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.

Rightwing Cartoon Watch seeks to highlight far right cartoons, but also document the broader range of opinion from conservative cartoonists on the hot issues of a given week. While a primary goal is to challenge GOP talking points and fallacies, we also seek to celebrate the fine tradition of editorial cartooning - and have a little fun in the process.

Which cartoonists dare to criticize their own party? Who seems to literally illustrate GOP talking points? Who and what are their favorite targets? Who mocks liberals - and who seems to truly hate them? Who’s funny? Who’s independently-minded and who’s a hack? Read, and decide, for yourself!

Rightwing Cartoon Watch #14 is another super’sized edition, covering two weeks, 1/29/07 to 2/11/07. There were some really odd cartoons in this stretch!

IRAQ

Almost every cartoon on Iraq in this two week stretch has focused on Bush’s escalation plan and “supporting the troops.” Eric Allie is pretty reliable for hitting GOP talking points, and he hits some beloved ones here.

Josh Marshall pithily summed up Bush’s press conference yesterday (2/14/07): “To be patriotic you don’t have to agree with my policy, but you do have to support it.” Bob Geiger explored the same theme after a similar message from Tony Snow:

So, according to Tony Snow, it’s OK to think the president’s plan is about as lousy as every other bad idea he’s put forth in Iraq, but only if you have a strategy that will further the horrible ideas the president has already thought of.

Clear as mud yet?

What this White House doesn-t leave even the slightest bit of room for, is the notion that their goal, this mythical “victory” of which they speak, may not be achievable or even desirable at this point. In other words, Bush — who most thinking Americans now consider the worst president in modern history — sets the benchmarks and conditions for the only way we can leave Iraq.

(To be fair, these cartoons predate Bush’s speech, but unsurprisingly, his rhetoric barely changed.)

I was planning to delve into “persistent lies about war” in another post, but let’s dig into some now. Can you support the troops and not support the mission, or not the president? Of course. If you care about the troops, it’s only rational that you wouldn-t want them to die. Even if you feel the overall war is justified, and the specific mission or strategy is good, surely you don-t want them to die unnecessarily.

Take the Battle of the Somme in WWI, for example, one of the most horrible battles in history. Without going into major detail here, thousands of British soldiers, many of them relatively fresh recruits, died unnecessarily because of completely avoidable mistakes by their leaders. Is it a lack of support for soldiers to oppose having greenhorns advance in daylight, in some cases in a straight line at walking pace, into machine guns? It’s a chilling battle to study, and of course it’s far, far from the only instance of stupidity and waste in war. Doesn-t support for the troops sometimes demand criticizing their leaders? Isn’t it possible to say, Petraeus is a good man to have in charge on his level, but having Bush and Cheney in charge above him is dangerous?

While it’s easier for servicemen and women overseas to vote by absentee ballot these days, it’s still not automatic, and in eras past was often impossible. Most of those in military service are not as free as average citizens to speak up about politics in public, either, no matter how hot a topic politics may be in unit conversations. Surely it’s the responsibility of those back home to press national leaders with tough questions, especially when the administration in charge has a history of horrible, lethal incompetence. What’s best for the troops, best for America, and even what’s best for Iraq and the Middle East does not necessarily have any relation to what Bush’s people think is best for his shattered legacy.

Ken Catalino’s cartoon is more clever, with a good visual concept, although it covers similar territory. I suppose the kicks could be interpreted as “get your act together,” but that would be pretty unfair to the military. While Tom Ricks’ Fiasco chronicles plenty of mistakes on their part, it’s certainly not as if the military has been screwing up the execution of brilliant plans by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neocons.

Mike Lester at least manages to be original and funny with his take on the subject.

Michael Ramirez often tries to use a recent non-political event to illustrate a political point. It doesn’t always work. This one is more effective than most, if inaccurate.

Nowak clearly believes any course other than Bush’s is cowardice and dangerous. His stance also ignores the recent NIEs that confirm common sense, that invading Iraq has made us less safe. Considering the public’s views on Bush, Iraq, and his latest proposals, if Nowak thinks members of Congress are “ass-covering” if they represent the views of their constituents, or follow their consciences - tough.

Chuck Asay posits that Bush and his generals are very serious, while the Senate is frivolous and chaotic. Asay also depicts Bush listening to his generals. Never say Asay can’t be funny!

Allie (who really likes bus cartoons) tries to make a similar point. In real life, John Warner really only differs from the Democrats in the language on his resolution, because he thought he could get more Republicans to sign on if the text was less critical of Bush. However, Allie shows Warner as serious while the Democrats are disengaged, clueless, even callous. What makes this prime hackery is that Allie has furiously inveighed against Democrats for the same views Warner expresses (that would be long-time Armed Services Committee senior ranking member and former Secretary of the Navy John Warner). It must cause Allie physical pain to criticize a Republican; easier to just slam Dems for the same behavior and views.

This is an odd little cartoon by Chip Bok. Unless Hagel’s line about shoes to Feingold is supposed to be sarcastic, it appears Bok is - criticizing a Republican! Wow! I suppose one could say he’s criticizing a rotten, turncoat Republican, but Bok’s future cartoons bear watching. Where does he stand?

Cox and Forkum use a pretty good visual metaphor here, and I don’t mind this one, because there’s some truth here (although even if Congress cut off funds, apparently the money in the pipeline would last until September or November). I reject the popular GOP false-dilemma-rigged-for-political-gain behind this (either “Cut off the funds or you’re a coward,” or “Support Bush or you’re a coward”), but the Dems deserve some scruntiny on these issues.

Jerry Holbert’s got a decent punchline here, although as a general rule, it’s certainly not the Democrats who are the party of anger. In fact, many liberals think Democratic leaders aren’t angry enough. (Of course, one could say that the Dems are the party voted in because of voter anger and frustration with Bush.)

Mike Lester’s cartoon is preposterous, but I thought it was pretty funny. Apparently, we can’t do more than one thing at a time, and environmental reforms must be put on hold until “radical Islam” is defeated, which of course will be never, so we will never implement those reforms… This is really comparing apples and oranges, but even so, I think if pressed more Americans are concerned about strife in the Middle East than global warming. Of course, the implication that those long-haired hippies don’t appreciate the full dangers of radical Islam is ridiculous. I swear, you object to one measly war of choice, tragically get proven right, and the Republicans get all upset with you!

Notice the bus has only a left set of tires. Is that the source of the “surprise?” That the Dems don’t have a leg, err, tire, to stand on, but they’re going run on their Iraq record anyway? Perhaps, but I don’t think it’s quite that. The tire seems like an afterthought, an added dig, with “Iraq War” and “Dems 2008″ far more prominent. While Lester charges liberals with being naive, Nowak seems to take it further to claim that Democrats don’t want things to go better in Iraq, because that might hurt their chances to win the presidency in 2008. If so, that’s a monstrous charge. There would be nothing ’surprising’ about Nowak implying this, given his track record and how common that attitude is on the far right. What’s your take? Is Nowak essentially contending that Democrats want Bush’s latest plan to fail and the troops to die? Is Nowak yet again demonizing and dehumanizing his perceived opponents?

Certain groups have their own little rituals, such as pissing into the fireplace at exclusive men’s clubs. For diehard Republicans, in addition to Clinton-bashing and quoting Red Dawn, it apparently includes mentioning Chappaquiddick every time Ted Kennedy speaks. This has to be a ritual, or proof that no horrendous GOP policy or ridiculous talking point ever truly dies, because why else invoke a scandal almost 40 years old?!?

It’s not an auspicious RWCW debut for Gary McCoy. He uses an old phrase, “cut and run,” a prejudical term that even Bush and the right aren-t using much these days, and references a scandal that’s, well, older than I am. Hell, McCoy, born in 1962, was only seven at the time!!!

(Thanks to Charles Brubaker for the suggestion to include Gary McCoy. Personally, I can see why Chappaquiddick was a scandal, and Kennedy doesn-t come off well in the accounts I-ve read, but Massachusetts saw fit to re-elect him, over and over again. Michael Bérubé has a great post where he muses, “why it is that newly-minted wingnuts adopt all the wingnut positions of the past three or four decades even if they themselves became wingnuts only in the past four years?” The same post features the great line, “I used to consider myself a Democrat, but thanks to 9/11, I-m outraged by Chappaquiddick.”)

Scott Stantis delivers a powerful cartoon. I thought it was the best of the lot.

IRAN

At his worst, Bob Gorrell is predictable and clichéd, but at his best he can achieve a simple eloquence. He conveys his message very clearly here. Of course, it’s not really accurate. Even if Iran did not exist, Iraq would be a complete mess. And, as Vali Nasr has observed:

There has been flow of arms from Iran to Shia groups in Iraq but that has so far been to balance the flow of arms that is going to the insurgency from the Arab world. It is important to note that Shia militias are not at war with the U.S. — more than 80 percent of U.S. casualties are inflicted by the insurgency, and we are having this discussion at a time when insurgent attacks have killed hundreds of Shias and downed five U.S. helicopters.

This cartoon looks like Bob Gorrell may be joining the “Bomb Iran!” club.

Chuck Asay suggests Ahmadinejad is trying to (or will) start World War III. First of all, I don’t think the Sunnis and the Shiites in Iraq need a great deal of help with “sectarian war.” Also, Ahmadinejad is an important figure, but he is not the Supreme Leader of Iran. And what role has the Bush administration played, or will play, in all this? As others have observed, if the Bush adminstration had faced the Cuban Missile Crisis, we’d have had a nuclear war.

Jerry Holbert goes for a comic approach. In previous installments, we’ve linked pieces explaining why Iran would want stability in Iraq, regardless of their relationship with America. Of course, since the insurgents are Sunni, and the Iraqi government is Shiite, as is the Iranian government, if anything, Iran actually would be pushing the insurgents back (not that that would help quell sectarian violence). Iran is certainly not as one with the insurgents, nor does al-Maliki think so! The situation in Iraq is far more complex than many pundits or cartoonists will admit (or at least will express). As a Washington Post reader put it in a recent online discusssion:

Regarding the Civil war status: If I am to understand the NIE assessment, then it is not a Civil war in Iraq — at least not comparable to the U.S. Civil War. If, in addition to the North fighting the South, we also had the Baptists at war with the Methodists, tortured bodies being dumped on the streets of Atlanta and New York, rampant and uncontrolled crime in the cities and the entire country under occupation — and the occupiers would not be Britain or France, but a country whose culture Americans understood little about at the time, say China or Japan. Then, yes, one could roughly compare the U.S. Civil War to what is happening in Iraq.

Lisa Benson may have delivered the weirdest cartoon in this installment, invoking Stephen King’s It! Points for originality, I guess. Of course, since Iraq is fractured, she’d really be warning the Shiite government in Iraq not to trust the the Shiite government in Iran.

Nowak’s cartoon fails completely in terms of accuracy. There’s no evidence that Iran is arming both Sunnis or Shiites, and why would they want to? And Iran is certainly not calling the shots in Iraq. This is more inflation of their role. Bomb Iran!

Cox and Forkum have probably been the most strident of the “Bomb Iran!” club among cartoonists. Here they suggest that Bush lacks resolve. That’s unusual for them, and this rhetoric does not match Bush. While this may be a prod to Bush, it seems it’s also an indirect critique of the Dems.

When exactly has Ahmadinejad said he loved America? Who exactly has claimed they trust him? There’s a naïveté among hawks that anything less than armed conflict is ineffective, weak, and undesirable, that there are no other options, and/or no other options should be tried first.

What must Nowak think of Republican heroes such as Eisenhower and Reagan, who were were willing to talk with the Soviet Union, a much greater threat than Iran is or ever was? But sure, let the chickenhawks squawk. Lord knows Bush’s four years of running the war exactly the way he’s wanted have gone swimmingly. At what point do these idiots admit error? (Oh, and wait, what did the Bush adminstration just do with North Korea? Do what Clinton did seven years ago?)

ISRAEL, PALESTINE, AND LEBANON

Cox and Forkum vacillate about whether to cast their Muslim targets as fools or horrible threats. This cartoon is relatively tame, for them. What concerns me about Cox and Forkum, who almost always produce the most Islamophobic cartoon every week, is that they’ve never to my knowledge expressed any compassion for any Muslim or Arab as a human being.

Here, Cox and Forkum use an old standard - the bus/car/horse/elephant/donkey going over the cliff, here envisioned in its less common form as a plane going down.

Is there some incident I’ve missed? Aren’t there still United Nations forces on the border? Because of that, at first I thought that was supposed to be a Canadian flag. However, apparently they’re Lebanese soldiers. And, umm, “uppity” seems really inappropriate here. Isn’t Israel the big dog militarily in the immediate region? Does putting “uppity” in a character’s mouth really recognize and pay respect to the recent war and all its loss of life and massive destruction of property? As with many Cox and Forkum cartoons, the subtext is pretty clear: Bomb Iran! And while you’re at it, bomb Lebanon again, too!

BUSH’S BUDGET

Gorrell sums up the Bush initiatives.

I have to give them credit, conservative cartoonists have been pretty uniform this week about attacking Bush’s bloated budget. Granted, they’re not attacking the distribution within it, but this seems like a throwback to old’school “fiscal conservatives” over the current breed of wastrels. But is the budget a bloated, beached whale?

Or a giant dinosaur?

Stantis’ second cartoon on the subject is also good.

Meanwhile, I think this Holbert cartoon is very funny, clever, and on target (all of Bush’s budget numbers, as usual, count on best-case scenarios and exclude the cost of the war).

CONGRESS

Stantis delivers a pretty good, neutral cartoon.

Ken Catalino’s entry is fairly funny.

Bob Gorrell goes for the visual gag. Not bad.

PELOSI

Some of the material in Gary McCoy’s cartoon is just the usual partisan issues and spin, but it’s no more accurate for that. He overlaps himself somewhat with “lax national security” and “weak on defense” and again with “class warfare” and “high taxes.” Of course, our national security has worsened under Bush and the Republicans, and Republicans have long practiced class warfare by lowering taxes on the super-wealthy while hiking taxes on the poor and middle class - and that’s not to mention their hefty committment to corporate welfare. As for “pro-gay agenda,” I guess Gary shares his brother Glenn’s homophobia. One doesn’t need to be strongly “pro-gay” to oppose all the anti-gay measures Republicans have announced. I also don’t really think Pelosi has been hiding her views, either - and I certainly don’t see “human rights,” “due process of law,” “education” or “heath care” in this cartoon. Hmm.

Hear that? Pelosi’s arrogant!

No, she’s a witch!

No, she’s just pushy. Nowak contends for Most Offensive Cartoon of the Week with this one (as he does with several of his entries this time!). Criticize Pelosi if you wish, but what’s up with this violent fantasy? This sort of thing is commonplace on the right, and exists almost exclusively with them. Nooo, Nowak isn’t the slightest bit misogynistic!

On second thought, don’t criticize Pelosi, not on this, anyway - because the entire story is complete bull. The White House can be credited for once for helping to smack this down. Little Miss Know It All has a good summary and Eric Boehlert at Media Matters provides an overview of all the shameful coverage. (Really reassures you for primary season, doesn’t it? Sigh.)

OBAMA

This is an odd cartoon that took me a while to figure out. Allie has repeatedly targeted Obama, most often accusing him of being popular for no reason, or popular despite having no substance or clear positions. Here, he takes one of Obama’s vices, occasionally still smoking, and combines it with one of the current biggest clichés in cartooning, people huddling in the cold talking about global warming. So, rather than merely saying global warming doesn-t exist, Allie seems to be saying that Obama lacks the character to stick out the fight. It’s an original if muddled attack.

Lester’s Obama entry is pretty good.

HILLARY CLINTON

Ah, Wayne Stayskal. Who really wants to listen to politicians blather? If they-d just shut up, maybe Stayskal-d cross the ideological aisle and vote for them. Suuure. This is primarily just a lame joke, unless Stayskal really holds that the only thing better than a primary season lacking in vigor is an ill-informed populace. Thanks, Wayne!

Ramirez- attack on Hillary is really nothing new, and part of the Republican handshake. (I do find it a bit amusing that Ramirez accuses Democrats of not properly appreciating national security threats - yet also sounds the alarm of non-existent national security threats. By the way, isn’t it interesting that Ramirez depicts a general hearing thisl? Has he been watching Seven Days in May a bit too much? ;-))

Ken Catalino does Ramirez one better by depicting an ugly, mean, witch-like Hillary. I-ve long felt that some Republicans tried to reconcile their trained hatred for Democrats with their begrudging respect for Bill Clinton by transferring their ire to Hillary.

JOHN KERRY

In case you missed his earlier cartoons, Ramirez really hates John Kerry. Perhaps it’s all vets who don-t vote hawkish neocon.

JOE BIDEN’S GAFFE

Gary McCoy’s piece is pretty ridiculous, since Biden hardly got a free ride! As Howard Kurtz has shown in his columns the past few weeks, almost every major news organization highlighted the story.

That said, of course Biden’s gaffe is not equivalent to George Allen’s “macaca,” as some conservative commentators other than McCoy have explicitly said. Personally, I think Biden’s comment was stupid, and he deserved some heat for it, but he has a habit of saying stupid things (nowhere approaching Bush, however), he apologized, and he was trying to compliment Obama. In contrast, Allen meant to bully a young man he-d met earlier in front of a crowd, and used a racial slur to do so. Allen also had a long history of racial insensitivities and bullying - displaying a noose and the confederate flag, using racial slurs, severely injuring his siblings - and the deer head incident, if true, is abhorrent. So sure, criticize Biden, but please, let’s not pretend it’s anything equivalent to what Allen’s done.

Bok’s entry on this is pretty funny.

Payne recycles a cartoon he did on Kerry’s gaffe that you can see in this earlier installment . (Biden was a popular subject for conservative cartoonists. Most of the pieces I didn’t include went with a foot-in-mouth or stepping-on-tongue theme.)

This Payne cartoon is much more original.

Ramirez cleverly links Biden’s most recent gaffe with his earlier one on Indian immigrants. Again, I have no problem with criticizing the man for saying stupid things.

Umm… this is sorta weird. I know Asay’s in his 60s, and at times seems to be doddering. Is Asay trying to depict a whimsical, interracial romance budding in chilly Colorado? A racial’sensitivity “meet cute”? Or merely saying, “Biden’s gaffe is really not that big a deal”…?

THOSE DAMNED DEMOCRATS

Meet the new dirty, stinking hippies. Same as the old dirty, stinking hippies. (Funny how they’ve been consistently right, huh, while the neocons have been consistently wrong? And to be fair, Stantis, who’s relatively moderate, hasn’t drawn any stink lines or anything, so perhaps these are the recently showered peacnik hippie Dems. Glenn Greenwald and Barbara O’Brien have good posts on “the hippies were right!” theme, since even some conservatives are (begrudgingly, of course) acknowledging it.)

Umm, this is apparently a partisan divide. Why exactly is taxing oil companies who made record’setting profits while getting exorbitant tax breaks a bad thing, especially considering the fiscal state of America under Bush’s disastrous economic and foreign policies? Why exactly should we be weeping for Exxon and Mobil? The current Republican movement holds both that the government’s purpose is to hand out money to the rich and powerful, both corporations and individuals, but the rich and powerful have no obligation in return to their country.

While Paul Nowak has several offensive cartoons this week, this one is the clear frontrunner for me.

The only shred of connection with reality that I can see is that the KKK tended to be anti-Catholic in addition to, y’know, all those lynchings and burnings.

Comparing bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, recently resigned from the Edwards campaign, to the KKK is ridiculous and really offensive. Feel free to take issue with anything they’ve written, of course. However, even a harsh critique by them is not the same as an exhortation to violence, and a harsh critique is certainly not the same thing as committing violence. Also, please let’s not pretend there’s any question about which party racists and bigots feel more comfortable in. Former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke is not a liberal (although credit to those Republicans who have disowned him). And he was the one who attended the loathsome Holocaust denial conference in Iran, not any of the targets in this cartoon. I also missed the part where far right crank William Donohue (ironically enough also an anti’semite like Duke) became a proponent of peace, love and tolerance. Really, can’t you conservatives work out your stories first? Why send out a bigot to make accusations of bigotry? Rarely has the habit of conservative projection been so blatant.

Then there’s Jimmy Carter. I understand why some people bristle at his use of the term “apartheid” in reference to Palestine, but even if one does, his use of it and every public statement he’s made - plus his entire career - make it clear he’s for human rights and justice. Let’s see, he’s an devout Christian who’s easily been the most positive, productive ex-President in American history. He was close friends with Coretta Scott King. Like her husband, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. He’s tirelessly worked for free and open elections, civil rights, housing the poor, tolerance and peace. Points to Nowak I suppose for attacking Edwards, Carter, liberal bloggers and really the entire Democratic party in one panel. Perrenial hack Nowak’s cartoon reminds me a stunted, drooling jackal clumsily trying to piss on a lion, and its stench is just as bad.

GLOBAL WARMING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

While Chuck Asay trots out some of the usual conservative BS about large government programs (ever compare the overhead costs of Medicare to private insurance?), what’s really shocking is that he actually criticizes Bush as being too concerned about public perception. To my knowledge, this is a first for Asay! In the last installment, Asay won the Kool-Aid Award, with his worshipful attitude toward Bush nearly breaking a Commandment or two. So good for you, Chuck Asay!

The experts are wrong, wrong, I tell you! And, umm, even if they are right, we don’t need to change anything yet!

You know that Al Gore? He’s mean! (Both Gore and Little Miss Sunshine are likely to pick up Oscars on the 25th.)

I like how Lester constructs a punchline here, but the cartoon’s too inaccurate to work. I assume he’s trying to suggest the evidence of polar bears drowning due to longer swims due to climate change is bogus.

Henry Payne goes with the Chicken Little theme, a favorite angle for many conservative cartoonists on this subject (as it was last week). Why don’t they ever apply it to Republican fear-mongering, I wonder?

Sure, Henry. This is a false comparison. Scientific data supports evolution, not intelligent design (although you’re still free to believe in God), and scientific data also shows human-caused climate change is a reality.

THE SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL

Sundance and this film were popular subjects, actually, for conservative cartoonists. Apparently, the film in question, where Dakota Fanning’s character is sexually assaulted by an older boy, isn’t that good (good in the “disturbing but important” sense, of course). My question would be how the act is depicted.

I thought this Bok cartoon was pretty funny. Good set-up line, good punchline.

AQUA TEEN HUNGER FORCE BOSTON SCARE

(Who could resist that topic title?) This really was a bizarre incident! Lisa da Moraes had the wittiest, most educational write-up on it I’ve seen. I thought this Glenn McCoy piece was pretty good.

Jerry Holbert’s cartoon is really quite clever!

EMBRACING SKELETONS

This may be the weirdest choice of subject for the week. If you missed the story of the embracing skeletons, here it is. (I’m surprised Hallmark didn’t try a Valentine’s Day tie-in. Gah.) Stantis uses the skeletons to say that money and politics are intertwined…

…While Michael Ramirez is trying to say… I don’t know. He references that homophobic Super Bowl ad, where the two mechanic guys accidentally kiss because they’re Lady-and-the-Tramp-ing a Snickers bar, and then rip off swatches of their chest hair to “do something manly” to counter the possible gay cooties. It was all very 80s. The actual skeletons have been identified as male and female. So is Ramirez saying this is real love? Unlike gay love? Or is this just another weird tie-in attempt by him? Beats me.

OTHER (POLITICAL)

The flat tax is a Goal-That-Will-Not-Die for many conservatives, so I can’t completely fault Asay for bringing it up. He’s right that it would be simpler. He’s wrong that it would be more fair, but then, Republicans have long tried to destroy or undermine our progressive tax bracket system (insufficiently progressive, at the moment). If, for instance, the top 1% of American households hold 20% of the wealth, shouldn’t they pay 20% of the country’s annual income taxes versus 10% of their income? It’s not as if there’s a level playing field currently. Honestly, I still want to find better, more definitive numbers on these issues, but here’s that Krugman article on wealth inequity again.

There’s old school, and then there’s Colonial Williamsburg old school. I suppose we should be grateful Asay isn’t Medieval old school - also, that he doesn’t show people throwing rotten vegetables or stones at the guy.

“Rats!” That sums the Asay mentality perfectly. Are there any health risks from the vaccine? Otherwise, its seems like a great idea to have all school girls vaccinated, since it will prevent cervical cancer and not all families could easily afford it. There are far right zealots who don’t want this HPV vaccine allowed because they’d prefer to have the threat of death through sex to scare fornicating youngsters (here’s a tip - that scare won’t work). Asay is not that far right, but he does accuse school nurses of trying to dispense birth control! That’s their real agenda! I understand parental anxieties about teenage sex, but it’s made for some really bad sex ed and health care policies. (PBS’ Now is covering this issue next week.)

Payne’s cartoon is pretty good.

Varvel targets his local Congressman for missing 19 House votes to play golf. Good for Varvel. Burton would deserve heat regardless, but Varvel proves some independence because Burton is a Republican.

“Losing” and “winning” don’t really apply to Iraq anymore, but apart from that, I thought this Ramirez cartoon was fairly funny.

SUPER BOWL

Varvel contrasts two of his local teams…

…And pokes gentle fun at the normally stoic Tony Dungy.

Meanwhile, Eric Allie delivers what I think’s the first non-political cartoon I’ve ever seen from him! The Dems aren’t to blame for once! Congratulations, Eric!

THE DIAPER-WEARING ASTRONAUT REVENGE PLOT

Another fun topic title, and an irresistible story for many cartoonists. I had to include at least a handful. Drummer, a rimshot for Glenn McCoy’s punchline!

Ken Catalino’s cartoon ain’t bad…

…Although I prefer Stantis’ cartoon, with a similar angle.

See? Liberals and conservatives can find common ground. Nancy Grace is loathsome, and a tabloid press approach to the news is as tiring as it is unrelenting.

The green stink lines are a nicely cringe-inducing touch from Mike Lester. Doesn’t this look like a horror film as made by John Waters? The pink-bewigged astronaut just needs to burst into song. The line “Do you smell tang and urine?” is fantastic.

HOUSEKEEPING

You may have noticed I changed the opening blurb, a move I’ve been considering for a while, and a few comments provided added incentive. I’ve tinkered with it before, but “RWCW” has grown beyond its original purpose of highlighting only extreme, far right cartoons. Henry Payne, for just one example, has drawn some pretty extreme cartoons over the years, but also celebrates the civil rights movement and typically submits one to two non-political cartoons per week. It’s seemed unfair to me to show only the most egregious pieces by a given artist. Plus, the more moderate cartoons often contain talking points or viewpoints that deserve challenging, too. Of course, extremity is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.

That said, I think we’ve pretty consistently pointed out good artwork, originality and good gags by conservative cartoonists, even in some cases when the message has been ridiculous or abhorrent (Michael Ramirez, one of the cartoonists furthest to the right, has also won a Pulitzer). Editorial cartoons enjoy a great tradition in America, and while we may mock conservative cartoonists, we certainly celebrate their right to mock others.

On that note, the “good sport” award for the week goes to Mike Lester, who apparently read an entry in the series. He didn-t specify which one, but I suspect it was one of his “Most Offensive Cartoon of the Week” nominees or winners, of which he’s had several. He wrote me and simply said “I-m flattered.” I wrote him back to thank him for being a good sport, and also mentioned that I had lauded his cartoons for 11/11.

For what it’s worth, if I were to rank the 18 conservative cartoonists we’ve featured from least “wingnut” to most, it would go roughly:

Jerry Holbert
Scott Stantis
Gary Varvel
Wayne Stayskal
Mike Shelton
Bob Gorrell
Ken Catalino
Chip Bok
Henry Payne
Mike Lester
Lisa Benson
Chuck Asay
Glenn McCoy
Gary McCoy
Cox and Forkum
Michael Ramirez
Paul Nowak
Eric Allie

Of course, that doesn’t take into account artistic ability, originality, sense of humor, pet causes or exceptions. The flavor of a Chuck Asay cartoon is unique and markedly different from Allie’s approach, for instance, and I think in this series we’ve tried to appreciate those nuances.

In any case, I-m sure this series will continue to evolve (and ideally, get more punctual!), but thanks again for checking in.

As usual, feel free to vote for the most offensive cartoon(s) of the week in the comments, sound off about anything else you like, and check out Bob Geiger’s most recent round-up of editorial cartoons for a palate cleanser. See you next time!