Is he right?

If you read the constant bickering here you would think so, but when push comes to shove...I think we are going to vote his sorry ass out.

It's very true; I just can't decide if it's more a reason to laugh or to cry.

:scared:

Pathetic, isn't it :(

Let's break this down.

The first panal shows clearly party elite arguing that we need a George W. Bush to unify the party. A silly but plausible idea (it need hardly be mentioned that the Actual DLC's control over the party would be infinately greater over the party had Gore become President. As it is the liberal wing of the party, Kerry's ascendence not withstanding, has more power than they would have had if Gore had won).

The Second panal shows the current situation; no argument, although his zombie like portrayal reinforces the Republican meme that we are irrational in our dislike of President Bush. See this for further discussion --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/archives/2004_03_07_politicalcomment_archive.html#107875424873999760

The third panal is presumably intended to be a reflection of the first one. Here are party leaders arguing that we need a Hitler to unify the party. In reality the people most likely to make such arguments are not the party leaders but disgruntled Dean/Kucinich/Nader supporters who feel that the party isn't liberal enough. (I don't mean to equate those three people at all, incidently. Just that their followers are those who are most upset that Kerry got the nomination and most likely to declare their desire not to vote for him (and let the Country have another four years).

The fourth panal just continues on with the second.

At any rate, while this is funny, I think it misses its mark, unless Mr. Rall intended it as a slam on the more leftist democrats (which I frankly have a hard time believing).

One never knows, though. I could be wrong.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

I think you're misinterpreting. To me it reads that we are so repelled by Bush (for very rational reasons!) that we turn into 'ABB' zombies. I.e., it's the response, not the repulsion, that's irrational.

Way to show respect for other opinions.

it's more of a cult.

The phrase is one that a very great number of people with otherwise differing views can readily agree on. This makes it very useful for an electoral effort, since all such are, at bottom, attempts to collect the largest possible number of persons into identification as a single group, that will act in unison on a particular day. Some people are, by native constitution and temperament, dis-inclined to group efforts, and prone to believe anything that is widely popular is, by that very fact of wide popularity, wrong. Humans being social creatures who largely desire affiliation into groups, the number who feel this way is always small, though it may be vocal.

"In politics and war, only what is simple can succeed."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

Or Nader, if you are a stealth Bush fan.

I mean what other more rational responses are there? Propose some other plan than voting ABB for getting President Bush out of the White House?

'ABB' is a denial of difference. It assumes that all candidates are equal except in their popularity, and thus absolves everyone from having to worry about the differences in worth between them. It ratifies--almost celebrates--shallow thinking: 'anyone's better than Bush'. It demands that we treat someone slightly better than Bush as being equal to someone much better than Bush.

It's tailor-made for maintaining the status quo.

As a fervent Dean supporter, one who went so far as to advocate eliminating the primary process altogether, it isn't too surprising that he wants to poke fun at whatever mechanism he believes shot down Dean.

That rhetoric in the cartoon sounded too familiar...