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 American 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 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!

In this even-larger-than-usual installment, covering three weeks (5/14/07 - 6/3/07), most but not all conservative cartoonists mourned Jerry Falwell and opined angrily on immigration. Gas prices were a surprisingly popular topic. Meanwhile, the usual gang lambasted Democrats for criticizing Bush, for opposing Bush, and for - voting in accord with Bush! Huh? Remember, kids, whatever the Democrats do, they’re baaaaad!!!

IRAQ

I suppose this cartoon is noteworthy in that Chuck Asay actually says “civil war,” even if it’s the “Mother of Peace” who says it. Chuck Asay never wants to lay any blame at Bush’s feet. It’s important to note how the mess in Iraq was started because the same gang of idiots is still running the show, still hasn’t acknowledged any error, still doesn’t describe the situation accurately, and still is making many of the same mistakes (along with some bold, new mistakes). There are people who sincerely believe that if we leave Iraq now, the entire region will get worse, but there are plenty of knowledgeable folks who feel our presence is only making things worse. Regardless, Bush has no credibilty on Iraq and his failure to reassure the public may be the most consistent aspect of his rhetoric.

Nowak has previously drawn al-Sadr as a drain clog. Al-Sadr is certainly not a force for the rule of law and peace in Iraq, but he is an Iraqi, with a great deal of political power and support, and the main Iraqi backer for the current al-Maliki government Bush is also backing. Acknowledging him as a serious issue is good, but merely demonizing him smacks of the same ol’ belligerent bluster. How did al-Sadr come to power, anyway? As described by Peter Galbraith in “The Mess,” for The New York Review of Books, much of the al-Sadr situation stems from the Bush administration’s disastrous lack of post-war planning. Nowak has never criticized that in the slightest.

Bob Gorrell is one of the few cartoonists this week to criticize Bush, with a somewhat predictable but on-target punchline.

Why do Republicans still support Bush in overwhelming numbers? From Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson’s discussion yesterday:

Richmond, Va.: I just read an ABC poll this morning, and was curious about this figure: “Two-thirds of Republicans approve of how Bush is handling the war in Iraq, and 70 percent say the war was worth fighting.” Can you explain why, with all of the information that has cascaded about the duplicity of reasons for entering the war, the predictions of a no-win for this war from very credible generals and others, and the increasing number of deaths of our troops, this high percentage of people comes to this conclusion?

Exactly what is it that they are supporting? Is it blind allegiance to Bush? The GOP? Are they more concerned with their party than the country? I cannot figure it out. In addition, with the obverse true (i.e., from Democrats and Independents) how will the country ever come to a consensus about ending this war?

washingtonpost.com: Discontent Over Iraq Increasing, Poll Finds (Post, June 5)

Eugene Robinson: I have a theory. I think there are basically two factors. One is that this administration has convinced some people that there was a link between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks. There was no such link, of course, but repeating the untruth has led some people to accept it as true. I get e-mails from people who are clearly under that erroneous impression. The second factor, I think, is that the White House has framed the war in terms of “victory” and “defeat,” when these are not meaningful terms. Victory over whom? Defeat at whose hands?

Scott Stantis also ventures to question the chief, and whether there’s any point in appointing a “war czar.” Isn’t that Gates’ job, or Stephen Hadley’s, or Bush’s? While it shouldn’t be Cheney’s, it certainly has been to a staggering degree, and Rice had a role earlier, as she still does now as Secretary of State. I’d seriously question whether Reid and Pelosi can be counted as “war czars,” though. It’s not as if Bush gives a damn what they think, or has listened to their counsel.

This cartoon falls into the decent-design-but-hogwash category. While Asay picks a decent metaphor, as we’ve discussed previously, the American presence is definitely making Iraq worse in many ways, and the building of permanent bases there sends a very negative message to most of the Middle East. Things may get worse if we stay, and they might not, but they won’t get any better for American servicemen and women. Also, Asay again deliberately ignores who created the current mess. As Dan Froomkin reviews in “Warnings of Chaos,” the Bush administration was specifically warned, in detail, that the current mess would occur.

Eric Allie presents a mini-masterpiece of muddled metaphor, slander and projection. He manages to work in both “cut and run” and “stay the course,” two favorite GOP slogans - before Bush ludicrously claimed they’d never said “stay the course,” that is. The Democrat in the cartoon is soldiering on to withdraw from Iraq, despite being attacked by - umm - liberals who want us out of Iraq. Huh? I suspect what Allie is going for is that the Dem leadership is cowardly, capitulating to those damn liberals in the party - not to mention those 67% of Americans who disapprove of Bush’s handling of Iraq (56% strongly disapprove). To be fair, Americans disagree about what exactly to do in Iraq, but they trust Democrats over Bush in handling Iraq, 51% to 35%. Notice, though, this cartoon also depicts anyone who’s antiwar or for troop withdrawal as a terrorist. Nowhere is Bush, with his overall approval rating of 35%, depicted. Really, this is a keeper. Two propagandistic slogans, no blame for Bush, and the Dems are both cowards and traitors. Grade-A hackery and propaganda.

This is a pretty clever cartoon by Ramirez on one level. As we’ve discussed before, given that we’re occupying a country in a civil war (actually, worse), where only a political solution will work, conventional “victory” and “surrender” have no real meaning and haven’t for some time. Ramirez is inaccurate in critiquing Iraq, but sadly, he’s more on target slamming the Dems. It is interesting that Ramirez has previously lambasted the Dems for not going along with Bush. Attacking the Dems for something is the order of business, I suppose.

(I’m not convinced, myself, but Democratic Representative Joe Sestak partially explained his vote for the recent war funding bill here and chatted with readers about it here. Joe Biden also explained his vote for the bill at the recent Democratic presidential candidate debate.)

Never fear, Chip Bok, the Dems gave Bush pretty much what he wanted. Still, isn’t Iraq supposed to be a sovereign nation? Al-Sadr is a major player, and a major backer of al-Maliki, but not the head of the Iraqi government we supposedly support, so Bok drawing him here is deliberately prejudicial. Bush has repeatedly said if Iraq asks us to leave, we’ll leave. No doubt there’s some serious backroom deals in place to forestall that. Still, Bok is apparently suggesting that we should ignore the Iraqi government if they tell us to leave?

Holbert seems pretty on target. While Bush is horribly unpopular, and the latest war funding bill is not the end of the world, it certainly strikes many folks, including me, as a disappointment.

Here’s another take, from that same Robinson chat:

Sewickley, Pa.: I think the polling done by the Post and others shows the American people are against the war and opposed to the track the Bush administration has put the country on. However, there is no strong consensus on whether to withdraw entirely, conduct a phased redeployment or to defund the whole project. Democrats have been beat about the head shoulders for three election cycles on war and security issues. I’d like to see more profiles in courage but I can understand why Democrats are conflicted. So is the public.

washingtonpost.com: Discontent Over Iraq Increasing, Poll Finds (Post, June 5)

Eugene Robinson: What you say is right. I wish somebody would try to build a consensus antiwar position that people could rally around, and that’s something the presidential candidates could attempt to do.

Cox and Forkum, who always seem eager to bomb the hell out of Muslims, come up with another good-design-but-hogwash entry. They attack with a clear visual gag, but it embodies a classic false choice beloved of Republicans. As we covered in our last installment and countless times before, there’s absolutely no reason one can’t support peace and support the troops at the same time. I’ll argue once again that supporting peace is supporting the troops. Enough deaths for a proudly ignorant, obstinate man’s vanity and neocon fantasies of bloody grandeur, please.

Ken Catalino sounds a note similar to Cox and Forkum and Allie. Notice the underlying narrative he’s pushing. The insurgents are the same as dirty stinkin’ hippies. Hippies and liberals are traitors. Democrats are also cowards and appeasers. You can’t trust them to kill the folks that need killin’, and they can’t be trusted with national security! Vote Republican in ‘08!

Bush could simply guarantee that he’d fund the troops no matter what, or withdraw them, as Keith Olbermann pointed out. Besides, it’s wasn’t exactly a secret when the funding would run out (although that didn’t stop Bush from lying about it repeatedly). Does hack Paul Nowak really think Iraqis don’t follow American politics as they apply to the Middle East? Come to think of it, Nowak’s choice of a cavalry motif here is unintentionally appropriate, given the imperialist let’s-conquer-and-civilize-the-natives-for-their-own good mindset that contributed to this mess.

As with the last installment, I’d normally put this in with other Hillary cartoons, but it’s pertinent here. As Barack Obama said in the recent debate, everyone supports the troops. This attack is just silly hackdom, and Stantis is better than this. (It’s also a pretty lame cartoon.)

Nowak, however, isn’t better than this. If you look carefully, you’ll see that Hillary chicken has taken off an eagle head. In other words, in addition to the usual BS, Nowak is accusing her of not really being a patriot. (You can count the number of times Nowak has attacked any pro-withdrawal Republican for the same views on the fingers of a slug.)

Meanwhile, here Gorrell also goes with the chicken theme, but gives Allie a run for his money for a mini-masterpiece of projection, slander, and fumbled metaphor. We’ve already dispensed with the BS that one can’t support the troops without supporting Bush’s failed policies. Remember, Bush ignored his own generals and brought in a new one who would implement the latest wrinkle of his plan, such as it is. Many military personnel don’t support our continued occupation of Iraq, so supporting the troops has nothing necessarily to do with supporting Bush. An Army Times poll in April “found that only about half of U.S. troops think that success in this war is even possible. What’s more, only 38% of the troops expressed support for the president’s escalation strategy.”

I’d take less issue with Gorrell if he charged the Dems with cowardice for their recent war funding bill, even if that would land him in the Ramirez territory of criticizing them regardless. Nevertheless, a charge that the Dems are cowards if they withdraw the troops is BS, and more to the point, anyone who withdraws the troops is not a chickenhawk. A chickenhawk is someone who insists we go to war, and stay at war, or stay occupying a country in the middle of a civil war, even though he (and it’s usually a “he”) has never served and will never serve in the military. The essence of the chickenhawk is insisting that others die for a cause that he himself will not die for. That’s not to mention the junior high-Rambo-Chuck Norris worldview where braggadocio and false bluster will solve every problem but actual experience, thougtfulness and intelligence are to be demonized at all times. The chickenhawks have been roosting in the Bush administration and other neocon bastions for a long time, and they rule the rightwing blogosphere. The chickenhawks are all yours, Bob.

CONGRESS

Henry Payne delivers a pretty easy gag, but it’s not bad.

29%?!? Lisa Benson must be taking her stats from a Fox News poll or something similar.

A Washington Post-ABC poll reports that:

Growing frustration with the performance of the Democratic Congress, combined with widespread public pessimism over President Bush’s temporary troop buildup in Iraq, has left satisfaction with the overall direction of the country at its lowest point in more than a decade, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Almost six in 10 Americans said they do not think the additional troops sent to Iraq since the beginning of the year will help restore civil order there, and 53 percent — a new high in Post-ABC News polls — said they do not believe that the war has contributed to the long-term security of the United States.

Disapproval of Bush’s performance in office remains high, but the poll highlighted growing disapproval of the new Democratic majority in Congress. Just 39 percent said they approve of the job Congress is doing, down from 44 percent in April, when the new Congress was about 100 days into its term. More significant, approval of congressional Democrats dropped 10 percentage points over that same period, from 54 percent to 44 percent.

Much of that drop was fueled by lower approval ratings of the Democrats in Congress among strong opponents of the war, independents and liberal Democrats. While independents were evenly split on the Democrats in Congress in April (49 percent approved, 48 percent disapproved), now 37 percent said they approved and 54 percent disapproved. Among liberal Democrats, approval of congressional Democrats dropped 18 points.

Bush’s overall job-approval rating stands at 35 percent, unchanged from April.

Hey, if you’re going to criticize Congress, it’s always nice if it’s based on reality.

CARTER CRITICIZES BUSH

Conservative cartoonists went apoplectic over Carter criticizing Bush. Let’s go to his actual words, as reported by Salon’s Joan Walsh:

On Saturday the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette published an interview with Carter in which he was asked, “Which president was worse, George W. Bush or Richard Nixon?” Carter answered, “I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history. The overt reversal of America’s basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including [those of] George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me.”

Carter was responding to a direct question. Furthermore, he was right. Bob Gorrell, like many conservative cartoonists, tries to posit that Carter has no right whatsoever to criticize Bush. Oh please.

Chip Bok, like many conservative cartoonists, tries to dredge up any and every piece of dirt on Carter. I barely remember Carter as president (due to my age), and it’s true most historians don’t rate him that highly. However, many historians have judged Bush the worst ever, or at least in the worst five of all time. Carter doesn’t come close to cracking that. Dan Froomkin has a good rundown on Carter, his remarks and the press and White House reactions.

Glenn McCoy goes with a similar tact to Bok. You’ll notice that no conservative cartoonists mention Carter’s reputation as perhaps our “greatest former president.” He’s won the Nobel Peace Prize and he clearly deserved it. He’s worked for Habitat for Humanity, povery reduction, world hunger reduction, health care, free and fair elections… But to conservatives, Carter is just another Democrat. Quick, where’s that bucket of mud?

Some criticisms of Carter are fair, while others seem just silly. Contrary to pundit blather, the president does not control everything within the nation, and for any of his faults, Carter inherited a bad economy. Carter might have angered some folks with his most recent book, but his Camp David accords, and his subsequent diplomatic work, have done more to foster peace in the Middle East than anything the Bush adminstration has done.

I’m going to give Brian Fairrington the benefit of the doubt and assume his attack on the fashion and music sense of the 70s is comedic license versus a serious critique. (Speaking of a president not controlling everything, pop culture is one of them!)

Compared to the best American presidents of all time, Carter doesn’t look great - but his post-presidency has been extremely impressive, perhaps the best (certainly in the running). Compared to the best American presidents of all time, it’s doubtful Bush’s head would be more than a greasy blotch.

Oh, come on. Carter is not the worst president, and not even in the running.

What I found most annoying about the mainstream media coverage of Carter’s comments is that most of it focused on them as gossip. (It’s a scandal! Did you hear what Carter said about Bush?) No one seemed as interested in discussing if it were true or not. Of course, it is true, or at the very least, an extremely sound, supportable position. Carter merely said what many people in Bush’s own party have said! Why shouldn’t he say so?

There’s a basic guideline that ex-presidents don’t criticize the current president, because it’s a hard enough job as it is. As a general rule, that’s fine, but these are extraordinary times and the “no criticism” guideline assumes the current president is doing his best, in good faith, which is arguable at best with Bush. Like Joan Walsh, I’m disappointed Carter backed off his comments, which as she points out, were hardly unprecedented. As she writes:

Carter likely backed down because of the collective gasp from presidential historians like Douglas Brinkley, Carter’s biographer, who called the former president’s remarks “unprecedented” and “fighting words.” Oh, please. In earlier, less prissy times, presidents were hard on one another — Teddy Roosevelt bashed Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy, and Herbert Hoover bashed FDR’s social policy. Even former President Gerald Ford, apparently one of history’s nicest presidents if not the most effective, called Carter’s presidency a “disaster” and said he “disagreed strongly” with Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq, which he called a “mistake.” Sure, Ford’s remarks to Bob Woodward were embargoed until after his death — but not until after Bush’s death, which is what Ford might have done if he wanted to obey the supposed commandment that presidents not speak ill of their successors. But I’m glad he didn’t.

Sorry, Bush is the presumptive favorite for the title “of worst president in history” right now, or at the least a very strong contender. Also on the “how dare he say something critical” front, Dan Froomkin quotes from a New York Times piece that observes:

…There have been several instances of ‘when ex-presidents attack’ over the years. As recently as a few months ago, former President Gerald R. Ford criticized Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy, albeit from the grave. In an article in The Washington Post, Bob Woodward quoted from an interview he conducted with Mr. Ford with the understanding that he could only publish Mr. Ford’s remarks after he died.

Eisenhower was critical of John F. Kennedy’s domestic policies, the first President Bush pounded on Bill Clinton, now his pal, for his Haiti policy, and Nixon chided the first President Bush (for comparing himself to Harry Truman in his 1992 re-election campaign).

Hahahaha. Really. Bush’s foreign policy is easily one of the worst in American history, if not the worst. Carter inherited a messy situation with Iran in large part due to the machinations of the Eisenhower administration. For Cox and Forkum, it often seems anything less than bombing the hell out of someone is “capitulation.” (I just noticed the rabbit. Conservatives never forget a line of attack, no matter how lame.)

Ken Catalino goes with a manure theme - hey, it’s okay to criticize Carter, but it’s not as his words didn’t have merit! Let’s see, for Bush there’s a war of choice, weakening national security, angering most of the world, losing an American city (New Orleans), horrendous fiscal mismanagement that rivals Reagan, corruption that rivals Nixon, underming the entire intelligence communty, unprecedented assaults on the Constitution, torture, consistent fear-mongering and demagoguery, and failing to act on clear warnings of al-Qaeda attacking the U.S. before 9/11. Oh, and that’s not to mention no oversight by Congress, the U.S. Attorney scandal, the Abramoff scandal, Mark Foley… do we really need to go on?

Lester also goes with a manure theme. Again, it’s one thing to say Carter was so bad he’s got no right to criticize anyone else (although I’d still say that’s BS). Claiming there’s no merit to Carter’s widely-held opinion is itself manure.

I have to say, I also don’t get all the twittering about how Carter “personally” attacked Bush. Howard Kurtz expressed this view when he said:

Jimmy Carter has backed off his “worst in history” charge against George W. Bush, saying on “Today” that his remarks “were maybe careless or misinterpreted” and that he “certainly was not talking personally about any president.”

Come on. Carter was calling the Bush administration the worst since 1789 in terms of America’s standing the world, and that’s pretty personal. Frank Lockwood of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, who conducted the interview, has the tape on his blog.

Come on yourself, Howard. If Carter had said Bush was stupid, or evil, or corrupt, those would be personal attacks (if accurate). Carter was asked about the Bush administration. He’s evaluating an administration. Every American has a right (or duty) to evaluate the president, and while ex-presidents should normally show some restraint, these are unusual circumstances, and Carter is only voicing what every sane, honest adult already knows. At some point, can we drop this bourgeois prissiness about manners and just call bullshit where needed? Kurtz has his moments, but like most of the establishment press corps, he refuses to acknowledge that the Bushies have changed all the rules, they’re dangerous in unprecedented ways, and the emperor has no clothes.

Yeah, that damn Carter, such a pest. Maybe if he bombed some Muslim nations rather than winning that Nobel Peace Prize, Nowak would be happier.

Varvel paints Carter as some hick. Really, you can criticize Carter for some things, but Billy Beer? How is Carter responsible for something his brother did?

IMMIGRATION

Aaaaaah! All these illegal immigrants are going to take over the country! The reconquista myth may be something Michelle Malkin, Lou Dobbs and others tell their kids at night, but it’s ridiculous. As for the American flag in the garbage, recent immigration rallies in Los Angeles featured plenty of American flags. Points to Brian Fairrington for being blunt with a striking cartoon, no points for accuracy. While immigration and illegal immigration are both serious issues, they deserve to be discussed without the silliness of this reconquista slipperly’slope crap. Neither Mexican immigrants nor Muslims are going to take over the country, kids, and hysteria will not help the situation. Relax.

Lisa Benson flashes her conservative creds with this one! If we grant the current 12 million or so illegal immigrants citizenship, they’ll all go on social services! We can’t have that! We need to keep social services for real Americans! Actually, uh, doctrinate conservatives don’t want anyone to receive social services, so Benson’s argument is likely disingenuous. Perhaps her opposition to amnesty or naturalization is a red herring to argue against all social services. Still, however you slice it, this cartoon smacks of bigotry and classism.

Eric Allie is actually funny, and pretty on-target in capturing the current GOP dynamic! Bravo!

Gary Varvel also scores for accuracy and a pretty clever concept. It’s funny that on this one issue, Bush is more progressive than his party. What’s so fascinating about the immigration issue as political theater is that it pits the xenophobic Republicans against the big business, we-want-cheap-labor Republicans.

Glenn McCoy’s cartoon captures the view of many Republicans who feel angry at Bush over this. (Hmm, but McCoy might lose points with the faithful for invoking JFK.)

McCoy’s fairly funny here.

Stantis delivers a pretty familiar gag, but it’s relatively accurate.

Honestly, I know some people get really steamed about immigration and illegal immigration, but it’s just never set me off, and I currently live in a state and city (Los Angeles) that is very much affected. The issues are too complex to address them all here, but the best single article I’ve read for the underlying issues is Charlie LeDuff’s “In a Slaughterhouse, Some Things Never Die,” from a 2000 Pulitzer-winning series on race in The New York Times. Essentially, most illegal workers are just trying to make a living to support their families. They’re exploited by “coyotes” (the folks who ferry them over) and they’re exploited by companies, who don’t bother to check their legality because that way they’re cheaper. Illegal immigrants are almost always too scared to unionize, and that keeps wages down. While there are many aspects to illegal immigration, the most effective way to cut down on it from the law enforcement angle would be to require large companies to verify citizenship and fine the companies heavily for infractions. After all, internal documents and testimony show that Wal-mart knew damn well much of their non-unionized workforce was illegal, but that’s how they wanted it. There are issues of nationality, there are issues of race, there are economic issues, there are issues of our national heritage and identity as an immigrant nation, and there are issues (if overblown) of national security, but underneath it all this is the same class struggle that’s been going on for millennia.

Jerry Holbert tries to depict the complexity and mixed messages of the immigration legislation.

Meanwhile, Lisa Benson comes up with a clever visual to express a similar idea, although hers seems to be more centered on conservative misgivings about immigration.

As if you’re suprised, Paul Nowak isn’t for amnesty or work visas.

Nowak’s trying to say that underneath all the talk, the legislation amounts to amnesty. Not a bad design. What’s ironic is he’s going for an “elephant in the room” motif. Shouldn’t there be another, Republican elephant putting that banner up?

Gorrell seems to be skeptical of any amnesty deal as well. Points for a simple, clever design.

Mike Shelton’s entry is original, if a bit bizarre. Umm, okay, yes, Zorro is Mexican, and this is supposed to say that Kennedy and McCain are favoring Mexicans over Americans, but Zorro is also a heroic figure, so the metaphor’s a bit muddled.

Eric Allie’s cartoon ain’t bad. It is a bit funny how some conservatives say they’re all for immigration, they just want “skilled” workers. Uh-huh.

Michael Ramirez appears to be unhappy with the Senate. He used an almost identical set-up and punchline in the last installment, except with Iraq. His artwork is always great, but his writing is far less original.

Here Ramirez displays his visual imagination, accusing the Republicans of being tone-deaf by discussing amnesty. In the previous installment, Ramirez seemed critical of overly’strict immigration policies, so I’m unclear as to what his specific position is.

Ahh! Fear of a non-white America! Actually, given the next cartoon and the smiles in this one, it doesn’t seem Payne is an alarmist over this.

I think Payne’s cartoon here is quite on-target. How many of the immigration hardliners are Native Americans, anyway?

Jerry Holbert also invokes The Statue of Liberty, apparently in the same spirit as Payne.

At first, it seems as if Mike Lester is of the same mind as Payne and Holbert, but given a later cartoon in this installment, it seems he’s trying to say that illegal immigration is undermining the American way of life and the legal immigration that occurred at Ellis Island. (See the later piece and feel free to offer your take.)

JERRY FALWELL DIES

Mike Lester delivers an original if weird cartoon here as he attacks his “snot-nosed liberals.” Was Jerry Falwell a great bulwark against the evils of encroaching Catholicism? Or is he trying to say that liberals don’t like Catholics? That would be silly, unless he’s assuming all Catholics oppose abortion and all liberals support it, both of which are contentious at best. Are all illegal immigrants Hispanic, and all of them devout Catholics? Both points are also contentious. The most charitable interpretation of this cartoon would seem to be that liberals hate religion (false) and illegal immigrants are largely religious, so that liberals are going to be bit on the ass even as they celebrate Falwell’s death, ha ha! Any way you slice it, Lester’s cartoon is overflowing with implied, inaccurate stereotypes. It might work for the party faithful, but it strikes me as awfully muddled.

Gary Varvel depicts Falwell kindly.

(Heaven is naturally a cartooning cliché, but its use can be interesting. When Nixon died, a few cartoonists dared to depict him in hell, whereas almost all cartoonists depicted him in heaven, even if they drew him up to no good there. Heaven cartoons can take their gentle or biting jabs.)

Gorrell also pays his respects.

Henry Payne notes the key political role Falwell played in the GOP.

Here, Payne offers a more critical view of Falwell.

He does so again here, in a pretty good cartoon. Although Falwell did apologize later, his most infamous statement is probably this gem, when he was a guest on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club on 9/13/01:

On the TV program, Jerry Falwell initially said that the American Civil Liberties Union has “to take a lot of blame for” the tragedy [of 9/11]. Pat Robertson agreed. Falwell then continued: “And, I know that I’ll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’ ” Robertson responded: “Well, I totally concur…”

Points to Ken Catalino for a funny cartoon that gently pokes fun at Falwell’s partisanship.

Glenn McCoy notes Falwell’s partisanship as well, although with him it’s harder to tell if he’s poking gentle fun or approving of Falwell.

Stantis takes a similar tact…

…As does Mike Shelton.

Falwell’s laughable accusations of a Tinky-Winky being part of some homosexual agenda was too good a motif for Stantis to pass up.

Jerry Holbert went with a similar gag. If you look over some of Falwell’s quotation (a scary compiliation by JoeWo here that Questiongirl featured at Blue Herald here), it’s pretty damn astounding. I think my favorites are: “The idea that religion and politics don-t mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country” and “The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews.” That’s prime comedy, there.

Here’s Mike Lester’s second cartoon on Falwell. No matter what the occasion, attack your bugbear! Lester just can’t resist criticizing the “angry left.” What’s funny is that the mainstream media was largely tame critiquing Falwell (Hitchens being one of the few exceptions, but he’s sort of off the map), and it’s not as if liberals didn’t criticize Falwell when he was alive! As a general rule, I don’t celebrate someone’s death, and condolences to those who loved Falwell. There’s no requirement, however, to celebrate his life and career, and there are many, many folks who every right to be furious with the man, since he repeatedly attacked them, viciously and with an air of moral superiority. Why the hell should anyone who wasn’t ultraconservative mourn his passing? He was one of America’s most prominent homophobes, he was extremely partisan and divisive, he offered irrational arguments and demagoguery, he was a leading theocrat seeking to destroy the Constitution, and his ministry completely contradicted central tenets of Christianity and gave religious people a bad name. I would call him a false prophet, a bad Christian, anti-American, and an almost entirely negative force in American politics. I’ve heard he mellowed out somewhat in his last few years, and if so, good for him. There are at least two dimensions to a political figure’s death. On the social, human level, condolences to those who miss Falwell as a person in their lives. On the news-historical level, let’s not whitewash the man’s career. There’s nothing wrong with damping down the criticism a bit in mainstream outlets in the immediate wash of someone’s death out of politeness, but at some point there has to be honest and accurate discussion.

Speaking of bugbears - Chuck Asay takes the opportunity to bash Muslims with crude stereotypes. Here he compares “Islamic extremists” with “cross-worshipers.” Were Asay to compare Muslims to Christians, or Islamic extremists to Christianist extremists, I could respect him a little more, but as usual, he rigs things to provide a false equivalency. Not all Muslims are violent, irrational, anti-American and anti-Semitic. Was there some riot over the natural death of an Imam I missed? Meanwhile, the religious authoritarians in America, “Christianists,” are not a peaceful lot and not very Christian, any more than Islamic extremists really follow the essence of the Koran. Falwell was entitled to his opinions, but I contest that he always “spoke the truth.” Falwell’s statements, quoted and linked above, express a point of view, but one that was irrational at best. In the final panel, Asay exults “freedom,” “marriage” and “life.” These appear to be code for theocracy (most likely), no gay marriage, and no abortions. In other words, no freedom of religion (since Asay consistently ignores the Establishment Clause), no freedom of marriage, and no reproductive freedom. Asay knows his buzz words well, but he rarely goes beyond the level of slogans to offer any real insight. Let me be clear - the authoritarian religious right in America are not as bad nor as dangerous as religious zealots in other countries. They are, however, dangerous and anti-American. Mourning Falwell is their right, but the “we’re better than other people” tone central to the movement doesn’t pass muster. The authoritarian religious right is of course entitled to participate in government as are all citizens, but religious dogma is not a sufficient argument for anything in civil society, and claiming they’re religious does not mean they’re right, they’re more moral or on the side of the angels.

RELIGION

Brian Fairrington delivers a striking cartoon, but I’m undecided on its meaning, especially since he leans conservative and has previously drawn a cartoon that suggests that abortion is murder favored by unattractive middle-aged women with hairy arms who celebrate all death. Here, he seems to be saying that religion is hurting politics. An alternative reading would be that politics is bad, so a Bible blood clot will kill it, and that’s good. That would be an awfully dark, violent metaphor. Any takes on this one?

This cartoon falls into the familiar Mike Lester category of “clever but BS,” with a straw man attack Chuck Asay and much of the right loves. As explored in “The Case for Writing More Accurately about Religion,” there is no ban on the Bible in schools. Students can certainly bring them in. The Bible can be studied in an elective, or as part of a comparative religion course. What’s not legal, or moral, is mandatory religious instruction of any sort in a public school. (Manadatory religious instruction is also obviously not that same as mandatory instruction about religion.)

ENERGY PRICES

Cox and Forkum offer a pretty clever cartoon.

Umm… there are many reasons why gas prices are high, and I’m not entirely sold on ethanol subsidies either, but those subsidies are hardly the cause of high gas prices!

Similarly, Glenn McCoy seems to be blaming gas prices on a lack of domestic drilling (unless he’s criticizing the amount of oil stored in the strategic reserve, but given his usual attacks, my bet is that he wants less restrictions on oil companies).

Henry Payne is more on target here. Out here in California, one of the chief logjams is that the refineries can’t keep up with demand (reportedly).

Umm… Paul Nowak is trying another one of his blanket, unspecific, “those damn liberals are hypocrites” attacks. I suppose those stars are supposed to represent Hollywood stars, but I see those vehicles and think, “U.S. Army.” Look, Hollywood celebrities certainly engage in excess, and I won’t defend that, but they can’t compete with the evils of corporations, and the most prominent Hollywood environmental activists, such as Laurie David and Ed Begley, Jr., can’t be accused of hypocrisy. They walk the walk.

Chip Bok is pretty on target…

…As is Ken Catalino.

Scott Stantis delivers a good visual gag.

So does Henry Payne, who is based in Detroit.

This cartoon by Eric Allie is surprising because he actually seems to express - gasp - compassion, and in the last installment he blamed high gas prices on Democrats shackling poor oil executives with regulations. (No, really, he did.)

Gorrell also bemoans the fate of the average consumer. I was a bit surprised by how popular this theme was, actually. I suppose that while conservatives are not normally noted for their compassion, and struggle to imagine themselves in someone else’s situation, even they’ve been hit by gas prices.

Henry Payne cleverly captures consumer anxiety.

Ken Catalino makes the situation more pointed.

Meanwhile, Gary Varvel shows so much compassion he might have his conservative card revoked! Sadly, for many families the choice is between food and health care, but high gas prices certainly don’t help.

Meanwhile, Jerry Holbert offers one of his original-if-odd cartoons. Of course, Bush hasn’t really changed positions. He’s trying to stall and run out the clock, just as he is with Iraq.

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

In case you weren’t aware from his previous cartoons, Gary McCoy thinks abortion is murder.

RWCW obviously features cartoonists, but I think Gary McCoy’s worldview is the most “cartoonish,” of the lot since his pieces consistently bear little to no resemblance to reality. Here, Giuliani should know better than to give any money to that evil organization, Planned Parenthood. Without even debating abortion per se, Planned Parenthood does a hell of a lot more than providing abortions. Their entire mission is provide infomation to help people, mostly women, make knowledgeable choices about birth control, pregnancy, reproduction and parenthood. Allowing women to make choices about their own lives and bodies is central to that. McCoy depicts the doctor here as bloody, happy and eager to perform abortions, doing it out of greed if not pure evil.

I’m not sure what Holbert’s exact stance is, but based on his previous cartoons, I think he’s suggesting that Romney’s newfound conservatism might not be so genuine and he’s overhyping himself (an alternative reading is that Romney’s so brilliant he got things done even in Massachutes, but I don’t think so).

Gary Varvel is the lastest to cartoon on the Republicans’ groundswell of support for Fred Thompson.

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

This is a fairly clever design by Allie, although he won’t subject the Republicans to the same, and it’s not really accurate. He’s running with John Edwards’ charge that Bush has offered bumper sticker slogans rather than real solutions. Well, yeah. Edwards and other Democratic candidates have offered some substantial proposals on solving our health care crisis, education and leaving Iraq, among other issues. So far, the most noteworthy feature of the Republican candidates is competing to see who’d be quicker and more brutal torturing people (with McCain the only prominent adult on that issue).

Ramirez also attacks the bumper sticker line. As Edwards had stated, terrorists are real threats and he’d pursue them as president, but Bush’s policy has been no more than a bumper sticker to justify a wide range of horrendous actions, from invading Iraq to warrantless wiretapping to suspending habeas corpus to torturing people. Shame on Ramirez (and shame on Hillary Clinton for pretending otherwise at the recent debate, although her BS pander was not as bad as Giuliani’s ridiculous attack on Ron Paul). Sadly, No! also has a good piece on this bumper sticker blather.

Umm, where exactly is the hypocrisy? Did Edwards say other people shouldn’t get expensive haircuts? Does Ramirez really think that most of the people appearing on television don’t get their hair done and wear make-up, for example? I think $400 sounds high, but we’ve been over this in previous installments. This a shallow attack meant to distract from more substantive issues.

Glenn McCoy wallows in the same shallow pool, and throws in his beloved gay stereotypes for good measure.

Boy, Paul Nowak runs to the straw man quickly and often. Ever hear Henry VIII speak out on marriage, or any of the others? More on this in a moment.

Asay blathers the same way. Notice his very careful word choice. People who “need” $6 million dollar homes. People who “donate” their time - umm, almost all people working at a university get paid, and most visiting speakers get a honorarium. While I think $55,000 is excessive, Edwards has certainly given a great deal of time and money to eliminate poverty. Perhaps the most glaring hypocrisy is Asay’s, since he continually demonizes liberals and posits that taxes are evil, defends the rich and those with unfettered power, yet here tries to attack Edwards for being… rich and successful. Cliff Schecter tackled these silly attacks nicely when Byron York tried the same BS:

One of the foremost anti-poverty crusaders in this world is Bono, of U2 fame. My guess is Bono doesn’t live in an adobe hut. I also guess he does not fly coach during his travels. And I imagine he makes a decent living in the record business, what with ticket sales and tour promotions and commercials et. al. Does that mean he’s not a true anti-poverty crusader? Of course not. Bono’s income has nothing to do with his intent, and the same goes for Bill Gates, Ted Turner, etc. etc. York must know this, but obviously, he doesn’t care. Oh, by the way, in the last 100 years or so, no President did more for the downtrodden in this country than FDR. He wasn’t poor, now was he Byron?

It’s worth reading the whole piece. So yes, Asay, I’d vote for any of the current Democratic nominees over any of the Republican crew. Someone who’s rich and gives a damn is much better than anyone in a party proud of its contempt for the poor and needy.

Hillary’s a phony! Unlike Bush (who Asay usually lauds), she cares about polls! I’m not a huge Hillary fan, but the idea that Republicans don’t do extensive polling is laughable. Besides, it’s not as if most conservative policies actually help the country as a whole or average citizens as opposed to rich individuals and powerful corporations.

Holbert goes for a cheap gag. If you want some background on the drek that is the two new books on Hillary Clinton, I’d recommend the Daily Howler entries from last week (continuing into this week!).

Meanwhile, Lisa Benson goes for broke, accusing Hillary Clinton of being… a communist. Wow. That’s really pretty pathetic, rivaling even the hilarious idiocy of Jonah Golberg’s oft-delayed tome, Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton. First of all, being “progressive” is hardly the same as “communist.” Actually, Lincoln was a Republican, but a liberal and progressive in his time. Second, as we’ve covered in previous installments, allowing Bush’s tax cuts for the super-wealthy to expire is not the same as raising taxes - not that there’s anything inherently wrong with raising taxes, if it means having rich individuals and corporations pay their fair share versus screwing over the middle class. Finally, since Benson seems to be depicting Hillary as Chairman Mao, is Benson aware that the whole tax thing hasn’t exactly played out the same way in communist countries as it does in America, and this analogy doesn’t really work? Benson is a hack, but she normally isn’t this much of a hack. Attacks this shameless and unhinged make me laugh.

Meanwhile, Nowak provides another fine mess of underlying propaganda. I was unaware that the chief problem with any health care plan was its failure to tackle malpractice suits, which is a related but separate issue. Nowak is characteristically vague here, so let’s spell it out: malpractice suits are often justified. They’re not inherently bad, as Nowak implies here, and there’s no inherent reason that universal health care would make frivolous lawsuits worse or why legislation could not be added. There are some great proposals for reforming malpractice in the U.S. out there, but Nowak’s complaint is just a red herring. I’m actually giving Nowak far too much credit, since as usual he’s just trying to smear a liberal rather than offer an actual argument. Here, Nowak suggests that Obama is beholden to trial lawyers, that apparently Obama, a black man, likes white blondes (shocking! What next, is he biracial?), or wait a sec, he really likes to sleep with men - and ugly men as hairy as gorillas who cross-dress, at that. He’s a gay whore lusting after your white women, conservatives. Lock up yer wimmin! Someday, Nowak might actually bother to frame an honest, substantive argument that respects the intelligence of his readers. Hell, let’s be honest, his intended audience doesn’t want to think, they want to hear their views echoed.

On a lighter note, this Payne cartoon is pretty funny.

AL GORE

Wayne Stayskal captures some of the idiocy of mainstream news coverage, exemplified here by Diane Sawyer interviewing Al Gore.

Mike Lester at least shows the wife here hitting her head at the idiocy of his husband. The truth is, some political stances are much more about disliking someone than any positive reason. Lester has consistently ridiculed environmental issues, and the truth is Hatred of Liberals is really the only consistent aspect of conservative philosophy. So, really, this is a rather spot-on cartoon in its own way.

Umm, Al Gore is not an especially angry or bitter guy, despite some attempts to depict him and his book that way. Personally, I’m rather impressed by his sense of humor about himself, especially given what he went through.

This is a muddled cartoon, but a more clever execution of a gag Asay essayed last installment. I assume Cox and Forkum are trying to say that that Gore doesn’t like incandescent light bulbs, and that that dislike represents “an assault on reason.” Of course, Gore has always encouraged innovation, so the “censoring of ideas” shtick is just silly (not to mention horribly ironic coming from doctrinare conservatives).

Henry Payne has been drawing these Al Gore-in-priest-garb-with-bugged-out-eyes cartoons for a while, and they’re really bizarre. Payne seems to be trying to argue that believing in global warming is a cult. Umm, talk about projection. Gore has always been a futurist, and and hardly the type to intone, “repent, heathen!” That really would be the authoritarian religious right.

THOSE DAMNED DEMOCRATS

According to the same poll, roughly 13% of Republicans, 18% of independents and 22% of the overall population believe this, and conspiracy theorists know no one party allegiance, but the bigger issue is it was a horribly worded question. Media Matters has a pretty good summation:

Several conservative commentators have misrepresented the results of an April 20-May 1 Rasmussen Results poll question — which was itself ambiguous — to accuse a substantial percentage of Democrats of believing that President Bush knew about the 9-11 attacks in advance and deliberately did nothing to stop them. According to Rasmussen Reports, respondents were asked, “Did Bush know about the 9/11 attacks in advance?”

[...]

In his May 15 nationally syndicated column, titled “Just How Crazy Are the Dems?” National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg claimed that the poll found Democrats “are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance,” and declared that “a majority of Democrats in this country are out of their gourds.” Yet as Goldberg himself admitted, the poll question was ambiguous. As Goldberg said, “Many Democrats are probably merely saying that Bush is incompetent or that he failed to connect the dots or that they’re just answering in a fit of pique.” In other words, respondents could have been merely saying that Bush received ample warning of possible attacks.

Indeed, President Bush received a briefing on August 6, 2001, titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US,” which indicated that Osama bin Laden wanted to conduct terrorist attacks on U.S. cities, that members of his Al Qaeda terrorist network had lived in or traveled to the U.S. for years, that bin Laden had previously said he wanted to hijack an American aircraft, and that “FBI information since that time indicate[d] patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings.” Investigative journalist Ron Suskind wrote in his book The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America’s Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 (Simon & Schuster, June 2006) that Bush responded to this report by telling his CIA briefer, “All right, you’ve covered your ass.”

Others have also touted this poll but ignored the ambiguity of the question entirely, in some cases misrepresenting the question and responses and ridiculing Democratic voters as delusional conspiracy theorists.

What I find most revealing of Allie’s cartoon is his use of “BDS” without explanation. It’s rightwing code for “Bush Derangment Syndrome.” What charges of “BDS” ignores is that there’s plenty of good reasons to dislike Bush, and many Republicans and conservatives dislike him, too, at this point. If you want to talk about a cult, how about the authoritarian cult of personality supporting Bush and all things Republican, no matter how disastrous?

Here Allie pushes one of his favorite pieces of propaganda. Democrats hate America. They hate it when things go well. Granted, the man is a diehard GOP hack, but isn’t it sad that an adult human being can say something so stupid, prejudicial and hateful about almost half of his fellow countrymen?

THAT DAMNED LIBERAL MEDIA

This really seems to be an attack out of nowhere from Allie. What set this off? David Gregory certainly has a healthy ego, but compared to other members of the press, and many political figures - including Allie’s beloved leader, George W. Bush - it’s miniscule.

Reagan’s elimination of the Fairness Doctrine helped allow rightwing talk radio to explode. I have some concerns about the fairness doctrine, but as they’re the people’s airwaves, and frequencies are limited, there is a public interest at stake. It was ridiculous that Rush Limbaugh, an inveterate liar, was aired unchallenged for so long on Armed Forces Radio (I believe Ed Schultz is still featured as well now, to counter him). When Edward Murrow criticized Joe McCarthy on air at length, it was the Fairness Doctrine that dictated that McCarthy had to be allowed equal time to respond. There may be some kinks to the Fairness Doctrine, but it’s worth re-exploring.

Isn’t the underlying symbolism fascinating? Democrats are a bunch of women, but specifically, nagging, tiresome, shrill women. The poor, victimized, (masculine) Republicans! The underlying truth Benson does capture is that Republicans don’t want to listen to liberals and they don’t want fairness or equal time.

THE U.S. ATTORNEY SCANDAL

Ken Catalino’s been pretty good about criticizing Bush about the bigger scandals.

Meanwhile, Chip Bok is the only conservative cartoonist to tackle Comey’s chilling testimony about the unethical and likely illegal power plays at the Deparment of Justice (the hospital scene Comey described was naturally compared to The Godfather by many commentators).

Ramirez often draws a cartoon where I have to ask, does he actually read newspapers or watch the news? Saying there’s nothing to this scandal requires a Wall Street Journal editorial page, Fox News, National Review, Weekly Standard, Rush Limbagh, rightwing blog we-don’t-report-unpleasant-realities-and-will-outright-lie-when-it’suits-us ethos. Ah. I think we’ve solved the puzzle.

MICHAEL MOORE

There are times I find Michael Moore too heavy-handed, but when has he ever lied? I believe he has a standing cash offer for anyone who can actually prove it.

Here’s the thing Ramirez and his crowd don’t get. Moore is pro-America. I haven’t seen his new film Sicko yet, and neither has Ramirez. While Moore is criticizing America’s abysmal health care system, he’s continually praised America’s Freedom of Speech. It’s tiresome of them, but folks like Ramirez always equate dissent with disloyalty, and feel any criticism of their side (and their side only) is traitorous.

Whether one agrees with Moore or not, he’s pretty well-informed. Al Gore just came out with a book called The Assault on Reason. In it, he criticizes the shallowness of dishonesty of our public political discourse. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you as an exhibit: Paul Nowak!

HUGO CHAVEZ

Cox and Forkum’s cartoon has a strong visual. I can’t say I’m encouraged by Chavez’ move to shut down a television station.

Lisa Benson’s cartoon sounds a similar note.

Meanwhile, while Eric Allie might want to invest in a dictionary or a proofreader, here he’s charging that Chavez is a dictator and that American liberals are as well. Hahaha. Because they’re the people’s airwaves here in America, the Fairness Doctrine isn’t censorship (unless horribly administrated). As for a fair tax code where rich individuals and corporations pay their fair share - sure! Allie sure as hell ain’t looking out for the little guy.

TUBERCULOSIS FLYER

Really, this was probably the most bizarre story of the past week.

And you thought the current checks were bad!

THE DREAD MUSLIM MENACE

Like Lisa Benson, Paul Nowak either can’t read or is outright lying about this poll. Even Michelle Malkin can at least cite the numbers correctly when hysterically sounding the alarm about the dread Muslim menace. Let’s go to Glenn Greenwald:

The hysteria over the Pew poll about American Muslims continues unabated, with the focus now on the finding that while 80% of American Muslims oppose attacks on civilians in all cases, 13% said they could be justified in some circumstances. The “discussion” illustrates some standard failings of our political discourse.

As Greenwald notes, when the University of Maryland performed a poll that included a question that asked whether “bombings and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified,” they found:

A rather substantial 24% of Americans thought that such attacks are justified “often” or “sometimes,” while another 27% thought they were justified in rare cases. By stark contrast, only 11% of Iranians think such attacks are justified “often” or “sometimes,” with a mere further 5% agreeing they can be justified in rare cases. Similar results were found with the series of other questions regarding violence deliberately aimed at civilians — including women, children and the elderly. Americans believed such attacks could be justifiable to a substantially higher degree than Iranians.

Perhaps Nowak was thinking of Americans as a whole versus American Muslims.

Yes, you, too, Bob Gorrell, are full of crap. No, American Muslims are not plotting to take over America, either alone or in conjuction with those damn evil Mexicans.

As long as we’re examining American attitudes, I wonder if Gorrell is aware of how many American self-described Christians support torture?

What Cox and Forkum, who often draw cartoons supporting racial and religious profiling, never seem to get is that someone can condemn the actions of repressive regimes and fight for civil liberties here. See, that’s called consistency. It’s a different sort of approach that says the best way to fight a repressive regime is to curtail civil liberties here. Also, contrary to other C&F cartoons, it’s easy to believe that Iran is a threat without thinking the best and only solution is to bomb the hell out them. I don’t object to them criticizing Iran for being repressive (they are), but the only thing C&F criticize Bush for is not bombing and killing enough.

Asay goes with similar blather with another one of his beloved straw men. Movement conservatives seem to think that if you’re not constantly and loudly condemning the enemy du jour, you’re falling down on the job somehow. (There’s also the underlying implication that if you don’t support Bush’s disastrous policies, you don’t take terrorists and other threats seriously.)

My god. Is Asay really this stupid? Does he really think that any sane, mature person supports lynchings, kidnappings, and beheadings? I’ll add torture, but interestingly, many of Asay’s fellow conservative support that. In fact, conservative presidential candidates brag about who will torture people the most. But who the hell in America is saying that what terrorists are doing is “okay”?

To reference yet another Greenwald post, “Al-Qaida does it, too,” many conservatives are astounded that the MSM didn’t run cover stories on the fact that al-Qaeda tortures people when torture drawings were found in one of their safehouses. This is of course because it’s not news. Additionally, liberals, independents and rule-of-law conservatives oppose America torturing people because they oppose torture, for reasons most intelligent people understand. They don’t need to condemn al-Qaeda every day because they’ve already condemned them and no reasonable person needs to be convinced that al-Qaeda and torture are bad. Movement conservatives seem so entrenched in an Us-Versus-Them mindset that every issue really boils down to, “It’s okay if we do it and wrong if they do it.” Thus, anyone who dares to criticize the great leader, Bush, is a dangerous traitor. If the “enemy” is not constantly demonized, they’re not being taken seriously. Greenwald links John Cole, who really sums up the whole rightwing “Omigod, the MSM isn’t reporting that al-Qaeda tortures” frenzy: It isn-t news because they are terrorists, you fucking simpletons. Yesterday, my cat scratched himself then shit in a box. The media didn-t report that, either.

Are Asay and movement conservatives really this stupid? The evidence suggests yes.

POP CULTURE

I’m with Fairrington here. Still, I think it’s important to note there’s often a difference between what people want to know and what the MSM gives them.

I’m no fan of the talentless Paris Hilton, but given the aggressive undertone of so many Lester cartoons, the black eye here made me wonder. I’ve got no problem with schadenfreude over Hilton doing some jail time. She could use it. But I’m not saying, “I hope they beat the crap out of her!”

A decent cartoon by Bok. The evil MPAA (film ratings board) changed some of their guidelines due to the great investigative documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated. I believe the MPAA is simply adding an advisory for parents that a film contains smoking, not giving a film an “R” rating because of it! Still, after you’ve seen the doc, you’re liable to agree these people cannot be mocked enough.

I only include this cartoon because conservatives love to draw cartoons about Clinton being horny. (I could probably provide one most installments.)

OTHER

Chip Bok seems to think our diplomatic standards for Iran are too low. Considering that the Bushies think simply speaking to another country is a concession, I’d say their bigger problem is their basic lack of maturity and aggressive denial of reality. Really, has anyone other than the “Bomb Iran!” crowd (the neocons are shrieking such crap with new furor) accused the Bush administration of being too timid with Iran?

Ya know, I’m glad Asay acknowledges that gun store owners have some responsibilities in who they sell to, but he’s crazy if he thinks this always happens. His tagline is inane. A gun makes it much easier to kill people. I’ll quote one of comedian Jake Johannsen’s bits from the 80s, which went something like: The NRA types like to say, “Guns don’t kill people.” Yeah, we all know it’s those darn bullets! Stlll, it’s hard to imagine a guy robbing a liquor store with a handful of bullets, saying “Give me all your money, or I’ll push these slowly into your brain, one by one.”

Wow, this is offensive. The Pentagon has been studying the dangers of climate change for years, and they’ve been rather concerned about it. With a budget in excess of 400 billion dollars, the Pentagon can certainly handle more than one thing at once. The real problem is not that we don’t know the dangers of climate change, or that the intelligence community won’t catch wind of an al-Qaeda plot, it’s that the Bushies are too lazy, corrupt or incompetent to take appropriate action.

Umm… I don’t know specifically why Bok drew this cartoon. I assume there’s some local law against even incidental touching of strippers. I think this falls into the Too Much Information About Bok category.

Too bad they had to give him a golden parachute to get rid of him.

I thought this Bok cartoon was pretty funny…

..While this Mike Shelton cartoon is also quite good.

Cox and Forkum are raging bigots, it’s true, but that Palestinian Mickey Mouse is pretty wacky.

Meanwhile, Catalino laments the prospects of college grads.

Tort reform is one of those conservative causes that just won’t die. I recently served on a jury for a civil case that never should have advanced, but the plaintiff was rich and irrational. Apparently, she goes around suing everybody. I’m not sure anything would stop her. However, justice was served. Conservatives’ true agenda is preventing average citizens from suing corporations. Were conservatives successful, it would hardly make corporations act any better, since we all know how conscientious they act of the their own accord! Some stupid lawsuits are a small price to pay for a little accountability.

I swear I’ve seen Payne draw a similar cartoon before, if this isn’t just recycled. I’ve also yet to see a single credible study showing that raising the minimum wage hurts low-wage workers.

MEMORIAL DAY

Let’s start with the obnoxious entries first. I wonder if Gary McCoy’s worldview if really as simplistic and juvenile as his cartoons suggest. Here, the payoff is supposed to be the victory of that poor, eldery wheelchaired vet over the angry, ugly antiwar hippie. Really, what world and era is Gary McCoy living in? This sort of thing didn’t happen even in the 60s! Jerry Lembcke’s book The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam debunks all those tales of antiwar protesters being mean to returning vets, 90% of whom reported a positive homecoming experience. There can’t be many if any antiwar protesters who are saying “Screw America” (criticizing Bush is not the same thing, and frankly an act of patriotism). No antiwar protester anywhere is harrassing eldery veterans! The most rightwing cartoonists only offer caricatures of liberals and straw man arguments.

Speaking of simplistic, unrealistic worldviews… Chuck Asay, injecting his faux folksiness, consistently sounds the alarm about Muslims taking over the United States. As discussed in a previous post, “Lock Up the Womenfolk, the Muslims are Comin’!” it ain’t gonna happen. But who’s to blame in Asay’s mind? Liberals who dare to criticize Bush, and the media for reporting anything negative about the United States! Really, Asay is just an Orwellian authoritarian trying to wear a Will Rogers mask (but that sorta describes Bush as well, not that either of them have Rogers’ wit).

According to Cox and Forkum, merely talking to someone is capitulation. Even if we grant their false assertion here, that Iran is to blame for most of the I.E.D.s in Iraq, they’re arguing that trying to stop those attacks is… bad? The best way to observe Memorial Day is to… start a new war?

Here’s that Lester cartoon I mentioned earlier. Our brave boys are dying for what? So that those damn illegals can take over our great nation! I’m really disappointed by Lester here, because he drew two good cartoons last year for 11/11, Armistice/Veteran’s Day.

Lester also drew this piece. Peace rallies have often been held on Memorial Day, and I’m sure some war rallies as well. Certainly Bush and other officials made speeches defending his policies and his war of choice this Memorial Day. Saying that an antiwar protest is spitting in the face of veterans is ridiculous. We’ve covered this practically every week, but this cartoon implies the false notion that if you don’t support Bush’s policies and our current occupation in Iraq, you’re not supporting the troops. Why not make sure they don’t die needlessly? That’s not support? Every vet I’ve ever known was or is pro’soldier but antiwar. Going to war, if necessary, is an unpleasant responsibility, not a joy. War is not something to celebrate. Service in warfare is.

(Speaking of support for the troops, the Walter Reed scandal was widely covered by liberal bloggers, and Walter Reed and the V.A. hospitals were in good shape under Clinton. As Jesus’ General showed, rightwing bloggers were all but silent on the issue. Hmm.)

Giving Lisa Benson the benefit of the doubt, she’s saying citizens are more focused on gas prices than our current occupation in Iraq and the deaths of troops there. Okay. However, our occupation there has nothing to do with our freedom and wasn’t started for Iraqi freedom. It’s also hurt our national security. In the event Benson’s trying to link the price of gas to Iraq, boy is that off the mark, since gas certainly hasn’t gotten any cheaper and Iraqi oil production is still not even up to pre-war levels. While part of invasion certainly was based on Iraq’s oil resources, that was not the public argument. As we’ve mentioned previously, James Fallows has shown that 18 of the 19 paragraphs in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech were about WMD and Iraq as a threat, not about freedom and democracy. Benson attempt to show respect is clear, but the rest is less so.

Henry Payne offers this cartoon for Memorial Day.

Here’s Gary Varvel’s entry.

…Mike Shelton…

…Ken Catalino…

…And Scott Stantis. Fine pieces from these gents.

(My post for Memorial Day was “How to Hear a True War Story.”)

Whew! This has been a longer than usual installment, to be sure. Looking back over these pieces as whole, there’s a few pieces of criticism of Bush, but even those are pretty gentle. It’s encouraging to see many energy cartoons where conservative cartoonists actually commiserate with the struggles of the average family. However, as is usually the case with this crew, the bad guys almost always seem to be the Democrats and liberals, even when they haven’t created the problem and can’t solve it at will. Funny, that. Certainly Democrats deserve some criticism, but the proportion of blame is fascinating, as is the honesty of the attacks. It’s one thing to criticize, it’s another to demonize in complete denial of facts and to constantly offer straw men.

Thanks to RWCW reader Charles Brubaker for passing on news of this year’s awards from the National Cartoonist Society. Michael Ramirez won in Editorial Cartooning this year. The other two nominees were Mike Lester and Glenn McCoy, so the category seems clearly stacked this time around, since all three nominees are conservative. That said, Ramirez is a talented artist (and Pulitzer winner) and while Lester can be very far rightwing, he also tends to be more original in his approach than many of his fellows. Politically, Glenn McCoy is generally an out-and-out hack. His cartoons tend to distill his attacks in a clear fashion, which some might see as a virtue (I don’t view him as original, insightful, thought-provoking or funny enough to warrant a nomination, but that’s me). Lester actually won the award this year for Book Illustration. In any case, congratulations to all three. If you’re a cartooning enthusiast, you may want to check out this Washington Post discussion with the three nominees for the Reuben Award (Outstanding Cartoonist of the Year): Fox Trot’s Bill Amend, Speed Bump’s Dave Coverly and Bizarro’s Dan Piraro (Amend won).

Glenn McCoy’s strip The Duplex isn’t as political as his editorial cartoons, but Charles Brubaker also passes on this cartoon, which features a pretty good one-liner.

As usual, feel free to vote for the most offensive/ridiculous/stupid/funny cartoon(s) of this installment in the comments, and check out Bob Geiger’s most recent round-up of editorial cartoons for a palate cleanser. See you next time!