This is guest blogger Susan Stark.
Several years ago, Mr. Rall gave me the privilege of blogging on his site. I’ve never used this privilege to address a commenter, but I think I will deviate from this by addressing everyone in general and Whimsical in particular. Here I will quote him:
“An intelligent, realistic column that doesn’t unnecessarily bash Obama and the Democrats for things beyond their control? One that I can agree with every word of?
Who are you, and what have you done with the real Ted?”
Close quote.
Well, I’d like to respond to these assumptions by pointing out a few facts.
Firstly, Ted does not *unnecessarily* bash Obama and the Democrats. Ted is a pundit and a political cartoonist. It is his job to criticize those in power, no matter what political party, when they deserve it.
Secondly, Whimsical, why is Ted “intelligent” and “reasonable” only when you agree with him? It may shock you to know that I don’t always agree with Ted, yet I still think him intelligent and reasonable even when I don’t. The main reason why I’ve read Ted for 12 years is his ability to think outside of the box; to come up with angles on a story that I and others might not see.
Thirdly, Whimsical, in case you haven’t noticed, not every article Ted has written in the past four years has about Obama and the Democrats. Contrary to what you might think, Mr. Rall doesn’t lay awake at night obsessing about how he is going to “bash Obama” the next day. And I would worry about his sanity if he did.
Fourthly, Whimsical, you state that Ted blames Obama and the Democrats for things “beyond their control”. Well, this begs the question: What exactly do the Democrats and Obama have “control” over? Anything at all? Because if the Democrats are THAT powerless to affect any meaningful change, even when they have a majority of seats in Congress, even when they have one of their own in the White House, then it does absolutely no good to either vote Democratic or support the Democratic party in any way. Yes, you can keep voting Democratic. You can give your blood, sweat and tears to the Democratic Party. You can sacrifice your firstborn child to the Democratic Party. But the result will remain the same: The Democratic Party will be powerless to affect any meaningful change.
Getting back to your last sentence, Whimsical. Where is the real Ted and what have you done with him? Answer: The real Ted Rall is a person who can think outside of the box and give criticism (and credit) where it is due. However, you seem to think that Ted should become a type of informal spokesman for the Democrats. The trouble with that is that the newssphere is so saturated with Democratic shills that one more would break the camel’s back, I’m afraid.
But, of course, that’s not to say that Ted would *never* become a Democratic shill. He *could* decide to do that. But if he did, I would hazard that he would have the self-respect to demand to be paid through the nose and be granted his own cable news show on a major network like CNN or MSNBC. And why not? It worked for Al Sharpton, didn’t it?
Soooo, Whimsical, are you in a position to pay Ted up to his hair-line with filthy lucre and give him his own show on a major news network? Because that’s what it’s going to take to make him see things your way.
11 Comments.
Whimsical is absolutely certain that he or she is right. I can only say that, IMHO, I think that he or she might possibly be right.
Going back to ’68, Humphrey promised to continue doing exactly as Johnson had done. The Left didn’t vote for Nixon, but many stayed home, and the majority of actual voters voted for Nixon’s ‘secret plan’ to end the war.
Whimsical says that was a terrible mistake on the part of the Left, because the US moved very slightly to the right. Had the Left held their noses and voted for Humphrey, the US would have moved very slightly to the left. The problems would have continued, but maybe gotten slightly better. Reagan might not have been able to win the nomination after the Republican Party leaders saw that Humphrey won.
But Humphrey lost, and we got Nixon, then Reagan, then two Bushes. And, as a result of those elections, Clinton was and Obama is far to the right of Nixon. Maybe even to the right of Reagan.
Had the left put Humphrey in, maybe Clinton and Obama would have been to the left of Humphrey.
Or the US might still be in the quagmire that was Vietnam. Plus Iraq and Afghanistan, only under a Democrat.
While it’s not clear to me that Whimsical is wrong, neither is it clear to me that he or she is right.
(Mr Rall, on the other hand, seems to me always to have an insightful perspective, which is why I always read his comics and columns.)
Susan, Susan, Susan-
Over-react much?You’ve really overthought what was for me, an off-the cuff comment.
Still, never let it be said that I don’t respond to a call out, so if I must wade into this mess of innaccuracies and straw men, I must.
“Well, I’d like to respond to these assumptions by pointing out a few facts.
Firstly, Ted does not *unnecessarily* bash Obama and the Democrats.”
Innacuracy #1- that is not a fact, that is an opinion. Needless to say, that is an opinion I heartily disagree with.
“It is his job to criticize those in power, no matter what political party, when they deserve it.”
Political cartooning is nominallly a journalistic endeavor- which requires objectivity and balance.
And yet, if you go through Ted’s archives, you’d come away with the sense that the Republicans have done little to nothing deserving of criticism in the past 4 years, and the Democrats have done nothing but things that deserve criticism.
I don’t believe that even you, the ultimate Ted Rall fangirl (and please dont bother to deny it- only a fangirl would feel the need to write an 13 paragraph response to a defend her author from a simple, small, backhanded compliment) believes that to be an accurate representation of the state of affairs.
“Secondly, Whimsical, why is Ted “intelligent” and “reasonable” only when you agree with him? ”
Classic Susan Stark Strawman (you really should trademark that) #2- Where have I said that he is intlligent and reasonable only when he agrees with me? He’s been unintelligent and unreasonable, and I’ve called him on it- it only seemed fair to give him credit when he said something I found both intelligent and reasonable.
” Contrary to what you might think, Mr. Rall doesn’t lay awake at night obsessing about how he is going to “bash Obama” the next day.”
Inccorecct Assumption #2- You don’t know what I think. Nor, for that matter, unless you’re a lot closer to Ted then you’ve let on, do you know what he does at night.
If I thought that he lay awake all night, thinking of how next to bash Obama and the Democrats, that may in fact be correct. But that’s not what I think, so your argument is irrelevant.
“But the result will remain the same: The Democratic Party will be powerless to affect any meaningful change.”
Incorrect assumption 3: This is a FEATURE, not a bug. History 101 tells us that the framers were extremely suspicious of giving one side the power to affect significant change too quickly. The system was DESIGNED to require change to take place in tiny increments over many election cycles.
Sadly, when the far fringe left lost its mind 40 years ago, this was one of the first things they forgot. And until they remember it, and stop demanding “meaningful” change on ridiculously impossible time frames, they will continue to be ignored and the Democratic party will continue to slide right.
” However, you seem to think that Ted should become a type of informal spokesman for the Democrats.”
Incorrect assumption 4- What I think is that Ted should show the objectivity and balance nominally required of journalists (and please don’t give me the tired “they all do it” schtick. Just because other people in jouranlism and journalism related fields do not live up to their obligations in no way frees Ted from the responsiblity of living up to his)- or for him to admit his biases up front; i.e. “I’m doing everything I can to poison the well against Obama and the Democrats, so that Romney and the Republicans win.”
I’d also like him to repsect facts and reality, and not repeat debunked crap; but to get into that would take more time than I’ve got.
“But, of course, that’s not to say that Ted would *never* become a Democratic shill. He *could* decide to do that. But if he did, I would hazard that he would have the self-respect to demand to be paid through the nose and be granted his own cable news show on a major network like CNN or MSNBC. And why not? It worked for Al Sharpton, didn’t it?
Soooo, Whimsical, are you in a position to pay Ted up to his hair-line with filthy lucre and give him his own show on a major news network? Because that’s what it’s going to take to make him see things your way.”
Classic Susan Stark Strawman #2- Where have I said I want him to see things my way? I’ve gone into great detail about what I want, and “making Ted see things my way” has never even come up.
But I’m sure Ted really appreciates your implication that he has no integrity and would gladly sell out his principles for $$$$. Even as mistaken as he often is, I don’t think he’d stoop that low.
When I saw who posted this, I expected a hot mess, and you did not dissapoint-the sheer fatuousness of this post took my breath away. As always, if this is the best you can do, you really would’ve been better off not bothering.
Sadly, I’ll be out of town on a business trip for a while, so I may not see any more of your responses. No great loss.
Honestly, Whimsical’s comment seemed pretty standard to me. When two people who rarely agree suddenly find themselves in complete agreement, “what have you done with the real so-and-so?” is a typical internet comment.
I think that W’s argument would be that the Democratic Party may be powerless to affect any meaningful change, but they can stop the GOP from enacting their agenda. They haven’t done a very good job of that IMO.
“Well, this begs the question”
No, it doesn’t. It may suggest the question, or demand the question, but it doesn’t beg the question.
If it begged the question, it would assume the thesis it set out to prove.
I know I have no hope of winning this war against grammatical drift, yet I fight on.
More to the point: attempting to convince an authoritarian that someone that undermines his authoritarian figure of choice is not a bad person has a degree of inevitable defeat equal to my own quixotic quest to maintain the purity of the name of a common fallacy. Authoritarians kiss the ass of one or more factions of authorities and self-indulgently despise those who criticize the objects of their ardor. That’s the whole gig. You may as well try to convince squirrels not to eat nuts.
@Whimsical
If Ted ever decided to sell out his principles, I thoroughly expect him to do it for $$$$. Your problem is that you expect him to sell out his principles for FREE. So I will ask you again: what are you prepared to offer him to become a Democratic shill?
@Susan-
“So I will ask you again: what are you prepared to offer him to become a Democratic shill?”
And I will answer you again by pointing out you are yet again indulging in a Classic Susan Stark Strawman (c).
I do not want Ted to become a Democratic shill. I want Ted to cartoon on the news in an objective and balanced matter, and to use all the facts, as befits someone who is practicing in a field related to journalism.
I can’t believe I bothered logging in from an airport lounge, and that was the best you had.
Thank you Susan Stark for calling out Whimsical. I often wonder if this person is paid by the Democrats to troll websites that are critical of the party. Comments about Ted bashing Dems for things beyond their control are far too ignorant to come from regular readers of indy media such as this site. It appears Whimsical loves to bait readers with asinine comments – or either this person is hopelessly brainwashed by what passes for the Democratic Party. If Ted’s commentaries distress Whimsical so much, there are a crapload of mainstream and poser Left media sources that are oh so Democrat/Obama-friendly. Again, Susan, thanks for your on-point retort.
I have to agree with Whimsical. My assessment of Ted is that he has become a complete contrarian. He was so good calling out the Bush Administration, but when Obama was elected, he had to find fault with everything. For example, when Obama came out for same-sex marriage, Ted turned his comments into him hating swingers. It’s like what the heck? Give him his due. It’s one thing to think outside the box, it’s another thing to take the contrarian opinion on everything. Because that is as bad as being a “Democratic shill”, or even worse because it gets us nowhere. I think what we need is a healthy middle between “contrarian” and “Democratic shill.” I think someone like Michael Moore fits that mold well because while he adds healthy criticism, he still wants to build the party. Ted IMHO just wants Democrats to fail.
I think what Whimsical was referencing was the fact that during Obama’s first 2 years Democrats in the Senate needed every vote to break filibusters and Republicans pretty much filibustered everything. Then in the last 2 years, Republicans have had power in the House and nothing liberal could get through. So while Democrats could have shown more power and done away with the filibuster period, I think it is an explanation to why more didn’t get done during Obama. Do you know what the solution to that is? More (and better) Democrats of course and Obama’s reelection to make a permanent Democratic majority until the problems are fixed. What won’t work is sitting around and waiting for some revolution that might or might not happen. As of now, Obama and the Democrats are the only rational solution.
If you’re wondering what an authoritarian outside of the boring old fascist mode looks like, here’s the tracks it leaves, kids:
“My assessment of Ted is that he has become a complete contrarian.”
Yes, because if someone is hurt by the actions of a third party, where you are kissing the ass of said third party, that person is WRONG for complaining. He should learn to love the whip.
Btw, you’ll catch onto a rather pervasive theme: the complaints you’ll see here look like the ones you’d see on a rightwing site, especially one where the owner wants to be thought of as moderate or libertarian. It isn’t similarity, but identity: authoritarianism works pretty much the same way no matter which tribe you stick with, though your role in service to your demographic betters (or your place in said aristocracy) will change depending upon which horse you’re betting on. The language, though, is the same either way.
That said, if you don’t pick a single side, you’re a shrill critic and — this is key — your suffering doesn’t matter.
The message every authoritarian has to anyone their Dear Leader hurts: Fuck You. No, you. Personally.
Remember the white “liberals” who wished blacks in the sixties would just shut up? This is the political tribe we’re dealing with.
“He was so good calling out the Bush Administration, but when Obama was elected, he had to find fault with everything.”
Here’s the telling point here. Note that there’s not an inkling of concern that Ted was calling out Bush for things Bush was actually doing. In tribalism, behavior is irrelevant. As such, when Ted calls out Obama for doing similar, same, or worse things, the authoritarian is honestly confused. It’s alien behavior; it cannot be explained. “Biggest rock is best rock.”
To actual folks on the left: responding to conserva-troll Whimsical is just asking for more of his pointless drivel. You’re not going to change his mind. It’s a free country. If he chooses to be ignorant, that is his right. Don’t let it bother you. The majority of the dem-bots talk the way he does – I just filter it out, and most of the time skip right over his nonsense bourgeois conservative crap.
Sekhmet, as someone who considers myself very anti-authoritarian, I find your comments to be stupid and mindless rambling. My point is that Ted has pretty much become useless in helping his cause because his contrarian ego has taken over and he doesn’t want to fight for the people who will actually make a difference. For example, Moveon.org. Ted bashes them for no other reason than that they want to help Democrats. During the Bush years, I considered Ted and Moveon on the same side, but the post Bush years have brought Moveon bashing. Maybe Ted hated Moveon during Bush, maybe he mentioned it somewhere, but I think it has to do with Ted’s contrarian nature. And he has bashed other liberals and liberal groups for one or another reason. Ted has burned bridges with pretty much every mainstream liberal out there. I used to sympathize when he was ostracized for his opinions, but now he has brought it on himself.