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!

Welcome to the 26th installment of RWCW, otherwise known as “the ridiculously long debunk of right-wingers - with pictures! - done by some guy with undiagnosed OCD.”

In this larger-than-usual installment, covering five weeks, conservatives pretended the news from the Middle East was both great (Iraq) and dire (Iran), attacked one of their favorite bugbears, and massively ramped up the assaults on their presumptive foe for 2008. Somehow, a few of them still managed to find time to attack health care for kids and defend torture.

Pace yourself, now! And skip whatever you like! Too much wingnuttiness consumed too quickly can lead to toxic overload!

 

TORTURE

As usual, Chuck Asay oversimplifies and obscures the issues. First, as both Malcolm Nance and Evan Wallach point out (and both should know), waterboarding isn’t “simulated” drowning. It is drowning - drowning simulating death. Second, yes, the detainees crack, normally after a few minutes. Torture is effective at obtaining a confession, not the truth, since victims will say anything after a while. Third, it’s not as if any of this is theoretical - “I know I certainly might!” Torture apologists consistently ignore all the evidence and arguments for why torture is illegal, immoral and ineffective. Fourth, and this can’t be overemphasized, since conservatives consistently try to ignore it as well - not everyone arrested is guilty, and we have tortured, or rendered to be tortured, innocent people. It’s morally despicable and also politically disastrous.

Asay also persists in the delusion that he’s somehow in the majority. Alas, the Dems are hardly being run by MoveOn.org, and many of MoveOn’s views are shared by the majority of Americans, most of all on Iraq. Harry Reid is hardly hurting the Democratic Party by moving to the left; he’s not moving to the left, and that failure is what’s hurting him! Oh, and the majority of Americans don’t share Asay’s confusion about waterboarding and torture either (and those numbers would go up if more people were fully aware of what was involved and its history).

The “torture” categories are fairly full at BH and VS, but for starters, there’s “Jack Bauer versus Maher Arar,” “Waterboarding and Right-Wing Logic,” “More Opposition to Waterboarding” and “To the Point on Waterboarding.”

Somehow, a RWCW installment just wouldn’t feel complete without Michael Ramirez threatening a nuclear terrorist attack unless we endorse some specific extremist policy and throw out the rule of law. Our politicians in high office take an oath to uphold the Constitution. As we’ve said before, if Ramirez’ party can’t hack that and also catch terrorists, why don’t they just resign and let the folks who can handle it take care of the job?

Sure, Larry Wright’s joke is lame, obvious and in bad taste, but mainly it’s just sad and pathetic that both questioning an important nominee and um, torture, aren’t serious issues for him.

Let’s be clear. As with the telcom immunity issue, the “is waterboarding torture” question is not a serious debate entered with good faith by conservatives. It’s about trying to protect the Bush administration and others from criminal and civil prosecution. In fact, most of the Bushies’ moves these days are about nothing but that and stonewalling investigations.

Bok goes a similar way. I think he’s also (ironically) implying that torture does work. Any other readings? (I can’t feel offended by his charge that the Dems lack gamesmanship; I can only feel disappointed agreement.)

Hey, they’re cartoonists, though. Surely they should be allowed to joke, even about torture, right? Well…

…Bob Gorrell manages to do so while being much more accurate, and aiming at the most deserving target.

…As he does again here. Needless to say, the vast majority of liberal and independent cartoonists don’t suffer from the same moral confusion as most conservative cartoonists. For a sample, here’s Cagle’s collection on torture.

Henry Payne’s cartoon is much more sly, if no less loathsome. “Mr. Biddle” is Francis Biddle, who was Attorney General during most of WWII under FDR and Truman. He had a hand in restricting the civil rights of “enemy aliens,” with the biggest example being the internment of Japanese-Americans, although he apparently didn’t agree with all of this. He also served as a primary judge at Nuremberg, prosecuting Nazis for war crimes.

Civilian bombing is outlawed by the Geneva Conventions, not that that’s stopped anybody for the past century or so. Plenty of noteworthies view our fire-bombing of Dresden as a war crime, and in the excellent doc Fog of War, Robert McNamara relates that he and a colleague realized, as they planned bombing campaigns duing WWII, that if the U.S. lost, they’d probably be prosecuted for war crimes. Payne deliberately refers to “Nazi German cities.” There were definitely German cities, filled with civilians, and certainly not all of them were Nazis. Whether Dresden, the atomic bombs or other bombing was necessary or not is a huge subject we shan’t get into here, but suffice to say that the “war crime” view is hardly uncommon, and even if one views that death and destruction as necessary, it certainly isn’t something to celebrate. (Kurt Vonnegut certainly didn’t.) Besides, Biddle prosecuted war criminals, and I suspect he might not have been on Payne’s side of the torture issue. WWII interrogators have actually denounced Bush’s torture policies. As one put it, “I’m proud to say I never compromised my humanity.”

Let’s also recall how underhandedly the Bushies went about their torture policies. Even Rice and Powell, whose jobs were directly affected, didn’t know about the torture memos until two years later, and then only from reading The Washington Post! The Bush administration’s stance, and Mukasey’s, is about protecting themselves from prosecution, little more. Payne is essentially arguing, against all evidence, that torture is necessary in defense of the United States, and how dare anyone possibly question officials on the subject. He’s dead wrong on both counts.

 

CIVIL RIGHTS

Scott Stantis has pretty consistently stuck up for basic civil rights.

 

TERRORISM

I’m really sick of this bad faith argument from conservatives, as if they haven’t heard their BS shot down a hundred times already. No one’s saying not to eavesdrop on terrorists. It’s just a matter of getting a warrant and respecting the rule of law, and having at least the marginal oversight provided by the rubber’stamp FISA court. Again,if Ramirez’ party can’t hack it, step aside. (I’d ask them to stop lying as well, but fat chance of that).

 

IRAQ

According to Allie, everything’s great in Iraq! The Dems and the media are lying. Wow. This is some whole other level of denial. Bush keeps moving the goalposts, and now “less violence” means success, nevermind that his own November 2005 National Strategy for Victory in Iraq defined victory as a “peaceful, united, stable and secure” Iraq (hattip to a commenter here). For a quick debunk, check out the latest of Questiongirl’s Meanwhile Back in Iraq series and this Glenn Greenwald piece. There’s also the more involved responses of this Small Wars Journal discussion about what actual “success” would entail, and Dan Froomkin comparing Bush’s rhetoric to reality. ‘Cause ya know, it must not be a horrendous Charlie Foxtrot if it’s a shade less than a total disaster.

 

This is a typical Eric Allie straw man argument. There’s a big difference between saying there’s absolutely no progress anywhere in Iraq and saying things are going great - so great we should stay! Meanwhile, on the conservative side, surely no one’s claiming we’ve actually won or are “winning” in Iraq, right? Sadly, No! (Hell, I’m not even dipping into Bill Kristol’s latest BS!)

In Allie’s world, Democrats hate America and want “defeat.” Sigh.

It’s the same in Glenn McCoy’s world, where powerful women is scaaaaary! Of course, Bush has run the war exactly as he’s wanted to the entire time. He tries to hide behind the generals (and just did so again), but he canned or sidelined the many generals who opposed his escalation (the “surge”). Criticism of Bush and his strategy (such as it is) isn’t criticism of the troops or even necessarily the top brass.

Chip Bok was good enough to note Blackwater and their extreme (deserved) unpopularity in Iraq. Not a bad punchline, either.

Brian Fairrington also questions the reckless attitude of Blackwater mercenaries.

Stantis rounds out the group. They were the only three conservative cartoonists I could find to cover this quite prominent and important story. Kudos to them.

Umm, no one I’ve heard advocating withdrawal has been blind to the fact that death and destuction will continue, and may intensify in the short run. Most Iraqis want us out, and there’s a very strong case that our presence is making things worse.

Come to think of it, Henry Payne, what is this “maintaining the peace” you speak of?

When it comes to dueling Halloween gags and delusions, no ideas about withdrawal can possibly compete with the delusion that Iraq isn’t in dire straits.

This cartoon’s more about Bush and the GOP candidates, but Ken Catalino’s pretty funny and accurate here. Well, apart from his suggestion that the Republican candidates “support the troops” by keeping them in a war zone and implying that the Dems don’t if they want withdrawal.

We’ve been over this countless times, but Bushies, provide the proof of Syria and Iran’s destructive involvement in Iraq, please. While you’re at it, explain why even if true it’s so crucial to focus on that when the majority of American deaths continue to be caused by Sunni insurgent groups, some of whom are funded and armed by our erstwhile ally, Saudi Arabia. No more shoddy pretexts for unnecessary and disastrous wars, please.

 

TURKEY

Bok poses a similar situation to Catalino above. The left panel’s accuracy is debatable (most expert tallies indicate few foreign fighters), while the right panel expresses the fear that Turkey will attack the Kurds.

Lisa Benson sums up the same concern quite well.

Eric Allie focuses instead on Turkey’s displeasure over the U.S. House of Representatives considering condemning the Turks’ genocide of Armenians almost a century ago. To do so, he comes up with a variation on the stab-in-the-back myth so cherished by conservatives. The Dems want to hurt the troops, you see!

Nice artwork by Benson, but was this solely a liberal concern? Here’s my take: 1) Of course it was genocide. 2) Because so many of our military flights go through Turkey, this might not be the most opportune time to point out the obvious. 3) The point would be moot if all the troops were withdrawn from Iraq.

Asay peddles some of his favorite crap, that the Dems are trying to hurt the troops. Nevermind that Pelosi was hardly in the lead on this - since when has Asay been a foreign policy realist? Asay’s always been happy to pretend to the moral high ground and claim we’re in Iraq for important ethical reasons (and to fight the evil, unwashed Muslim hordes, of course). Invade a foreign land, kill and be killed, ransack the U.S. treasury, no problem for Asay. But condemning a ninety-year old genocide? That’s beyond the pale!

Well, besides Republican obstructionism (not that the Dems are impressive), the Armenian genocide actually happened. It’s rather shameful Turkey still refuses to acknowledge it. But there’s no such thing as empirical truth in “history,” I guess.

 

IRAN

It also wouldn’t be a complete RWCW without a slam against the UN and an alarmist, false claim the Iran possesses a nuclear bomb.

Bob Gorrell goes for the same, although he just emphasizes nuclear power (and Ahmadinejad is evil, kids!).

He’s much more on target here. Will Cheney get his way? When will the bombing of Iran commence?

MYANMAR

Stantis invokes Tiananmen Square to condemn the power grab and oppressive violence in Myanmar/Burma.

I had to feature this cartoon because, to date, it’s the only Gary McCoy cartoon I’ve ever liked. (Did he just become some sorta peacenik?)

 

PAKISTAN

Funny how Asay always glosses over things, isn’t it? The Shah gained greater power thanks to the American-backed coup of 1953, overthrowing Prime Minister Mosaddeq, who had promised to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. Mosaddeq had unanimous support from the Iranian parliament, but this meant the British, who controlled the oil, would be out of business, and they appealed to Eisenhower. Suffice to say that the unrest Asay depicts is partially of our making, and our “intervention” has often made things worse, not better. (Note that he also blames Carter for unrest in the Middle East.) Sadly, especially when it comes to covert CIA intervention abroad, America has often supported strong men and suppressed democracy.

Musharraf came to power in a (bloodless) coup himself. He’s hardly Jefferson or Lincoln. It’s also debatable whether we’ve gotten fair value for the approximately 10 billion dollars (largely in untraceable money transfers) we’ve given Pakistan since 9-11.

I should note that this Asay cartoon predates Musharraf’s recent suspension of the Constitution, but that action, and his other dictatorial measures, are hardly for national security or because of some dread, islamic extremist menace. He’s been arresting judges, for goodness’ sake. He’s consolidating his own power. Contrary to Asay, Musharraf’s hardly poor and beleagued, nor have we abandoned him. If anything, he needs to be challenged more.

Ramirez goes with a similar theme, although his cartoon was drawn after Musharraf suspended the Constitution. I think he’s saying we should back Musharraf because Pakistan’s got nuclear weapons. Any other takes?

I’ve linked David Neiwert previously on the silliness of the term “Islamofascism,” so this time, let’s let Paul Krugman debunk it (even though he’s mainly talking about Iran).

Nevermind that Musharraf is chatty with Bush again. You see, the rest of the world hates America. Oh, but it’s all irrational and has nothing to do with Bush’s actions. We should bomb them all just to show ‘em. Allie also sorta implies that Bush is inclined to intervene in Pakistan!

At her best, Benson shows quite the visual flair.

Bush’s silence for several days on Pakistan was really quite pathetic, as were Dana Perino’s excuses.

What’s with Gorrell and all these rule-of-law cartoons? He’s not gonna be invited to the next Republican Constitution’shredding party!

Stantis is easily the most graphic!

 

PUTIN

Besides drawing a right rear leg for the bear that looks remarkably like a turd perched on its back (it took me a while to figure out what the hell it was - that’s a really limber bear!), I thought this Ramirez cartoon was interesting because he’s so in favor of authoritarianism when it comes to eliminating civil and privacy rights here in the U.S.

Gorrell’s got a pretty good visual gag…

…And Stantis also has a good concept.

 

BUSH

This cartoon could easily have gone in the Pakistan category, and ain’t the most original, but Glenn McCoy conveys his point in a a clear, visual manner.

Bok’s cartoon is harsh, but pretty funny! It’s also surprisingly candid about Bush and, well, conservatism.

Not bad from Payne.

 

CONGRESS

Points I guess to Glenn McCoy for a graphic image. I was actually surprised that only a few conservative cartoonists covered this (that I saw). Stark apologized, but while his rhetoric may have been overheated, it was pretty damn clear he was upset about the loss of human life, and I can’t fault that. Here’s Crooks and Liars on the initial right-wing uproar and the “president’s amusement,” plus some thoughts from Greg Sargent. (This could have easily have gone with the Iraq set.)

How many straw men can Glenn McCoy fit in one cartoon? No major Democrat has called the troops “dumb.” No one’s blamed 9-11 on Rush Limbaugh, either! (In contrast, the Bush administration certainly implied Iraq was responsible, and some right-wingers still insist it was, and had WMD, and so on.) McCoy and his fellow conservative cartoonists were happy to kick up a stink over MoveOn.org, regardless of their valid questioning of Petraeus’ credibility, but McCoy doesn’t have a problem with Rush Limbaugh calling troops who don’t support the Iraq occupation “phony soldiers.” Funny thing, those conservative values.

Oh, and come to think of it, where is Osama bin Laden, and why hasn’t Bush caught him yet?

Wow. It is amazing, but Limbaugh, other right-wingers, and many GOP politicians, really did try to turn Rush’s despicable slander of the troops against Reid. They even sent out a campaign letter shilling that distortion. But then, one of their only moves is the bullying poker bluff.

You see, Congress never acts from principle. They’re only trying to be popular. There’s no ethical reason to condemn Limbaugh’s smear, nor to condemn genocide.

(For that matter, they’re such panderers, they’re acceding to the public will, and withdrawing the troops from Iraq. Wait a sec…)

It wasn’t long ago that Bush gave a press conference where he slammed the Dems in Congress for not getting anything done, then bragged about obstructing them. You, see, when you block the will of the people on any number of issues, to Bush that means you’re “relevant.”

Funny, it’s not the first word that comes to my mind.

(It bears repeating that Congress’ low approval ratings are for not opposing Bush enough.)

Umm, sorry, I know the GOP is hoping for a backlash in support of a guy with what, an 18% approval rating?
One recent poll shows that:

A total of 70% of American voters say that Vice President Dick Cheney has abused his powers as vice president. Of the 70%, 26% (18% of all voters) say the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment, 13% (9% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, but he should not be impeached, and 61% (43% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Cheney should be impeached and removed from office.

Meanwhile, Jerry Holbert tries to tar - err, smear - Democrats as encouraging kids to smoke. Or maybe he’s just lampooning their bill as doomed because of those dastardly tobacco companies.

 

CANDIDATES AND DEBATES

3rd party candidate? Asay’s artwork is pretty nice here, but most Democratic voters have consistently expressed satisfaction with their candidates, while many Republcans are still unhappy with theirs. Meanwhile, authoritarian showman and ostentatiously “religious” blowhard James Dobson isn’t liable to break off, since power is the true name of his game.

Pretty funny! The GOP’s fundraising has been pretty dismal. (I suppose they could fix that if they supported general election funds.)

Hahaahahaahahahaahahaaa! Is Giliani, America’s favorite lovable fascist, too moderate?!? Let’s kick that one to Glenn Greenwald, who puts it perfectly:

A warmonger with authoritarian impulses and liberal positions on social issues isn’t a “moderate” or a “centrist.” He’s just a warmonger with authoritarian impulses and liberal positions on social issues.

As to Clinton, as we’ve covered before, most of the public thinks Bill Clinton would be a positive influence in the White House should Hillary become president. Not that, as Greg Sargent observes, our press corps has noticed.

 

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES

This is one of Asay’s periodic babe-in-the-wilderness cartoons. It’s hardly a shock that lobbyists would court Democrats, since they have the majority! It’s also true that the Dems are far too beholden to corporate interests, but of course they’re absolute pikers compared to the Republicans - not that I can recall Asay decrying that corruption when the GOP ran Congress. And, of course, he glosses over the unprecedented mendacity of the GOP’s hyper-partisan, vicious and venal K Street Project.

Not a bad cartoon from Payne.

Ditto Wright. I should add, though, that it would be unconscionable not to criticize Bush, and Hillary Clinton deserves some scrutiny as well.

 

HILLARY CLINTON

Gorrell’s right on one level, but many GOP strategists are positively salivating for Clinton. (Sorry, that sounds rather repulsive, doesn’t it?)

By the way, there were approximately 40 cartoons on Hillary Clinton during this stretch from conservative cartoonists. (I’ll mention again that I’m not a big fan, but she deserves legitimate praise and criticism.)

We’ve been over this before. Hillary Clinton cannot take full credit or blame for her husband’s administration, but yes, she certainly gained experience from being there. She’s also been a senator, and was a lawyer and activist before that. She’s more qualified than Bush was and many of the current GOP candidates are. Her experience is a fair issue to raise, but this is just a smear. It’s not as if she’s been running predominantly on Bill Clinton’s record, either.

Like we said, most of the public would like Bill around. (Hillary did flub that question, though, at the MSNBC debate.)

Payne’s at least funny while pushing the same line!

You could take this cartoon a few different ways, but it’s safe to say Varvel’s making a dig. Russert’s a hack. Media Matters has a good breakdown on Russert at the MSNBC debate, and the Daily Howler delved into it for about a week.

This is a clever design by Ramirez, and I can’t fault it that much. I would say that compromise is often a sign of maturity and competence, not weakness. The question many liberals have for Hillary Clinton (and really all candidates) is whether or not they’re compromising on essential principles, which is different from showing political savvy.

A few of these are somewhat fair, others ain’t. From left to right: 1) As a Cubs fan, I find it unconscionable to root for the Yankees, but Hillary has indeed rooted for both teams since girlhood, so she’d have both a NL and AL team to follow. (In contrast, Giuliani’s Red Sox pander was utterly craven.) 2) Ramirez invokes Kerry. It’s fair to say Clinton’s hedged and shifted on the occupation of Iraq. She’s been good on criticizing Bush, but has also used some of his BS rhetoric, not that that’s Ramirez’ objection. 3) How is this stance with Columbia any different than saying, “I wouldn’t say that myself, but I support free speech”? (For that matter, McCain just said he wouldn’t use the term “bitch” to refer to Hillary, but he laughed when a questioner did. I await the Ramirez cartoon condemning it.) 4) See #3. MoveOn.org was right to criticize Petraeus (although I thought their language was a bit sophomoric), and Hillary was right that the GOP’s outrage was silly. (See also Digby’s superb “The Art of the Hissy Fit.”) Still, Hillary did vote to condemn the ad, along with all attacks on the military (the GOP didn’t like that).

5) Oh, please. We’ve been over it before, but funding the Pentagon to keep troops in a war zone is hardly the same thing as “supporting” the troops, and I’d argue it’s the opposite, given the situation. 6) Being anti-torture but allowing for extraordinary circumstances (Obama’s stance, by the way) is reasonable and hardly “pro-torture,” although it still raises concerns. Hillary said she changed her mind after speaking with experts on the subject and now wouldn’t even allow for exceptions. That’s extremely respectable, and that sort of change of mind (versus the countless Romney-Giuliani-Thompson panders, for example) is something more politicians could emulate. 7) The whole Clinton-Obama flap was massively overblown, with serious semantic games. Clinton was the culprit for the initial oversimplification’smear, and deserves criticism for that, less so for some BS hack reading of some previous statement because it’s not sufficiently simplistic and belligerent for Ramirez’ tastes. (On the one hand, turnabout is fair play, on the other, adding to the BS ain’t good.) 8 ) I’d have to see specific dates and statements for this. Plenty of politicians now support withholding funds that didn’t before because Bush hasn’t delivered a stable Iraq by his own deadline. 9) Ramirez here blames Hillary for a contribution Bill received from Charlie Trie. Both Bill and Hillary returned or donated to charity the contributions in question when they learned the truth. Pretty tame “scandals.” 10) Oh, please. How shallow can ya get? (Wait, don’t answer!)

As always, it’s quicker to smear than to fact-check or debunk.

Allie is intentionally vague here. Are good social services such as health care “giveaways”? They contribute a great deal to society and the economy. Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for Allie to condemn the horrendous waste of taxpayer money in Iraq. I’m just talking about the corrupt contract work, not even the 2-3 billion per weeK the military occupation is costing.

Did you know? Hillary Clinton’s got huge calves!

(At times, I’d agree she’s hedged, but there are also times she’s tried to give an adult, non’sound byte answer.)

Did I mention she has big calves? (Really, I missed this particular superficial assault on Hillary Clinton.) What a cruel woman, too, giving those kids health care! (I always love how conservatives intentionally say “higher taxes” and “more spending” without getting specific. For instance, I’d say it’s a great idea to raise the taxes on the super-wealthy to make them pay their fair share, and to increase social spending.)

Still, those monstrous calves are nothing compared to her fat ass! (Holbert’s generally a little more classy than this.)

Umm… What was I saying? (Besides the obvious, tired gag, it’s interesting that Holbert’s pushing the whole right-wing strategy of masculinizing women, if less viciously than a Coulter.)

Here at least Holbert seems to make fun of the GOP for demonizing Hillary Clinton.

I’m not sold on Hillary Clinton’s health care plan yet, but the “socialism” label is a typical GOP scare tactic to hide the fact that most other industrialized nations get more health care for less money. The biggest issue in America, though, is the uninsured. Here’s a good Eugene Robinson piece on some of these issues.

Fairrington tries to go “meta” and self-referential to avoid a rejection of the painfully tired gag at the heart of his cartoon. I believe this is what post’structuralist Jacques Derrida would call “lame ass.”

Besides the dig on Bill, the Hillary-dumped-the-cat story is complete bullshit. Socks was Chelsea’s cat, and when she left to study in England she gave Socks to Bettie Currie.

If all these shallow mofos actually fact-checked before they emitted inane banalities, would it hurt any less? I wonder.

(In the meantime, LGM and Whiskey Fire share the pain. But this illustrates the key point the Daily Howler has tirelessly pointed out, lo these many years. The press will write the narrative they want, regardless of the facts.)

I’ve got no problem with conservatives continuing to depict Democrats as the good jedis from the Star Wars and their own side as the bad guys!

Is the Hillary Clinton campaign as powerful as a locomotive?

 

BARACK OBAMA

…Or is Obama adrift in a hot air balloon?

First of all, Obama never said wearing a flag lapel pin was unpatriotic (and Ramirez just loves his “I’m with stupid” cartoons).

There were many good pieces about the brain’stunning idiocy that was this lapel story, but Melissa McEwan’s rant was especially lovely. By the way, where is Sean Hannity’s flag lapel pin? Heavens knows, if you don’t do your part and wear a flag lapel pin, we could wind up with a flag lapel gap!!!

Let’s put this in perspective, shall we? At some point during childhood, most human beings realize that some people are phonies. My personal rule of thumb is that anyone who makes a big show of some supposed virtue, such as being religious or patriotic, is almost always full of crap. Wearing a lapel pin no more makes one “patriotic” or a good American than wearing a cross automatically makes one a good Christian (pick any other symbol you like). It’s that, y’know, whole image versus substance thing.

I can’t say this with enough contempt: anyone who makes a big deal about whether or not someone wears a flag lapel pin is extremely stupid, painfully shallow or an outright hack. (In the meantime, why not read Melissa’s post again?)

Gary McCoy really seems to think that liberals match the ridiculous caricatures conservatives had for them back in the 60s. (I guess he does believe in recycling, at least.)

Bok goes for the two-fer! Hey, if you’re gonna peddle crap, might as well be clever about it!

 

KUNCINICH

I only saw two conservative cartoons on Kuncinich during this stretch, both playing the alien-UFO angle, much overblown by our shallow media. Glenn McCoy’s trying a “stay away from Kuncinich, he’s crazy - and not cool, either!” gambit here. Whether you back Kuncinich or not, any honest assessment must conclude that he’s sincere and fights for his principles.

 

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES

I don’t know what debates Catalino’s watching if he thinks the “I’ll torture and kill more Arabs than he will!” crowd is trying to appear liberal.

This really is a splendid cartoon from Payne!

I guess it’s the only way some conservatives ever will recycle.

Varvel’s quite right. Of course, Reagan’s polices were mostly horrendous, but he certainly had a major impact on the political landscape in the U.S. (It’s funny, but I don’t know many if any liberals who subscribe to a hero-white knight attitude toward politicians. I’m sure it’s more prevalent among authoritarian conservatives.)

 

GIULIANI

Social conservatives sure are uncomfortable about Rudy’s cross-dressing. Maybe he can sell himself to them as another J. Edgar Hoover, y’know, a champion of civil rights who would never raise the specter of shadowy, foreign menaces.

Payne goes one step further.

Is Robertson supposed to be a beneficent figure here, or just creepy?

This is the sharpest of Payne’s Giuliani cartoons, in my book. I tell ya, ya just can’t buy that sort of purity, since Pat Robertson is so righteous and godly and would never sell out to remain a power player, would he?

Ramirez’ cartoon makes his point, but it’s sorta disturbing.

 

FRED THOMPSON

Several conservative cartoonists went with this general theme.

A few also went with this specific gag.

Catalino sums up their key concern.

And Stantis just ridicules him! Wow, concerns about Giuliani and no love for Thompson!

 

MITT ROMNEY

Is Catalino playing up Romney or saying he’s deceptive?

Fairrington seems to suggest that much of the opposition to Romney is superficial. Personally, I’d rather not see Romney fail because he’s a Mormon. I’d rather see him fail because he’s a snake oil salesman. (I’d say he and Giuliani are the biggest scoundrels in the race.)

 

AL GORE WINS THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

Apart from Hillary Clinton, no figure during this stretch earned more attention from conservative cartoonists than did Al Gore. I’m sure they just wanted to graciously offer their congratulations, right?

Did you know the only reason Gore (and the United Nations) won is because the Nobel committee hates Bush? And they have no reason for that, by the way. Goddam Norwegians.

Did you know that the Nobel committee was made up of American hippies from the 60s?

Did you know that Gore is rich? Well, he can’t be sincere about global warming, then! If he were sincere, he’d stay at that home rather than spending all that time promoting awareness of such an important issue.

Did you know Gore is arrogant, greedy and selfish? Really, reading conservative cartoonists is so educational!

I think Lester is trying to make some point about global warming being a fiction, and/or Gore being ridiculously undeserving. Any other takes?

All credit to Irena Sendler and all brave souls who fought to save lives during the Holocaust, but it’s hardly as if it dishonors her to honor Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The Nobel Peace Prize is generally given to someone who’s promoted non-violence. I wonder if, as heroic as this resistance fighter was, Ms. Sendler would be eligible? She was nominated in the past, and a case has been made. This brings up my main question for Gore and the UN panel. It’s great work, but does it really qualify as “peace” work? Since so many conflicts stem from fighting over scant and important resources, and if unchecked, climate change will eventually adversely affect everyone on Earth, I’m inclined to say it’s an unconventional but rather inspired choice.

This sour grapes cartoon sorta amuses me. Gary McCoy’s party viciously fought against MLK and his cause. And if it’s so easy to get a Nobel Peace Prize, why do all these liberals keep getting it? The last American conservative to get it was Henry Kissinger, one of the most shameful choices, considering his key role in the secret bombing of Cambodia. (You’ll notice when conservatives mention Arafat, also a questionable choice, they avoid mentioning that he shared it with Rabin.)

Henry Payne really hates Al Gore, who he oddly views as some strident zealot.

Let’s be clear - most conservatives, certainly the war-mongers, really aren’t into the whole “peace” thing, and are mentioning other candidates only as a means of attacking Gore. Hell, the Fox News crew complained that General David Petraeus should have won (guess all that killing hurt his chances), and generally out-whined even their typical whiny standards on this matter. If they want to win so badly, perhaps they should promote - peace?

Right-wingers seem to believe all environmentalists should travel to Europe by rowboat and cross-country by horse and buggy. Unnecessary consumption should be curtailed of course (fly commercial versus in a private jet if possible), but boy, theirs is a stupid argument. They absolutely love it, though.

Hey, as long as we’re living out our convictions, how about a much more reasonable one? Why don’t all the right-wing chickenhawks join the military and insist on combat duty in Iraq? Hey, why don’t they donate all their assets to the cause, too?

That dastardly Gore!

Oh, sorry, I thought it was the same cartoon. Damn you, United Nations world leaders!

That dastardly Gore!

Oh, sorry, it’s the media who’s to blame this time. I can’t imagine how I could have made that mistake…

Lisa Benson - a talented cartoonist, but sadly, not a member of the reality-based communuity.

Hahaahaahaaa. Ramirez claiming Nobel would weep over Gore winning is a bit like, um, maybe, Strom Thurmond claiming Martin Luther King would bemoan the Dalai Lama winning? I’m not convinced hawkish, torture apologist Ramirez can claim such moral authority on peace. Really, how many Nobel Peace Prizes have warmongers ever been happy about?

Varvel doesn’t mention that the judge found that:

…the film is “substantially founded upon scientific research and fact.” The judge also said he had “no doubt” that the defendant’s expert was “right when he says that: ‘Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.’ “

Predictably, the press didn’t cover that aspect of the ruling well, if at all. Oh, and the judge’s grasp of the science and the film’s claims apparently weren’t that strong. Here’s Tim Lambert of Deltoid with “An ‘error’ is not the same thing as an error” and “The Washington Post’s war on Gore” (which cites another good Daily Howler piece, among other things).

Oh, speaking of bullshit, Al Gore never said he invented the internet.

 

THE ENVIRONMENT

Personally, I’m not a big fan of affixing “war” to everything. But two broad points here. One, going green can be quite profitable (Seattle’s shown that), and the more that’s done now to fight climate change, the less it will cost later. Some industries, such as American auto manufacturers, are losing ground because they’re not keeping up with international standards. Two, this is a false comparison, and a tasteless one at that. Global warming is a big problem, and could cost lives in the future, but the Green movement hardly calls their work a “war,” that I’ve seen. Ya see, in an actual war, people die. It’s really rather despicable to look at waging a war and environmental reform as nothing more than equal budget items.

Ramirez is even more tasteless. Here, children in Africa are starving because of ethanol subsidies. Wow.

 

HEALTH CARE

Ooooh! National health care is real scaaaaary, kids! Payne makes his point nicely, but he’s dead wrong, of course.

He’s also wrong about the rich being eligible for SCHIP. Still, I’m all for universal single-payer, which would make the point moot.

Allie gets some points for a classical reference, but loses all them and more for his implication that national health care would be the end of civilization as we know it (surely news to the many nations that have it), and that compassion is for suckers.

In fact, conservatives have long waged a “war” on compassion. This Mike Lester cartoon was the only one that sorta references Graeme Frost, the severely injured kid slimed by rabid right-wingers. This is a false comparison, mainly because the Dems aren’t “hiding” behind children if the program in question is explicitly designed to help children, and does so. (See the link for much, much more.)

Well, Dems weren’t just trying to make Bush look bad. We’re the bleeding hearts, remember? We care about kids. But sure, Bush deserved and deserves to look bad for his obstructions against child health care. He only passed it in Texas begrudgingly, when forced to. His lies about the current program don’t win him any points, either.

Great punchline, but FEMA was great under Clinton. Hurricane Katrina was Bush and the GOP’s screw-up, not “government” as an entity. The simple solution is to vote all Republicans out of office, especially since they hate government anyway. I’ve got a post on Romney peddling this same bulls - err, hogwash at the Big Con (it was a freelance guest post).

 

SOCIAL SECURITY

What’s the best alarmist metaphor for Social Security? Not enough candy to go around?

Does Social Security need a “bigger boat”? (A shark fin would’ve ratcheted up the terror.)

Or is it too small a safety net for too many people? (This one’s my favorite.) Well, it turns out this “crisis” is massively overblown. As the Daily Howler shows, even Alan Greenspan thinks so:

RUSSERT (9/23/07): Do you believe either political party has stepped up to the crisis we face with Social Security and Medicare in the coming years?

GREENSPAN: I do not.

RUSSERT: How big a crisis will that be?

GREENSPAN: Social Security is not a big crisis. We are approximately 2 percent points of payroll short over the very long run. It’s a significant closing of the gap, but it’s doable, and doable in any number of ways.

Medicare is a wholly different issue… We’re going to double the size of the retired population, and by all of the analysis I go through in the book, it’s very evident to me that we are not able to actually deliver on the Medicare we are promising…

As Bob Somerby of the Howler notes, this is an “utterly standard analysis.” But Russert would still act as if it was a huge crisis when he questioned the Democrats at the MSNBC debate (but then, he always does).

I really do like Michael Ramirez’ artwork, although boy, is he a political shill. Points for creativity here, but Social Security and Medicare obviously help prevent famine and death. Funny, it turns out the government can also help prevent both pestilence and war! So why is Ramirez so opposed to good government? Is he sumkinda Apocalypse-lover or sumptin’?

 

THE ECONOMY AND TAXES

Um, Chuck Asay, don’t you remember? Liberals love to tax the rich!

Oh wait, I guess he does remember! Well, when your attacks on Dems are shoddy, overly simplistic or downright false, why go to the trouble of pretending to any sort of intellectual consistency?

Oh come on, liberals are for raising taxes the rich! Ya know, letting Bush’s horrible policies expire, and maybe repealing Reagan’s, too. Aren’t you paying attention?

Yeah, and how about Bush pushing the national debt to nine trillion dollars? Oyy. When ya figure out the whole fiscal responsibility thing, get back to us.

Clever variation on an old gag, but Ramirez isn’t telling the whole story. Hilzoy breaks it down nicely as always, but basically, the Dems have been trying to prevent middle-class families from getting screwed by the AMT and the Republicans are fighting them, for some reason.

Great visual gag, but “trickle-down” has always been a lie, and taxing the rich their fair share hardly imperils the middle class.

Good gag. Although it’s not as if Canada bears us malice. (Well, in jest they do, but there’s that whole inferiority complex.)

This Stantis cartoon is also pretty funny. (George’s bugged-out eyes is a nice touch.)

It really is fascinating how quickly some Republicans have turned on Greenspan.

 

THAT DAMNED MEDIA

In Chuck Asay’s world, the media is liberal! Never mind Couric’s poor interview of Valerie Plame Wilson (complete with GOP talking points), her softball interview of Bush, and her recent attempt to ditch coverage of the Kerik indictment scandal that makes Giuliani look so bad.

In Gary McCoy’s world, the media hates the troops. Nevermind the record number of journalist deaths from covering the current conflicts.

Hey, read the Daily Howler this week (boy! I’m linking DH a lot this time!). We don’t like the guy much, either. (At his best, Matthews can be be a bulldog on an important point, but he’s an egomaniac and a loose cannon, he smears liberals all the time, and he’s a raging misogynist.)

Points to Chip Bok for being the only conservative cartoonist (that I saw) to mock FEMA’s staged press conference, with employees pretending to be reporters.

 

THE WRITERS’ STRIKE

Needless to say, many cartoonists went with this gag. This video is a great introduction to the main issue behind the strike, and here’s one of Digby’s many good posts on the subject.

Pretty mild and a standard gag. Look, if you saw the first, train wreck edition of celebrity Jeopardy! before they really dumbed down the questions (later they better screened their candidates), or if you know a few Hollywood assistants, you know there are celebrities out there who would probably starve to death if left to fend for themselves. However, there are many folks who are very, very sharp and conscientious. Trying to get into another person’s skin, as good actors do, requires a certain capacity for empathy. Traveling the world, shooting in some impoverished areas, can actually leave some “Hollywood” types better informed about the state of things than most Americans. It’s hardly as if Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, George Clooney and Don Cheadle fight for their causes for personal gain or publicity. It’s not as if the cast and crew of The Constant Gardener helped set up a charity because it was trendy. There are certainly actors who could give us far less shallow commentary on the presidential race than what we’re currently receiving from our entrenched pundits.

Hahaha. Sure. Right. (Hey, I’m all in favor of reading, chess, going outdoors, but it’s not as if “old” or “new” media are going to die over this, and the writers are doing this out of necessity, because they’ve been getting screwed. Varvel’s drawn a few anti-Union cartoons in his time.)

 

CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES

I guess I missed all the attacks on Bush. I did hear many reporters mention the Bush administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina, as in, “Will it be better this time?” but they were merely voicing what most people were thinking.

Hey, Glenn McCoy’s just being a good partisan, but it never ceases to amuse me how conservatives pretend Bush and the GOP don’t engage in politics. There were many conservative cartoons attacking Dems along this line.

There were also plenty claiming that Democrats and the media were blaming global warming for the wildfires, many more directly than Ramirez here. It’s a straw man dodge, as with the Republican claim that Democrats were blaming global warming for Hurricane Katrina. Actually, no one was saying that. Instead, they were saying that global warming increases the dangers and/or makes such disasters worse. Hardly a shock, there. Oh, and of course it would help California to have its National Guard home, just as it would have helped Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas to have theirs for thos hurricanes.

Um, it looks like Ken Catalino is saying global warming does exist! Welcome to the reality-based community, I guess?

Let’s end on a classier note. Sadly, there were few of them from conservative cartoonists on the wildfires, but nonetheless, well done here, Michael Ramirez.

 

MISCELLANEOUS

Gosh, why can’t all African-Americans be like the ones on Fox News? First of all, this is another straw man argument. It’s not as if the African-American community is saying “All’s good in the ‘hood.” Doesn’t Allie know the typical conservative line is that all those minority-types living in poverty spend all their time complaining when they should be pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps? (Never mind if, as Al Franken quips, they can’t even afford boots.) Intellectual consistency has ever been but a garnish at best to the conservative ideology of attack-at-all-times.

I appreciate Juan Williams’ sense of history when it comes to the civil rights movement. He leans socially conservative, however, and he’s quite the scold. He has his moments on Fox News, but his main role is to agree with Bill O’Reilly. As Digby puts it, Williams “thinks we blogofascists are ruining everything but he is so personally compromised that he can’t see that it was all ruined a long, long time ago.” (That was over Williams’ condemnation of Kos being hired for Newsweek. We’ll see how much right-wing outrage there is about Karl Rove being hired as well!)

Crooks and Liars covers this particular episode Allie refers to - Bush finally agreed to an interview from NPR, but only on condition that Juan Williams conduct it. NPR rightly refused, as most news outlets would. The right-wing hoopla over this being a “slight” to Williams ignored the issues of journalistic integrity and independence, but also ignored the biggest issue. It’s utterly shameful that the President of the United States would refuse to grant an interview to a major news outlet in the U.S. (and one of the best) for several years, and then insist he gets to pick the interviewer. Of course, it’s hardly surprising from a man so gutless he has to have his town hall meetings and the bereaved families of slain troopers screened first.

My reaction to this was, “Huh?” As near as I can tell, this is just some cranky old guy complaining about those damn kids. (By the way, being a bigot isn’t in and of itself illegal, but acting on that bigotry often is.)

Asay again trots out a false equivalency and an outrageous charge. If a priest or teacher molests a kid, he or she should be criminally charged. The issue with the Catholic Church has been that they covered such incidents up, moved the priest in question, and let him molest more kids. It’s unconscionable, and of course they’re legally liable. In contrast, does anyone know of a single incident in recent memory of a molesting teacher just being transferred, or parents suggesting that? If Asay wants to practive his religion, fine, but it’s really repulsive of him to claim that any community is just fine with child molestation, it’s just that they hate religion! (Feel free to come up with your own expletive here.)

Similarly, this isn’t hard. Promoting religious tolerance and understanding is good, but if the city guidelines prohibit such an event on city property, then obviously it should have been held elsewhere. If (and only if) that’s the case, and some Christian event was banned from the same space, then there’s a problem. But please spare us this “war on Christians” crap. (By the way, did you know the the Quran expresses the same precepts that the Ten Commandments do?)

This is a slippery slope argument. It’s much harder to get a pilot’s license - and it’s not as if every illegal immigrant is a terrorist! I’m not decided on the illegal immigrant driver’s license thing, but there’s a reasonable case to be made in that uninsured, untrained drivers on the road is a public safety issue. In general, I’d say that issues of immigration and illegal immigration need to be addressed in a comprehensive way rather then with a yes-or-no approach on narrow measures.

This cartoon is a bit disturbing, but points to Fairrington, I guess, for noting a rather chilling episode. An autopsy has since shown that Carol Anne Gotbaum was severely intoxicated, and security was right to arrest her given the situation. However:

“She died as a result of being put in that room with that chain, alone and unobserved,” said Phoenix attorney Michael Manning, adding that the family has not made a final decision about legal action. “She didn’t die because she was drinking. She died because she was asphyxiated.”

Yeah, and why if it’s so damn great are they all rigged demos? It couldn’t have anything to do with running up the defense budget and massive corporate welfare, despite the increasing irrelevance of missile defense on this scale?

Hahaha. The Supreme Court has consisted of seven Republican appointees for decades now. No honest, informed observer would characterize the current group as “liberal,” although many right-wing hacks keep trying. When I first heard this preposterous assertion, I thought, “What the hell would be conservative enough for them, then? Witch burnings?” But in addition to pushing the radical Unitary Executive Theory, the main goal is to overturn Roe v. Wade. Another thirty-four years later, they’ll still be trying.

This is a nice design by Henry Payne, although note that it’s for a editorial.

Well, let’s finish on a lighter note…

…or two. Whew!

 

(Come the new year, I hope to be able to return to the more manageable two-week format. If nothing else, this series is sorta interesting from a historical-anthropological perspective, methinks.)

Editorial cartooning is a fine American tradition, and 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.

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