AN OPEN LETTER TO SINGLE-ISSUE VOTERS

As the media have redundantly battered into our minds for the past 24 hours, polling suggests that Bush won on the support of a lot of people who considered "moral issues" to be the decisive factor in this election. In other words, gay marriage and abortion were issues that trumped the war, terrorism, and the economy for these voters. Additionally, we can assume that the GOP's traditional "low taxes at all costs" voters were present as well.

Let me be uncharacteristically blunt. If you are a single-issue voter willing to overlook everything and anything in order to take a position on gay marriage, you deserve to die. Slowly, painfully, and in front of your little hateful children who will grow up to be every bit the reactionary asshole you are today.

"Gee Ed, isn't that a little harsh? They're entitled to their opinion."

Interesting. Fuck you.

These voters are stating, in essence, that they believe it is morally acceptable to do whatever they want regardless of the consequences to others. Why assume that the repercussions will fall on other people and not the voter? Because they would vote differently were this not the case. Think about it.

These votes come from the suburbs (tax cuts) and rural areas (abortion, gay marriage). Can you think of two places more insulated from the regressive economic and international policies of this administration? Look at the decision-making process of a suburban voter. The war? Who cares. Junior's in an expensive private school, and that ACT tutor is gonna make sure he gets into a 4th-rate college with two directional adjectives in its name. The economy? Come on, daddy's the person who does the outsourcing, not the one who gets outsourced. Terrorism? Those attacks happen in big cities. Cuts to government programs? Well that's just more urban poor to shuttle into the army. Or prison. Need more of those.

This kind of decision can only be made by voters so insulated from the consequences of their actions and so unconcerned about others who may be impacted that even the worst hatred in the world is insufficient to describe the appropriate feeling society should have for them. So welcome to No Sympathy Night (God bless you Bill)

I hope your children are drafted, sent to Iraq, and returned home in pieces.

I hope your daughters who grow up without sex education in school get knocked up at 16 and/or turn into sullen, frigid, pill-popping shrews who while the days away with wine, the Oxygen network, romance novels, and desperate fantasizing about what their lives could be like had they not sold their souls for a three-car garage and a loveless, Viagra-dependent marriage.

I hope your job is the next to go. I hope you end up working the most degrading job imaginable for a wage so low that it won't allow you to maintain your meaningless, consumptive, debt-based lifestyle for a month. I want to be present when you tell your kids that the fancy home and cars have to go. I want your marriage to crumble in the absence of the money that kept it together.

I want the people devastated by cuts in social programs to wait behind a tree and slit your throat for a few bucks rather than commit crimes against some person in circumstances as dire as theirs.

Is this harsh? Only if you define the term with a vested interest in assuaging your conscience. It's nothing but fair to say that these things, which are already happening across this nation, are instead suffered by the people whose myopic, indescribably self-centered voting behavior is the cause.

If you're one of these voters, fuck you. If this is America, fuck America too. These people would vote for Hitler if he said he'd cut taxes and outlaw gay marriages, and in light of that I see nothing wrong with them that couldn't be solved by a bullet in the head.

Be Sociable, Share!

36 Responses to “AN OPEN LETTER TO SINGLE-ISSUE VOTERS”

  1. Happy Says:

    Ed I agree with everybloodything you have said here……but maybe something about how our wonderful and moral pres executes people too retarded to even know that they are going to die.
    but yes I have a shit job very little formal education and an even more shit future now than I did a couple days ago coming back to the midwest to work BushShit menial jobs instead of playing guitar for spare change in the northwest seems like a worse and worse decision every second at least if I had kept busking I would have gotten used to my future career

    anyhoo fuck Bush for being alive fuck Kerry for being the biggest milquetoast centrist fuck ever born and cheers to gin and tacos for keeping me laughing

  2. Noelle Says:

    I thought my 'fuck you' 'I hope' post was bitter and angry but I bow to you, sir. You are the mastah.

  3. Anonymous Says:

    Respectfully, not enough gin, too many tacos.

  4. abby Says:

    AMEN.
    It's so disturbing that the same people who call themselves Republicans and supposedly want a smaller government have NO problem with expecting the government to force "Christian morals" on the rest of the nation.
    Psst: MORAL LEADERSHIP IS NOT THE PRESIDENT'S FUCKING JOB. (Besides, isn't illegal war a "moral" issue too? Or are morals just reserved for people we don't like, like those evil butt pokers?)

  5. Max Says:

    where are you from Ed? illini im hearing?
    me too. also casted a vote for obama.
    also semi-thinking/joking about secession, although i think that there is something that might work better and be easier to accomplish….regional states? northeast, southeast, great lakes, south, great plains, southwest, and pacific coast. Although, this too is somewhat of a haphazard idea, I feel the mantra of it (i.e. this country is too big) is something to think about.
    talk to me.

  6. myconfidence Says:

    While gratified to read some shared views and cognizant of the righteousness of your views, it is the case that Tuesday's election was as much a referendum on American culture as anything. In other words, George Orwell's prescient analysis of human society is our present in a figurative (but no less strict for that matter) sense.
    In still other words, 60,000,000 Americans are and are likely to remain too fucking ignorant, selfish, bigoted, lazy, mendacious, etc. to stop this unholy train ride to the second-coming of the Dark Ages.
    "What are we fighting for!?"
    "A bunch of stupid fucking animals, apparently!?"
    "Why!?"
    Good fucking question. I for one will not waste any more of my time trying force cattle out of their pens and sheep out of their slaughter pens. Fuck 'em. If some of us can figure it out, so fucking what? What do we see other than actions and sentiments that repel us? As useless to teach a fucking lemming to swim as to not jump off the cliff. Well, they're on their way down, now, and I won't be giving any swimming lessons on the one-way trip to the craven new world.
    Is this apathy? No, this is the result of empathy that is not wanted. Well, I'm sick of trying to pry open the eyelids of my "fellows"
    fel

  7. Someone Says:

    Let me start by saying that I have no political affiliations, and for all intents and purposes, both major candidates were very poor choices for this election.

    However, I am going to play devil's advocate, and say you forgot (or ignored) a few points in your rabid post, which leads me to believe you are either naive (doubtful) or incredibly biased (most likely):

    1) a very large percentage of the personnel in the Armed Forces currently deployed comes from the exact same states that voted for George Bush, so in essence, they're willingly going to Iraq and putting their lives on the line; they voted for Bush because they believe in him and his direction;

    2) most of the outsorcing started during the days of the Clinton administration, under laws and statutes passed by and sanctioned by his cabinet, and most of the H1B Visas given out were during the dotcom bubble during his administration;

    3) the only effort to institute a draft was done by a Democrat, namely Charles Rangel from NY (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/);

    4) you accusing people which voted for Bush of 'believing it is morally acceptable to do whatever they want regardless of the consequences to others' is incredibly hypocritical, specially when Democrat voters do the exact same thing.

    Maybe the public doesn't believe in gay marriage, wants more tax cuts, wants something done about terrorism (real or imaginary), and is fed up with the politically-correct attitude of the big media and the pseudo-intelectual crowds that inhabit the 'big cities'.

    Voting for Kerry simply because "at least he isn't Bush" is probably the most irresponsible use of your vote. A person that doesn't seem to have very solid convictions, has a spotty voting record that's almost completely dependent on the current political atmosphere and not in the actual needs of the public, and with a need to get approval from everyone in the world before doing anything for the protection of his own country is just not the kind or person that inspires confidence, and the election showed that.

  8. abby Says:

    But the "pseudo-intellectual crowd that inhabits the big cities" winds up paying the price when terrorists decide to attack us because of what America supposedly stands for. Ain't nobody flying planes into buildings in Cleveland.

    Although you may be right that many people deployed in Iraq believe in what Bush is doing, many others don't. A lot of people joined up after 9/11 thinking we were actually going to go after Osama. A lot of other people simply join because they need a job and have no other real prospects. And a lot of others are Reservists who never expected to go to a real war. This might have been naive of them, but you can hardly argue that they did it because they're so gung ho for Bush's war.

  9. erik Says:

    Someone-

    I am aware you are playing the devil's advocate here, so I don't hold you personally responsible for what you are saying.

    1. Maybe you are right about the armed forces, maybe you are not. I don't know. Everything I have read indicates that those in the military are fairly split on how they feel about being in Iraq. Although I think that this is quite a bit misleading. It always amused me everytime a saw Sean Hannity or the like with some low ranking soldier on his program. The soldier would say something like. "Yeah Sean, we are so proud to be out here fighting the terrorists." Then Mr. Hannity would get off the phone and seemingly indicate to the audience that this 18 year old who might or might not have a high school education is such a master of foreign policy that we should take his word that there is a relation between Iraq and the "war on terror."

    Let me attempt to clarify that quasi-anacdotal information. Basically I think that there is no reason to beleive that just because someone is serving in the military that they are not doing it for some ignorant reason.

    2. Clinton gave in to outsourcing because during that time of growth there was literally not enough people to fill the jobs in the United States. That was really a different situation all together.

    3. Nobody things that George Bush "wants" a draft. I think everyone knows that he will avoid it at all costs. Just because he seems like a dumbass does not mean that he doesn't know that a draft is political suicide. It is more likely that there will be a draft with bush in office as opposed to well….anyone else because it is his policies that could possibly require it.

    4. The difference between Bush and the democrats in terms of morality is the type of morality that might be legislated. It is the notion of "negative" morality. This is not to say that the values themselves are negative, but rather they are "you can't do" type of things as opposed to "you can, or you should." This is the issue at hand as far as I am concerned.

    Basically the Bush "moral agenda" implies that his evangelical morality should be placed upon the whole of society. I strongly believe that it is a great responsibility of our government to assure that the will of the minority is not stomped on.

    To put it in an example. There is a very large legislative difference between someone saying that if you are Gay you can't get married and allowing it to occur. The former states that a minority should not have rights the majority has. The later does not at any point force the majority to put on leather pants grow a mustache and marry other men.

    -and finally, I don't think that "not voting for bush" is irresponsible. It is basically a vote saying that you disagree with this moral doctrine.

  10. Ben Says:

    Better yet, it likely WILL be their parents eating dog food because they cannot afford medication, and we can look forward to their churches asking them to adopt non-aborted, brain-dead children with three arms caused by depleted uranium shell casings, and sooner or later, it will be their SUVs, starved of petroleum, serving as shelter for their two natural and three adopted children after their subdivisions are destroyed in the hurricane or earthquake that our country no longer has money to transcend because of massive deficit spending.

  11. Ed Says:

    Wow…..so the fact that the public is anti-gay marriage means it's a good thing that they vote based on it and get a response from the government?

    This may shock the shit out of you, but elected officials are not there for the purpose of catering to the base desires of the public. There was this thing called "slavery" and another called "segregation" that were incredibly popular with voters. Segregation would still be the law in the south had the courts not done what the elected would not.

    The fact that the public supports something is absolutely irrelevant in terms of making a value-driven argument. As for your "big cities, PC crowd" comment, aiming for the lowest common denominator is generally not what I want to see out of the government. Just because every rural, backwoods retard thinks that teaching evolution and not using the word "nigger" in legislation is a bad thing does not mean that the rest of society is in any way responsible for catering to that.

  12. Lisa Says:

    I was sent here by a friend. I have a blog at livejournal.com (wild_magnolia).

    I love this post. I linked to it in my journal. Hope that's okay. And if you get nasty mail from people I know, tell me. I'll kick their asses.

    xo

  13. Randeep Says:

    Ed, you're hilarious. Bush/Cheney 2008.

  14. - wolf - Says:

    Right on the money. The US is one of the most religious countries in the world, moreso than any of the so-called fundamentalist nations it wages wars against. Sex education in Iran is superior to that of the US. Iraq is more secular than the US. Go figure.

    My political Paradise is a place where every voter is subjected to the consequences of his own vote. I'm pretty sure my Paradise would qualify as Hell for certain voters.

  15. Martin Says:

    Also to add these to the list of inditements of Bush: his dismantling of the Protection of the Environment and his disregard for International Law and Treatises.

    And it is not only Bush the person, it is the people who got Bush into office, the leaders in his administration. It is really scary for me to think about who is really in charge, who is really creating the agendas, I don't think it is Bush Jr. He seems to be only a puppet.

  16. Bill Says:

    Ed – Please move to France.

    HA!

    Giuliani '08!

  17. lexfiles Says:

    "Given the difficulties inherent in moving to Canada (where the liberals could "benefit" from the kind of nationalized health care system and high taxation that they want so much), what's a fellow to do?

    This post on Instapundit showing a picture of a poster that reads "Can we Secede Already?" pretty much sums up the mood in many parts of the country, and gives me an idea about what is to be done.

    This, My Little Fuckers, is the danger of Big Government. Being able to micromanage the entire nation from the national level may be all well and good when Your Guy is in power, but what happens when the other guy gets a shot at pulling the levers?

    Given that you have four more years of Bush, at least two more years without a shot at controlling either half of congress, and no clear presidential outlook 2008, isn't it about time to get on the small government bandwagon?

    Outflank the republicans to the right. Insist on Federalist judicial appointees with no social agenda, shout from the rooftops that the Federal Government has gotten too big, and insist on returning power to The States, where the politicians are (being more local) more accountable and more responsive to the people.

    If you care at all about the theoconservative social agenda becoming national law, if you care about advancing your own social agenda anywhere, if you'd like to sweep the small-l libertarian faction out from under the republicans, now is your chance.

    While you're at it, you'll manage to stop having to pay for bridges to nowhere in Alaska, a frickin' rain forest in Iowa, and any other pork barrel projects that come humming down the pike.

    There are many good arguments in favor of federalism, but this, I believe, is one that liberals can embrace.

    Since the republicans seem to have abandoned the small government ideal, this is the perfect chance to do something, and possibly pick up a new constituency in the bargain. But then again, perhaps that's what Bush had planned all along…"

  18. Ed Says:

    Yeah, Giuliani's gonna win. The inbred retards who form 98% of the Republicans' support really love socially liberal New York ethnics.

    Fuckin' moron.

  19. Matt Says:

    It gives me great comfort and warms my heart to know that there are still people out there who are every bit as angry and bitter about the sad and pathetic state of this country as I am. Thank you for stating everything so accurately and beautifully. It really scares me that after all that has happend during these past three years, only TEN PERCENT of all 18-24 year olds in this country actually got out to the polls, which tells me that the other ninety percent don't give a shit about the future, or should I say THEY'RE future? But hey, why should they care? Mommy and Daddy have handed them everything they've ever had in their lives, so why should that change any time soon? Come to think of it, that sounds just like our president and his parents…

  20. Sarah Says:

    OOOOOWWWWWWW!

    And I mean that in the Michael jackson sense of the word. This is a beautiful piece of writing. As a homosexual American, and a woman, I am taking the viewpoint of single-issue voters very personally. Fuck them for valuing thier fucking "morality" more than my status as a first-class citizen. Fuck them for imposing thier religion on me and the rest of America. Fuck them for thinking that they have any right to trample upon the civil liberties of others.

    No, really. Thank you. So glad I had the chance to read that.

  21. kat Says:

    in her latest collum, maureen dowd mentioned hillary in '08. i'd love to see her in there but don't think there's a chance in hell this country would elect her. your thoughts?

  22. Derek Says:

    I am not sure that wishing death on the sheep is something I would do, but I understand the sentiment.

    I just have to wonder how BAD does a president have to get to get the sheep up out of their pens? How bad a reputation must our previously great nation suffer? Why do our neighbors not care about the country we share? I just do not understand.

  23. Glen Says:

    Damn fine read.

    To put what I think is some of what your article about in softer terms: I would also love to see the indirect yet tragic effects of our social (et al.) policies shift from those in low income, uneducated, gay or otherwise oppressed sections of society to those who have it easier and choose not to make the connection.

    Fuck the people who voted for bush hoping to prevent a spread in homosexuality. Here's a little news for them: People aren't going to stop being gay because its illegal to get married.

    A great example of someone getting their just deserts is Dick Cheney having a gay daughter….how perfect is that? I hope that she bitches up a storm to her father when she settles down with someone and can't get any of the benefits of being married…like the tax break, etc…

  24. erik Says:

    Thats right Derek. None of us understand….at all. There seems to be a portion of the United States, your Limbaugh and Hannity listeners who actually think that in some twisted way they should take pride in the fact that the rest of the world hates us. We have to step back for a moment and realize that most of this country is so fucking jingoistic that to them saying that France hates us is tantamount to saying jeffrey Dahmer and Charles Manson hate us.

    Or then again, maybe they are just ignorant and think the rest of the world agrees with our policies. Honestly, they really think the British agree with us…even though it is only about 15% of them.

    So what do we do? Well I completely agree with Lexfiles. We need to outconservativism them. Federalism and small government is the way to go.

  25. LRM Says:

    Well said. I think we need laws RIGHT NOW that make people register who they voted for and anyone who voted for Bush is forever banned from reaping any benefit from stem cell research.

    oh, and "and with a need to get approval from everyone in the world before doing anything for the protection of his own country"
    AAAAAAAAAHHH YOU GODDAMN FUCKING MORONS ARE TOTALLY INCAPABLE OF LISTENING TO EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID VS. WHAT KARL ROVE AND BILL O'REILLY TELL YOU HE SAID. just eat shit and die you stupid stupid stupid person.

    I'm not pseodo-intellectual. I'm an intellectual, bitch.

  26. Slate Says:

    Did "moral values"

  27. Happy Says:

    all I have to say in this long line of mostly well written comments is

    "FUCK EVERY ONE WHO VOTED TORRY"
    -Oi Polloi

  28. matt Says:

    Some guy just killed himself partly because of the irrational hatred you people have for the president and your intolerance of opposing points of view.

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/ground_zero_suicide

    Bush haters are so conceited and narcissistic that they fail to see how much they have in common with the rest of the country and how little the President's policies directly affect their lives.

    This notion that he won because of single issue voters is bullshit. The single issue happened to be the most important. Life (security), is more important than all the others, but not all the others combined. Bush was acceptable enough on all those other issues for a majority of this country. Don't give me that crap that he's taking away our civil liberties because FBI agents have more leeway to make arrests and protect the public. Freedom of Speech is something only a handful of countries have and you guys use it to crap all over someone who's trying to give people in the Middles East that freedom so they don't have to slam planes into buildings in order to protest.

    Put things in perspective.

  29. rob Says:

    "Freedom of Speech is something only a handful of countries have and you guys use it to crap all over someone who's trying to give people in the Middles [sic] East that freedom so they don't have to slam planes into buildings in order to protest."

    You're saying that the terrorists who piloted those passenger jets into the world trade centre did so as a protest against the lack of free speech in Saudi and the other coutries they came from?

    "Put things in perspective."

    You need a hell of a lot more than perspective if that's your twisted view of 9/11 and the aftermath.

  30. erik Says:

    Matt,

    You are either tragically naive or just an idiot.

    I don't even know where to begin discussing the shear absurdity of what you have said here. So, lets just, for a moment, talk about the irrational hatred "us people" have. This man is not our president. He does not stand for a single thing in which we beleive. Why then is this hatred irrational? Why is it that you don't understand that we hate a man who leads us to war for no real reason to speak of. If you feel like contesting that point think about how many times the justification of our presense there has changed in the last year and a half.

    And let me get this straight. We are the conceited and narcissistic ones? Perhaps I have missed something. I suppose that we are the ones that want everyone in the United States to live by a moral standard we prescribe. I imagine that it is wrong for us to think that the rest of the world's dissapproval is not something the laugh about. Even in the UK our apparent strongest ally, only about 15% or the public supports what we are doing.

    Come on, this is just getting rediculous. We are allowed to hate hate George Bush, and not just because we have a first amendment right to do so.

    I don't want to sit here and define to you what a single issue voter is. But the idea is not that someone voted for Bush solely because they don't like the idea of two men sharing a house, and disagreed with him on all other issues.

    Further, terrorism (security) was not the most important. Exit polls suggested that the most important issue for Bush voters was "moral values" followed by terrorism. For Kerry they were Iraq and the economy. I think the fundamental difference between the two is the fact that Kerry's voters seemingly had a great enough ability for independent thought to seperate the "war on terror" from Iraq in their minds. Bush's voters I suspect greatly view the two as the same. No, they are not.

    Before I stop writing, let me point out that your final assertion is just rediculous. The World Trade center was not attacked by people who were looking for the freedom of speech. It was attacked by people who were pissed off at our constant intervention in their lives. That was what they were protesting, and you must live under a fucking rock to think otherwise. So, if you honestly beleive that sending our military to attack a middle eastern nation and set up a puppet government with "western freedoms" is what the terrorists were really looking for on september 11th, then you must be the most ignorant person who has ever posted anything on this site.

    -by the way, thats saying something we had a community of amateur internet pornographers here insulting us a couple weeks ago.

  31. steve Says:

    ed, i agree with all your sentiments. you might want to look up the word "avuncular", though.

    best,
    steve

  32. Rik Says:

    WTF?

    Look, I'm angry/frustrated/horrified/disgusted about this election, too. But if nothing else, when you are wishing for the destruction of the Bush voters' lives, you are wishing for the destruction of ALL of our lives.

    Try to give up the hate. This country will be responsible for it's decision; responsibility is always a FACT. You want us all to suffer for this election? No problem. You'll get your wish.

    Does that make you happy?

    I'd rather focus on how we minimize this disaster and get our country back. The 51% will see the mistake they made, no problem. Many will come to our side…if we don't treat them with hate.

    And to switch to Matt, as far as "how little the President's policies directly affect their lives" …
    WOW!!!!

    I can see the Sears tower from my apartment. If I am correct (that the president has abandoned the WOT and UBL), than the President's policies are threatening my life. If you are correct, then the President's policies are protecting my life. It's that simple.

    (Not to mention the deficit, the enviroment, Social Security, etc.)

  33. Adam Says:

    Nice site!
    http://smpiemvq.com/bygb/hmvf.html | http://yxuswtyw.com/xami/nlcu.html

  34. Adam Says:

    Nice site!
    http://smpiemvq.com/bygb/hmvf.html | http://yxuswtyw.com/xami/nlcu.html

  35. buy dilantin Says:

    big thank

  36. replica Says:

    i wish to have some diamond necklace but they're quite expensive?Hey there! Good post! Please inform us when we will see a follow up!