Arlen Specter’s defection to the Democrats has prompted Republicans to start downplaying (but not changing) their unpopular positions on abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues.
Cartoon for May 7, 2009
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
34 Comments. Leave new
The conservative movement has the same stand on gay marriage as Obama has and Bill Clinton had and a majority of Americans; hardly unpopular. And abortion is almost 50/50, depending on which poll you read. It's hardly unpopular to be pro-life.
What conservatives are looking for is a conservative candidate, not John McCain. If the establishment Republicans would get out of the way, conservatives could start running again.
The allegorical nature of this cartoon to a general category of people (slacker weirdoes as representing Republicans), brings this cartoon closer to your old '90's style of cartoons.
Since you don't directly use a politician in this cartoon, whilst referencing them, are we to assume peace and prosperity are about to break out in America again?
';-)
Sincerely
Y_S
Pakistan
RepubliKKKans suck ass.
When churches are empty, quaint buildings, things will be better.
We have a long way to go.
Ted, great cartoon, Y_S is right, this is old school and very effective at demonstrating how silly the whole 'rebranding' thing is, as though a political party is a brand that we are to buy like a product.
Anon. The abortion issue is not 50/50, a good two thirds of Americans believe it should be legal, and this has been well documented (do your own research, not just skimming polls on the subject). It might be 50-50 amongst the people you spend time with most, as neighborhood designs over the past 30 years in the United States have become much more isolation -cul de sac instead of grid layout for example.
If it were REALLY 50/50, do you honestly believe it would have remained legal for nearly 40 years? Stop deluding yourself.
On the second point, "conservatives want a conservative candidate, not john McCain"….and yet John McCain emerged from the republican primary system? inconceivable!!!!
If you haven't noticed, the far right DID take over the Republican Party, and forced everyone else out, it DID become a party of ideological purity, where Republicans actually cheered the loss of Arlen Specter. And, what has been the result? A party that can only win in the deep south, among people who are less educated.
Personally I think it's wonderful that the extreme right just doesn't get it. For the party to be relevant again, they're going to have to be put the extreme right back in their place. You can wail all you want, but the ultimate reality is that the extreme right represents 1/5 of the US population….20% and they need to start recognizing that THEY are the problem.
OMG. The most brilliant one you've done in recent memory. There's something very "old-school Rall" about it, almost like it should be in black and white.
By the way, how is it good for ANY party to acquire Arlen Specter? Pro choice is good, but it's not everything.
Reverend Smith, the reason I like the Arlen Specter move is that it is one more very public demonstration that the extreme right in America has been exposed and is no longer going to be dominant in American politics. Republicans will come back, after all we only have two stinking parties, but they won't be the religious nutcase party anymore. They politicized religion to win…and yet, other than making a disgusting mess of everything, they did not ACTUALLY accomplish any of their goals on a national level.
This is not and never will be about Specter, he's just a power hungry sychophant, like all the rest of them. Harry Reid put him in his place by taking his seniority away.
AD,
Please site where you found that abortion is supported by 2/3.
The reason abortion has been legal for 40 years is because the Supreme Court "decided" it was a constitutional right. It doesn't matter how many people oppose abortion, unless the supreme court overturns itself, or an amendment is added it will be legal for another 40 years. So your argument that because if abortion was not supported 50/50 it would be illegal is incorrect. Your welcome.
Please try to respond with facts without personal attacks and insults if possible.
Arlen Spector is a power hungry sycophant. So why are Obama and Dumbocrats going to support him for his reelection to the Senate?
Wouldn't there be a better "real" Democrat to support?
Comments…?
"Please site where you found that abortion is supported by 2/3."
I specifically said in my post for you to do your own research, I'm not wasting my time doing research for a conservative because they don't respect facts that come from non-central authorities of the right wing.
Again, go do your own research and find the truth. Stop acting like you're a victim.
Wow, ya know guys, I don't think "anonymous" reads other peoples' posts at all. Why are the Dems accepting him? Because this is about constructing an image of the republican party as marginalized, an image that the republican party is actually playing into quite well.
I have a theory. My theory is that all these "Anonymous" trolls on here are actually Ted Rall playing devil's advocate to get us fans of his riled up. Think about it, how often do you see stock right wing "Anonymous" posts in the same feed as posts from Ted himself?
Admit it Ted, you are "Anonymous" aren't you?
Anonymous (Ted) 2:25
I can't believe Aggie Dude would stoop so low as to launch personal attacks on you. Like that one line, where he… umm… or where he calls you a… a… where he…
Hmmm… oh yeah, he disagreed with you! What a jerk thing to do! The nerve…
Also:
Your: possessive
You're: contraction of "you are"
You're welcome 🙂
It doesn't take much research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Public_opinion
but it's more complicated than just yes/no.
2/3 do support it in the first trimester.
Only a small percent never support it under any circumstances.
Admit it Ted, you are "Anonymous" aren't you?
I never thought of that. Dorme bene, indeed.
I generally try to avoid doing research for stupid anonymous posters, but I couldn't help it this time. I simply Googled the words "support for abortion polls."
The 2nd link was to a CBS news report:
"Seventy-seven percent of respondents said abortion should either be generally available, or available but with stricter limits than now. Just 22 percent said abortion should not be permitted."
Wow. That was really, really hard.
I think Ted's too creative to call his sock puppet anonymous, he'd most likely come up with a clever alias, like John Galt or Butthole Pirate.
"…2/3 do support it in the first trimester."
Russell, thank you for the quick fact check there. While on the one hand the issue is more nuanced than a yes or no, whether people condition their response with restrictions, or guidelines, is secondary to the initial question: should a woman have the right to an abortion – Yes/No.
The first trimester is what…3 months? That's an awful lot of time to decide. Even I think there should be such things as counseling before and after an abortion, but the way most right wingers use the "conditions" argument is as a way to drag their feet and deny the overarching issue, which is that an overwhelming majority of Americans agree that women should have the right to choose.That should be the starting point of any further discussion on abortion, period. Everything else is a calculated and deliberate attempt at distraction and convolution within the issue.
Anonymous, I so did not make this personal, I didn't even point out your misuse of words….it is 'cite,' short for 'citation.'
As opposed to 'site'…short for 'you little right wing parasite.'
The bottom line here is that the right wing simply isn't capable of constructively engaging in the necessary problem solving negotiation we need to address real social problems. They have chosen to marginalize themselves to the point of obstruction. An unwillingness to recognize facts is one symptom of that.
AD,
You made the assertion, I am asking you to support your assertion.
You have a habit of getting very defensive when you are asked to back up your arguments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Public_opinion
Supports my assertion that depending on the poll you read, abortion is basically 50/50 plus or minus, read the "Additional Polls" section. There is a pew research poll stating the same thing, pretty much 50/50.
Still waiting for AD to produce some facts to back up this statement: "The abortion issue is not 50/50, a good two thirds of Americans believe it should be legal, and this has been well documented"
Come on "professor"! Enough with the theory, let's see some facts!
Not to pile on, but let me say that the notion that this is all the "Court's fault" is somewhat misplaced. The Court as placed in the position it was placed because of a pressing social problem, Congressional silence, and a lack of any mandates one way or another from any legislative or popular body.
If you look at life as it was in the early 70s, the need to have A rule was strong. The ripple effects of checkerboarded legality meant women crossing state lines for what some (I, for one) would call a health service. In some cases, they faced criminal prosecutions. The resultant health, legal, and economic impacts were severe. (And further, an alternative ruling would like have exacerbated them.)
It IS the role of the Court to decide in these matters, regardless of the conservative myths of "activist judges." (Do some research and you'll find that activism cuts both ways. Google the Slaughterhouse cases, Boyle v. United Technologies, or Bush v. Gore. Conservatives have made many landmark rules with similarly flimsy bases.)
So the Court did what it had to, and it left some doors open. Some analysts suggest that Nixon and Congress, and the hearts of both parties actually wanted this outcome: that is the political risk of weighing in on abortion from the executive or legislature was just too high.
States have been given significant latitude in controlling the third trimester. Some have elected to do more than others. I believe it's about 36 states that have limits on 3rd term.
If this was truly a 50/50 divide, you'd see the viable response from Congress: that is, an Amendment to the Constitution. That you haven't seen them make a stab at it in nearly three decades is indicative that serious opposition to abortion is too checker-boarded in representation to make a significant effort.
Note that the we have seen attempts at amendments like the ERA, flag burning, and gay marriage restrictions (or at least claims thereto). If conservatives had a "mandate" and the numbers, they'd run this up the flagpole. They do not, and our Constitution is too hard to ratify to make it worth the political ill will.
The thing is, you need 38 states to make your Amendment fly. So while you dislike the Court, you should realize that the real problem is you lack the real political will to get what you want. This certainly is more important than a BS issue like flag burning, and yet you see no real headway on an amendment. The closest was the "Hatch-Eagleton" amendment. 25 years ago, a toothless tiger, with only the effect of recreating the chaos of the pre-Roe world. And even that failed to pass out of the Senate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Public_opinion: Additional Polls
Anon, not one of those polls show more than 25% believing it should be illegal in "all cases", that figure is under 20% in nearly all polls. That section is better read to suggest that 4 in 5 Americans believe it should be legal in at least some cases than to suggest that support is basically 50/50.
3 months isn't that long to make a decision, actually, if you consider that it often takes a month and a half–or more, depending on how often a woman typically has her period, and how regular she is–to figure out she's pregnant. If you're in a rural area and/or broke, getting to a doctor in time might be quite difficult. Planned Parenthood is great, but not everyone can get to one in time.
Abortion isn't a black and white issue. Public opinion is pretty split, but it changes depending on circumstances (rape/incest, trimester). Most people believe that a woman has a right to choose in the case of rape or incest or danger to the mother. That's clear. And most people don't see the need for abortion in the third trimester, unless the woman's life is in danger. But, IN GENERAL, people seem believe that a woman does have the right to choose. WHEN she has the right is up for debate, but not whether she does or not.
Guys, you're not being open-minded and listening to the FACTS that Anonymous (Ted) is listing!
The FACT is, Anonymous really, really, really doesn't like abortion. I mean, he REALLY doesn't like it.
Therefore, his view should be mandated at a national level. Simple.
Also, Aggie, you might want to repost any of the aforementioned polls. Apparently, he isn't going to stop until a poll is posted by you specifically. -sigh-
Addendum: I almost used 'he/she' statements in this post, but let's be honest…
"Come on "professor"! Enough with the theory, let's see some facts!"It is ironic that Anon initially accused me of personal attacks, and yet Anon is the one who makes this statement.
Anon, a number of people have delivered evidence on this blog, and you have either ignored it, or even worse, attempted to claim that it supports your view. Even amongst republicans, the claim that it should be illegal is never much about 30%.
This problem goes beyond a) ignoring data, b) cherry-picking data, or even c) misuse of data. The problem with right wingers and the use of information is far deeper.
It is the failure to understand the purpose of data. Data is about gaining the ability to accurately assess social and physical realities, to think critically about those realities, so that we can develop solutions to social problems that improve the situation.
Anon, you obviously think that the purpose of data is to have a stronger argument, and thus force your worldview onto other people. This is why I refuse to talk to you about the data available. You don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the meaning of such a discussion, because you simply reject any information that doesn't support your assertion.
Anon, if the information already available to you isn't enough for you to recognize that this is not a 50/50 issue, then NOTHING I come up with is going to do so. You know this, I know this, and yet you continue to emphasize my stubbornness as the root issue being discussed. This is a deliberate argumentative tactic of someone for whom reality does not support their preconceived notions: change the argument topic to something that can be won.
I always assume all anonymous commenters are Bruce Tinsley, artist of Mallared Fillmore until proven wrong.
He has to have something to do between photocopying his 5 or 6 duck poses and pasting in his email from Rush Limbaugh in a "comics" font.
Wow Aggie, all I did was ask you to site your source. All the ranting and raving and you still have not sited a source. The others posted theirs. Is it that the so called professor does not like to be challenged? Yes.
Let's look at AD logic over the months:
Quotes Rush Limbaugh, and yet cannot produce the quote. When pressed AD says he inferred what Rush said, therefore he said it
AD equates nationalism with racism, therefore patriotic Americans are racist
Posts prolonged rants (they only take a minute to type because AD is that good) yet rarely posts an actual fact that can be backed up, and instead turns tables by accusing his challenger of being: moronic, racist, stupid or encourages them to commit suicide
This is the state of our educational system today, assuming AD is actually an "educator".
And see now I'm not anonymous.
Note that this is no longer an discussion about support for abortion in America, but an extended attack on my motives and credibility, dating back "…over months"
I never knew I had such a loyal following…
I'm confused by your approach to discussion, Greg. Ostensibly, discussions online exist to allow people to understand alternative reasoning, to share their own opinions, and in so doing, to articulate their ideas clearly to themselves and the world.
AD has posited some arguments with an intentional lack of citation, but his arguments stand. While his approach has verged on "meta" (examining the nature of cross-partisan discussion), it's somewhat surprising to me that you've looked at this as a "tete a tete" match. If you mean to understand the opposing view and are given some articulate (or thoughtful) reasoning against your opinion, isn't that valuable even if it comes from individuals outside of AD? Perhaps you've read them, ingested them, and feel no need to refute. But by focusing your attention on one writer and abstaining from discussions with others, it certainly makes this look like you believe debate is a match to be won rather than a process of understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong.
This is why I generally try to avoid doing research for stupid anonymous posters.
Or Greg, the poster formerly known as anonymous.
Yeah, anon/Greg, I pretty much demolished your claims. No comment?
SDS you are not wrong.
Oops:
More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time
Also, fewer think abortion should be legal “under any circumstances”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx
Apology accepted
Do you even read your sources? You might note that while the self-identification skews one way, the policy positions skew AGAINST you.
SDS, Anon/Greg, whatever not only does not read his own sources, he does not read the posts here. Finding one poll and then citing it (as opposed to siting it), completely misses the point of the overall examination. Despite complaining about a) being personally attacked, and b) not being provided data to back up opposing arguments, this person proceeds to personally attack, not back up their argument with facts, and then assume an apology from those that have argued against them.
Interacting with them at all is less futile than banging your head against a brick wall.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/cnn-poll-record-support-for-roe-v-wade.html
This is the best example of the problem that Craig/Anonymous has with evaluating data and information. The bottom line is that over two thirds of Americans support Roe v. Wade, which sets the baseline on abortion rights for women in the first trimester.
When you start parsing the details, of course people want some consideration for how it is paid for, when in the pregnancy it is conducted, how young a girl can be and get one without parental consent, special conditions for rape/incest.
But the bottom line is, that a straight up or down support for a woman's RIGHT to have an abortion is overwhelmingly upheld. There really isn't an argument here to be made against this, the only thing Craig/Anonymous can do is pick on me for who I am, nitpick data, misrepresent statistics, and be an overall general asshole about it.
If we can't even agree on OBVIOUS data, how the hell are we going to fight REAL social and environmental problems!? Geeeeeeeze