whole D.C. establishment--Democratic and Republican alike--is responsible for that.
43
Nader didn't lose the election for Gore, Gore did. I think having over 200,000 Democrats vote for Bush in Florida in 2000 might have been a bit of a problem.
And I'd like to lament the top to bottom ratio in Seattle as well.
And I'd like to lament the top to bottom ratio in Seattle as well.
44
@ 43, I have seen various Greens and other hard left types make that claim, but I've never seen an objective source confirm this. For example, this link makes that claim but is vague (no hard number, just "over 200,000") and doesn't cite any exit polling or data from vote tallies to confirm it. Instead it crunches numbers from unnamed polls taken in the weeks and months before the election. Not exactly the data source to prove that ANY number of actual votes cast for Bush came from Democrats.
In other words, it should be considered bunk.
Here is what isn't bunk: Nader surged in popularity between in 1996 run for President and 2000. As a Green running under a very progressive banner, progressives/liberals were the only ones voting for him. So his jump drew voters from one pool and one pool only - Democratic voters.
Nader received 97,488 votes in the final, "official" tally. Obviously, we can't say that they all would have voted for Gore if Nader or some other Green weren't a choice. There were then, as today, plenty of progressives and those further on the left who wouldn't vote for a moderate like Gore under any circumstance. But when Florida tallied a total of just 28,518 "others" in 1996 (which would include Nader and every other third party candidate not named Ross Perot), you have to ask how many of Nader's 2000 voters were progressives who WOULD have voted for Gore, whether under the "lesser of two evils" kind of resignation or a hope that the party would go more liberal in the 2000s, but were attracted by Nader's message in contrast to Gore's centrism. It stands to reason to suppose that tens of thousands of Nader's votes would have gone to Gore otherwise. More than enough to give him Florida and keep the opportunity taken by the Republicans from materializing.
Personally, I find the fact that the 200,000 figure is just big enough to completely and safely "prove" that Nader had no effect to be too convenient to be believed. If anyone can show their work at how they reached it, I'll buy it, but until then it just stinks a bit too much.
More...
In other words, it should be considered bunk.
Here is what isn't bunk: Nader surged in popularity between in 1996 run for President and 2000. As a Green running under a very progressive banner, progressives/liberals were the only ones voting for him. So his jump drew voters from one pool and one pool only - Democratic voters.
Nader received 97,488 votes in the final, "official" tally. Obviously, we can't say that they all would have voted for Gore if Nader or some other Green weren't a choice. There were then, as today, plenty of progressives and those further on the left who wouldn't vote for a moderate like Gore under any circumstance. But when Florida tallied a total of just 28,518 "others" in 1996 (which would include Nader and every other third party candidate not named Ross Perot), you have to ask how many of Nader's 2000 voters were progressives who WOULD have voted for Gore, whether under the "lesser of two evils" kind of resignation or a hope that the party would go more liberal in the 2000s, but were attracted by Nader's message in contrast to Gore's centrism. It stands to reason to suppose that tens of thousands of Nader's votes would have gone to Gore otherwise. More than enough to give him Florida and keep the opportunity taken by the Republicans from materializing.
Personally, I find the fact that the 200,000 figure is just big enough to completely and safely "prove" that Nader had no effect to be too convenient to be believed. If anyone can show their work at how they reached it, I'll buy it, but until then it just stinks a bit too much.
46
In the year 2000, two states went to Bush that would have gone to Gore had the Nader voters there held their nose and voted for Gore instead:
Florida (where 97,488 folks voted for Nader, and Gore only needed 600 or more votes)
and
New Hampshire (where 22,198 folks voted for Nader, but Gore lost that state by only 7,211 votes)
Even Noam Chomsky, Patron Saint of the Far Left, said this year if he lived in a swing state, he would vote for Obama:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/01/no…
Florida (where 97,488 folks voted for Nader, and Gore only needed 600 or more votes)
and
New Hampshire (where 22,198 folks voted for Nader, but Gore lost that state by only 7,211 votes)
Even Noam Chomsky, Patron Saint of the Far Left, said this year if he lived in a swing state, he would vote for Obama:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/01/no…
47
This is an example of bottom less worthy than top sexism and I want you to stop it. Or haven't you read Lysistrata?
48
The simple fact is that our system doesn't allow for the 3rd party option. Everyone here has demonstrated its flaws: 3rd party candidates split the vote. 3rd party candidates are unelectable. The two-party system is flawed.
You're not going to change anything by tweaking the system, or voting 3rd party. The system needs to be completely restructured, like a parliamentary system. Until then, you have to work through the two-party system.
You're not going to change anything by tweaking the system, or voting 3rd party. The system needs to be completely restructured, like a parliamentary system. Until then, you have to work through the two-party system.
49
@47: The problem is that they're constantly getting fucked and not withholding their sex from the Republicans. Your analogy works perfectly... against the Log Cabiners.
51
If you want to correct the top/bottom imbalance, there's a simple solution: bring back "it's not gay if you're the guy" and get the word out to the mostly-hetero types.
52
@48 -- And of course, that's not going to happen. The moment anyone tries to rework things so there's a viable third party, both the Democrats and the Republicans will team up and demonstrate true bipartisanship rather than give up the 'home v. away' football team mentality they've fought so hard to condition into us.
53
@48 -- And of course, the moment anyone tries that, the Democrats and Republicans are going to team up in a show of pure bipartisanship to shut it down. They're not going to give up the 'home v. away' football fan mentality they've worked so hard to cultivate.
54
I too wonder why gay-on-gay hate is so fun. But I guess it's just adopting the divide and conquer consciousness of Republicans.
@19 I guess I don't see your internet loudmouth being very effective either--nor do I see your political analysis being correct in any sense.
I see we're still litigating 2000. It's interesting with a huge Party machine, tens of millions of dollars (far more than any marginal party), tons of lawyers, 50% of the voting population checking out of every Presidential election, that Democratic voters are still deflecting blame for the mistakes of their own choices for leadership. Al Gore's problem in 2000 was Al Gore, not the extremely marginal Greens. Like I've ever thought a marginal party would win--but that's not their function in this system (btw, the Progressive Party says, "You're welcome for Social Security.") But what other narrative do you want to live by? That we have a choice? Then you should respect it and you can't claim you're entitled to that vote. If Obama loses, it's his own damned fault.
@19 I guess I don't see your internet loudmouth being very effective either--nor do I see your political analysis being correct in any sense.
I see we're still litigating 2000. It's interesting with a huge Party machine, tens of millions of dollars (far more than any marginal party), tons of lawyers, 50% of the voting population checking out of every Presidential election, that Democratic voters are still deflecting blame for the mistakes of their own choices for leadership. Al Gore's problem in 2000 was Al Gore, not the extremely marginal Greens. Like I've ever thought a marginal party would win--but that's not their function in this system (btw, the Progressive Party says, "You're welcome for Social Security.") But what other narrative do you want to live by? That we have a choice? Then you should respect it and you can't claim you're entitled to that vote. If Obama loses, it's his own damned fault.
55
I've known far too many power bottoms and the first rule of power bottom club is not to talk about power bottom club...
I do like the poster though..would love to get a copy of one.
I do like the poster though..would love to get a copy of one.
56
@ 54, no one ever said Al Gore didn't hinder his own campaign. That's another cause entirely.
It's simply just an indisputable fact that the Greens took enough votes away from Gore to cause all the problems in Florida that led to Bush's declaration of victory, and it's a concrete example of the only way third parties influence an election. Now, that could be because third parties have a very bad habit of going for the gold (making symbolic runs for the presidency) every time, without actually building a party at the grassroots level, focusing on local issues first with a long term strategy in mind. They all fail because they all exist for one purpose - protest the status quo. They do NOT exist for the purpose of presenting voters with a true alternative.
History matters. Someone smarter than you once said something about how those who don't learn from it go on to repeat past mistakes.
It's simply just an indisputable fact that the Greens took enough votes away from Gore to cause all the problems in Florida that led to Bush's declaration of victory, and it's a concrete example of the only way third parties influence an election. Now, that could be because third parties have a very bad habit of going for the gold (making symbolic runs for the presidency) every time, without actually building a party at the grassroots level, focusing on local issues first with a long term strategy in mind. They all fail because they all exist for one purpose - protest the status quo. They do NOT exist for the purpose of presenting voters with a true alternative.
History matters. Someone smarter than you once said something about how those who don't learn from it go on to repeat past mistakes.
58
@56 Oh, but it's a very important cause given the relative scales of influence. Yes, I agree that history matters, but ALL of history matters and this " and it's a concrete example of the only way third parties influence an election." is completely wrong, given my obvious example of third parties eventually having influence on major parties' policies.
"They all fail because they all exist for one purpose - protest the status quo." This is the second time tonight I've seen a fallacy of single cause. But "liberals" are so smart, I'm told.
Please don't try to judge intelligence while you argue quite explicitly for false choices and only look at history through the prism of a lecturing pragmatist. I know it suits some intellectually masturbatory need of yours but it doesn't forward you arguments in any substantive or persuasive way.
"They all fail because they all exist for one purpose - protest the status quo." This is the second time tonight I've seen a fallacy of single cause. But "liberals" are so smart, I'm told.
Please don't try to judge intelligence while you argue quite explicitly for false choices and only look at history through the prism of a lecturing pragmatist. I know it suits some intellectually masturbatory need of yours but it doesn't forward you arguments in any substantive or persuasive way.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Living Discomfortably by Dan Savage
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
Slog Super Poll: Who Should Be Mayor? by Dominic Holden
-
Black Market Elimination Fail: Draft Pot Rules Call for Ban on Hash and Hash Oil by Ben Livingston
-
Tim Burgess Quits the Mayor's Race by Dominic Holden
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (58) RSS