Saturday, February 2, 2008

Cartoon for February 2

The rise of the cute-ocracy continues!

Posted by at

11 comments:

  1. AnonymousFebruary 2, 2008 at 10:22 AM

    I like the hello kittie. I like to use Santa Claus.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Aggie DudeFebruary 2, 2008 at 12:48 PM

    oh GOD I love the Fascist Hello Kitty Ted!!! At least, I get a very ominous feeling viewing that.

    I think truth and reconciliation commissions are necessary but won't happen in this country in a meaningful way, because all of this is public performance. . . public hearings in the US are just ritual and show.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AndersFebruary 2, 2008 at 4:34 PM

    I liked the Hitler one better. Being European probably predisposes me to be favourable to comparing your regime with the other "thousand year Reich".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Clearance BlouseFebruary 2, 2008 at 5:12 PM

    Perfect! The Oprah imprimatur.

    The up side of genocide....

    ReplyDelete
  5. angeloFebruary 2, 2008 at 6:08 PM

    This trait of his has to bother his supporters.
    This point cannot be made often enough. The "middle" never actually is.

    ReplyDelete
  6. angeloFebruary 2, 2008 at 6:45 PM

    I know I am hard on Obama, but I don't want him to die. Besides how sad it would be for his family, I wonder what would happen to the rest of the country, since everyone believes he is black.
    I also wonder who his running mate will be.

    any predictions?

    ReplyDelete
  7. ellwortFebruary 3, 2008 at 7:47 AM

    This cartoon is consistent with Ted's 1/29 "Independents" column, and I am inclined to agree. I too am pissed off that the popular press has winnowed away any choice we might have had for anyone who would be an effective candidate and president.
    But do you really want Hillary?
    Bob Herbert's Times op-ed for today (Sun.2/3) addresses the relative pugnacity of Obama and Clinton. Herbert's whole piece is worth reading, but here's a relevant paragraph:

    What we also know is that, unlike Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama is not hesitant to take on John McCain. He has twice triggered the McCain temper, in spats over ethics reform in 2006 and Mr. McCain’s Baghdad market photo-op last year. In Thursday’s debate, Mr. Obama led an attack on Mr. McCain twice before Mrs. Clinton followed with a wan echo. When Bill Clinton promised that his wife and Mr. McCain’s friendship would ensure a “civilized” campaign, he may have been revealing more than he intended about the perils for Democrats in that matchup.

    I would add that Clinton's invective is often leveled at the damn public - that's us. Again, you really want her in your face all the time, at least all summer long?

    ReplyDelete
  8. John MadziarczykFebruary 3, 2008 at 5:58 PM

    Ha ha. It's time to kiss the "Anybody but Bush" strategy goodbye. Bush is out of here and it's time to start holding candidates actually accountable to voters instead of just giving them a pass based on some vaguely progressive rhetoric---especially when they do unprogressive things like praising Reagan.

    As Madonna once said, "Justify my love".

    ReplyDelete
  9. angeloFebruary 4, 2008 at 4:06 PM

    Why does Obama not vote on so many things? Like I see all of these "NV"'s all over his record on things like student grant increases. Was he trying not to offend lenders?

    ReplyDelete
  10. ellwortFebruary 5, 2008 at 12:50 AM

    Summary: Thanks M.I.C. Once again we annoying people have been reduced to choosing one oversold megalomaniac or another. It's like settlement negotiations, which constitute the best we annoying people can usually expect when we confront the judicial branch

    ReplyDelete
  11. JamesFebruary 6, 2008 at 2:33 PM

    Ted-
    I think you miss the point of truth and reconciliation commissions. The point of them is to get the truth out and move on. Ideally the criminal administration now in power should be tried in a court of law and banished to Guantanamo- but that ain't gonna happen. All the scumbags would refuse to testify, and the right wing would call it a witch hunt.

    If instead we had a truth and reconcilliation commission, the crooks would be publicly humiliated and they would not pop up again in the next Republican president's cabinet. Plus we would have a clear view of what really happened, and what our government is really doing. No more secrets.

    Think about the crimes of the Nixon and Reagan administrations- and the fact that it was the same scumbags running the Bush administration. The Bush admin would have sucked a lot less without Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their buddies.

    I have not heard Obama support this idea, but I for one would support a truth and reconciliation committee- the point is not to get revenge, but to keep the same crimes from happening again. It is bad enough that these things have happened- it is worse that these people have done it before, and will do it again.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)