For the first time in memory, both major candidates for president of the United States are heading into the home stretch of a campaign without having campaigned for concrete policy proposals. We literally have no idea what either of them would do if elected. All we know is their tone and public personnas.
Politics Without Policies
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."
11 Comments. Leave new
If I told you, I’d have to kill you ?…
Henri
Ah Ted…Are sure this is the first time ?
Seriously? Mitt Romney has been spouting off about what he’d do as President for months, and you’re claiming you have no idea what he’d do?
Just more evidence that you care more about bashing Obama then actually paying attention, apparently.
I think we can split the difference between Whimsical and Ted here.
Neither candidate has exactly been forthcoming with concrete plans.
Nonetheless, it’s pretty clear what Romney will do, which is why he’s losing.
Whereas Obama will likely muddle along as he has been, which under ordinary circumstances would not be a compelling reason to vote for him. Oddly, however, in this go-round he scores big as “not Romney”.
That thumping noise is me beating my head against the wall.
Retarded Whimsical, right on time. What’s the matter sweetie? Diddums get all upset because Teddy Weddy said something mean about The One?
Okay, I’ll bite.
But first, here’s a link to a review of “The Phantom Menace.” The reason I put it in becomes apparent at about 6:45 into the clip. The reviewer asks, “Describe the following Star Wars character without saying what they look like, what kind of costume they wore, or what their profession or role in the movie was. Describe this character to your friends like they ain’t never seen Star Wars.”
No one has any trouble with the original characters. Han Solo, Luke, Leia, C3PO, they’re all easy to describe. Then you get to the Phantom Menace, and it’s like pouring a quart of sand into a race car’s engine.
This is the problem I keep having with all the Obama-love. I keep looking for something that defines his character, and I keep not finding it. I think, “Well, he’s not a bloodthirsty maniac like Dubya. He doesn’t have all the Daddy issues.” But he’s kept (through active participation, not as a victim of circumstances beyond his control — that would be the Gitmo detainees) Gitmo open. He’s given himself the power to turn people into piles of hamburger. Obama might not be as joyously gleeful about it, but he’s got no trouble letting other people die. He has no problem with people disappearing into the system forever and ever.
He’s the same compromising, bait-and-switch, smile-smile-smile, poseur that pretty much every politician is. The closest I can get is the generic description that comes to mind for almost all politicians: He’s an opportunist who’ll stick the knife into your ribs up to the hilt if it turns out to be the best way to advance his (or his corporate masters’) interests. You have no value to him, not as a person, not as a citizen, not as a voter, not as a supporter, not as anything. Your only value is that you rally around him, and when he’s sitting at home, with his scotch glass in hand, one word echoes through his mind: “Suckers.”
It’s the same model Ariana Huffington used to get herself $300 million on the backs of fools.
ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!
Ted, it happened again!!!
I know there was a different cartoon here yesterday (the one that appeared a week too early) and now I see the one for NEXT WEEK!
(Who posts these things out of sequence?)
@Alex
What Obama love? Seriously. I don’t think anyone would argue against the case that I’m the biggest “Obama MUST be re-elected” dude on this site, and the best I’m willing to give the guy is “he’s done the best job that can be expected of him by any reasonable people’s standards”. Hardly love.
“But he’s kept (through active participation, not as a victim of circumstances beyond his control — that would be the Gitmo detainees) Gitmo open. ”
This has been demonstrated false repeatedly. Spewing fact free BS; especially already proven false fact free BS is the kind of nonsense I expect from Ted. I expect better from you.
Thing is, there isn’t a person on the planet that would’ve been able to get Gitmo closed in these circumstances. There’s not a person on the planet who’dve been able to get war crimes trials started- or CIA agents arrested- or any one of half a dozen other things the left complains about. Not possible. Holding Obama responsible for things that cold not be accomplished by anyone is a)unfair b) indulging in the worst sort of Monday-morning quarterbacking/wishful thinking that there is and c)preventing gettting rid of those who are obstructing progress on issues where progress actually can be made.
On the issues where progress was possible, I stand by my statement above- “Obama has done the best job that can be reasonably be expected given the circumstances.”
@plant
*pats your head* It’s so cute, how much of your headspace I own. Run along back to lick the boots of your right-wing masters now, the grownups are talking.
Whimsical,
“But he’s kept (through active participation, not as a victim of circumstances beyond his control — that would be the Gitmo detainees) Gitmo open. ”
This has been demonstrated false repeatedly. Spewing fact free BS; especially already proven false fact free BS is the kind of nonsense I expect from Ted. I expect better from you.
Okay. Let’s stop right there. My assertion was that Obama, by active participation — that is, by things he positively did, as opposed to things that he simply had no control over — has kept Gitmo open.
Here’s the link. Here’s the relevant text (but, please, read the whole article):
“Making plain he would fight to repeal language in the law obstructing civilian U.S. trials for Guantanamo terrorism suspects, Obama said he was left with no choice but to sign the defense authorization act for fiscal 2011.”
That, in the complex jargon of journalism, is called bullshit. Obama DID have options. In fact, he had the option that the Founders had in mind when they created the office of the president. He could have refused to sign the bill, he could have simply sat on his hands, he could have taken a stand on the issue. He ACTIVELY picked up the pen and signed the thing.
” ‘Despite my strong objection to these provisions, which my administration has consistently opposed, I have signed this act because of the importance of authorizing appropriations for, among other things, our military activities in 2011,’ Obama said in a statement.”
Again, read between the lines. Obama isn’t objecting. He’s taking the easy way out. “Hmm. Stick up for the principles that this Republic was founded up— Shit! I’m late for my foursome at the country club. Let those brown savages rot for all I care. Jeeves! The limo!”
But, let’s go on with this for a bit. The purpose of Gitmo is to keep very dangerous, very bad people away from the American People. Here’s a portion of the wikipedia article:
Since January 2002, 779 men have been seized and brought to Guantanamo. […] Most of them have been released without charge or transferred to facilities in their home countries. The Department of Defense often referred to these prisoners as the “worst of the worst”, but a 2003 memo by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says, ‘We need to stop populating Guantanamo Bay (GTMO) with low-level enemy combatants … GTMO needs to serve as an [redacted] not a prison for Afghanistan.’ As of June 2012, 169 prisoners remain at Guantanamo. About half have been cleared for release, yet have little prospect of ever obtaining their freedom.”
This is the sticking point. We’re talking about people who — by the whole set of rules — have been put through the machinery and, despite the best efforts, proven to be harmless. And we still keep them locked up. It is immoral and indefensible, and for Obama, it’s just business as usual.
I’m sorry, Whimsical, this was covered during Nuremberg. I understand the realities of politics. But none of those arguments satisfy the requirements necessary for keeping innocent people locked in little boxes. It is one of the most obscene chapters of American history. The enormity (in the traditional sense of the word) of what has been done at Gitmo by career politicians who want to keep being hot shits is one of the clearest signs I can see for everything that sickens me about the political process.
Obama does the things he does because he wants to be in charge, not because he deserves to be in charge.
We’re going to have to disagree on this, I realize that. But I think you should really start to question why you are supporting a candidate who is okay with keeping innocent people behind bars.
@Alex
3 simple yes or no quesitons.
1) Did Obama sign an executive order to close Gitmo?
2) Was it’s implementation blocked by the Republicans?
3) Was the NDAA passed by a veto-proof margin?
Honest answers to the first two questions will prove my point stands. An honest answer to the third will render the rest of your post irrelevant.
Obama did everything within his power to close Gitmo (not that anyone could’ve gotten it closed with the sociopaths that make up the Republican party). While I agree with you that what is happening at Gitmo is “It one of the most obscene chapters of American history” the blame for it rests 99% on the Republican party. Your anger is misplaced.
@ Alex-
And to answer your question, I admit i freely- when the choices are someone who tried and failed to free a couple of thousand foreigners, versus someone who will damage my country and BILLIONS of my countryment, perhaps beyond repair- the foreigners will lose.
I want Gitmo closed as bad as you- but the way to do it is to get rid of Republicans- the party that is keeping it open-, not to blame the one person who tried to close it for failing.