Comedians, artists and certainly political cartoonists tend to possess an anti-authoritarian, skeptical, irreverent streak. This makes the staunchly conservative cartoonist an especially odd bird. Flipping the traditional journalist ethos of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, rightwing cartoonists tend to ridicule the disenfranchised and excuse the abuses inflicted by the powerful (who they suck up to). In some cases, their cartoons literally spout the latest GOP talking points, revealing themselves to be not independent voices, but one more cog in a vast propaganda machine.

I’ve been planning to do this feature for a while, but this week falls short of hall of fame mendacity. Still, it provides a good introduction to some of the usual culprits. It’s fine and good to spoof the Democrats. But these cartoonists will hardly ever, if ever, criticize Bush. It’s very revealing.

The National Intelligence Estimate

Chuck Asay has a distinct, interesting drawing style. His favorite targets tend to be feminists, the ACLU, and anyone who questions authority and the status quo. Here, Asay specifically posits that the person who leaked the NIE info to The New York Times just must have been a Democrat and not a patriot. The facts that Iraq is in horrible straits and that President Bush has repeatedly lied to the American people about both Iraq and the information he’s received troubles Asay not one jot (as usual). To Asay, Bush is not playing politics!

Many a rightwing commentator has attempted made a point similar to the one Eric Allie tries to make here - that damn liberal media has cherry-picked the NIE to make Bush look bad! He also oversimplifies the Times headline, of course. The three key revelations about the NIE are clearly 1) invading Iraq has made the “war on terrorists” worse, not better 2) Bush has been lying to the American people, and 3) The United States intelligence community has been telling Bush for months, in complete contrast to Bush’s public statments, that we’re losing. For a media outlet not to make at least one of those points would require an astounding cortortion - and the flaccid mind of a Bush cheerleader.

Chip Bok uses a classic set-up, punchline framework, and also references an earlier, infamous line (in The One Percent Doctrine Ron Suskind suggests Bob Woodward may have been played with the Tenet “Slam dunk” bit, which Tenet might never have said (Tenet claims not to remember) as White House aides tried to shift blame from Bush and pin it on Tenet). The problem here is the casting and the narrative it suggests - that Bush is an earnest guy trying to do the right thing, but consistently let down by the intelligence community (instead of the Bushies abusing and browbeathing the intelligence community). More importantly, while the case for WMDs was questionable, no one reading the news can possibly think that Iraq isn’t both in horrible straits but also getting worse. So - this cartoon would work much better if didn’t contradict reality.

The Middle East

Cox & Forum have a interesting style. Here, they seem to suggest Iraq is in a bad state and Iran is a worse threat - not so outrageous a claim - but of course, Iran was a bigger threat back in 2002, whereas Iraq is currently far more deadly to Americans (American soldiers, at least). But while the “Half full” “Half empty” is a clever inversion, Cox & Forum also suggest (as do the neocons) that Iran is a deadly, imminent threat, and the Democrats are doing nothing to help with either Iran or Iraq.

As always, Asay ignores facts that interfere with his simplistic worldview. Here he completely ignores the recent polls (and previous polls) that show that the majority of Iraqis do not want us there. Out of the 50-plus cartoons I’ve seen from Asay, I have never seen him criticize Bush or any conservative.

Clinton

What a shock. Clinton is to blame for bin Laden. Amazingly, many a conservative commentator has asserted that 1) Clinton brought up the subject of his record on terrorism with Chris Wallace 2) Clinton’s record cannot possibly stand up to Bush’s 3) Clinton was crass to “bring it up,” never mind that for the past five years Bush and the GOP have attacked Democrats for being weak fighting terrorism. Oh, and let’s work in Monica Lewinsky somehow. That’s original.

It’s even more original the second time.

Another Cox & Forum entry.

Michael Ramirez has a good drawing style, and manages to make his point visually and clearly here (as he often does). The problem is that his views are rabidly rightwing. He has previously posited that if it were left up to the Democrats, we would all die. Here he again attacks Clinton’s record - I wonder if Ramirez has even read the 9/11 Commission report? I’m actually glad that there’s more talk and comparison now of Clinton and Bush’s records. The GOP cannot possibly win that battle - err, if it were fair and based on the facts, that is. But bring it on!

The Democrats Are Terrorists
(Or at the very least, cannot be trusted with national security)

This cartoon by Jerry Holbert is probably the most offensive of the lot. As Hilary Clinton recently asserted, had Clinton (or Gore) been President rather than Bush, they would not have ignored the numerous threats, including the 8/6/01 PDB, “Bin Laden Determined to Attack in U.S.”

This Nowak cartoon is also pretty offensive - essentially, Dems are too concerned with niceties. Vote Republican or die. It’s very, very similar to a Michael Ramirez cartoon I referred to above.

Michael Ramirez here creates another well-constructed cartoon. Many of its charges are clearly fraudelent, but if that weren’t that case, it’d actually be funny - the fetus line is pretty clever, even if a liberal reader might take umbrage. The problem again for Ramirez is his consistent unwillingness to acknowledge reality. Here he accuses the Dems, as he has repeatedly, of not wanting to catch terrrorists because Dems care about petty little things such as warrants and essential human rights. Every charge Ramirez makes is patently false. With Ramirez, I get the sense that as much of a Bush cheerleader as he is, he’s sincere in his beliefs. I could be wrong. The man certainly needs to read the news, or a good non-fiction book once in a while.

A cheap jab from Gorell (utterly despicable, actually), and his punchline is far too predictable.

Other

Rangel and Pelosi criticized Chavez for his remarks (and went overboard doing so). But they defended America and President Bush. There are really only two possible Republican responses to that. One is to ignore Rangel and Pelosi’s words and accuse the Dems of supporting Chavez’s statements (some conservative commentators have gone this route), and the other is to accuse Rangel and Pelosi of being hypocrites playing politics. Here, Gary Varvel goes with option number two. He also implies that Rangel and Pelosi don’t really love America.

Good Entries

Occasionally - most often when they stay away from anything involving liberals - conservative cartoonists can turn out some decent product.

This piece from Bob Gorell is a nice visual depiction of a current issue:

And this piece from Henry Payne (who has produced some really inflammatory work in the past, and definitely shall again) manages to reference two recent news items with a decent punch line:

Until next time - keep your eyes open for cartoons - the good, the bad, and the ugly!