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.

Right-Wing 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!

During the two weeks covered by this installment, conservative cartoonists warned us of the dangers of health care, attacked a former conservative icon, and made sure to scold the working man and woman. They offered reflexive attacks on John Kerry and the Clintons, which is like warm milk, cookies and, uh, red meat to the faithful. Still, nothing could compare with their fury denouncing The Greatest Threat the World Has Ever Faced since - um - their previous Hitler du jour!

 

IRAN AND THE AHMADINEJAD VISIT

I don’t buy this. Perhaps it was an honor for Ahmadinejad to be invited, but especially with his line about no homosexuals existing in Iran, he came off as a fool. If you don’t like Ahmadinejad, how can the ridicule he received be a bad thing? Ramirez certainly isn’t expressing the liberal viewpoint here, but neither is he expressing his own. Right-wingers had been clamoring about how dire a threat Ahmadinejad was long before this, and (in so very many ways) they’ve never exactly been fans of higher education.

Are Cox and Forkum too pathetic with their straw man arguments and ridiculous caricatures of the left to be offensive? You decide! Most intelligent people, and certainly most college students, know BS when they hear it and can dissect Ahmadinejad’s speech themselves. At Columbia and in the news, the speech was much discussed. Perhaps Cox and Forkum are fearful due to projection, thinking that people who aren’t right-wingers believe everything they’re told, too.

That scoundrel Ahmadinejad is dishonoring America! Ah, but he’s doing that because - note that welcome mat - that’s what Columbia University is set up to do. Good lord, what these conservatives believe.

I should be clear. Ahmadinejad is a scoundrel, and for just one example, Holocaust denial is both immoral and pathetic. As Columbia President Lee Bollinger said, such denial is “either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.” Iran does possess an oppressive government. However, it’s important to remember both that Ahmadinejad was democratically elected and he is primarily just a spokesman for the actual head of goverment, Iran’s Supreme Leader. Ahmadinejad’s silliness of claiming Iran has no homosexuals was probably more to please the Supreme Leader and his various appointees than for his Columbia or international audiences. Of course he still deserves ridicule and tough questions, but a little perspective would be wise.

More to the point, in “Bed-Wetter Nation” Rick Perlstein reminds us how differently the U.S. dealt with Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev in 1959. Unlike Iran, the Soviet Union was an actual existential threat to the United States. Yet Kruschev visited important sites, met with President Eisenhower and other officials, and participated in public debates. This was a good thing. It was also the mature approach on our part.

(I left a longer comment over in Perlstein’s thread about my take on Bollinger and Ahmadinejad. I provided a few other links as well, but of greater interest is Perlstein’s postscript.)

Ramirez goes for broke. Ahmadinejad and Iran are killing Americans! Let the bombing begin!

Let’s break this emotional appeal down. Obviously, all Americans want our troops to be safe (one way of doing that would be withdrawing all of them from Iraq, by the way). The Bush administration and their military spokemen have been claiming that Iran is responsible for supplying arms and IEDs to kill American troops since at least February. They’ve consistently been reluctant or just refused to offer proof, and their constant claims have not been independently verified (that I’ve seen). Going to war, or taking any military action, requires a high standard, and it has to be much higher with the bomb-happy Bush crew. It’s also not exactly a secret that Cheney and the neocons, among others, want to attack Iran. (Never trust anyone who wants a war.) The only check, according to Seymour Hersh, has been the military’s refusal to go along with it.

The majority of American casulties in Iraq are due to Sunni insurgents. Sunni insurgent groups have received some support from Al Qaeda (Sunni), but also receive funding and arms from our erstwhile ally in the region, Saudi Arabia (majority Sunni). If anything, Shiite Iran has been backing Shiite militias and the majority-Shiite Iraqi government we supposedly support as well. Sunni groups have also been indirectly armed by the United States through our incompetence (unaccounted-for weapons) and directly (in Anbar province and elsewhere), with the idea that they’ll fight Al Qaeda instead. Meanwhile, the president of our erstwhile ally Afghanistan, Hamad Karzai, has contradicted Bush’s slams against Iran to praise it as a valuable ally. Apologies for linking this February post again, but the situation in Iraq is much more complex than the Bush administration or any of the chickenhawks and warmongers ever like to admit.

Finally, even if one assumes that all of the administration’s charges are true, what is the wisest course of action? Our military is already stretched far too thin. Would attacking Iran make our situation better, or worse? It would obviously hurt our reputation internationally. How would it affect our overall security? Would it lead to more American troop deaths? What if, for instance, Iranian troops entered Iraq en masse or Iran, Israel, Syria or other nations were drawn into war? And do you think Cheney, the neocons or Bush has actually thought through the potentially disastrous consequences?

Dan Froomkin provides a good round-up on Iran, including Seymour Hersh’s latest piece. I keep thinking of what James Fallows said: “War with Iran would be a catastrophe that would make us look back fondly on the minor inconvenience of being bogged down in Iraq.”

Conservatives’ new-found concern for homosexuals and mistreated labor in Iran is so very touching and convincing.

Wait, did somebody mention Hitler? Mein gott!

I’m still not convinced Ahmadinejad ranks that high on the Absolute Scale of Hitlerosity.

Yes, you laugh at Ahmadinejad’s foolishness, silly American non-right-wingers, but he plays the fool merely to lull you into a false sense of security to blow you all up!!! Aaaaaaaah!!!

As of right now, I’m creating the Depends Award for every installment, although I warn you, the competition is fierce this time.

It’s a slippery slope, kids. One day you invite the president of a foreign land to speak, the next day the Rose Parade has been taken over by Islamic extremists!!! I say we bomb all of them folks over there in that Middle East place while we still can, just to be safe.

Speaking of slippery slopes… is this faulty argument by Chip Bok cute BS, or repulsive? Ahmadinejad’s attempted dodge, implying his Holocaust denial was just saying the Holocaust needs further studying, was despicable and complete intellectual dishonesty. But first of all, history is not science. The similarity is something called facts. Here’s the thing, Chip Bok. Yes, climate change needs to be studied further - because it still exists and will continue to exist in the future. However, just as no honest, educated, intelligent person doubts the Holocaust occured, he or she also doesn’t deny man-made climate change. There may be disagreements about policies, future projections and assessments of the problem’s magnitude may differ, but the basic facts are clear. But sure, keep fighting a rearguard action against reality and progress. That’s the essence of conservatism.

(Also, isn’t Bok implying further study of the environment would lead to one to not believe in global warming (and that liberals are trying to shut such research down)? Because of the false equivalency Bok sets up here, isn’t he then also implying that further study of the Holocaust would lead one to - deny it?!? Any other takes? Mine is that Bok is bullshitting and didn’t think this one through.)

Gorrell makes a lot of sense here. What is there to fear from a speech? If ya don’t like it, don’t listen! (Notice that Gorrell’s curses include a crescent and star as well as the Star of David.)

Gorrell’s sillier here. Lessee, the Iranian people are relatively peace-loving, not eager to repeat the Iran-Iraq War of the 80s. Their government is another matter, but while it’s definitely oppressive, it’s not necessarily insane. Iran is developing nuclear power, but currently doesn’t have nuclear weapons, is years away, and there are ways to prevent that capability. Conservative icon Alan Greenspan argued the chief reason to invade Iraq was for oil, and it certainly was one of several reasons for the Bush administration. The Bush administration has definitely been pro-war, and breaking with decades of foreign policy, they have backed Israel over Palestine rather than trying to be an “honest broker” between the two. It was the brilliant Bush who said, ”Sometimes a show of force by one side can really clarify things.”

The United Nations has many problems, but it remains an important institution. If anything, it needs reform, nor marginalization.

Cox and Forkum really liked this cartoon, and it’s well designed. Still, I gotta be honest, I think some of the reaction to Ahmadinejad visiting Ground Zero is simply Islamophobia and the same bigotry that the Bush administration has stoked since 2001. What the hell did Iran or Ahmadinejad have to do with 9/11? Nothing. It’s been sorta funny seeing a few right-wingers move from still insisting on an Iraq-9/11 connection to claiming an Iran-9/11 connection. Most of the hijackers were Saudi, and Al Qaeda was holding up in Afghanistan at the time.

He has blood on his hands! Aaaaah! I’ don’t like the guy, but this is just silly. Send him to visit Ground Zero and have him pay his respects. Send him to tour Auschwitz too, while he’s at it. (Notice in the background Varvel is claiming Iran already has nuclear weapons.)

Ya see, that’s what he’s really thinking! All those Arabs are the same! Oh wait, he’s Persian. All those Sunni terrorists are the same! Oh wait, Iran’s Shiite. All those Al Qaeda-Taliban lovers are the same! Oh wait, Iran doesn’t like the Taliban and President Karzai’s said Iran is a valuable ally to Afghanistan. But - but - he’s our enemy, just like the 9/11 terrorists were, and they come from the same “geographic base.” If Trent Lott can’t tell them apart, who can?

Cox and Forkum continue their “Bomb Iran!” campaign. They are persistent! (It is interesting that they’re upset that a horrible resolution opposed by most liberals didn’t go far enough!)

Well, that’s the usual gang. Sadly, bed-wetters, chickenhawks and fools abound, and other cartoonists joined the bandwagon. While some of the following five may lean conservative, normally they’re not nearly as rabid as our usual beloved gang.

Here’s Dana Summers. You could say this slams Bush as incompetent, but I’d say it pretty strongly suggests that Columbia is a treacherous institution where an evil murderer such as bin Laden would be welcomed.

Robert Ariail uses the same gag as Ramirez. At least, I think that’s Ahmadinejad, or “Ima-Dam-Nutjob” as the buttons say. But who can tell those people apart? Just tell me who I’m supposed to hate today!

M.e. Cohen really dives into the gutter here. That bastard Ahmadinejad! We should bomb him!

For goodness sake, Mr. Cohen, can you at least base your cartoon on some actual statement, or action, by Ahmadinejad? Perhaps Ahmadinejad didn’t join in, but there were plenty of Iranians who wept for us on 9/11, as did much of the world.

Who needs the Hague when all crimes can be prosecuted swiftly and infallibly in fantasy court?

Wow. Just wow. If you read the newspaper in the lower right corner, apparently Steve Breen approves of Israel bombing Syria, and wants them to bomb Iran as well.

That’ll show ‘em, Rick McKee! Just delete those spam messages about how She’ll Love You More Than Any Other Guy, because your manhood is assured after you’ve bombed the crap of out of that damned Iranian bastard!

Am I being too harsh to all these $*&$%@#!!! idiots, specifically the warmongers? I don’t think so, especially after watching parts of The War on PBS these past two weeks. I also don’t see how anyone with the smallest inkling of what a hell Iraq currently is could say, “More, please!” I’ll have another post on the subject in the next month or so, but in a nutshell: War, or any military action, may be a necessity in some cases. However, it is never something to celebrate. It is never something to want. Only cowards and fools eagerly agitate for war (and I’m not talking about Shakesperean fools). This insecure, unreflective, knee-jerk braggadocio is the sort of crap that could cost human lives, as well as a further loss of American prestige and treasure. It would also almost certainly make us less safe. I would like all these hawks to stop and consider, “Is this worth making everyone, including my great-grandchildren, pay for it?” I would ask them to consider someone they love, and then ask themselves, “Would I sacrifice their life for this?” Hell, how about “Would I sacrifice one of their limbs, or my limbs for this?” If not, they should shut up and go play Risk or Halo 3. If so, then I still think it’s more than fair to expect some basic Ii>sense when considering such important affairs.

 

THE MOVE ON AD

We covered the MoveOn ad in more depth in the previous installment. Scott Stantis accuses MoveOn of being immature. I’ve said that I found their language a bit sophomoric, but they did support all their charges with sixteen articles linked on their site. There was plenty of substance to what they said, and Petraeus - and McConnell - and Bush - all have offered false or misleading statements, and deserve to be grilled. That’s, y’know, what we do in America.

Hahahaha. If the Democrats were so beholden to MoveOn, why did so many of them condemn MoveOn? Suuure, the Democratic presidential candidates are just children, especially compared to the astoundingly sophisticated worldview of the Republican candidates! Points as usual to Ramirez for some originality to his BS. (Oh, and it’s not Edwards who’s obsessed with his hair. It’s the GOP and the media.)

Bok puts a weird, creepy spin on the same BS point Ramirez tries to make. As I’ve seen others argue, MoveOn will be good for the Democratic Party in the long run, and has accomplished a fair amount in the short run, but the current power players in the Democratic Party don’t like anyone changing the old dynamics.

On one level, this is just a straightforward partisan cartoon, expressing its point of view. Wrong though it may be, it’s no big deal. We covered this in more depth in the previous installment, but most Americans thought Petraeus would spin things postively when he testified rather than calling it straight (and they were right). Meanwhile, as Glenn Greenwald shows, Petraeus’ testimony hasn’t changed the public’s opinion much at all. Points to Asay for a literary allusion, but there’s been a dead albatross hanging around Bush’s neck for over four and a half years now, and at this point it’s almost as rotten and putrid as he is.

 

IRAQ

This is a nice design by Lisa Benson, but as we’ve covered before, the Democrats are unpopular because they’re not sufficiently opposing Bush. A majority of Americans support withdrawal from Iraq and defunding the war/occupation. Get on it, Dems! And lambast every Republican obstruction for defying the will of the people!

Haha. It’s really sorta impressive how many straw men Asay can fit in one cartoon. Step One: There’s no military solution for Iraq’s political problems. Step Two: it’s unlikely Iraqis will follow us into Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda (who weren’t there before we invaded) aren’t the major problem in Iraq. Step Three: Bush told the United Nations weapons inspectors to pull out because he was going to invade. It’s unconscionable bullshit to complain about the U.N. for not supporting Bush’s war of choice. Step Four: Whatever. Bush has made us less safe, and he was warned about all of this. Sell it to someone else. (The disdain for peace prizes in the last panel is a telling touch.)

How about an American army of none in Iraq?

Barring that, it might be nice if troops got body armor and all that. It wasn’t Congress that didn’t provide that, or sent too few troops in the first place.

Holbert’s cartoon is pretty silly, but the most honest and accurate of the bunch.

 

NORTH KOREA

Gorrell’s cartoon is at least fairly funny…

…as is Glenn McCoy’s weird one here (good set-up/punchline). Still, his homophobia persists - and notice he put Ahmadinejad in a bra? (Wow! There’s a whip too! McCoy’s got a serious dominance and submission fixation!)

 

TERRORISM

Lord knows who Asay is specifically talking about. Hey, where’s bin Laden, anyway?

Yeah, where is bin Laden? (One hundred bonus fantasy football points if Peyton Manning catches him!)

Henry Payne delivers this installment’s “The Democrats Love Terrorists” entry. Sure, it’s appalling, juvenile, and unoriginal, but somebody’s gotta do it!

 

FRED THOMPSON

Chip Bok wonders if Fred Thompson’s already done. He’s certainly getting worse press now. Thompson claims we need a president with “common sense.” Hey, that would be a vast improvement, but anyone who’s president should be far smarter than that. And even “common sense” should be based on facts, while Thompson continues to show he’s clueless and… really clueless.

 

THOSE DAMNED DEMOCRATS

Umm, good punchline for the Republican faithful. Not so convincing for everyone else. Hsu wasn’t running a Ponzi scheme with his campaign fund-raising, unless I missed something. And Social Security ain’t a Ponzi scheme. But hey, if Allie wants to forego his payments when he gets old, I’m sure it can be arranged.

I actually missed this specific interchange at the debate and still need to hear it. While “surrender” is a juvenile characterization, it’s certainly fair to press all of the candidates, Democratic and Republican, about what their specific plan and timetable is for Iraq.

Umm, polls show the public trusts Congress more than Bush, and didn’t trust Petraeus to be straight with them. Bush doesn’t trust the generals, since he canned or sidelined the vast majority, who opposed “the Surge.” He then brought in Petraeus, who is an able soldier but Bush’s man. Thus, it’s complete bullshit to pretend that “the Surge” is anything more than Bush’s plan. If it were truly up to the generals, we might well be out by now.

Still, what really makes me laugh here are the claims that “there are no moderate Democrats” and that Joe Lieberman is a moderate. Lieberman is an authoritarian and a warmonger who’s consistently supported Bush and his radical agenda, and has actively squelched dissent. He’s also disparaged the patriotism of anyone who questions his asinine, reality-defying policy positions. Plus, as we’ve covered before, MoveOn and the actual liberals aren’t running the Democratic Party! Can Asay really claim the Dem leadership has followed the liberal line? Good lord! (If Asay thinks the current Democratic politicans are flaming liberals, he’d have a heart attack if he met an actual socialist!)

Notice what Benson leaves off of the burden. She doesn’t depict all the handouts to the super-wealthy, but she also doesn’t depict the war/occupation budget, currently at 2 to 3 billion per week. It’s not as if social programs are breaking the budget - even Greenspan said Medicare needs reform, but Social Security is in decent shape. Meanwhile, SCHIP would be a drop in the bucket. But Ann Telnaes says it better.

This isn’t the first time Ken Catalino has depicted Bill and Hillary in some sort of S&M situation. Sorry, Ken, corruption and sex scandals are probably the only two areas where Republicans outpace Democrats. I guess they have a lot of time on their hands since they don’t, ya know, run the government competently or anything.

 

HEALTH CARE

No, Eric Allie, all it requires is basic literacy. Read her plan. I have my concerns about it, and if you want to question her or it, great, but let’s not pretend your objection is anything other than partisanship. (There’s actually a substantive point he could have challenged the “choice” line on had he read the plan!)

Many, many cartoonists drew “Hillary Care” cartoons, but for fear-mongering value, I was most impressed by Cox and Forkum here…

…and Glenn Mccoy here. Feel the anxiety!

Meanwhile, I thought this Benson cartoon had an original, funny gag. Of course, actually being covered would be a big step up for millions of people. (Did you know leeches are actually used in modern medicine sometimes, specifically to help pull blood back into a reattached severed hand, for instance? Wild!)

 

THE KERRY TASER INCIDENT

Umm - the student who got tasered is apparently pretty obnoxious. But he didn’t need to be tasered. And “Don’t taze me, bro” is a line rife for ridicule. But he didn’t need to be tasered. What’s absolutely ridiculous is Brian Fairrington’s accusation that the student getting tasered was due to some sort of “political correctness.” How the hell do conservatives come up with this crap? It’s just another case of the conservative reflex, “we don’t like these people, so it must be their fault.” This incident was excessive police force, and that’s something authoritarian conservatives cheer for, as part of their yen for a police state (with their folks in power, naturally). Conservatives, nice try, but this one is all yours.

Wow, what a distillation of conservative hostility and wish fulfillment is this Glenn McCoy cartoon. Kerry’s so mean he’d taser his own wife and she’s such an uppity shrew it’d be great to see her tasered!

 

GREENSPAN

Actually, many conservatives agree with Greenspan’s critiques of Bush. It’s just that the authoritarians don’t. (But nice design and composition.)

Guess which type of conservative Ramirez is? He turned on Greenspan quickly enough!

 

THE UAW STRIKE

Yup, let’s talk about universal health care to help make American companies more competitive!

What amuses me is that Chip Bok drew this cartoon criticizing the union before the strike, which lasted all of a day, was over. The cartoon was thus instantly outdated. But bash the union!

Varvel did the same! What he misses here is that the strike was in large part to prevent outsourcing, so, yeah, the strike was to protect jobs. (In fact, quite a few strikes are to protect jobs, as one element.)

Detriot-based Henry Payne drew several cartoons on the strike, but this was the most positive.

 

O.J.

A clever punchline by Glenn McCoy, although O.J. already had a book deal.

Benson’s cartoon is pretty odd, but original and effective. The squirrel’s expression is a nice touch.

Lester’s cartoon is even odder. He seems to be suggesting all this celebrity coverage is crap. I don’t disagree, but the dad in American Gothic Redux here reminds me of Hannibal Lecter.

Obvious punchline perhaps, but Stantis nails it.

 

MISCELLANEOUS

Notice that even though Asay labels this guy “Huckster Loan,” he’s still conscientiously looking out for this young couple - until the evil government screws everything up!

Fairrington was the only cartoonist to handle the Warren Jeffs case, although with all the conservative scandals and arrests, it is hard to keep up with them all. Points for covering it, less points for an obvious punchline and the typical conservative fixation on dominance and submission. Hey, at least his sympathies are in the right place.

Meanwhile, Chip Bok was the only cartoonist to tackle the situation in Jena, and he’s pretty unflinching. Well done.

This is sorta out of nowhere, but funny.

Gary Varvel must not be watching the NFL on Sundays! (Well played, Mr. Varvel.)

 

As noted by razor’sharp reader Charle in the comments last time, Cox and Forkum are hanging it up. Via Charle, here’s their site and if you scroll to September 30th, 2007, you can read their interview with Daryl Cagle. Here’s their farewell cartoon:

I like their artwork, but I won’t miss their “Bomb Iran!” campaign and other baiting. Consistently Islamophobic, it’s no surprise they were favorites for readers of Little Green Footballs and Michelle Malkin. All that said, I’m very sympathetic to how hard it is to make a living doing editorial cartoons, all the more so as a team. Cartoons are a great American tradition, and it’s sad to see so many papers drop cartoonists, especially editorial cartoonists.

Meanwhile, if you’re not suffering from toxic cartoon overload yet, check out our one year retrospective and origins entry, the Hall of Infamy edition.

As always, we celebrate the right of cartoonists of all sorts to mock others, as well as our right to mock them.

As usual, feel free to vote for the most offensive/ridiculous/stupid/funny cartoon(s) of this installment in the comments. (My vote for the Depends Award splits between Eric Allie and Mike Lester for their Ahmadinejad cartoons.)

To be added to the RWCW mailing list, use the e-mail link on this page.

See you next time!