Cartoon for July 10

Obama fans like Obama, so Obama fans justify anything he does. Sure, he has voted for the Iraq War six times. He has NEVER voted against it. Yet they believe him when he says he’s against it. And so on.

Advertisements

51 Responses to “”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    Without Edwards or Ventura I’ll not vote for Obama. Not after FISA. It was the FINAL straw.

  2. silentecho Says:

    I will wear that implant if it generates aimless hope and false hype

  3. Anonymous Says:

    I voted Democrat for so long, but I just can’t stomach it anymore.

    Obama wants to punish fathers out of marriage even more. It’s not enough that we have to pay onerous levels of “child support”, have our driver’s licenses and passports revoked, subjected to peonage by unconstitutional “family courts”. He wants more of what is left.

    Voting for another slick willie? No way, ever.

  4. Aggie Dude Says:

    I just heard some “Latinos for McCain” folks on NPR getting GOP support in the Hispanic community by claiming, along with the abortion issue, that Castro and Chavez also promised change, and look what it brought?

    The problem i have with this, again, is that you claim to believe he’d be a better choice, but you’re really not being original here, the entire media is turning on him the way that they always do. It’s the “Operation Torpedo The Democrat” and it happens every time.

    The level of hysteria is absurd, and it will lead to McCain as president and us wondering 4 years later why we keep allowing this to happen, right before re-electing McCain. People are comparing Obama to Hitler as well, and now you have the whole brainwashing bit too.

    It’s a two party system…it’s unreasonable to think that everyone is going to find everything about either of the candidates satisfactory. What you’re doing is hammering those of us who still think this is a monumental point in history that Obama could be elected President as being silly or brainwashed.

    One could also say a similar thing about your pieces, Ted. You claim to also believe Obama would be far better, and yet your material suggests you really want him to lose.

  5. Mea Culpa Says:

    THANK you! Tell it!!!!! Amen. Go, Ted!

    oh dear oh dear oh dear oh dear oh dear

    f–k.

  6. Ted Rall Says:

    What you’re doing is hammering those of us who still think this is a monumental point in history that Obama could be elected President as being silly or brainwashed.

    Well, it IS silly. Obama getting elected would be a symbol of ethnic reconciliation and make a statement to the rest of the world that we’ve moved past Bush. But monumental? No. We need monumental–monumental shifts in how we handle our economy and foreign affairs and workers rights. But Obama is not going to give us monumental. He will give us more war in Iraq (I don’t believe he’ll withdraw), more war in Afghanistan, more domestic wiretapping, more security state authoritarianism, more laissez faire economic disaster.

    You claim to also believe Obama would be far better, and yet your material suggests you really want him to lose.

    This is a choice between a shit sandwich and a six-inch high loaf of puke, piss, shit, and corpse juice. I’ll take the shit sandwich, but don’t ask me to pretend to like it.

  7. Anonymous Says:

    Haha! This reminds me of the episode in South Park; Giant Douche v. Turd Sandwich.

    Aggie Dude, you are clearly mistaken. It is NOT a two party system. Like I said in an earlier comment; we choose to beleive it is. Its a bandwagon style hype gangbusters.

    As someone who leans to a side which you would disagree on; but lets say if we were standing on a horizontal line, I would be waving at you with the only arm you could see, my right and you would need binoculars. The point is, I am voting for John McCain. The Democrats have this really nasty habit of clinging like barnacles to a candidate and staying with it until it sinks (and even if it sinks they stay!).

    To be very honest with you, as a ultra-leftist, if the election were today, right now -in fact, I would vote for George W. Bush for a third term if it were possible. With Bush I know exactly what I’m getting and he actually has played a good game of Realpolitik, Kaiser style.

    To hell with Obama, go McCain. The deal with McCain, again at least I kind of know what I’m getting. The Obama campaign has been wait for me to get elected and I’ll figure it out then…maybe.

    America needs action, whether right or not it needs it. We can’t sit idly by while Obama figures out what he stands for so he can pander to everyone. I don’t support a candidate who puts his children and wife on TV then cries about how the media tears them to shreds. We did the same with Hillary; did she whine and cry like a little girl? No.

    By the way, its NEVER been “Operation Torpedo the Democrat” its been “Operation Lets Scuttle the Ship and Wonder What Would’ve Happened.”

  8. Gary Kleppe Says:

    John Edwards never voted against the war either. He did exactly what Obama did, just in reverse order.

  9. Ted Rall Says:

    True. Edwards evolved from dumb to smart. Obama devolved from smart to dumb. Guess who I trust more?

  10. Aggie Dude Says:

    I think Gail Collins said it well: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10collins.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

  11. Chris Says:

    We get the point. Obama is a bit of a sham, his zealous supporters overlook his many flaws, etc. I supported Edwards, but he’s gone now. I have a lot of issues with Obama, and if I had to make a list of democrats I would like to see as president, he’d be pretty far down the list. BUT, it’s tough to suppress what little hope I may have that Obama would make a decent president after eight years of George W. Bush. That hope may be inconsistent with reality, but I’m willing to hold onto it until I’m inevitably disappointed sometime in 2009. Yes, Ted, we get it. And don’t get me wrong, your Obama cartoons have been among your better work. I just hope you don’t become a one-trick pony. Don’t let the media fool you, most people who “support” Obama are well aware of his flaws and are prepared to be disappointed if he becomes president. They are not all naive zombies. The only reasons I am even remotely more enthusiastic about Obama than say, a lame candidate like John Kerry are 1) Obama actually has a chance to win 2) I have a feeling that McCain will be just as bad as Bush, and I just can’t handle another four years of that.

    (And thanks for the condescending assumption that your readers were too dumb to “get” this week’s column. It was fairly obvious, actually, considering you’ve been using the same punchline all month.)

  12. Anonymous Says:

    Isn’t one symptom of the problem idealizing (or demonizing) any of these public figures, including Ted? Real shifts in policy do not seem to happen until after the train crash. Even the policy and legal changes after the Great Depression or Civil Rights movement were not transformative. If they were, we would not be in this mess. The same is true in Europe although some places tend to behave as though people had basic needs and little is gained by complicating what it takes to meet them. It’s not like we humans don’t know how to do that.

    As for the complicated pleasures that always seem to involve collective violence and oppression in one form or another, I’m not at all convinced we need to guarrantee them as some fundamental liberty. Our government and laws are tilted towards these kinds of activities and the “citizens” still enjoy playing the game and complaining about the costs.

    The political “rhetoric” seems to be a team sport where one side is rubber and the other is glue. It makes for an easy narrative because everybody knows which side is which. To the victor goes the spoils. All that is up for grabs is which horn of the ox gets to gore the ox.

    I look at Ted’s work because every now and then it makes me laugh or I learn something. I don’t expect more than that and I don’t expect politicians to be different than the members of the public who clearly don’t have any remorse about slaughtering folks in other lands and the damage they do to each other in the process. There are real victims in all this but, apparently, watching them suffer is just part of the fun.

  13. Anonymous Says:

    You get funnier with every Obama cartoon. Just not in the way you’re intending, I think.

    OMFG, we have to stop Obama! He might actually WIN! Then what will we whine about?!!!!

  14. Ted Rall Says:

    OMFG, we have to stop Obama! He might actually WIN! Then what will we whine about?!!!!

    As long as politicians are liars and hypocrites, I’ll never be out of work. Obama seems destined to continue the Full Employment (or at least Full Inspiration) Cartoonists Act in full force.

  15. Ted Rall Says:

    (And thanks for the condescending assumption that your readers were too dumb to “get” this week’s column. It was fairly obvious, actually, considering you’ve been using the same punchline all month.)

    Obvious to you. Most of my email is congratulating me for hitting McCain so hard.

  16. Gary Kleppe Says:

    Edwards evolved from dumb to smart. Obama devolved from smart to dumb. Guess who I trust more?

    Let’s suppose that my favorite color is blue.

    I have two pieces of litmus paper, which I’ll call A and B. A is currently red and is soaking in a glass of Pepsi. B is currently buried in some baking soda and is blue.

    I take A and B, wash them off, and put A into the baking soda and B into the Pepsi. A turns blue, and B turns red.

    So clearly A is the better piece, because it changed to a color I like more, unlike B which changed to a color I like less.

    (Ted, I enjoy your work and have a lot of respect for you. But ask yourself whether you have the same blind spot when it comes to Edwards that you rightly poke liberals for having about Obama.)

  17. Angelo Says:

    Anonymous lectured:
    “Real shifts in policy do not seem to happen until after the train crash. Even the policy and legal changes after the Great Depression or Civil Rights movement were not transformative. If they were, we would not be in this mess.”

    I agree. The mandate is simply not there. If congress really are single-minded seekers of reelection, they will tend conservative, because it requires less thought and effort.

    Remember the old quote:
    “if you’re republican when you’re young, you have no heart. If your’re Democrat when your old, you have no brain.”

    I would change it to:
    If you’re Democrat when you’re poor, you are disappointed.
    If you’re Republican when you’re poor, you are retarded.

    Like that song in that Paul Thomas Anderson movie, Magnolia, says:
    “It’s not going to stop ’till you wise up.”

  18. Anonymous Says:

    The issue with election politics seems to be I’m not the other guy. So, whatever the other guy says, I’m not. Vote for me. Candidate for change.

    Realpolitik! Thats the name of the game.

    Start drilling in Anwhar and all across the USA. Who gives a crap about some endangered plankton. In fact, its endangered status means the ecosystem has pretty much moved on from accepting its existence.

    In 1995 Clinton refused to drill because the progress would have taken 10 years to have effect. Gee… what year are we in? What calamities are we facing?

    Either of the candidates would win right now if they promised to drill in Alaska. Beleive me, those eco-friendly liberals are the ones who drive SUVs. They want cheap gas too.

    One of the candidates should institute drilling and a nuclear power policy. Frankly, ignore those green peace members who claim there will be a meltdown. Last time they took any nuclear physics was when their cellular form split into others (hope you got that).

    Drill and promote nuclear energy. What the hell are Americans going to do? NOTHING. Complain, and cry, and demand CHANGE, and cry some more. Forget them. Forget the lugubrious masses.

    When Iran had a price hike of a few cents in gasoline taking it from roughly 25 cents to 30 cents. The country was up in flames with riots and protests. Price went up 2dollars in 2 years. What did we do? Complain and hope for some guy who will bring us change.

    Just not the right one.

  19. Anonymous Says:

    Ted said: “I will take the shit
    sandwich……”.
    I am baffled, why you “have” to
    accept a shit sandwich?!!. It is neither heavenly ordaind nor it is
    a law of nature.!!
    If you accept shit you will be fed
    shit. If you refuse, you will send
    a signal and a warning. No body
    is forcing you to accept the only
    other item in the menu either.
    If the majority refuse that menu the restaurant will have to change his menu or it will go out of business!!
    This the only way to reform that
    rotten restaurant otherwise you
    will be offered the same terrible
    choices again and again and again………

  20. Kevin Says:

    Chris said,

    “Don’t let the media fool you, most people who “support” Obama are well aware of his flaws and are prepared to be disappointed if he becomes president.”

    Jesus Christ, that’s depressing. At least when Nader got all the kids fired up, he was being honest with them; and some of those he inspired have now become savvy operatives with a well-rounded appreciation of how difficult it really is to get things done. That makes them more effective than the scores of people who have been tricked by Obama into thinking that all the bad people will stop bothering you if you just wear a big smile.

    Obama is just a pied-piper, and that pisses me off more than anything else about him. If you want to be a reactionary politician, then fine, but don’t you *dare* co-opt the very idea of hope itself in service of your own bullshit.

    What will be the long-term effect on the Republic of all those Obamaniacs finally realizing that ‘hope’ was a sham? Ever think of that?

  21. Chris Says:

    Ted, my main problem with your Obama commentary (which isn’t really a problem at all) is that it’s pretty much dead on. And it’s upsetting. I didn’t mean to shoot the messenger. After eight years of praying for the end of the Bush dynasty, I thought I’d be a lot happier now that he’s finally leaving (an impeachment a few years ago would’ve been better). Bush has been so horrible that to many Americans, he came to personify all that was wrong with this country. For a while some of us forgot that even when he leaves office to go back to Texas and hopefully never be seen again, we’re still fucked.

    But Obama is neither the problem nor the solution. If we elected John Edwards, would he be able advance a progressive agenda, with a joke of a congress, a conservative Supreme Court, a corporate-owned media, and dozens of other powerful obstacles? If he could, could he be trust not to move to the right? Even if we elected Ted Rall, could we get what we wanted? I’m not so sure.

  22. Angelo Says:

    “If we elected John Edwards, would he be able advance a progressive agenda, with a joke of a congress, a conservative Supreme Court, a corporate-owned media, and dozens of other powerful obstacles?”

    He could issue a number of executive orders aimed at blocking economic terrorism, which his secretary of state would define. What if US corporations were not allowed to hire workers in other countries? What if certain kinds of speculation were considered treason? These types of actions might have some very nice short-order effects!

    He could also try pass some very long-term/structural legislation, so opaque that even the republicans would not mind voting for it.

    Remember, congress does not actually believe in anything. If they are sure it will never come back to haunt them, they will vote for anything. And if their constituents cannot comprehend what is being passed, all the better!

  23. The Reverend Mr. Smith Says:

    What do you get when you cross George W. Bush’s 3rd term with Jimmy Carter’s second term? Four to eight more years of Bill Clinton, and that’s change you can take to the bank!

    I can’t wait till the “historic” election of the 1/2 black guy with the funny name who doesn’t give a shit about the Constitution. I was getting sick of white guys with conventional names who don’t give a shit about the Constitution.

  24. Aggie Dude Says:

    Real classy, Ted, what about my post got it rejected?

  25. Ted Rall Says:

    Hey Aggie,

    Blogger showed two identical posts from you; I posted one and rejected the other. I have to do this quite often for some reason. If both vanished down the memory hole, please rest assured that it was an accidental technical glitch, not censorship.

    I do censor posts–my blog, my authoritarian puppet state–but not by established posters.

  26. Clownstotheleftjokerstotheright Says:

    Ted,

    See, this is why I’ve told you in the past that you remind more than a little bit of the kid who rushed to school one day to inform everyone of the thruth about Santa Clause. Yeah, it’s true and we all need to know it, but there’s just a little something unseemly about the relish with which the truth is related.

    Best,
    Clowns…

  27. Angelo Says:

    Google has made software that allows me to spy on any part of the world,
    yet, they can’t even get the most basic message board to work.

  28. Anonymous Says:

    I’m considered pretty leftist for a Canadian, and so to me pretty much all US political figures with maybe the exception of Nader are right of center. That said, if I was to vote in the US election, I’d vote Obama. Here’s why…

    He shares many goals in common with “liberals” in that he has the interests of the (un-wealthy) majority of citizens at heart. I say this based on his early work in Chicago for poor families and veterans. He does not necessarily toe the “liberal line” on certain issues, but he never claimed to. However, he has provided solutions for issues that are primarily liberal concerns (in that the other side doesn’t really care about them). From a bread-and-butter socialist pov, he has done good work and gotten good results. He reminds me of certain elements of the early British socialist tradition.

    Thus I think he can be trusted to work for the public interest rather than for interest groups. That would include unfortunately interest groups I like.

    Again based on accounts of others encounters with the man, Obama comes across as what I would call an ‘honest broker’ of ideas. He will ruthlessly examine an idea from all sides, no matter who it comes from. He takes nothing for granted. A case in point is the rate of incarceration among AA’s.

    Standard liberal remedy – change discriminatory law (crack vs cocaine laws) and law enforcement practices (war on drugs targets minorities). This is valid in my opinion.

    Standard Repub remedy – be responsible. Simplistic, and even insulting. That said, it’s advice anyone should be willing to follow.

    Objectively one could argue that both remedies are useful especially if enacted in tandem. And this is the Obama stance.

    I think the same kind of thought process can be used for economic policies. I tend to think in terms of Keynesian solutions, but it could be that Friedmanism/globalism is too entrenched to just walk away from.

    Take NAFTA. Get rid of NAFTA and the price of oil and energy in the US will go up even further. Many Canadians would dance in the streets, but not all, not anymore.

    I would rather have someone soberly reflect on the best course of action than someone who simply takes on faith that rolling back economic policy is the answer.

    Of course, I would like to think my ideas are the best. But I think that if they have merit, they should be able to stand up to objective scrutiny, that they will survive the marketplace of ideas.

    Obama and Iraq – why do you think he’ll decide to stay?

    Love your strip btw

  29. Anonymous Says:

    This shit isn’t funny anymore. I hope his fan club turns against him before he’s “officially” the nominee. Emperor’s new clothes, anyone??? Dorme bene….

  30. Anonymous Says:

    Of course, I would like to think my ideas are the best. But I think that if they have merit, they should be able to stand up to objective scrutiny, that they will survive the marketplace of ideas.

    Its usually ideas with merit who fall by the way side.

    I am more left than you; Obama much like Keynes are ideals who get us sidetracked on the way to real positive change.

    Due to Keynes many social progressive ideas died, because we had “enough” already. The same with Obama, a little here, and then we’ll have enough.

    We don’t need a loony toon like Nader, we need an honest business man to take the helm. An Engels as a sort of example. The closest I’ve ever seen is John Edwards.

    Many social problems are directly linked to the economy. I.e. Racism. Notice that the racist southerner will sell to blacks, jews, catholics, etc. Why?

    Money is green, and thats all he needs to see. Capitalism brought a sort of social equality. Green is green, period.

    Keynesian economics along with other “socialist” economists are in fact the true racists. If you want a great example of true racism, look at “hate” crime law. The whole subtext of these laws are that minorities are in fact inferior. Why else would someone be punished more harshly?

    Thats why we need a shrew businessman who understands the process of capitalism and can undoubtedly move us to the next step. Forget liberalism, thats the major source of racism and discrimination. Forget post-modernism; because of it we are now 100 years behind again.

  31. Anonymous Says:

    “I am more left than you;”

    I’ll have to take your word on that. I vote for the Canadian socialist party in Canadian elections. I guess you vote communist? 😉

    ANYWAY

    “Keynesian economics along with other “socialist” economists are in fact the true racists. If you want a great example of true racism, look at “hate” crime law.”

    What does this have to do with economic policy? And are you aware that racial minorities including blacks are also charged with hate crimes in the US out of proportion to their population? Look it up, it’s in the Uniform Crime Stats from your DOJ.

    Thatcher’s England went down the Friedman route – poverty became a lot worse and there was rioting in the streets. Things got better after the backlash, and even Blair dared not go so far anymore.

    The US is, of all the countries in the G-8, furthest down the Friedman way. The US is also in the worst shape right now. The rest of the G-8 are somewhat being dragged down by her.

    True liberalism/social progressivism is not about exacting revenge on the dominant social group. It’s about making sure that nobody is shat upon unduly. It’s about making sure that everyone’s interests are at least represented in policy.

    Lassaiz-faire does not work for all things. It never has. Planned economies are also not appropriate in all things. Many socialist organizations and governments recognize this. That’s why they’re called social democrats/democratic socialists and not communists or neo-cons.

  32. Kurt Says:

    I don’t want to bag on Obama. The orthodoxy of the supply-siders and sort of supply-siders have us teatering on the edge of economic ruin and by our own complacency and stupidity (you know, electing Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush), we have made almost all of the capital in the world completely mobile. Of course the capitalists don’t understand that ALL capital was once labor, and slaves always eventually revolt and take it back (usually destroying the civilization in the process… See Macedonia, Persia, Egypt, China, Japan…)

    Sad as the shit sandwich is.. Ted is right. In our current system we don’t have a credible way to get representation. We either need to organize a revolution, which could be really bad for all of us, or eat the shit sandwich and do some massive lobbying.

    On that note, articles of impeachment have been drafted and Pelosi finally has allowed an impeachment investigation to move forward as of about 2 pm EST today. Hope springs…

  33. Angelo Says:

    “Objectively one could argue that both remedies are useful especially if enacted in tandem. And this is the Obama stance.”

    Given the choice between Corpse Juice(TM) and Water, the best thing to do is:
    a)Drink the Corpse Juice
    b)Drink the water
    c)drink both

    I want to kill 5 puppies. You want them to live. The most correct position is:
    a)Kill the puppies
    b)Don’t kill the puppies
    c)Kill two, and seriously injure the third, so (s)he’s half dead.

    More often than not, someone is right, and the other is wrong. The problem with this country is that good ideas are mixed with bad ones.

  34. Anonymous Says:

    “It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: (White) People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they were relieved — such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn’t seem angry all the time.” — Barack Obama

    Dumb clucks

  35. Anonymous Says:

    Money is green? That’s all they need to see?

    Not so. I once listened to a man tell a family story about a car dealership that did not want to sell a cadillac convertible to someone of a different ethnicity. How about renting and buying houses?

    It is far too easy to use one premise to explain everything but rarely right. The Civil Rights movement was about much more than economic parity. If anything, the economy gets screwed up because people stop thinking of each other as human beings.

  36. MTS Says:

    I have decided that I’m sticking with Obama. It’s not because I’m starry-eyed or blind. It’s come down to this: if electing Barack Obama will get our troops home faster, I will do it. It’s that important. I’m not going to donate to his campaign anymore (I decided that after the faith-based thing) but ending this fucking war is so important to me that I will vote for him.

    Woe to him if he backs down on that, though.

  37. badnewswade Says:

    Brilliant stuff. I see that Hello Kitty is back.

    If and when he’s elected, I hope that becomes his Presidential Seal. The “HOPE this doesn’t look Soviet” portrait is likewise inspired.

  38. Joseph McCord Says:

    The Green Party (which, honest to whichever higher principle you believe in, still does exist) is nominating its candidate this weekend. It will probably Cynthia McKinney. She has way more experience in public office than Obama. Especially if you construe “experience” to mean actually fighting for stuff. Obama’s record as a celebrity Senator has pretty much been equivalent to that of a newbie lurker in a chatroom, who agrees with everything that anybody says, so nobody will disagree with him. Maybe that’s what constitutes ‘leadership’ in the Demopublican Party. But it’s not very inspiring.

    This year, there will be open Presidential debates – that’s right, open debates! Just not on television – they will be sponsored by Google and Youtube. We can probably expect Ralph Nader, along with the Green Party and Libertarian Party candidates, to be there. This year also, we will find out that our government really did blow up the World Trade Center buildings – because the evidence has become just overwhelming. There is a buzz in the air. It’s just unavoidable.

    ‘Common wisdom’ hold that it’s pointless to vote for an alternative candidate – they ‘can’t win’. Can John McSame or Barton Obillary win? Not really, not if ‘winning’ means doing anything useful. We will be extremely fortunate if either of them, having assumed office, should turn out to do anything non-destructive. Obama agrees with Mad John on just about everything. Except the Hundred Year’s War. Obama wants to ‘withdraw the troops’ (sort of), but leave the ‘permanent military bases’ there. In other words, he wants to do the same thing, but call it something else. That’s a better policy. But in every other respect, how will they argue? They have mostly spent their time congratulating each other. And John McSame agrees with everything our Dictator says. And our Dictator blew up the World Trade Center. So how will either of them win?

    Contrary to popular belief, no President has been elected on a majority of the popular vote for decades. Obillary and McSame are both polling below 50%, already, and things will only get worse for them. Nader is a highly principled man, and he represented the Green Pary well in 2000, but McKinney is genuinely a hard-hitting, fiery speaker, and has 12 of experience as a crusader in Federal government. This could very well shape up to be a three- or four-way race. And it’s about time. National Popular Vote legislation will effectively abolish (by circumventing it) the Electoral College if passed by enough state legislatures, and it is 1/6 of the way there already. Ross Perot scored 19% of the popular vote in 1992, and he was a jackass. And, oh yeah, he wasn’t running against a demolition expert. Turns out there are flakes of uncombusted nano-thermite in the dust from the World Trade Center. Who knew?

  39. Incitatus Says:

    How about change we can all hope for:

    http://bumperstickers.cafepress.com/item/barack-ocain-sticker-bumper/276451800

  40. Anonymous Says:

    It took me a while but I figured it out.Incitatus was Caligula’s horse. Hmmmmmm… Dorme Bene.

  41. Angelo Says:

    finally someone commented on the sign.
    I held off ’cause I was sure everyone else was going to compliment it.

    Damn, Ted. So many t-shirts, so little time. I’m still working on the “Sans Serif” shirt and the one with the simian face of the “dumb conservative friend” emblazoned on it.

    It’s sad you have eschewed the false economy of t-shirt promotion, cause you’re good at it.

  42. Anonymous Says:

    “Brilliant stuff. I see that Hello Kitty is back.

    If and when he’s elected, I hope that becomes his Presidential Seal. The “HOPE this doesn’t look Soviet” portrait is likewise inspired.”

    – badnewswade

    The deal with those posters are they they were made by the “OBEY” artist Shepard Fairey, who was chased out of San Diego for stickering the hell out of the city. His style is quasi-Stalinist ironical.

    Ted should make some “Vote For Change’ stickers with the Hello Kitty NSDAP motif…would be big sellers.

    – Strelnikov

  43. Aggie Dude Says:

    Ted, that was the second time my post got dropped.

  44. badnewswade Says:

    One of mine died too, but I’m not complaining… much.

  45. Anonymous Says:

    “Given the choice between Corpse Juice(TM) and Water, the best thing to do is:
    a)Drink the Corpse Juice
    b)Drink the water
    c)drink both

    I want to kill 5 puppies. You want them to live. The most correct position is:
    a)Kill the puppies
    b)Don’t kill the puppies
    c)Kill two, and seriously injure the third, so (s)he’s half dead.

    More often than not, someone is right, and the other is wrong. The problem with this country is that good ideas are mixed with bad ones.”

    An interesting set of notions, that incarceration rates should be comparable to drinking or killing puppies, that assuming personal responsibility should be analagous to drinking corpse juice, or killing puppies. I mean clearly trying to be the best parent you can be is as inherently self-damaging or plain mean as drinking corpse juice or killing puppies… right?

    I’m not sure there is a name for this particular fallacy demonstrated here: False analogy? Is this really an analogy? Bad rhetoric? Really, the point is lost.

    Anyway, over the weekend I’ve read a very interesting book on US political history called “Steal that vote” by Andrew Gumbel, and in light of the stuff I read there, it will be a long time before you see either party advocate harsh punishment for political misdeed, simply because both sides are prone to do them and always have been.

    The main advantage I see the Repubs having is a coherent ideology. They didn’t always have that. The Democrats still don’t have one. This translates in less will to win.

  46. Aggie Dude Says:

    False Dichotomies, Anon.

    It’s not that I’m complaining about the drop posts, so much as they are really conveniently at the only time I actually took serious issue with Ted’s position, which is that he’s starting to become a bully over the anti-Obama rhetoric, insisting that it is silly to maintain the position that an Obama presidency would be a dramatic and monumental shift in our politics.

    I don’t think it’s silly to see the election posturing of Obama as a candidate as insignificant in comparison to how badly this country needs to change course. A change in course at all in monumental.

  47. Angelo Says:

    An interesting set of notions, that incarceration rates should be comparable to drinking or killing puppies, that assuming personal responsibility should be analagous(sic.) to drinking corpse juice, or killing puppies. I mean clearly trying to be the best parent you can be is as inherently self-damaging or plain mean as drinking corpse juice or killing puppies… right?

    Telling adults to “be responsible” is not public policy. It is a way of changing the subject.

    This is not Canada.

  48. Angelo Says:

    “A change in course at all is monumental.”

    After the last eight years the country should be choosing between Obama and Nader, and Nader should be leading by 5 points (not 25, because Obama would be leaning way left, and is, well, cuter than Nader).

    Instead, we are in this other dimension where A centrist democrat still has to lean right.
    It is hard to view this as monumental, but unfortunately, it probably is.

  49. Anonymous Says:

    Ted,

    Your July 10 cartoon, along with your hard-line stance against Obama is dismaying.

    It’s more than fair to criticize Obama for unpopular but politically necessary (not expedient, there IS a difference) decisions, such as his shift on FISA.

    But it’s an entirely different thing altogether to feed into and propagate the fantasy of Obama’s “cult of personality.” Such absurdity isn’t even satire because there is no truth in it!

    It is a white wash, and you are lowering yourself to the same loathsome standard of other political commentators like Limbaugh, Hannity and even Dubya himself when they try to generalize anyone Left of Ayn Rand as “traitors” and “appeasers of terrorism.”

    Ted, I’m a leftist, like you. I hope that someday, maybe even in my lifetime, we can shift the American mindset from the feeble-minded wage-slave mentality to an egalitarian state that offers social justice for all, and not merely for the privileged.

    But for you to buy into the smear campaign against Obama for simply not being Socialist enough for your tastes betrays your own irrational ideology. You need to accept the political realities of the last eight years. This isn’t Sweden.

    Obama is in this election to WIN, and he’s not going to if every Liberal Tom, Dick & Harriette carps loudly that he isn’t Left enough. Now is not the time for political divisions.

    We need to remain unified. The Right surely understands this.

    Michael, New Jersey

  50. Anonymous Says:

    ‘Telling adults to “be responsible” is not public policy. It is a way of changing the subject.’

    Changing the subject AFTER you address all the concerns raised by the AA community? I disagree, with respect. You’re hungry. I provide you with the means to eat and give you tips on nutrition. Does one invalidate the other? The problem is you seem to be caught up in this artificial and uniquely American checklist oriented dichotomy of ideologies. If you speak of responsibility you must be in favour of racial profiling, because Rush Limbaugh speaks of responsibility and supports racial profiling. Etc.

    “This is not Canada.”

    True. But Obama would make a great Canadian PM. Most Canadians prefer him to the current leader.

  51. Angelo Says:

    “I provide you with the means to eat and give you tips on nutrition. Does one invalidate the other? “

    Yes. That would be exactly the purpose.
    We are talking about public policy, right? What are you gonna do, fund the ad council to put out 30 second commercials during sports finals telling men to “be responsible”? That will take money $$$$$$$ away from policies that actually might help.

    …ok, I guess we could spend a couple hundred thousand on some signs on bus stops, but then we are just doing it to make the conservatives feel better. Noble, I guess, but still, it would be better if we did not have to waste the money for their egos.

    I say “this is not Canada” because you seem blissfully unaware of the fact that conservatives here are looking to “shrink the government to the point it can be drowned in a bathtub”. Bargaining with them does not help, it only dilutes your efforts and gives them more strength to destroy you.

    “personal responsibility” is a conservative code word for “go fuck yourself”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: