The Alaskans I've met have all been gay-friendly or, at worst, gay-ambivalent. They really don't care who or what you do, as long as you'd use your truck to pull theirs out of a snow bank.

Now if you try to take their gun, that's a different story.

Your assertion that there has never been an openly gay elected official in Alaska before is incorrect! Sitka had an openly gay woman serve on City Assembly. That was going on 10 years ago now.

Sexuality isn't an issue. But if you feel you have to make it one, I know how I'll vote, against. Thanks for saying who is openly gay. You know its not an issue until someone makes it one.

So Mr. Fogle is gay and a Republican asshole. They are.... and have never been exclusive.

If republicans had their way, they'd tear Alaska to shreds digging up all its oil and gas.

Have fun fishing in polluted waters Mr. Fogle.

@6,

Right, because Alaskans have never voted Republican before, and are therefore naive as to the potential consequences of doing so. As well all know, Anchoragites (and residents of that famed Anchorage suburb, Wasila) have never supported anti-environment candidates before. The polluted waters you reference would clearly have deterred them had they happened under a prior regime. They haven't which is why nobody associates the Name Exxon Valdez with Alaska.

Sorry if that was a little too sarcastic, Urgutha. I don't normally critique your positions, probably because i agree with you 99.9999% of the time. I'm just trying to point out that we won't get Fogle de-selected by critiquing his environmental positions or his Party is a red state that consistently votes in favor of oil and natural gas exploration.

@7,
Oh, I know all that. Comments here are mostly rhetorical... preaching to the converted, if you will.

I do think it's funny that Fogle repeatedly talks about how he's not a single-issues guy and doesn't want people to support him merely because he's gay. At the same time, there are millions of people who might actually support some of the republican party's ideas (I support some of them) if only they weren't so horrid and noxious in other areas.

I like the idea of smaller government, but I will NEVER vote republican because of everything else they stand for. I'll accept a more bloated, intrusive government in exchange for realistic social support programs, equal rights, less war, etc.

We really need to get rid of the "winner-take-all" voting system in this country that forces us to have only two viable political parties. If we could switch to ranked voting, maybe some of these third and fourth and fifth parties could actually make some headway.

@9,

I couldnt agree more. You're exactly right on all points. I would add that proportional representation would make it easier for smaller parties to get a foot in the door.

@9 "small government" is effectively code word for deregulation and privatization in the age of environmental limits. Is that what you want?

Nobody wants a bloated bureaucracy unable to attend to the problems it is designed to tackle but considering the enormous challenges ahead, I seriously doubt that any kind of small government is going to be desirable for quite a while. In fact, advocating for one at this juncture should be construed as a form of sabotage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9amtW_XV…

@5: Sexual orientation and political ideology have always been mutually exclusive and always will be.

@5:

OTOH, it is rather unique to encounter a Log Cabin Republican who may actually live in a log cabin...

@14: Save luxury log cabins with hot tubs.

@13, not to be the vocabulary nazi, but I'm thinking you're using "mutually exclusive" in a nonstandard way. As a counter example, I for one have both a political ideology AND a sexual orientation. So do you, come to think of it! Evidently sexual orientation and political ideology don't always exclude one another. I suggest you go with "mutually orthogonal" or "utterly uncorrelated" or "fully decoupled questions." You'd still be incorrect, of course, but it would less instantly obvious. If you want instead to say "Despite what many would have you believe, conservative gay men do exist", then I have further quibble!

WTF
What is Dan Savage complaining about?
Guy wants to be characterized as having a "moral character".
Maybe he wants to prove a point.

@17 He's a member of a sexual minority who has been reviled, demonized, persecuted, denied fundamental human rights and dignity, AND left to DIE - while being ridiculed as being "punished by God" for existing - not so long ago by the party and the people he's supporting. Now he's trying to demonize and persecute others. Just what point is he trying to prove, exactly?

Or are you being sarcastic? Asking honestly because I might be not getting it.

*sexuality minority

@19,

His username should inform you that his posts are intended to provoke a reaction. This is confirmed by his other posts (the username sometimes changes slightly, but always includes the phrase "red herring", a literary reference implying an attempt to distract those looking into an issue away from the root of the matter and on to an irrelevant topic).

I hesitate to use the term "troll". not only because its cliche, but also because almost every one here is on occasion a troll. This includes the Stranger staff. I think that if we're going to be honest here, we all need to acknowledge that the posts are articles we see are aren't dry academic discussions based entirely in logic. If they were, the Stranger would be boring.

You yourself do this. Observe your use of all caps and rhetorical questions combined with strong language, and your claim to understand what the intentions of this politician are- when logically speaking, none of us can know what anyone's intentions are umlaut;ess they state them explicitly. I cant read minds. Neither can you. Your post is as much an effort to troll "red herring" as "red herring"'s post is an attempt to troll Dan Savage, and Savage's article is an attempt to troll the entire city of Anchorage.

So before you use your shit in a fit of moral outrage, look around you. You're surrounded by trolls. And in fact you are one too.

@4 Wandering Stars -- well written, evocative, as good as any byline'd essay in The Stranger. Incredible as an anonymous blog post! Thanks.

It's weird how "not a single issue voters" make horrible decisions apparently based on one issue instead of voting for the people who won't move to fuck them over at any opportunity. It's not like Trump was some middle of the road centrist Mittens.

No, nonstop religious/racial/sexuality hate and representing the worst of society. But voting for him somehow allows someone to pretend to be moderate?

Defend it or ignore it, but the handwave away as if thinking Trump was the best person for the job is inconsequential to the decisions he'd make in office... eegh.

Best I can "hope" from that is that the guy's lying to better improve his chances among Alaskans.

Still gross.

@20: There's being provocative as a flourish and there's being a consistent shitposter. When people use "internet troll" they are rarely discussing the Savages and Mudedes and are referring to the incite-as-content variety. Just because Camille Paglia makes a fine living off of it doesn't make it any less rolleyes worthy when it's your average internet commenter.

That said he may be honestly stupid enough to think that voting Trump is a "ruggedly independent" move and that Trump isn't establishment GOP.

It is ok for people to think that their sexual identity is not their most important, defining characteristic.

It really reads like you are needling this guy for not pointing out his homosexuality to everyone he interacts with.

@24: This guy was soliciting — and receiving — endorsements from rabid anti-LGBT bigots in Anchorage, where LGBT rights are constantly under assault. His homosexuality relevant and his failure to "point it out" is the closet weaponized.

@25: It just seems very odd to try to bring this guy down when, as you put it, LGBT rights are under attack, considering how he appears to be a big supporter of LGBT rights. If he uses those bigoted endorsements to win office and make things better for LGBT folks, isn't that the political game? Isn't that the greater good?

And not being upset because he is not "out" enough for you? Seems like the LGBT community in Alaska may have more important things to worry about than your personal feelings about this, and may appreciate an ally in government.

Isn't the drive for complete political purity over the greater good what you railed about over and over when it came to Jill Stein? How is this any different, really?

Let's play let's pretend... a Jewish person running for office solicits and receives endorsements from prominent local anti-Semites. The anti-Semites don't know the person they've endorsed is Jewish, the Jewish person they've endorsed doesn't think their endorsement is a problem. Newsworthy? Or is writing about that disconnect evidence of an obsession with "political purity over the greater good"?

@26 "Isn't the drive for complete political purity over the greater good what you railed about over and over when it came to Jill Stein? How is this any different, really?"

This isn't about compromise, this is about a stealth candidate, who won't work for LGBT interest in office, and will repeal any LGBT anti discrimination ordinance in the name of "free markets" and "less government" intrusion, while stating "some of my best friends are gay and my unnamed partner also agree with my vote to rescind protection against LGBT discrimination" .

Just read about how Ruth Bennett in 2004 ran as the Libertarian Candidate for the sole purpose to drain away votes from Christine Gregoire, by running on a pro same sex marriage platform.. It is the same schtick.

@27: Personally, no I do not think that is newsworthy, if the people involved do not seem to care, especially if said Jewish person is running for office in an area where other Jewish people are struggling to have their rights recognized, and the politician identifies and agrees with their plight. I guess it is really up to the voter.

Also, I never said pointing it out was an obsession with political purity, I was asking how your constant screeds against voting for Jill Stein in favor of right-center Hillary Clinton was any different from someone voting for this guy, whose endorsements may be questionable, although he represents a greater good for the local LGBT population (based on his responses, anyway).

Because this is personal to you, and it comes through very clearly in the interview that you are taking this very personally. Whereas when you were not taking it personally when it came to Stein v. Clinton, you advocated repeatedly that the greater good is better than political purity, but here, when it hits closer to home, you say the opposite.

@23,

I would argue that your opinion of what other people consider to be trolling is entirely subjective. If you only visit neoliberal websites, than its likely the only people you see are as you describe- highly unlikely to call Charles or Dan out for perceived trolling.

If on the other hand you get your news from much farther to the Left sources- Mark Ames of the Radio War Nerd blog, Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone, Rania Khalek of Unauthorized Disclosure, and CounterPunch - the world looks a little different. These sources are much more critical of the Establishment Democrats. To them, Hillary Clinton's campaign wasn't sabotaged by Russia, James Comey and Wikileaks- she sabotaged herself. She lost to the craziest, most batshit circus clown in America's political history, so I get why she doesn't want to look introspectively at her own mistakes, since that would mean admitting to catastrophic incompetence. But externalizing the blame to everyone from Jill Stein to Susan Sarandon is kind of pathetic. When the time comes that you're seriously suggesting the world's most powerful politician lost because of.... Janet Weiss.... you know, that kinda looks like.... bullshit.

Dan, however, loves this bullshit, and will run with it every chance he gets. None of it has any proof to back it up. Tune into Blabbermouth, and hear the volume of his voice go way up as he tries to drown anyone out that suggests maybe killing the EPA is a better reason to impeach the bastard than pretending that Glenn Greenwald is an FSB stooge.

And you know... thats what we all... trolling. Spinning wild bullshit without any basis in fact to smear the shit out of anyone who suggests your reasoning could be flawed is trolling. You might not like to think of it that way, but it's fucking trolling.

You want to ITMFA? Good, so do I. Lets do it because he's flagrantly violates the emoluments clause. Or the First Amendment separation of Church and State. Let's impeach his ass (and Pence too) for his overt racism directed at Latin Americans, particularly toward people of Mexican ancestry. Lets do it because there are roadblocks in towns and cities across AZ, NM and TX where innocent civilians are stopped by Border Patrol even though they're a hundred miles from the fucking border. Let's impeach him for endangering Trans kids.

We don't need a wild "The Russians are coming to get us!" rehash of the Cold War mentality that damn near led to a nuclear war to find good reasons to can his nasty ass.

@28: My position of course, depends on if they guy really will fight for LGBT rights/protections, so I am taking him at his word based on the interview.

Of course if he is just lying, then the point is moot. It certainly is a possibility, and I imagine locals would have a better idea of this, I just know what the above interview posited.

I wrote exactly two posts about Jill POS Stein. "Constant screeds"? Hardly-har-har.

@29 "I was asking how your constant screeds against voting for Jill Stein in favor of right-center Hillary Clinton"

Dr. Jill Stein wasn't an alternative to Hillary Rodham Clinton. She was/is a dingbat spoiler candidate who had some serious gaps with reality with some of her ideas, and I am not talking about her pandering to batshit idiots on vaccines. Bernie Sanders was the alternative candidate against Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the battle was fought in the Democratic Party primary.

on your post @31. Mr. Albert Fogle has stated enough of his thinking, he is not going to stand up for LGBT rights, mainly it does not fit into his ideology. He is a right wing Republican. I highly doubt that for a guy who wants to strip away more rights and due process against illegal immigrants/undocumented workers, is going to fight hard for LGBT right and anti discrimination protection. When he spews "Less Regulation, Less Government Intrusion", what he is stating is "Less Regulation and Less Government Intrusion" for his right wing friends, more intrusion and more Government oversight for anyone who doesn't believe in his right wing ideology..

If you look at the Tea Party, their motto was "Less Taxes and Less Government power for me", anyone else, especially if they are not white males, more government control and more vaginal probes.

This is a stealth candidate for Conservatives who will have their interests at heart but with different window dressing..

@32,

If you count your contributions to Blabbermouth, it's more than 2.

@32: The first page of my Google search has three articles by you about her, and a few articles in other papers about how you keep writing and tweeting about her. I did not venture off the first page to see how many their actually were, and did not count things like Blabbermouth, multiple articles by other Stranger bloggers on your views about Stein, or podcasts. Why tell such a blatant, easily disproven lie? Bush league.

But why ignore everything else I said just to tell a lie about Jill Stein? Commenters were frequently begging you stop obsessing over Stein.

Now, I do want to say one thing here.

I disagree with Dan and Charles about a few things, to be certain. I don't really know that either one of them gives a shit about me or my way too long forum posts, or if either one's ever even read one of them. I'm not a globally famous sex advice columnist/gay icon or an esteemed professor, and my writing style is nowhere near what those two can produce even on their worst days and my best. I'm pretty fucking anonymous and inconsequential. I get that.

For what it's worth, and if anyone cares, even though I disagree with both of them on a lot of things, I do admire them both quite a lot. As a gay man I'm grateful for the sea change people like Dan have created in the US. I can remember when I was a kid and Lon Mabon came up from Oregon to run around screaming that we are all plotting to indoctrinate everyone's kids. The act that I was able to be at a hotel in downtown Tacoma watching the results from R74 come in and realize that we'd won the right to marry by referendum- when no other jurisdiction int he world had done it that way before- you know, a lot of that is because people over the years have read the little scribbles this man wrote and watched him on TV presenting an image of gay America that people liked. It was harder for people to think I was the boogeyman after Dan put himself out there and everyone got to see that we're just like everyone else. So I'm not ungrateful and I don't hate Dan just because our politics don't line up. If anything, I'd love to buy him a drink and thank him.

That said, I do think he's wrong on the whole Stein/Sawant/Sanders thing.

Oh, an one last thing before I sign off.

if anyone has a reason to hate Vladimir Putin, it's Masha Gessen. She had to flee her home country because of the asshole, to save her family and herself. She can't get any of her books (except one, and it's about a mathematician) published in Russia. Bookstores there are afraid to touch her stuff, because the cops will shut them down if they sell anything written by her (except for the one about the math genius).

Even she says this whole business about Clinton's loss being a Russian conspiracy is bullshit.

My worry is that by taking the approach we're on now, you know, what if it blows up in our faces? What if the GOP uses this to portray us as a bunch of rabid McCarthyites (which would be ironic as hell)? I mean, a year from now, if everyone dismisses us as the Glenn Becks of the Left, we're done for. The second people see you as a crazy conspiracy theorist, nobody takes you seriously anymore. Even if you come up with something later on that's actually true, by then, you're not reputable anymore.

And you know what? Trump is bad news, and so is the whole GOP slate. So much shit is in real danger now. LGBT rights, women's rights, civil rights for Latinos, an increasing militarized police force, the real possibility this lunatic could declare martial law, access to healthcare, mass deportations, the Keystone XL pipeline, the tax code- we could lose it all very very quickly. I don't want to see that happen. Instead of wasting time on what is most likely bullshit, lets focus on whats really in danger here.

@37, I don't believe anyone has asserted that Clinton's loss was the result of a "Russian conspiracy." What has been said is that it appears to be the case that Trump and his minions may have conspired with Russian officials in an effort to influence the election in Trump's favor.

You know...treason. That's not exactly what I would describe as "bullshit" or a "waste of time."

Good for him! A married guy with a strong sense of himself and his values. By contrast, Dan comes off as an insecure, belligerent zealot just looking for a reason to trash the guy. I wonder if, had he given Dan the "wrong" answer, Dan would have gone up to Alaska and try to infect him with the flu, as he did in Iowa in 2000. I guess we'll never know because he responded directly and civilly to Dan's questions and didn't give Dan the justification that Dan was looking for to dehumanize him.

My only criticism of this guy is that he accepts the fiction of "LGBT" and further accepts the laughable claims of trans activists to access the bathrooms of the opposite sex. He's too smart to buy the fraudulent construct of LGBT, which was concocted in the 1990s to manipulate LGB people into tendering their money and labor to trans activists.