I’ll let cartoonist Tom Tomorrow explain it to commenter “Michael”

08 Sep 2009 11:39 am
Posted by: Donna

Michael had a question for us liberals regarding our “hypocrisy” because we don’t give the screeching teabaggers the respect they are due at town halls.

Why is it so abhorrent to democrats that Republican concerns be heard? Why no comment on how Obama supporters are being given professional signs and instructions to drown out those who oppose socialized medicine? Why are we nutjobs because we oppose this? What about the left-wing protestors who protested under Bush with lots and lots of violence? I’m tired of the hypocrisy from the left.

I could launch into a lengthy explanation, but why should I when Tom Tomorrow illustrates it so perfectly?

Click here for a bigger image.


  1. Comment by Timmys Cat on September 8, 2009 3:10 pm

    Why is it so abhorrent to democrats that Republican concerns be heard?

    Woo-hoo! Fox stopped broadcasting “news”?

  2. Comment by Eli_Blake on September 8, 2009 3:52 pm

    Truthfully, I’m ticked off after reading ‘Michael’s’ comment.

    I was in the middle of the Kirkpatrick ‘chat with Ann’ table incident in Holbrook on August 6, and I did not see any lefties drowning out the nutcakes. But I saw a lot of the right-wing wackos drowning out Ann and preventing her from talking to her constituents. Some of them even blocked off the entrance to Safeway and made it tough on shoppers just going in and out of the store who had no interest in hearing her at all.

    Besides, is “Michael’ concerned about some organized left-wing goons drowning out the teabaggers? Well, as I recall, it started with the teabaggers drowning out people who went to town halls just wanting to ask and listen to the answers to legitimate questions.

    My favorite question next year, now that the rabid right has intimidated so many GOP Congressmen into taking way out there stands, is to ask them up front (like in a debate) if they believe that the President is Constitutionally entitled to serve as President. Make them have to stand there and defend their ‘birther’ statements, many of which are now on the record. That will of course not replace but rather complement the old standby ‘Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?’ that it’s fun to ask apparently rational Republican candidates who are supported by a crowd of far right loonies.

  3. Comment by Michael on September 8, 2009 7:28 pm

    Why are right-wing protesters called teabaggers? Why do liberals always stoop to profane name-calling? Once again, you’ve proven nothing except that lefty thinks I’m un-american for questioning the government, for living within my means, and holding to conservative traditions. I didn’t think GWB was perfect by any means and I just want the right to have the same freedom of speech that the left did for eight years of Bush. Why is that so much to ask? You’re “cartoon answer” just proves that reasonable people can’t have a discussion without it sinking into a fight! Thanks for responding though, its more than most will do.

  4. Comment by Zelph on September 8, 2009 8:31 pm

    Q: Why are Republican called “teabaggers”?

    A: Because they’re a bunch of ignorant c*cksuckers.

    Always happy to answer a sincere question, Michael. Hope you don’t consider this profane name calling (I did use an asterisk, after all). I didn’t call you a communist or compare you with Hitler, as some on the right might have done.

    I don’t think you’re unpatriotic because you live within your means and hold to conservative traditions. I think you’re unpatriotic because you don’t believe in representative democracy and you confuse shouting down elected representatives with free speech. See answer to your question above.

  5. Comment by Michael on September 8, 2009 9:39 pm

    Wow! I’m sorry I ever popped over here to read an opposing viewpoint. Guess I’ll stay away from now on. Thanks anyway!

  6. Comment by Eli_Blake on September 8, 2009 10:09 pm

    I’m confused now. Why do ‘teabaggers’ (who began calling themselves that last April) now want to be called something else?

    And before you answer that, I am proud to call myself a ‘liberal,’ despite what the right has tried to do to the word.

  7. Comment by Zelph on September 8, 2009 10:14 pm

    Don’t let the door hit ya, where the good lard split ya, Mikie.

    To clarify, I don’t really think ALL Republicans are ignorant, just the ones like you. There used to be such a thing as thoughtful conservatives. Sadly, the modern Republican party doesn’t really want them around anymore and they are in the distinct minority.

  8. Comment by dude on September 8, 2009 10:35 pm

    Zelph wins, everyone else go home and contemplate your failure.

  9. Comment by Donna on September 8, 2009 11:57 pm

    ” I didn’t think GWB was perfect by any means and I just want the right to have the same freedom of speech that the left did for eight years of Bush. Why is that so much to ask?”

    Michael, I actually feel you deserve better than what the left got during the Bush admin. I would never want to relegate you to a “free speech zone” far away from the event, nor would I want you to be ejected or arrested merely for wearing a certain t-shirt, as many Bush opponents were.

  10. Comment by Timmys Cat on September 9, 2009 12:59 pm

    I’m confused now. Why do ‘teabaggers’ (who began calling themselves that last April) now want to be called something else?

    Because the nitwits FINALLY figured out what it means to the gay male community. Open wide!

  11. Comment by Donna on September 10, 2009 10:13 am

    I bet Michael calls us the “Democrat Party” all the time.

  12. Comment by jason rose on September 12, 2009 8:54 pm

    i have great respect for free speech and this blog, no matter whether i agree with its contents. but a recent post regarding our firm and other insinuations are false. no one in our firm has been encouraged to do anything like what has been suggested in regards to sal diciccio’s council campaign. we had zero involvement in the “sca” campaign. i would strongly urge the author of this blog to issue a retraction and to contact me if there is any confusion whatsoever. my phone # is easily available. call me. just as there is necessary, spirited discussion on the right this blog provides the same on the left. let’s just be sure that veracity is not sacrificed in the debate, irrespective of the perspective. jason rose

  13. Comment by Ezekiel on September 13, 2009 8:24 pm

    Perhaps if the likes of Tom Tomorrow had thrown in their support for Nader in 2000 we wouldn’t be in this mess now. Maybe he just wanted 8 years of job security. The ass.

  14. Comment by Donna on September 14, 2009 2:29 am

    Ezekiel, in fairness to Tom Tomorrow he did say this about his support of Nader:

    I hate puppies
    And I like to put helpless kittens in gunny sacks and throw them in the nearest river.

    Also, I think adorable babies should all be gathered up and put in concentration camps.

    Okay, not really. But I just wanted to put things in perspective before I got to the real subject: I supported Ralph Nader in 2000.

    And let’s get this out of the way: if you’re hoping for a Stalinist-re-education-camp-self-denunciation sort of thing, you’ll have to go to a different website. I still believe that Nader had (and has) an important critique of the American political system.

    But 2004 is not 2000. If you will forgive me for stating the obvious, 9/11 changed the world we live in. I don’t know what the Bush administration would have been like if not for the terrorist attacks, but I know what they’ve done as a result. 9/11 gave the administration’s most radical elements the perfect excuse to pursue their wildest fantasies of empire.

    And we can’t afford four more years of this.

    Look, I figure there are two main reasons to mount a third party insurgency campaign: as a vehicle to get a message across, and as a party-building excercise.

    Well, let’s take them in order.

    As far as the message–after the debacle of the 2000 election, that message has been reduced to a bitter laugh line: so there’s no difference between the two parties, huh? There’s a lot more to what Nader has to say than that, but it doesn’t matter–that’s all most people hear. If the 2000 campaign was an attempt to bring a message to a wider audience, it ultimately did more harm than good. In the aftermath of the Florida debacle, there are probably fewer people willing to consider that message than there were before. Nader is now living in his own private Twilight Zone episode, and the harder he tries to make people listen, the faster he drives them away.

    (Anyway, Kucinich has already been out there, as this season’s standard bearer, fighting the good fight for universal health coverage and the repeal of NAFTA and so on, and…well, he hasn’t exactly taken the country by storm. And I mean no disrespect to Kucinich in pointing out this unhappy reality, but there it is.)

    And as for the second point, party building: he’s not running as a Green party candidate. No party. No party building. End of story.

    His detractors are going to dismiss this run as ego-driven, but I suspect it’s more about stubborness, and, frankly, dedication. It takes a special kind of stubborness to fight the battles he’s fought, these past forty years, and I think you have to learn pretty quickly how to tune out the naysayers, to ignore the people who say, you’re crazy, there’s no need for safety belts in automobiles, and once you’ve fought those battles and lived to see a world in which seat belts are simply a mundane fact of life, given no more thought than running water or electricity…well, you probably lose some perspective.

    I think he’s spent so many years tuning people out because he had to that he’s forgotten how to listen when he needs to. And now he’s on the verge of becoming the next Lyndon Larouche or Gus Hall.

    In more ways than one. I could surely be wrong, lord knows, but I don’t think Nader will be much of an issue, in terms of the actual vote. I know there’s a poll that says he’d get 4% if the election were held tomorrow, but that’s nonsense. He didn’t even pull 3% in 2000, and that was before–everything.

    But here’s the thing: I think the damage he will do is in re-igniting the liberal/left Civil War of 2000. To expand on something I wrote a few days ago: Nader’s critique is, essentially, that there is a cancer on the body politic–and he’s right about that. The problem in the year 2004 is that the body politic is also suffering from multiple wounds and blunt force trauma, we’re in the emergency room and it’s a damn mess and there’s blood everywhere and the doctors are working furiously but it’s anybody’s guess how things are gonna turn out. We are in triage, and we have to deal with the immediate problems, or the long-term ones won’t matter anyway.

    (Edited, clarity, blah blah blah.)

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a comment

Democratic Diva is proudly powered by WordPress and WPDesigner.