Stifling Liberal Dissent Under Obama

http://www.rall.com/rallblog/2011/05/16/syndicated-column-rise-of-the-obamabots

SYNDICATED COLUMN: Rise of the Obamabots
May 16th, 2011
Stifling Liberal Dissent Under Obama
Ted Rall

<edit>

McCarthyism—blackballing—made a big comeback. I had been drawing a monthly comic strip, “The Testosterone Diaries,” for Men’s Health. No politics. It was about guy stuff: dating, job insecurity, prostate tests, that sort of thing. They fired me. Not because of anything I drew for them. It was because of my syndicated editorial cartoons, which attacked Bush and his policies. The publisher worried about pissing off right-wingers during a period of nationalism on steroids.

Desperate and going broke, I called an editor who’d given me lots of work at the magazines he ran during the 1990s. “Sorry, dude, I can’t help,” he replied. “You’re radioactive.”

It was tempting, when Obama’s Democrats swept into office in 2008, to think that the bad old days were coming to an end. I wasn’t looking for any favors, just a swing of the political pendulum back to the Clinton years when it was still OK to be a liberal.

This, you have no doubt correctly guessed, is the part where I tell you I was wrong.

more...

;)

:wtf:

nt

It's flame throwing from an attention whore that hasn't gotten his desired level of attention in a while.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And he tells the truth here, although the name Obamabots is harsh.

Did you actually read it?

"Obama lost me before Inauguration Day, when he announced cabinet appointments that didn’t include a single liberal."

He wrote it.

I was actually feeling pretty positive when Obama was inaugurated.. Indeed, I posted this on the day after the inauguration and you'll note my response a couple of posts down about it being the start of a new era..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=280&topic_id=49419&mesg_id=49419

Boy was I ever a fool, the more things change the more they stay the same.

"Boy was I ever a fool, the more things change the more they stay the same."

Indeed, I think God is an iron..

"If a person who indulges in gluttony is a glutton, and a person who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron." -Spider Robinson

I just couldn't pass up that juicy, ripe, low-hanging fruit. :D

When I saw those appointments, the balance shifted from hope to despair.

I can't believe these editors on the Left are keeping Ted from making a living...When you're the Prez, one has to expect cartoons about oneself. Geez.

This is truly scary...we are like the Old Soviet Union. Might as well call the Press, Pravda.

And I highly suspect that this was the reason Keith Olbermann was removed and put on a network that nobody watches.

"Obama lost me before Inauguration Day, when he announced cabinet appointments that didn’t include a single liberal."

And don't say Hillary Clinton. She's been vilified as DLC in true liberal circles and quite rightly.

So the question is... are people writing this stuff intellectually dishonest or liars. I pick liars.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Obama lost me before Inauguration Day, when he announced cabinet appointments that didn’t include a single liberal."

I'm sure you remember, he named a half-dozen appointments, then added to that in dribs and drabs practically right up to the inauguration.

Solis was the LAST member named - long after the supposedly anti-DLC Obama shocked his supporters by naming all DLCer and Republicans - and not a liberal among them.

Frankly, I'm not sure he would have appointed ANY liberals if he hadn't gotten the blowback he did from people like Rall after his first appointments.

(edit for typo)

The other being Dawn Johnsen, who never made it to office. I had some hopes for Stephen Chu as well, and there may have been one or two others.

Almost all of the other appointments were just plain bad.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't think it's harsh for a grown up debating website --

nor perhaps as what we hear so frequently here that we are

Obama "haters" -- meaning hating him personally vs his stands on issues and

his policies, his appointees -- !!

Today, that I made during the Bush administration, and I couldn't help but think of how little has changed.

If I were to compare it to trimming Bushes (pun intended), I'd say Obama and Democrats (can't blame it all on Obama, for sure) should've done some major pruning on policies, and what they've ended up doing is some very light trimming on the outside, more shaping of the Bush policies.

Feeling a little hopeless lately, so I can relate to this guy. Where is the liberal candidate. And I know Obama has trimmed a few twigs, but where he's really fallen short is in the speaking war, the lack of the Bully Pulpit. There is where you begin to change policies back to a more sensible era.

The rich are getting richer, and when you think about changing things nowadays, it just seems like concrete drying, it's getting harder, and harder, and harder. It's going to take a sledge hammer now.

I won't say more.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The only people that I ever hear using that are nasty ass Republicans. :eyes:

But there's truth in the idea that criticizing the President gets you a world of trouble. Even poor Cornell West has come in for his share of bashing for just speaking the truth.

:eyes:

it's right out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Hannity...etc. You want to be associated with the same type of crap as them, that's on you. But don't think I won't call that bullshit. What's next "dear leader", the "messiah", "being high on hopium", they're harsh too, have at it.

I have no problem with criticizing the president, hell I don't agree with everything he's done/said. I DO have a problem with people that find fault with EVERYTHING he's done and then use the same language as the Republicans to insult not just him but anyone that supports him.

And, you're right, it is bullshit plus it sounds just like the rightwing teabaggers.

..who finds fault with everything he has done.
That is a bit of a strawman.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

to call out other members, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

it was very big in the primary wars here.

But I am not sure why a progressive would support a DLCer like Hillary.

and some thought she was the more liberal choice?

you can see that regularly --

And, sadly, I think it does move posters to avoid using liberal articles --

from Robert Reich to Wm. Greider -- from Huffington/Jane Hamsher to even

Michael Moore. Who wins when that happens. No one but those who want dissent to go away!

Rather, what I see happening here is liberals/progressives leaving -- it seems clear that

is happening already --

Those who cannot tolerate dissent will have the website to themselves, eventually --

or address the points of those who are unhappy with his relentless "compromises". Rather, it just becomes a hyperactive race to tear down the horrible person who would dare criticize the President.

I've seen it time after time. Hamsher is called "hamster" and a "leftbagger" (brilliant). Greenwald is unAmerican and can't control his emotions. Cornell West is now a birther whose recent "behavior" calls into question his mental state.

The "liberals" would really have a fit if they actually knew what most of us have been thinking after nearly three years of squandering away any hope that was left for our system.

1) If you criticize him too much, it stifles turnout and we get what happened in November 2010; or

2) Well, would you rather have Palin?

I, for one, can say I am sick of being told: 1) he can't fix everything in 2 years that Bush took 8 to destroy; 2) he's playing chess, you just don't understand; 3) you're not fighting hard enough; and 4) would you rather have Palin?

The fact is that on too many instances, he's not even trying to change what Bush did and is going further...on Bagram...on state secrets privilege...on drone attacks...on military spending...not even investigating the march to war under W...on indefinite detention...on trying KSM, etc. in military tribunals as opposed to civilian courts.

I want to hear someone defend these things rather than saying that "nobody cares about them now" or "the economy is the top priority." These are true statements. However, it does not erase the fact that Obama is wrong on these items just as Bush was...just as many here criticized Bush for being wrong on those items.

The Republicans would have a chance to win if the left is split.

I really don't get this offhand dismissal of the Republicans. If we slide back on 30 years of progress with them in power, why is that worth it as a protest that Obama did not go far enough to the left?

and when I say "our side" I mean that loosely.

and you're right. Something's not right when another Dem is posting the same type of language used by the most vile on the right. I don't get it. Disagreeing is fine, we're not going to agree all the time, but damn...Obamabots...really?!

and have been for a long time.

:eyes:

that made you a "Hillary Hater".

The truth is probably somewhere between the 2 extremes except neither side will give ground. And we think the Republicans eat their own. If so, they have taken lessons from Democrats.

hmmm....

I sorta spent two years trying to defend him here, but he crossed my line with his December surrender. But many of his fervent supporters apparently have no lines that he can ever cross. They even love the December surrender.

But I still think many of the attacks are ridiculous. Omigosh, you would think the budget deal was the end of the world. People were seemingly furious because Obama did not shut the government down.

most vile previous president on the right.

That is what I don't get.

another Obama is not only as bad as Bush but worse comment. Great, tell ya what, when you vote next year, write in GWB since even HE'S better than Obama.

Or did you respond with the exact kind of hyperbolic rhetoric, intended to shut down legitimate criticism of the President, that Rall describes as being the source of the incipient blacklist?

I talk policy - you cast aspersions.

It's almost...McCarthyite.

I never tried to shut down anything. I simply criticized the term "Obamabot".

I'm allowed my opinion, just as you are yours.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Funny - IMO, what is not right is a President who emulates the actions of the

most vile previous president on the right.

That is what I don't get.

That is what I responded to...tough shit, if you don't like my response. Apparently you took my criticism of the term "Obamabot" personally. I don't like the term and I stand by my original statement that all I'VE only heard nasty ass Republicans use it. Until now...

There's another word that was used to describe the left, said by a Dem, bet you don't defend that do ya? I WILL NOT apologize for my criticism of that word. That's where this all started. You like to use the term, not my problem you have something in common with Rush, Beck, Hannity etc. Own it.

trying detainees with military, instead of civilian, courts; refusing to prosecute those who crashed the economy; giving huge amounts of money to banksters so they won't miss their bonuses; approving assassination; approving rendition to countries that torture; and how many other points are NOT emulating, continuing the policies that we were all up in arms about when Bush was doing them?

Or is it just "It's OK If You Are Obama"?

THAT is the definition of Obamabot - someone who cheers Obama policies that they hated when Bush did them.

Of course, I grant, perhaps you didn't mind it when Bush did those things. I admit, I can't know that.

talked to me and not at me or down at me you might be surprised. Why does it have to be all or nothing? As I said before, I disagree with things Obama has done/said or didn't do. There's never been a candidate or president that I've agreed with 100%, and I highly doubt there ever will be.

It's possible to dislike some things, and like others. I don't understand why for some people that's unacceptable. I've been married 20+ years and I don't like or agree with everything my husband says or does. Doesn't mean I'm gonna leave him.

Some things Obama did/didn't do I'm very unhappy with, some I'm good with.

I'm sorry if you don't understand that concept.

"another Obama is not only as bad as Bush but worse comment. Great, tell ya what, when you vote next year, write in GWB since even HE'S better than Obama."

just a reminder, you were the one who got all bent outta shape with my comment with regards to the term Obamabots. You were snarky right from the start.

Excuse me for trying to be decent, and civil.

Have a pleasant evening.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that "Obama fans" don't live in a little bubble. You have no idea what or who I listen to. What *I* do know, is that I don't expect the same shit from other Dems and Liberals that I get from the conservatives. I don't mind, hell I even welcome a good debate and exchange of ideas, unlike some I don't think I'm right about everything and believe the learning process is ongoing.



Thanks for the snark. Have a nice day.

"The only people that I ever hear using that are nasty ass Republicans."

Seeing as how it first stated in the Hillary camp - few of whom were Republicans of any stripe, much less 'nasty ass Republicans' - during the campaign, and it being used by disgruntled lefties on this very site for a considerable time, I think the only conclusion that can be drawn is that YOU DON'T LISTEN TO LIBERALS. Otherwise, you would have heard it.

Or, you could simply be trying, with that comment, to conflate the near-Nazi right with the angry left - as Obamabots have been wont to do for the past couple years.

self delete.

"stifling liberal dissent". There a plenty of cartoonist who draw cartoons against Obama. Sounds like butthurt to me.

This really has nothing to do with Obama. It's an easy way to get clicks on his website.

He was extremely popular on DU with practically everyone but the trolls.

Rall hasn't changed but the opinion of him here now is far, far more divided than it was during the Bush years.

I'm guessing a few don't want to discredit themselves so publicly.

I think both parties are basically controlled by the same forces, primarily the wealthy and they play "good cop/bad cop" kabuki theater a great deal of the time.

I even posted a link on this thread (in reply to one of your posts I think) to a post I made the day after Obama's inauguration where I said it was the dawn of a new era, I was wrong, it's just a continuation of the same old crap with a different face. Against my better judgement formed over many years watching politics I was hopeful.

I'm not hopeful any more, I think my grandkids are going to be very lucky if they don't come of age in a nation far worse in a great many ways than I did and I'm angry about that. I'm angry with the Republicans, I'm angry with the Democrats and I'm angry with Obama.

I only differ on timeline... Inauguration day and Rick Warren were the beginning of the end of any hope that I hadn't been wrong about Obama, for me.

The repetitiveness of the Kabuki theater of "differences" between parties over policy is really getting pretty boring, too.

At the end of that year he signed legislation that put health care firmly in the hands of the health insurance industry.

That's what tipped me over.

which I agree with. This is a good response as any to the bait of "so you think there's no difference between the parties?" The next line if the bait is taken is "So you think McCain/Palin would have been better?" At the risk of torturing the analogy, if I have a vote and these are the only 2 choices I'm going to vote for the good cop every time. I'm not going to vote for the bad cop (or not vote at all) to "teach the good cop a lesson" - even though I've realized that both cops are working as a team ("bipartisanship!") to get what they want from me. But I do want another choice, maybe a (constitutional) lawyer to represent me...

Analogy Torture Off.

Obama extended and expanded Bush’s TARP giveaway to the banks; continued Bush’s spying on our phone calls; ignored the foreclosure crisis; refused to investigate, much less prosecute, Bush’s torturers; his healthcare plan was a sellout to Big Pharma; he kept Gitmo open; expanded the war against Afghanistan; dispatched more drone bombers; used weasel words to redefine the troops in Iraq as “non-combat”; extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich; claiming the right to assassinate U.S. citizens; most recently, there was the forced nudity torture of PFC Bradley Manning and expanding oil drilling offshore and on national lands.

Cut the smart alecky remarks for one second and try to dispute any of that.

There sure is a difference between the parties, a difference between Obama and Bush...but there are too many similarities on too many important issues.

about-face on marijuana is another one.

I don't smoke anything, but I have been told that marijuana is mostly a no-no because it might compete with big pharmaceutica.

:eyes:

Can't wait for you to address the meat of the article:

Or shall we simply put you down in the "Nuh-UH!" column?

the likely stomping of the widdle feets...

between the parties.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776

WikiLeaks: How U.S. tried to stop Spain's torture probe
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/25/v-print/1988286/wikileaks-how-us-tried-to-stop.html#ixzz1MfpvXIef

Holder Says He Will Not Permit the Criminalization of Policy Differences
http://abcnews.go.com/ad/gmaintroad.html?goback=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1

I don't know how all the Obama Haters can't see this.

"Tide has oxy-boosting and Ivory Snow is a gentle cleanser." -- Arundhati Roy.

From the left however?

"There a plenty of cartoonist who draw cartoons against Obama."

That's true, and practically all of them are attacking him from the right, not so with Rall along with a few others.

Is Obama keeping him from getting a job? Is the DNC? Are individual dems? Who's "stifling liberal dissent?"

Not Obama personally.

I believe that word was in the title to his piece actually.

Go figure

those who "prevented" liberals from getting and keeping jobs --

and who were purging them from government -- left calling cards?

:rofl:

You need to inform yourself. You put quotes around prevented as if the blacklisting was not real. You should go read 'Scoundrel Time' by Lilian Hellman and go from there.
And yes, sometimes they did leave calling cards, they had impunity, powers of Congress, the bosses in their pockets.
I see the same tactics here as the McCarthyites used. The politics of personal destruction, insinuation, always about the person, not about the content of their message. It is always wrong, even when it claims to be in service of that which is right.

There's three:

• The Nation
• Mother Jones
• Harper’s

You said he listed none. He listed three.

Obamabots. It's easy enough to check out their websites for proof:

http://www.thenation.com/


http://motherjones.com/



http://www.harpers.org/

they all been disappeared? There's plenty of political cartoons across the spectrum.

Rall happens to be one of that few.

How is he "stifled?"

Is there actually proof that he's "blacklisted?" Besides that, his artwork is unsophisticated.

On a show called "Politically Incorrect"..

You might also recall Ari Fleishman telling Americans they need to watch what they say.

:shrug:

I gave you an example..

And somehow Maher didn't manage to be stifled by supposed "blacklistin."

Apparently you don't remember what the atmosphere was like in the US in late 2001 and for several years after.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This is the stuff which stops us from commencing with real thought on these issues!!

A lot of time wasted in nonsense --

Rather, we should be thinking of where we go from here --

Rall has written bare truths -- and a few here want to turn away --

Those of us willing to look have to be thinking of what to do about it --

What about 2012 -- and where are we going with all of this?

:) :)

Do you think everyone involved in getting people fired and purging government

left calling cards?


:evilgrin:

were spoken in open hearings in the US Congress. Is the Congressional Record a calling card?

list -- networks of people who because of the insinuations were being followed,

harassed, threatened and often fired from their jobs.

It was the intimidation which did the dirty work in the short and long run.

The public had absolutely no idea -- beyond the few people threatened publickly

by the Congressional inquisitors -- how many in our society were never charged

but "witch hunted" -- and made guilty by association.

Only decades later did we find out about all of that --

A few people spoke out about what was going on -- see Humphrey Bogart -- and

quickly withdrew.

Some of the public understood those years -- many didn't -- but other than a few

like Edward R. Murrow, no one was rushing to explain it all to them!


Got your PM but not sure which post you're referring to -- :)



PS: The movie "The Way We Were" made an attempt at giving an idea how intimidated

people were by the McCarthy Witch Hunts -- people in Hollywood, for instance, quickly

got the message -- without being called to hearings or any direct intimidation of them --

that they were going to have to be less outspoken, write less meaningful material --

and/or in the case of Hollywood Executives drop certain writers and actors.

That's the thing about Witch Hunts -- that's how they work.

The vast majority were silenced out of fear - fear on the part of their employers, fear on the part of the public, a pervasive attitude of fear of our own government.

There were what, 20 of the Hollywood crowd who were called before congress? But how many hundreds lost their jobs, their careers, because they knew somebody who knew somebody who WAS called - and their boss found out?

The same in the universities. The problem was not in being called before the HUAC; it was the fear that they MIGHT be called that got them canned, by the thousands.

All it took was one person to call their boss and say "This guy is a red." Rather than take the chance that he might be called before the committee, the boss would find a reason to let him go so it wouldn't blow back on him - and any potential employer calling him for references would also get the word - "You know, I can't say for sure, but I was told he was a party member back before the war" - and he'd never get hired.

cartoons from our "free press" --

his comments are just based on current times --

but I can tell you that the best, the most powerful and the most hard-hitting

of cartoons from the left were taken out ages ago -- decades --

They are too difficult for the rightwing to respond to -- in fact, they are

quite like rw propaganda -- but in an honest way!!


:evilgrin:

seriously eliminating them -- and before that eliminating the most powerful

and successful of them!!

C-span used to cover the cartoonists conventions -- plus I used to be a huge fan

of cartoons -- until the temp of them was taken way down! The best were eliminated.


Why? Because they are almost impossible for the rightwing to respond to --

They do in an honest way, what rightwing propaganda does in a dishonest way --

Kind of a short-circuiting of the brain -- leading to emotional reaction.

As Goebbels said -- truth is the greatest enemy of the lie!!

the truth in just a few panels.......then the newspapers got rid of them & I stopped reading them......

and he was relating that without MASS MEDIA there would be no way to

propagandize the public --

In a way, the internet has reversed that for as long as it lasts --

Too bad that someone like Skinner doesn't pick up a few liberal cartoonists for DU --

I thought I was the only one who noticed that political cartoonists who criticize or satirize ANY politicians in ways that upset the PTB have been dropped like hot potatoes. In fact, I stopped reading The Houston Press about a year ago when they stopped printing This Modern World.

Tom Rall is another of my fave political cartoonists who disappeared rather abruptly. I'm glad I know now what happened to him.

(And, I think it's sad that anyone on this site would denigrate his art--he has a distinctive and effective style. I quite like his work, and I miss him.)

in that screed he calls a book.

And 'cause he a no-talent hack.

Sid

a no talent hack?

He's radioactive because he calls for violent revolution.

That's completely unrelated to his being a no-talent hack.

Sid

:)

when Helen Thomas was moved to the back of the room and wasn't able to question Bush?

Was she butthurt too?

I mean, she was still in the room. It wasn't like she couldn't attend. Right?

Give me a fucking break.

Ted, maybe if you're cartoons were a little more reality-based, and if you drew better you'd get more gigs.

the FISA legislation was intended to deal with Nixon's wiretapping ---

rather we have now enlarged FISA -- both the original legislation and the

expanding of it are un-Constitutional -- !!


Ike was looking to actually control the Military Industrial/Intelligence Complex --

warning us about it --!!


Keep in mind, Nixon was a crook and criminal -- I'm talking about various policies --

at one time he wanted to set a flat rate where government would support the impoverished,

for instance.

Also clearly, Nixon paved the way for W's illegal activities--!!

Nixon was a destroyer, but at the time it was as far as he could go -- !!

I still expect to vote for POTUS Obama in 2012 but would rather have a true liberal and social democratic POTUS and Democratic Party in Congress and the Courts.

I was confused by Candidate Obama; in thinking Obama more pro- populist, anti-war, enviromental, and personal liberty.

My concern was his corporate connections that were underplayed and even ridiculed when mentioned.

Regardless, I would have voted Obama in 2008 and expect to in 2012 (but not with the optimism of 2008).

think he actually denied any connection to DLC --

but that's why I wouldn't have voted for Hillary -- she's part of DLC leadership!

Had I known Obama was "New Dem" I would not have voted for him either --

Obama is very far removed from FDR or Wallace -- completely different worlds!!


My conscience won't permit me to vote for Obama in 2012 --

I'd like to see Sen. Bernie Sanders run on a Dem ticket --

We need two strong anti-war Dems to run --

Maybe Tom Hayden as VP?




The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC -- !!

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew about this, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know -- pass it along -- !!

:)

And that cartoon is dishonest.

Are you cognizant of everything the US government does?

That's not the same thing as proving a negative.

Just saying.

Oh, I almost forgot, Ted Rall *rocks* :D

k&r

Obama says they're not waterboarding at Gitmo. Prove that they are.

Until then, there is no proof that they are NOT.

and yes, that involves you proving a negative.

Frankly, it is hard to follow your pretzel logic in this thread...

Claims are claims. Does the President have conclusive evidence that his directive was executed?

We know that Gitmo is still open. We don't know what goes on there. So what is the lie?

Oh, of course, non-citizens are not required to buy health insurance. Yet.

That's really in the traditional hard-hitting style of the cartoons we used

to have!!

Mercurial would be an understatement.

People outside LA may not be aware that Rall once worked for KFI - America's most potent right wing station.

He goes over the line in ways that make reasonable people gag. He recklessly accused Tillman of wanting to kill Arabs only later to be embarassed by the fact that Tillman oppossed the War in Iraq.

Rall attempts to be provocative but isn't smart enough to pull it off and is simply tasteless as this quote from a cartoon indicates:

On October 22, 2007, Rall published a cartoon saying "Over time, however, the endless war in Iraq began to play a role in natural selection. Only idiots signed up; only idiots died. Back home, the average I.Q. soared".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Rall

Here is an example of Rall's bigoted imaging of mentally challenged folks

http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/481daa305cea012ee3bd00163e41dd5b


Rall is the actual victim of natural selection not McCarthyism. The principle that pretentious people without talent will eventually be weeded out of the market. Just three months after Obama took office he called for him to resign. He is a gadfly, kind of a Gingrich on the left.

It is also not the first time nor the last time that he has publicly cried out for sympathy because people didn't like his work

In 1999, Rall wrote an article in the Village Voice<7> accusing Maus creator Art Spiegelman of lacking talent and controlling who gets high-profile assignments from magazines like The New Yorker through personal connections, including his wife, a New Yorker editor.

Finally he is a terrible artist and his cartoons lack humor.

And there are a lot of people here on DU who like Rall's work, the fact this OP is in positive rec territory proves that.

I guess you never read "A Modest Proposal", quite possibly the most famous satire ever, it is very Rall-like in its over-the-top-ness.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

At least you took the time to attack Rall personally.

lol

haven't yet noticed you still have to the end of the week to be apart of the DU community and help support its expenses.

Work no longer allows me to put enough time to do the research required to be a well informed poster at DU so I just skim it to try and stay informed. Your reply shows however that DU remains a very inconsistent resource ranging from the sublime to the banal.

When I saw people fawning over Ted Rall I realized that many DUers may not be as familiar with Rall as those of us who live in SC and wanted to point out facts about his commercial life.

He was an active contributor to KFI, which boasts Rush Limbaugh's largest audience among other strident reactionaries.

Ted Rall has always been marginally successful as a commercial cartoonist. His problems getting his work placed, and his crying about political manipulation goes back to the Village Voice for god's sake.

He is reckless (and has had to apologize numerous times), lacks good taste by regularly attacking soldiers killed in action who cannot defend themselves against his insults, and other tasteless attacks that have really nothing to do with ideology at all.

Ralls is a commercial failutre because he is not very clever, not a good artist and rather than be provacative he is simply repulsive, even when he is making a good point he is rarely funny.

All of my criticisms were based on his professional history and none on his personal history of which I know, nor care, anything about.

:rofl:

Sid

"Rall once worked for KFI - America's most potent right wing station."

Nice deceptive statement. I listened to his show and it was left-wing.

cost him position

I enjoyed Rall for years: I thought he had a dark edgy humor that tested the boundaries of bourgeois self-delusion

I remember that "mentally handicapped children" panel: I think he crossed over to some hateful dark side then and hasn't really ever come back

CAN'T YOU FUCKIN' READ?!?!?

(I can read, but I still don't quite *verb* why Fartbama *verb* to *verb* us REAL liberals or something)

But instead of Cave of Hate, I'd probably call it the Cave of Things That Only Slightly Irritate Me No Salamanders Allowed By They Way Because They're Slimy And Gross.

Or maybe Cool Cave.

and people blame the fact that it has a "dungeon":

http://neighborhoods.redeyechicago.com/bucktown-wicker-park/open-house/2011/05/16/dungeon-house-waits-for-new-master/

Don't you think that's cool? If I had that kind of money I think I'd buy it; I don't know why people have a problem with it.

I'd invite Charlie Sheen to the housewarming party, and everyone would take turns kicking him in the yambag.

and THEN, there would be cake.

(couldn't resist.)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Flags everywhere. Torture suddenly OK.

Was sad to see even some on DU supporting TORTURE --

We have to understand that TORTURE is really about controlling populations ---

finally it will be used to control all of us, unless we overturn this national

security state -- and do some serious thinking.

I'm sure things worsened after W, but it's been clear going way back that cartoons were going

to be too hardhitting for the rightwing to cope with -- so they were going to be stopped.

C-span used to cover the cartoonists yearly meeting -- by that time it was seriously happening.

Cartoons and cartoonists are unique --

Clinton, of course, undermined the New Deal in many ways -- but we still weren't where we are

now --


Obama lost me before Inauguration Day, when he announced cabinet appointments that didn’t include a single liberal.

Certainly agree with THAT -- !!

It got worse after that: Obama extended and expanded Bush’s TARP giveaway to the banks; continued Bush’s spying on our phone calls; ignored the foreclosure crisis; refused to investigate, much less prosecute, Bush’s torturers; his healthcare plan was a sellout to Big Pharma; he kept Gitmo open; expanded the war against Afghanistan; dispatched more drone bombers; used weasel words to redefine the troops in Iraq as “non-combat”; extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich; claiming the right to assassinate U.S. citizens; most recently, there was the forced nudity torture of PFC Bradley Manning and expanding oil drilling offshore and on national lands.

and ...

Obama is the one they ought to be blackballing. He has been a terrible disappointment to the American left. He has forsaken liberals at every turn. Yet they continue to stand by him. Which means that, in effect, they are not liberals at all. They are militant Democrats. They are Obamabots.

As long as Democrats win elections, they are happy. Nevermind that their policies are the same as, or to the right of, the Republicans.

And, this is our dilemna here at DU --

To be actual small "d" democrats or militant Democrats -- ?

I know my answer -- and it's this one ... I agree with Rall ---

I care about America and the world and the people who live in them.


Interesting that he is as effective with the pen as he is with his art pen!!

Laid it bare!!

But will we look away?

disapprove of Obama? Or the record low percentage of Democrats (compared to every President since JFK) that disapprove?

:shrug:

that's an impressive percentage --

plus, I'm sure you noticed 2010???

Medicare for all (including virtually all the liberals and Democrats who voted).

:shrug:

"plus, I'm sure you noticed 2010???"

You mean the election where liberal turnout matched the previous midterm, and voted in even higher numbers for the Democrats? I sure did. Did you?

In politics, what matters is policy, not 'I like the politician'. The support of a politician is to a huge extent about not liking the alternatives as much as it is about 'support' or 'liking'.
Adults in politics talk about the issues. Not about the players. "Oh, I like him" is great as far as it goes. I mean, GW had a 90% approval there for a time, did that mean people really approved of W? Did it mean W was correct?
Policy, not personality. I know that's tuff for the PR Presidency to grasp, but it is, for example, the opposition to and language against marriage equality that I take issue with, not the personality of Barack Obama. Try to understand that. Stretch that mind! Some people have political objectives that are not about politicians. Shocking!

Just nod...walk forward and don't look it in the eye. I kid, call the WH and promise not to make fun of reality anymore, I'm sure they will have a paid job for you by the end of the week.

That needs to be on a few people's mirrors as a daily affirmation!!

I'd name my #1 guess, but that'd be a "call out".

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's almost like this thread could be used as supportive evidence of exactly the charges being made by Rall...

(In my best Bert Lahr voice.)

Been a long time since I've seen an editorial so spot-on from beginning to end.

Indeed, there is a whole spectrum of liberals who have no more reason to feel comfortable with Obama than we had with Bush - and for good reason, with so many of their policies being the same.

Just as Bush's faux, neo- brand of "conservatism" shut out all the genuine conservatives and libertarians out of the picture, now Obama's faux neo-liberalism is shutting out all the genuine liberals.

If you're anti-war? There is no party for you now.

If you're against the drug war? There is no party for you now.

If you're against having a totalitarian police state? There is no party for you now.

If you're against bailing out companies that cause economic disasters? There's no party for you now.

If you're against conscripting citizens into various corporate insurance schemes? There's no party for you now.

etc etc etc etc etc

Countered. ;)

Well, at least the author of this drivel gave him a chance.

:sarcasm:

Obama lost me before Inauguration Day, when he announced cabinet appointments that didn’t include a single liberal.

It got worse after that: Obama extended and expanded Bush’s TARP giveaway to the banks; continued Bush’s spying on our phone calls; ignored the foreclosure crisis; refused to investigate, much less prosecute, Bush’s torturers; his healthcare plan was a sellout to Big Pharma; he kept Gitmo open; expanded the war against Afghanistan; dispatched more drone bombers; used weasel words to redefine the troops in Iraq as “non-combat”; extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich; claiming the right to assassinate U.S. citizens; most recently, there was the forced nudity torture of PFC Bradley Manning and expanding oil drilling offshore and on national lands.

It is understandable that lots of people have shut that little
bit of unpleasantness out of their minds.

One day children (maybe at tax time when they're being fined for
being too broke to buy the latest Wellpoint offering because their
"leaders" sold out the manufacturing base) will ask:


Why were doctors and nurses arrested at a hearing?

A hearing run by (D)emocrats?

Why was that?

And who will have an answer.

What are you doing on a Democratic site? Don't Libertarians have their own site?

Consequently, it's strange that Gravel became a Libertarian just when Obama won the presidency, or was slated to win the presidency. I wonder if he would've changed Partys had Hillary won. Hm.

I'm surprised he jumped to Libertarian instead of Green, but he is no Republican and there is no place for him among the New Democrats. And yes, I bet he would have done the same if Hillary won. Despite the vastly different campaign rhetoric, there is precious little difference between DLC Hillary and New Dem Obama.

ruined it for me. I don't trust Libertarians. If you're surprised he jumped to the Libertarians instead of the Green Party after the good things he's said, then he's either been disingenuous or he really is a Libertarian. Either way, he only makes me more suspicious of him.

better get this cartoonist to help start an alternative party.

Once he announced his Cabinet, it was clear he
didn't give a shit about all the Progressives and
Liberals (including me) who worked our asses off
getting him elected.

And Warren at the Inauguration was icing on that
cake.

Tesha

The guy's a hack. Fuck him.

Sid

Wait Obama has to go because Rall is an asshole?

:rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Mother Jones nor The Nation to comment about what Rall suggests are the reasons he does not receive
responses for work. BUT, I do follow Harper's closely and I take issue with his suggestion they
are not interested in his work b/c it's too hard on Obama policy.

The cartoonist, Mr. Fish, his work is used regularly. This cartoon (at the link) is his latest, you can decide
for yourself if Harper's is candy coating their criticism of Obama's policies.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/05/hbc-90008096


As far as the publication, Harper's recently became the Winner of the National Magazine Award for Reporting The Guantánamo “Suicides"

This was written by Scott Horton and his work is not the exception to criticism of this administration's policies. It may very well be
there are publications that will not give Rall work for the reasons he stated, yet I have a hard time believing Harper's did not
respond to his inquiry due to any Obamabot approach to journalism.


The Guantanamo “suicides”:
A Camp Delta sergeant blows the whistle
By Scott Horton



1. “Asymmetrical Warfare”
When President Barack Obama took office last year, he promised to “restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great.” Toward that end, the president issued an executive order declaring that the extra-constitutional prison camp at Guantánamo Naval Base “shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order.” Obama has failed to fulfill his promise. Some prisoners there are being charged with crimes, others released, but the date for closing the camp seems to recede steadily into the future. Furthermore, new evidence now emerging may entangle Obama’s young administration with crimes that occurred during the George W. Bush presidency, evidence that suggests the current administration failed to investigate seriously—and may even have continued—a cover-up of the possible homicides of three prisoners at Guantánamo in 2006.

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/03/0082865

seems many people have gone to the Karl Rove school of sliming.

He is concerned his lack of work is due to publications being wary of publishing his
criticism of Obama's policies...he believes they are worried the "Obamabots" would not
be pleased.

made no such claim about blackballing:

Adding to the woes, of course, is the one-two punch of the rise of web culture and the fall of print page counts, particularly in the alternative press.

Dan Perkins, better known to comic lovers as Tom Tomorrow, points out that the Voice parent company's 2009 decision to "suspend" comics "dealt a serious blow to the struggling subgenre of alt-weekly cartoons."

Syndicated cartoonist Ted Rall tells Edroso that his paper count has fallen by over a third, from about 140 print publications to "in the 90s."

Rall, like many others in the Edroso piece, says he had to diversify to stay afloat; he has begun writing books and a syndicated column as well.

"Writing prose started out as a purely cynical cash grab," he says. "Only in the world of cartooning could freelance writing be considered a cash grab."
http://www.altweeklies.com/aan/cartoonist-ward-suttons-village-voice-cover-called-a-glorious-menagerie-of-mashups/Article?oid=3925005

You would think he would name the magazines who are doing the blackballing too. That's a serious charge that will go unanswered because we really have no idea who he's talking about.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

/just saying

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

have blacklisted him, we could decide for ourselves whether or not they're "Obamabots".