« rocking the vote in 2004 | Main | jeebus loves me »

Ted Rall wants you to suffer in the name of his righteousness

It's Friday, which means taking Ted Rall out to the whippping shed.

Today, Teddy tells us that, should a Democrat president be elected in 2004, he should basically ruin the country and welcome terrorism as a way of getting even with the Republicans.

So often Ted comes off like a petulant five year old throwing a temper tantrum. He does not disappoint today.

It's high time that victorious Democrats stop being suckered by reckless Republicans into cleaning up their messes. Walking behind the elephant with a pail and a smelly broom might be the right thing to do, but it doesn't earn you any respect after the parade. All Democrats worthy of the name ought to sign a pledge to ignore problems caused by Republican administrations and leave them to their Republican successors. Let the GOP deficit ride, and pass socialized medicine while you're at it. Keep the bloated HomeSec bureaucracy on the payroll, and change its mission to something useful, like making a serious attempt to guard our borders. Run up the deficit like there's no tomorrow. Withdraw our troops; when the Iraqi civil war spreads throughout the region, some smart future Republican president will figure it out.

I can hear you grumbling: but that's irresponsible! Yes. It. Is. But playing the sap to Republican fait accomplis is like paying off your drunken kid's gambling debts. It makes you an enabler of destructive behavior--and that's even worse than throwing your hands up in the air and walking away. Let's give the GOP some tough love.

So, Ted wants the Democrats to ruin the country all in the name of getting even. Why am I surprised? After all, the typical leftie that Rall identifies with - the DU and Indymedia crowd - are the ones who are sitting home getting hard-ons at the thought of another terrorist attack or another Black Hawk down. Why? Because, in their strange world, it would make them look good. They could point a finger and say I told you so. The Rall Leftie is self-centered and shallow. They claim to care about people but all they care about is their ideology, and the only cause they carry a banner for is their own self-worth. They sleep so much better at night knowing that they went to a march or donated to ANSWER or gave a speech about Bush and Hitler sitting in a tree.

Their selfishness is evident in the words they speak and write. Like Ted Rall, in the paragraphs above, who wants to teach the GOP a lesson at the expense of Americans, Iraqis and peace. So what if Iraq goes back to the tyrannical state it once was? So what if the USA goes into a depression and the stock market crashes? Who cares if our troops will have fought for nothing? Ted Rall and thousands of other Rall Lefties will feel validated! Apparently, that's all that matters to them.

This is how Rall is representing your party, Democrats. Is this what you want, to let the world slide into a pit of hell just so you can stand around and blame the whole mess on the Republicans? Or do you want to fix what you believe to be wrong?

That's part of the problem with the Democratic party as it is represented not only by Rall, but by the Notorious Nine. They are all about what the Republicans are doing wrong, and we know so little about what the Democrats would do right.

If Rall's simplistic, juvenile idea is your idea of what's right, then you should be ashamed of yourself. If it's not your idea of right, then you should be ashamed of your party.

Rall says: All Democrats worthy of the name ought to sign a pledge to ignore problems caused by Republican administrations and leave them to their Republican successors.

Wrong. All Democrats worthy of the name ought to stand up and say that they do not follow Rall's way of thinking. Otherwise, you are just as despicable as him.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ted Rall wants you to suffer in the name of his righteousness:

» Ted Rall, Left-Wing Frat Pledge from Matthew J. Stinson | weblog
Michele has done us all a favor and fisked Ted Rall's latest foray into dingleberryhood. It's a good, if a bit too easy, example of Rall-bashing; I say "easy" because ever since 2001, Rall has been walking around with his... [Read More]

» TGIF from Inoperable Terran
Of course, that means it's time to bitchslap Ted Rall again.... [Read More]

» LINKS OF THE WEEK from Discount Blogger
I think I'll give this LinkWhoring™ thing a try this week, just as a way of highlighting some of my favorite posts from the past seven days: My favorite read this week was Steven den Beste's exceptional post about how... [Read More]

» Michelle Sucks...But Not In The Bad Way from Bloviating Inanities
No score and 1 year ago, give or take a few weeks, Michele and I met when we both posted [Read More]

» Ted Rall Wants To Fiddle While Rome Burns And Blame The Republicans For It from Right Wing News
Here's are the two money paragraphs from New York Times cartoonist & popular left-wing columnist Ted Rall's latest screed that [Read More]

» I have never been one of those love it or leave it types, but.... from She Who Will Be Obeyed!
Ted Ralls is changing my mind. Read this: Yahoo! News - WHY WE FIGHT if you can get through the whole thing, anyway. Then, perhaps you will join me in paying Ted's way to Iraq. I'm sure he is ready... [Read More]

Comments

if Ted Rall really thinks it would be A Good Thing for the Country for the terrorists to attack again, I hope he is the first one annihilated by their attack.

this guy makes me ill.

I remember some people making noises about leaving the country if Bush were elected President (and I didn't hear that anyone actually left for that reason). Since people have =really= increased their bile, should we expect them to leave the planet if Bush is re-elected?

I'm just wondering.

[T]he typical leftie that Rall identifies with - the DU and Indymedia crowd - are the ones who are sitting home getting hard-ons at the thought of another terrorist attack or another Black Hawk down.

Funny you should mention "Black Hawk Down" -- it happened today. Rest assured this "typical leftie" doesn't have a hard-on right now.

(Yes, Andrea, I'm talking about dead American soldiers again. So sorry if I'm boring you.)

Refresh my memory: when exactly did Rall get appointed the DNC's official spokesman?

Thlayi, read my sentence again:

[T]he typical leftie that Rall identifies with - the DU and Indymedia crowd

The "typical leftie" phrase was clarified.

Thlayi, she's asking for Democrats to repudiate Rall. He's the one claiming to speak for Democrats. Us non-Dem's are hoping it ain't so.

Balloon up the deficit? Ram socialized medicine down our throats? Ignore political and military commitments? Hmm, that much sounds like the platforms of the current Democratic front-runners already.

Note to Ted:

You are not welcome at my house. I do not like you or your crazyness. I own guns. I love to shoot guns. I have no problem shooting criminals.

Ted, please come and try to break into my house. Please!

Sincerely,

EZ

To fix what wrong wouldnt that involve acknowledging that republicans have done something that needs to be fixed? Just wondering

"...president b elected in 2004, he should basically ruin the country and welcome terrorism..."

When this become a "should" thing? I always accepted it as a "will" deal.
Ted is retarded if he thinks a democrat would do any thing other than that.
They look at it this way: More terrorists attacks means more reasons to expand the government. Ruining the country means more reasons to expand the government (to compensate for the "damage" done by Bush).
OF COURSE THEY WILL TRY TO RUIN THE COUNTRY!

Ummmmm.... Ted needs to listen to the Democratic debates. For the most part they are advocating exactly what Ted says they should do.

All Democrats worthy of the name ought to sign a pledge to ignore problems caused by Republican administrations and leave them to their Republican successors.

Well, he's got one thing right: if they do, they will definitely have Republican successors, and probably very soon.

Why does everyone hate Mr. Rall? It's free entertainment! I laugh every time his name pops up now.

I would hope the democrats would ruin the country as they have in the past. For instance they could balance the budget again, keep the U.S. out of war again and work on health care for everyone again.. I don't know if I could live in such a screwed up place like that

Like your think Patrick. Dont forget record gains for our 401k's

Too bad that's not what Rall is advocating.

"keep the U.S. out of war again"

Yup, Clinton kept us out of the war against terrorism alright. And 3,000 New Yorkers died thanks to that. Lobbing a few Tomahawks at a point on the map is not fighting terrorism. Neither is invading Haiti or bombing Yugoslavia.

Refresh my memory: when exactly did Rall get appointed the DNC's official spokesman?

Right around the time Limbaugh and Coulter were appointed as the RNC's spokespeople, I reckon.

And you thought Rall's CARTOONS were two-dimensional!

Ted Rall is a left-wing nut-job, no more reprehensible than his counterpart right-wing nut-jobs. As far as I'm aware, he holds no official position within the Democratic party. Wasn't Pat Robertson a Republican presidential candidate in the not-too-distant past?

What I see happening is that the far left and the far right are each increasing their hold over the nomination process in the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. Moderates like Joe Lieberman and John McCain who could potentially do very well in a national election have little chance of ever being nominated.

I wouldn't trust Howard Dean with our country's defense, but I do not trust George Bush with reproductive rights, the environment and many other issues. Fighting terrorism is very important, but that fight does not justify throwing away our civil liberties by entrusting them to the tender mercies of John Ashcroft.

Rall is an idiot, but he is nowhere near as ingrained in the mainstream of the Democrats the way extremists like Limbaugh, Coulter, Falwell and Hannity are with the GOP. When a Democratic president starts inviting the Rall-types to bill signings (as Bush did with the America-hating Falwell this week), we can talk.

I dont know, Oliver. All the mainstream Republicans I know think Coulter and Falwell are freakin loons, that Limbaugh is an entertainer whose words aren't taken seriously by anyone except the liberals that despise him. Hannity is probably the only one you mentioned that I'd say the mainstream really takes seriously, and while he's more a bit more conservative than I, he's not exactly what I'd call an extremist. What, in your view, makes him an extremist? The fact that he's pro-life and supported the war? If that's the case, there are one hell of a lot of extremists out there.

The Democrats are doomed.

I reached this conclusion about a week ago.

Thanks, Ted, for confirming my prognosis.

MonkeyPants

Thlayli, I have decided that after this comment I am never going to address you on any subject again, and I'd prefer it if you never address me directly ever again. This is not my blog, and Michele has already expressed her displeasure at too many people arguing with each other in her comments, and I am afraid that if I expressed the disgust with which your sniping, nasty, bitter, hateful opinions fill me I would only be adding to her distress.

@ MikeR

"I wouldn't trust Howard Dean with our country's defense, but I do not trust George Bush with reproductive rights, the environment and many other issues. Fighting terrorism is very important, but that fight does not justify throwing away our civil liberties by entrusting them to the tender mercies of John Ashcroft."

Again...

"I wouldn't trust Howard Dean with our country's defense, but..."

Not trying to be rude, but I think you missed something a couple of years ago (9/11). Either you underestimate the seriousness of the threat of terrorism (9/11), or you believe that the originators of that terrorism (ahem... 9/11) will look kindly on your concerns about civil liberties if they succeed in their ultimate quest.

Terrorism isn't a minor itch to be scratched when you can get round to it. It's the promise of the end to your dreams of liberty. How well will your concerns be heard before a Supreme Court chaired by Osama bin Ladin?

So you really think that a cave dwelling nutcase on a dialysis machine is going to be running our country if a Democrat is elected? Is this what you think about when you are not spending the rest of your time running around yelling to all that will listen that the sky is falling?

Hate to tell you this Ken but terrorism will never go away. NEVER. It is the human condition to struggle against oppression and that struggle is deemed either terrorism (by those struggled against) or freedom fighting (by those doing the struggling). Quick questions: George Washington - terrorist or freedom fighter? Benedict Arnold - traitor or patriot? Your nationality - English or American?

The meaning of the word is all about who is interpreting it, like president for example.

Ah yes -- that was how George Washington et al fought the American revolution: by attacking and killing unarmed Tory civilians. It's all, you know, a matter of interpretation.

Yup, the sign above is correct about who's giving Old Nick a hummer...

@Eric

"So you really think that a cave dwelling nutcase on a dialysis machine is going to be running our country if a Democrat is elected? "

Actually, I don't think that, inasmuch as "running" means actually "in control of the government." (The bit about bin Ladin "chairing" the Supreme Court was a little rhetorical hyperbole)

But they don't have to "run" the country to have a dramatic (and traumatic) effect on this country, now do they? (Insert oft-repeated parenthetical numbers here) Consider the effects of the attack in 2001: thousands dead; hundreds of millions (if not billions?) of dollars in property destruction; billions upon billions of dollars lost in corporate values (read that as retirement investment losses, if you will); copious amounts of military spending dealing with the recalcitrant Taliban... etc. etc. etc. And that was with one, limited attack (yes LIMITED: consider how much worse could be done).

With a weak-willed, pacific president in the White House, think about the relative ease with which a motivated group of terrorists could shape and mold US domestic and foreign policy. Even with a strong-willed and defiant president in the White House they've (the terrorists) have been able to do that; though, admittedly, not much to the terrorists' liking. And that last point is the point. And the difference.

With a Democrat of Dean's leanings as president then terrorist acts would be met with US diminution, appeasement and withdrawal. That would give them what they had before 2001: time to prepare, a place (or several) in which to prepare, and (most importantly) hope that they could succeed in their goal to affect US policy.

"Hate to tell you this Ken but terrorism will never go away. NEVER."

Well, Eric, I hate to tell you this myself, but there is no acceptable level of terrorism (and when people intentionally brutalize, injure and murder civilians, it IS terrorism). To monsters of this ilk, weakness, "acceptance" and cowardice are a bloody invitation. Just ask Osama about his view of the strategic importance of Somalia. When dealing with such people the only rational response (i.e. a response that has a chance of working) is to deny them that hope of success I mentioned above. Demoralization is the entire point of military response: convince your enemy that it is in their own best interest to quit.

As to the logically-challenged moral-equivalence claptrap, well, the only thing I can say is that if you really see good ol' George Washington as no different than Osama bin Ladin then I've not been making good use of my time with this response, have I?

Holy barking moonbats. Republicans have been trying to enrich themselves and tear down the government for over 20 years (S&L scandal, Reagan's tax cuts and debt, environmental destruction, energy deregulation, Bush's tax cuts and debt), and Democrats have been doing the responsible thing and cleaning up after them. Rall's being over-the-top by suggesting that Democrats stop cleaning up after the greedy, drunken, abusive GOP all the time. Doesn't change the fact that's what the GOP is.

And the idea that Howard Dean will be "a weak-willed, pacific [think you mean pacificist] president" is ludicrious. The man opposed the war in Iraq for the same reason millions of other Americans opposed it: it was stupid and counterproductive to our security. The threat is posed by groups that wish to launch terrorist attacks on us and the countries that fund such groups. Saddam was neither of these. Attacking Iraq was a neocon fantasy to-do item and now what do we have? Death, destruction, one billion dollars a week down the rathole, the animosity of many millions of people, and half our combat divisions tied down. Great.

Meanwhile, Howard Dean supported the invasion of Afghanistan wholeheartedly - pacificist, huh? - and wants the US to have a policy of using our military strength to actually go after the people who use terror. You know. Rather than convenient, oil-rich nations that may or may not have tried to kill someone's dad.