The Stranger Endorses Santorum! (and Gingrich! and Paul!)

Anyone Can Show Up to the Republican Caucus on March 3—
Even People Who Have Never Voted Republican Before

Comments

1
It's all fun and games until Santorum gets the nomination and then the economy tanks again this summer.
2
@1 Exactly. Also, I know it's obvious but you're adopting the methods and moral high ground of alleged kiddie-hooker fucker, admitted hillybilly heroin addict Limbaugh.
3
No, no, no! The Democratic caucuses are NOT on the same day as the Republicans'. The Democrats caucuses are on Sunday, April 15, at 1:00 p.m. although you are correct that you can't attend both. In addition, the King County Elections website gives you the precinct, but you need to go to the King county Republican website to find the actual location. The caucuses are run by the parties, not by by the auditors or by King County Elections. Also, the Democrats will allow you to register at the caucus and still participate. I don't know about the Republicans, though.
4
I agree with Paul, here (that non-Republicans, especially in places like Seattle) should caucus, but not for the same reasons.

If you think about it for more than 5 seconds, there is almost certainly one candidate that you would honestly prefer over the others. Or at the very least, a candidate that is clearly worse than the other 3 (*cough*Santorum*cough) that is well worth voting against.

Why wouldn't you take the opportunity to express that preference, especially when (if you live in a neighborhood like I do, and I imagine many Sloggers do) your vote could seriously move the precinct in one direction or another. Your vote in this caucus will count many more times than a vote in the general election.

I'll be at Roosevelt High. And I'll almost certainly be at the nearest pub afterwards washing the taste out of my mouth.
5
Moe Larry and Curly all trying to get through a door at once?

Who ever wins gets to burn Korans with Terry Jones and the US Army like real Republican conservatives. 4 the best way to predict the future is to invent it! Mormon underwear! Republican caucusing locations on the moon by 2019! Ron Paul is so far to the left he is actually out of the ball park?

Seems he should be told that he "is" a far left liberal Democrat? as he keeps saying that everyone else are not conservatives?
6
Guys I really hate to piss in your cornflakes but there are active openly homosexual men who say OUT LOUD they'd vote for Santorum IN THE ELECTION because he's so darn cute. My ears are still ringing with what I've heard, at least three times.

I lecture at colleges and even though I'm there to talk about sex, I find myself asking the groups about politics and telling them how vital it is that they TAKE AN ACTIVE ROLE. In the past men AND women have very foolishly voted against their own interests based on the looks of the candidates.

When you talk about college aged homosexuals, whose favorite TV show is "The A List" you are looking at a whole new demographic. For many the bottom line is "Screw politics. It gives me a headache. I only go to Campus Events to cruise cute guys." And folks the numbers are larger than you think. Have you watched the queer programming on television? I'm not talking about the solid documentaries etc. They are no longer in the majority..... BY FAR!! Logo and others often play to the lowest common denominator.

We need to do MORE to reach THIS AUDIENCE of mostly young people and remind them what it was like for queers in the "olden" days...... 20 to 50 years ago, AND THAT first it wouldn't take much to find ourselves back in those dark days; and second to assure them we have a very long way to go before we can reach our "brass age;" the "golden age" is eons away at the current pace. Sorry, but this is something I can't be glib about. It's very real and very disturbing. How, with so much that's happened, been written, shown, and reported about can this attitude exist? I've been told by these same young men that the News is too depressing, so they don't watch it. However, they will attend any lecture that has "SEX": in the title.
7
You forgot the talking points for one candidate with some chance of winning ... Mitt Romney is an expert on the correct height of trees, who has been engineered to appear quite similar to a person.

Also one candidate with no chance of winning ... Buddy Roemer has focused his campaign on eliminating the corrupting effects of political contributions from special interests.
8
"Which could mean more Democrats would win in elections nationwide, which could ensure that things like health-care reform, a woman's right to choose, and basic fucking human decency will continue to be secure for years to come."

Wow. You really believe that bit about basic human decency, don't you? While the Democratic Party votes up renewing the Patriot act, indefinite military detention laws, keeping Guantanamo Bay open, hiding behind "state secrets", and continues reforming the concept of "war" into "armed conflicts which are definitely not war in which we have a military presence"?

Romney is a carbon copy of Obama except less handsome, Gingrich thinks we shouldn't have a judicial branch, and Santorum thinks my pre-marital sex life is sinful and should be banned. Obviously, we've got problems. I know this is The Stranger, but dumbing down the debate by fanatically trumpeting Democrats as America's True Saviors is a shitty way to go about dealing with it.
9
@8, you forgot murdering American citizens without due process.
10
Obama has always been low key supportive and never a Rangel? but what really makes Obama great is his intelligence and the fact he is not a Republican!

As I am shocked with Killery Goddam Kitten aka: dog the bounty hunter so I can only imagine the cabinet of freaks Mitt,Newt or Ron would elmer glue together.

Friends don't let friends vote Republican as the Democrats may Ignore you but the Republicans will Heckedy Peg the earth.

Heckedy Peg I say!
11
That King County link in the article doesn't provide GOP caucus locations. The correct link to find locations is:
http://wsrpcaucus.tumblr.com/caucuslocat…
12
Both sides are slum...why even participate in a Caucus knowing that not one candidate supports basic civil liberties. Boycott them all...throw rocks. I think we are beyond "giving these people a chance". And you think Romney and Santorum are bad (I grew up in PA...Santorum sucks but is nowhere near as evil as...) NEWT?!?!?! Really??? Was anyone awake during Newt's reign of terror during the Clinton Years?

evil. all evil.
13
Since the Republican caucuses are probably going to be a very sparsely attended affair, progressives should attend them and become delegates for Santorum. Then they should go to the state party convention and try to pass a resolution in favor of marriage equality.

Of course it won't happen, but even an effort would drive the religious freaks crazy.
14
Not touching Santorum (or santorum) with a ten-foot pole. Would never get over voting for RC in the caucus only to watch him actually win the nomination or presidency. He's a disgusting creep that is despoiling what goodwill surrounds the electoral process. It would only be bad for that to be the face of 1/2 of America this November. Santorum running against Obama lets BO slide right on economic policy without getting slapped back by progressives.
15
I would sooner punch every woman I know in the face than even jokingly vote for Santorum. I don't want to give this country the remotest impression that people like him are tolerated.
16
Paul, PLEASE say you guys and gals at The Stranger aren't serious with this shit! I am totally with @15, prompt!!
17
@6 has lost it
18
Even as a joke, I don't see how you could vote for these turds. Those of us non-Republicans shouldn't win because the Republicans suck, we should win because of Obama's record.
19
Obama sure looks like all the other republicans running. Before getting elected he stated the first thing he would do was withdraw troops from Iraq... and it took him how long to complete this goal? Now Obama is trying to take us to war with Iran.

Obama also signed into law the right for the US government to indefinitely detain anyone it wants without trial. A detestable encroachment on our basic civil rights. To vote for Obama again, after has taken so many of our rights away would be an endorsement of this policy.

Ron Paul would have withdrawn immediately. Ron Paul will not continue to relentlessly war-monger our way into debt. Ron Paul stands for repairing the individuals basic rights. Seriously take a moment to compare the two both on foreign and domestic policy before you cast your ballot.
20
#10, friends also don't let friends go on believing that there is a deep distinction between democrats and republicans; they are both the same soul-sucking creatures in different skins.
21
Republicans BAAAAAAD!!!! Democrats less BAAD!!!

Ain't the world great? Folks the facts are that about 90% of the time we are voting for the lesser of evils, and while that does not bode well for our Republic, it's still better than choosing not to participate.

Never lose sight of the fact that in maybe 10% or less of the cases we ARE INDEED voting FOR someone and what they stand for (like Obama).

MEANWHILE, WE MUST PUSH HARD TO ELECT MORE QUEERS..... HOW? BY FORMING A UNITED FRONT WITHOUT RANCOR, NIT PICKING, OR THE DEMAND THAT ANY QUEER CANDIDATE MUST BE ALL THINGS TO ALL QUEERS. THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE CONSIDERING THE DISPARATE NATURE OF OUR "COMMUNITY." WHAT WE WANT ARE QUEER CANDIDATES WHO SUPPORT CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL GROUPS. (Civil Rights includes, marriage, voting, equal protection, inclusion, non discrimination (e.g. the right to adopt, or join the Armed Forces proudly open about our sexuality, and so on). That is sufficient to make him/her OUR CANDIDATE.

We NEED to stop relying on "straight" candidates who often must LIE about their views on homosexual rights, in order to be elected. I detest that...... but will continue to vote and support the lesser of evils. Otherwise, with a Republican Government we may well find ourselves back in the DARK AGES when it was illegal to be queer.... when they sent in undercover officers to entrap us......when homosexuality was defined as a MENTAL DISORDER and our "relatives" could have us committed to Mental Institutions INVOLUNTARILY.

For young men this is totally inconceivable.. so I remind them that IN MY LIFETIME BEING QUEER WAS CONSIDERED A MENTAL DISORDER AS WELL AS AGAINST THE LAW (sodomy). Lest we forget the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) IN 1973 (My dining room table is older than that).. SO LESS THAN 40 YEARS AGO AMERIKA BELIEVED WE WERE LOW LIFE SODOMITES AND DANGEROUSLY NUTS (a technical term). When I speak to young men I cite all the other beliefs that changed PRIOR to out being removed from the DSM.... I try to scare the crap out of them regarding just how recent 1973 was.... how most of their parents were born prior to that year.... and how much more terrifying it was back then to be openly queer..... and how we had NO RIGHTS TO EXIST AS QUEER..... what it was like around the time of Stonewall (1969)... In spite of our "snail's pace progress" I want those young men to know just how lucky they are to live NOW instead of 40 years ago, AND to realize that what progress we've made could be so easily whittled down to nothing.

We must "inspire" today's young men to take an active interest in THEIR OWN HISTORY as homosexuals AND to become a STRONG "moving force" in American politics.... to cry out against injustice..... to vehemently protest queer bashing (too often by kids their own age or younger)..... to volunteer wherever they are needed to help in THE FIGHT for homosexual rights, or any of a number of homosexual organizations who offer help to their brothers and sisters.

We must lead by example and teach these boys to BE PROUD AND NOT TAKE SHIT ABOUT BEING QUEER FROM ANYONE...... starting with their own families....... however, to make a good, cogent, well formed argument, THEY MUST BE INFORMED.... about our (their) history; about who we are and how we're made (how we are born queer and do not one day make a conscious choice to eschew our heterosexuality in favor of homosexuality; about how it feels to listen to their own family disparaging homosexuals in queer jokes or worse by their cruel comments every time there's something about queers in a movie, on TV, or in the news; and to understand that the Bible is a Political tool, often used to beat us into submission, however using the Bible is totally arbitrary and has no place in a legitimate discourse about this issue. Who gives a fuck what the Bible says about queers? If they want to cite the Bible then return with the Bible's views on punishing your slaves or your wives (both chattel), or adultery, or birth control, OR how you can actually "prove" any point by "interpreting" various passages in a way that supports your argument. And Finally by pointing out the the Bible is nearly 2,000 years old and is hardly an up to date guide on ANYTHING.... So refuse to be hoodwinked into using the Bible as part of ANY ARGUMENT ON HOMOSEXUALITY. Look them directly in the eye and say, "If you insist on using the Bible then I insist on using Mother Goose as my source of fairy tales or Aesop's Fables or Alice in Wonderland or The Phone Book." That'll get your opposition sputtering and stammering. Why more of us, cornered on television, by Reverend Faghater, with the big evil smile, don't use this tactic leaves me speechless. Hell, if you don't like my suggestion then at least why not DEMAND that any debate on the subject stick to relevant FACTS and not holy books that push their own POV.
22
Sure Mr. Democrat, show up and I'll make sure you get on every mailing list, donation beg list, news flash list, and campaign help list going. You'll be my new best friend and I'll call you over and over to come talk Republican politics. I'll come to your house and see if you can come out for sign waving duty on an overpass or rainy street corner on a regular basis.

In short, if you sign the affidavit that you're a Republican, you're going to have to live up to it. I'll make sure of it.
23
@10 After a decade of gun for hire peace keeping we develop an understanding of I "can" tolerate Criminals and I "can" tolerate Stupid but I "cant" tolerate Stupid Criminals?

No I am not Happy at all with Obama's Cabinet and Obama is asleep on some things but I would keep a Average president that is asleep on some issues before going with twisted stupid criminals that keep me cringing in embarrassment every time I watch the news.

its getting to the point that the majority of Republicans cant stand Republicans.

George W's Endorsement? worth about $2.50 at a Korean fish market? Maybe!!
24
The national convention is in August? Is this the final piece of the gop shenanigans where one republican is finally decided on to be the contender? If it is then that only leaves like 3 months to debate and out do Obama. This whole process is taking way too long.
25
Or just don't do this. Sure, liberals CAN take part in Republican caucuses, but it's kind of against the spirit of what caucuses are supposed to be. Admittedly it's to a far lesser extent, but this is the same kind of shit we all hate when Republicans pull--taking advantage of some technicality or trick to manipulate the democratic process (filibustering everything they see in the Senate, for example). Just because they'd do it doesn't mean we should.

Let them pick Romney. Hell, let them pick Santorum on their own if that's what they want. If Obama can't wipe the floor with either one of them in the general election, then it's America's own fault for being stupid.
26
Cone on, #15, what better a way to punch the nation's women in the face than a vote for Santorum? Punch 'em in the face, and then kick 'em in the vagina. Santorum 2012!
27
Just be sure that no one goes around licking doorknobs.