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 the day. 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 27th installment of RWCW, covering four weeks. Everything’s coming up roses in Iraq, they say! Every time we torture someone, another 9/11 is averted! You can’t trust intelligence that doesn’t urge us to bomb the enemy du jour! And Gore Edwards Obama Hillary Clinton is the anti-Christ… or at least, a woman.

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

 

IRAQ

If you truly believe this, the Bush administration has a war with Iran to sell you.

There’s been a decrease in troop casualties since the escalation or “surge.” Some of this is probably due to more American troops. Some is definitely due to Sadr’s militia agreeing to a ceasefire. Some is due to some Sunni insurgent groups putting in with the Americans, however temporarily. Any decrease in violence is most welcome, and it would wonderful if it continued to decrease. However, let’s remember that that the purpose of the “surge” in the first place was to give warring Iraqi factions time to broker a political reconciliation. Sadly, that has not remotely occurred. Meanwhile, the violence in Iraq remains at horrific levels. “Better” is extremely relative.

Does Eric Allie’s cartoon represent cherry-picking, propaganda or just wishful thinking? Check out an earlier post, “That Pesky Violence in Iraq,” for the crucial context Allie and the like-minded ignore, and decide for yourself.

Gary Varvel’s peddling the same thing. From the aforementioned post, here’s a little of that ignored “context”:

…It’s heartening to know that one of the [Iraqi] families profiled “can joke because they no longer fear that the violence will engulf them. However, putting these two ‘upbeat’ articles together, the “drop” in violence still means roughly 575 attacks per week, 5 bodies appearing on the streets of Baghdad every day, 16 suicide bombings per month, car bombs every few days, sporadic horrific attacks where dozens of innocent people die (including children), continued troop deaths, many Iraqis afraid to leave their neighborhoods during the day and most afraid to go outside at night. How much press did the Virginia Tech shootings get in America? Can you imagine if even a fraction of the type of violence typical to Iraq was occurring in the United States?

Again, “better” is extremely relative, and I have to question the honesty or wisdom of any cheerleaders.

How exactly are we defining success? Bush declared victory in the spring of 2003. While the military has made their share of mistakes, overall they’ve done their best despite being stretched thin and the lack of coherent strategy. Or, as Lance Mannion puts it:

Note to the war hawks and anyone who wants to give the Surge the benefit of the doubt: As ec thompson says at Where’s the Outrage, the point wasn’t to prove that the American military can take and secure given patches of real estate. No one’s ever doubted the Army and the Marines’ ability to do that. We didn’t need the Surge to prove that. And the goal was not just to reduce American casualites. As Atrios has noted, if that was the goal then there was an easier way to go about it—bring the troops home.

The goal was to make things peaceful enough for a political solution to the mess we created to be worked out…

If it makes you feel better you can argue that Bush won the war but lost the peace, but I don’t think that really does you any good. The peace was the point. Or what we were told was the point.

Allie likes his quagmires as well his weather charts. As long as I’m linking sharp bloggers pithier than I, check out Hilzoy and her thoughtful post on the violence in Iraq. Here’s a teaser:

…Suppose I had a friend who insisted that he couldn’t kick his crack habit because he was under too much financial pressure, so I agreed to pay his bills for a few months, on condition that he use that time to actually try to quit…

How can you say no to that? We’ll see you when you get back.

The main point of this cartoon is for Asay to chide his “Laura Liberal” character. We’ve already discussed the “surge,” but Bush can’t take credit for anything regarding stem cell research (more later). Meanwhile, I saw the same 60 Minutes show. Those therapies only work on people who still have brains. An autopsy showed that Schiavo’s brain, sadly, had shriveled and there was no possible chance of recovery. Besides, most Americans felt (quite rightly) that the key issue with Schiavo is that the government shouldn’t interfere in such personal and difficult end-of-life situations.

Oh, and about that surge again? Via Glenn Greenwald: “UK has left behind murder and chaos, says Basra police chief.”

Mike Lester’s at least funny! If only, Mike, if only.

(Notice that someone, presumably one of those damn liburals, is unhappy that the things are supposedly going well! They’re monsters, I tell you!)

This is a clever design by Ramirez, although misleading. We’ve been over this countless times, but supporting the troops and supporting Bush - which includes giving him all the funds he wants - are not the same thing. Add in that the current occupation is costing 2-3 billion per week and Bush has run up the national debt to nine trillion, to the point where even paying the interest is becoming unmanagable. It might be nice if he knew what the hell he was doing after almost five years in Iraq, and seven years in office.

That’s not to mention that the given reason for invading Iraq was WMD, not democracy, remember? We’ve been over it before, but the whole “democracy” thing only came up as one of many rotating rationales after the fact. Besides, truth be told, the neocons really aren’t into the whole democracy thing.

The most offensive part of this cartoon is showing Bush in uniform about to do some work, as if he’s one of the troops.

Would it surprise you to learn that this cartoon quotes one line by Murtha while ignoring the rest of his comments? I hope not!

(Is Stantis criticizing the GOP here for their abusive rhetoric in addition to attacking his Dirty Friggin’ Hippie, or is their line another dig at Murtha?)

In the fantasy that is Asay’s mind, Murtha recanted, and did so because he’s a corrupt wimp. Reading Murtha’s actual statements would require too much work, I guess. Life is much simpler in Asay’s mind.

 

IRAN AND THE NIE

A clever punchline by Bok, capturing one of the key right-wing talking points on the Iran NIE: Didn’t the intelligence community get it wrong on Iraq? How can we trust them now when they say Iran doesn’t have WMD?

As with all hackdom, this tactic depends on selective facts, distortions and denying context. From “The Stovepipe” by Seymour Hersh in 2003 to The One Percent Doctrine by Ron Suskind or hell, reading a newspaper, it’s pretty well known at this point that Bush administration bullied the intelligence community, completely subverted the vetting process, distorted intel and at times flat-out lied. In other words, for Iraq, Cheney and the gang bullied the intel community and most of them caved. For Iran, despite months of bullying by Cheney (including delaying the NIE release to try to get more dire conclusions) the intel community refused to spread bullshit to justify another unnecessary war.

So there’s one thing that hasn’t changed: you can’t trust the Bush administration.

Again, a key difference: The NIE confirmed what was already known, that Iran doesn’t have the bomb, and won’t for years to come. (Well-constructed BS, though.)

Ah, more false equivalencies and denied context! The Bush administration was warned: “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside U.S.” Bush’s response? “All right, you’ve covered your ass now.” Such leadership! Bush was also told that Hussein probably didn’t have WMD. Even i he did, there was no reason for Bush to kick out the weapons inspectors before they finished their job. As for Iran, well, the estimate of 5-10 years away from a nuclear bomb even assuming they were developing one has been around for some time.

The problem has not been the intelligence community (not that they’ve always been stellar, because they haven’t). The problem, consistently, has been the Bush administration’s judgment. It’s also unwise to assume that Cheney, Bush, the neocons and other warmongers are stupid. Some surely are. But many of them know exactly what they’re doing. It’s not a deficiency of intelligence as much as one of wisdom, character and virtue.

(Again, very well-constructed by Gorrell here, but boy, it’s BS!)

Henry Payne says they’re just guessing! Boy, it’s a good thing the Bush administration realizes that going to war is not an equally valid option as not going to war, isn’t it?

(The case must always be proven to go to war, not the other way around, and the bar should be very high.)

It’s true that the CIA lacks good human intelligence within Iran. How funny that one of the reasons for that is that the same members of the Bush administration who want war with Iran insisted on no diplomacy with Iran for years. It may shock Lisa Benson to learn that weapons inspections can actually be effective and that the IAEA can test for distinctive trace radiation. (Of course, it helps if John Bolton and other war-mongers aren’t smearing the IAEA all the time, and a little diplomacy allows for inspections.)

Eric Allie weirdly depicts the intelligence community as stoner, dirty friggin’ hippies. It’s not the first time he’s gone this route while saber-ratting about Iran. If you’re not crapping your pants over Iran, you’re high, I tell you!!!

Not surprisingly, Michael Ramirez delivers a great visual design to convey his questionable premise. We just can’t tell if they have nukes! Better bomb Iran to be sure! (Hey, what are the Vegas odds on Cheney ordering an air strike before his term is out?)

Ramirez equates Democrats with the intelligence community. I believe his claims are based on this WSJ editorial. Anyone familiar with the WSJ’s penchant for baseless accusations knows to take these with a grain of salt, but for just one point, there is absolutely no proof that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is developing nuclear detonation devices. Yet read the alarmist WSJ, and Iran is “within a screw’s twist” of the bomb versus 5-10 years away.

Notice, too, that the WSJ is redefining the game in perfect lockstep with Bush: having the bomb is no longer the reason Iran is a threat. Now, merely knowing how to make a bomb is sufficient reason they must be attacked. Quite Orwellian! By this standard, I suppose everyone who knows how to use a firearm in the United States should be locked up because they might kill someone with it. More specifically, the government would have to lock up people that might buy a firearm 5-10 years from now. In other words, everyone. But that’s the sanity of Cheney’s one-percent doctrine in a nutshell.

For some of the best coverage on all this, check out Dan Froomkin in “Neck-Snapping Spin From the President,” “A Pattern of Deception,” and “Bush: Misleading at Best.”

Hahahaaha. It’s always funny to see some of the right-wing talking points floated. Here, Benson claims that the CIA, led by Bush’s appointee, is merely doing the bidding of Congress, presumably the Democrats. How about a little Larry Johnson to cleanse the palate and remind us of Cheney’s bullying on the NIE?

Bob Gorrell’s one of the few to note the obvious, although even he is too shy to state the biggest headline of the whole NIE affair: that Bush knowingly lied to the American people about when he knew that Iran almost certainly didn’t have the bomb. But hey, that’d crimp his saber-rattling, most of all his warnings of “World War III.” None of the conservative cartoonists had the courage or integrity to tackle that. (See the Froomkin pieces linked above for more on this.)

Yeah, who does have nuke-cuh-lur weapons? Does Bush know? Does Cheney care?

This Stantis cartoon is very odd and off-base, all the more so since it’s from 12/6/07, so it must apply to the NIE and not the CIA destroying the videotapes showing them torturing prisoners (that news came out on 12/7). Umm, why exactly are they dunces? Because they didn’t lie to please Cheney?

 

THE ANNAPOLIS PEACE SUMMIT

It may take the wisdom of Solomon to solve this one.

Quite so. Not likely, especially given Bush’s cosmetic commitment to the conference and his previous, juvenile position that “sometimes, a show of force by one side really clarifies things.”

If only everyone realized it was long past time.

As is the case with most right-wingers, Allie’s worldview is not particularly conducive to peace.

I don’t fully buy Varvel’s contention here. He ignores how the Bush administration has deliberately dropped the ball on Israel-Palestine for the past seven years. And if Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran simply didn’t exist, things would still be a mess. It’s an interesting design, though.

About right. For more on this, see Dan Froomkin’s “Humoring Condi” and “The White House ‘After Party.’”

 

PAKISTAN

I’m pretty sure Catalino is criticizing Musharraf here! (Odd, ugly caricature, too.)

This is a bizarre cartoon by Chip Bok. Yes, lawyers and judges have been some of Musharraf’s chief targets. Is Bok saying Musharraf was right? Or is he merely trying to capture the absurdity of the situation? Or is this a blown gag?

We can’t go too far without a new batch of Chuck Asay straw man arguments! How many can you spot? Let’s see, as we covered earlier, we didn’t invade Iraq for democracy, and that certainly wouldn’t be the reason for attacking Iran. Bush and the neocons haven’t been pushing for invading Pakistan. In fact, Bush hid from making any comments for several days. Biden’s point is that we need to deal with Pakistan as a nation versus basing everything on the current strong man. Biden’s view does entail supporting the existing election system, of course, but that’s not really “pushing democracy” as much as it’s supporting the democratic elements that already exist. Asay is trying to claim, through tortured logic (to be kind) that Bush’s poor handling of Pakistan somehow justifies his disastrous foreign policy in Iraq. Oh, and he’s also saying the Dems are irrational hypocrites. Maybe, instead, the neocons have never been right on anything and Bush embodies the Peter Principle, raised to the level of Biblical plague? Just sayin’…

 

PUTIN

Stantis captures the key concern about Putin…

…And Varvel combines several Western shorthands for Russia.

 

CHAVEZ

I wasn’t going to cover Chavez, but here Lisa Benson depicts Chavez and Ahmadnejad as devils going down… to Hell!!! Aaaaaah!!! Better nuke them, and quickly!

Really, on the one hand it’s just a cartoon, but it’s typical for right-wingers and authoritarians to dehumanize their perceived opponents. Of course, while nations sometimes act irrationally, they primarly act out of perceived self-interest, not because they’re evil.

I can’t keep up with all of Ramirez’ cartoons denouncing Chavez, and don’t share his exact views, but this is an original, even brilliant design.

 

TORTURE

Sigh. From originality to repetition for Ramirez. No RWCW would be quite complete without him arguing we need to adopt some extremist position or else die horribly!!!! This time, he kindly left out his favorite visual device, a nuclear mushroom cloud, but this is still ridiculous and alarmist, irrational at best, dangerous bullshit propaganda at worst. Besides the fact that torture doesn’t work, it’s not as if 9/11 occurred because we weren’t willing to torture, and it’s really rather offensive to suggest otherwise. Perhaps 9/11 couldn’t have been prevented, but it might have helped if the Bush adminstration had heeded the urgent warnings they received. I really have to view this argument as a lack of courage and integrity on Ramirez’ part, or I suppose there’s the possibility of sheer, blinding partisan zealotry.

For more on this, check out Lance Mannion’s tin foil hat series.

Part of me finds this Bok cartoon sorta-kinda clever, but the other part is just appalled.

Umm, and “workin’ the waterboard” is colorful, but rather tasteless. Does anyone else pick up a lascivious vibe from this piece?

(I suppose this cartoon does finally mean Bok concedes Valerie Plame Wilson was covert, which of course she was.)

 

THE TEDDY BEAR OUTRAGE

This story was ridiculous and appalling. The best explanation I heard was on NPR, where a guest explained that on top of some existing anti-Western sentiment, most of the populace wouldn’t be familiar with the culture of teddy bears and beloved stuffed animals, and their imagined context would be the teacher naming a live animal “Muhammed,” after the prophet (even though Muhammed is a common name in Muslim countries). Regardless, putting anyone to death over anything so trivial is completely insane, and I hope a national embarrassment for Sudan (although they’ve got far more dire situations right now). Teacher Gillian Gibbons is thankfully all right.

At least Glenn McCoy uses “Islamists” versus condemning all Muslims (some right-wingers don’t even bother making the pretense anymore). What’s striking here is that if you can read the tiny “behead list,” the very first target listed is “GAYS.” The second is “rape victims.” I assume McCoy is claiming outrage over the recent case where a Saudi woman was gang-raped, then sentenced to 200 lashes and a jail term for “allowing” it to happen, and for not keeping quiet. If so, good for him. However, McCoy is a virulent opponent of reproductive freedom and competes with his brother Gary, and Chuck Asay, for most homophobic cartoonist of our usual gang. This is about slamming Muslims, not championing civil rights.

 

THOSE DAMNED DEMOCRATS

Um, the idea that the French like America now because of Sarkozy or that they prefer Bush to the Dems is très delusional. As for Monsieur Bush, he thinks very highly of himself, or as the French say, il pète plus haut que son cul.

Asay goes one further, and back a few decades, to depict the Dems as Dirty Friggin’ Hippies. He’s getting his stereotypes all mixed up. Doesn’t he know he’s supposed to hate Europe and their liberal ways? He normally does! The truth is, many Europeans like Americans. They just hate U.S. foreign policy, and hate Bush.

Yet again, Asay depicts banks and predatory lenders as well-intentioned souls forced to offer exploitative deals by that mean, bullying Ted Kennedy! Hahahaaha. Oh, and about helping trial lawyers, let alone consumers? With Bush’s proposal, not so much.

Leaving aside Catalino’s word choices here and that the GOP controlled Congress for years and did little, I guess he’s missed that Bush and Republicans in Congress have pursued, and largely succeeded, at an obstructionist strategy. He’s got the roles reversed. (Not that the Dem leadership is impressive at all.)

1. We’ve covered “progress” in Iraq. 2. Sure, things are fabulous if you were already rich. 3. Various NIEs have reported, in line with common sense, that we’re less safe now than before 9/11, largely because the unnecessary and disastrous invasion of Iraq has spawned many more enemies. Plus, if Gorrell’s this gullble, I have an anti-tiger rock to sell him. 4. Cheer up, Bob Gorrell, depending on the eventual Democratic nominee, there might not be that much of change! (Gah.)

No RWCW would be quite complete, either, without an entry like this from Gary McCoy. It’s hard to believe at times that Gary McCoy is 45 and not a junior high school student back in the 60s repeating every lame (largely baseless) stereotype about those damn hippies he was told by the conservative adults in his life. (Hmm. I wonder where they stood on civil rights, come to think of it?) Congratulations, Gary! It takes some doing to make Rush Limbaugh look comparatively sophisticated.

Umm… Okay, Eric Allie is referencing A Christmas Story here, but this seems like a pretty incoherent slam to me. While the Democratic leadership has been far from impressive, Allie seems to be implying they’ve been too busy fixated on sex or something. Any other takes on it? Have there been any Democratic sex scandals recently? It’s awfully hard to keep up with all the conservative ones, but Blogenfreude does a pretty good job of it. Rick Perlstein also passes on news of a new book, Brotherhood of the Disappearing Pants: A Field Guide to Conservative Sex Scandals. (It’ll have to be updated monthly!)

I missed the news that Ted Kennedy got a huge advance for an autobiography, meaning there’s actually a slender reason for once for conservatives to mention Chappaquiddick (which we’ve covered in earlier installments).

 

THE DEBATES

The right-wing uproar about CNN picking questions from non-Republicans was not terribly suprising, if rather sad for all that. It would have been good if they had identified that the retired gay general who submitted a question had ties with the Clinton campaign, but it was still a highly-relevant question, so what’s really the big deal? I think Sadly, No!’s post “Shorter Entire Right-Wing Blogosphere” sums it up:

Oh my God, the CNN YouTube debate showed the entire country what malignant, bonk-headed wackos we are reveals a shockingly outrageous conspiracy by CNN and YouTube not to screen questioners for party loyalty - thus totally unfairly showing the entire country what malignant, bonk-headed wackos we are.

That post, and their “An Open Challenge to the Right-Wing Blogs” capture the whole lunacy well (John Cole also offered a great open challenge, not once but twice).

Yes, right-wingers have actually called it the “Clinton News Network.” I guess they’ve missed what a tool Blitzer typically is. I guess Asay in his liberal media conspiracies missed the drubbing that Hillary Clinton received at the NBC/MSNBC debate, since they, ya know, all work together. The thing is, I think Asay actually sorta believes this crap, and his target audience certainly does. Funny, those are the same people John Edwards mocked for being afraid to take questions from Democrats. But as for looking like a party of “Bible-thumping, war-mongering, racist homophobes,” conservatives cover that pretty well themselves. (Rule of law conservatives, fiscal conservatives and Goldwater devotees - please take your party back.)

Nothing’s a bigger waste of time than presidential candidates fielding questions from American citizens! Seriously, many of the citizen questions have been better than the media’s choices. Case in point, this telling tidbit from Tim Grieve:

On CNN a few minutes ago, reporter Dana Bash said that voters in a CNN focus group were unhappy that Republican candidates didn’t spend more time last night talking about education and healthcare. What she didn’t say: CNN, which controlled the questions that were put to the candidates at last night’s debate, didn’t choose any about education and healthcare.

CNN should have given more context for some of the questioners, but again, what was wrong with the actual questions? Perhaps John Cole can explain in it “Looks Like They Found Their Liberal Media CNN-Spiracy.” Or there’s this gem from Joe Klein (of all people) captured in Cole’s “And While I Wait” about Frank Luntz’ dial group of Republcans watching the debate (emphasis added):

In the next segment-the debate between Romney and Mike Huckabee over Huckabee’s college scholarships for the deserving children of illegal immigrants-I noticed something really distressing: When Huckabee said, “After all, these are children of God,” the dials plummeted. And that happened time and again through the evening: Any time any candidate proposed doing anything nice for anyone poor, the dials plummeted (30s). These Republicans were hard.

But there was worse to come: When John McCain started talking about torture’specifically, about waterboarding-the dials plummeted again. Lower even than for the illegal Children of God. Down to the low 20s, which, given the natural averaging of a focus group, is about as low as you can go. Afterwards, Luntz asked the group why they seemed to be in favor of torture. “I don-t have any problem pouring water on the face of a man who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11,” said John Shevlin, a retired federal law enforcement officer. The group applauded, appallingly.

As Sadly, No! put it, it’s not that that conservative bloggers were actually upset that they were attacked. They were upset that they were revealed.

 

HILLARY CLINTON

The Hooters shirt is a nicely crass addition to a gag many conservative cartoonists employed.

I’m sure as hell not defending the Clinton campaign on this one. Planting a question is pretty bad. There’s nothing wrong with inviting supporters, but giving them a specifically-worded question crosses the line. This wasn’t to the level of Bush’s bubble and his obsessively screened audiences, but his model is not one to copy in the slightest. Hillary Clinton’s response was also lame: “In campaigns, things happen and you just go on.” Wow.

There were at least a dozen conservative cartoons on this subject, and Hillary Clinton deserves heat over it. That said, there was indeed something of a “right-wing conspiracy.” Read up on Richard Mellon Scaife or check out Fools for Scandal and The Hunting of the President.

Uh, I’m not defending these either. Sure, there’s some nuance Ramirez is trampling, but Bill Clinton just was not vocally opposing war with Iraq before it started. Both he and Hillary have been more critical of the execution than the invasion itself.

What’s funny is that Hillary Clinton is probably the most conservative of all the Democratic candidates, yet conservatives view her as ultra-liberal. If she’s liberal, I’m surprised conservatives don’t depict Kucinich and Edwards as Communists! (Maybe some other candidates?)

Hillary’s a phony! Get that meme out there! (And what’s up with McCoy’s implications about gender and clothing here?)

Has Hillary Clinton played the gender card? Ehh, somewhat, perhaps…

…but I’m far more concerned about highly-paid twits like Tucker Carlson referring to Hillary Clinton as a “Vaginal-American.” (Please feel free to come up with your degrading crack about Carlson’s masculinity.) I’m not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, and she deserves tough scrutiny, but there’s no question she’s received a whole brand of crap due to her gender. As for Tucker’s attitude, related to Ken Catalino’s cartoon above, as Digby puts it:

Carlson believes that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote if they like the idea that a woman may become president and vote for her partially on that basis, but it’s not irrational for (white) men vote against a woman because they irrationally feel she “despises them.”

Sigh. Holbert dips into the the Grand Gutter of Hackneyed Smears.

As does Ramirez. Hillary’s a shrew, you see!

Hey, did you know Bill Clinton had an affair? Or that Monica Lewinksy was overweight? (And wears a beret, and reads - horrors! - poetry!)

(We’ve been over Hillary Clinton’s qualifications in earlier editions.)

Meanwhile, Eric Allie wins the award for the most bizarre slur against Hillary Clinton I may have ever seen! (In cartoon form, at least.) First of all, he’s criticizing a Republican. Sure, it’s Nixon, but this is the rabidly partisan Eric Allie we’re talking about! What’s crazier is not only that Bush is much more similar to Nixon (in power grabs and the bunker mentality, not necessarily paranoia), he literally has some of the Nixon crew in his adminstration!

Several cartoonists went with this gag, but Holbert’s was the funniest among conservatives.

 

BARACK OBAMA

Sure, conservatives use the “taxes” buzz word as a scare tactic all the time, and never like to deal with the nuances of lower taxes for the poor and middle class and higher taxes for the rich. But really, how many of Bok’s readers are really terrified, or electrified into action, by the spectre of Walter Mondale and a 28-year old speech?

Bok’s at least got a good punchline here!

And Payne’s ain’t bad either.

 

JOHN EDWARDS

Payne seems to get his smears mixed up here. He seems to think that Edwards is one of his favorite targets, Al Gore.

 

GORE’S NOBEL

Speaking of which - sadly, there has not been a single conservative cartoonist who has shown the tiniest sliver of class or grace toward Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Hey, guys! Stop bombing people and you may win one some day, too!

 

GIULIANI

As we’ve commented before, it’s interesting to see conservative cartoons on the GOP candidates, because it’s one of the few times most will criticize a Republican. As we’ve also noted before, Giuliani is more liberal than the GOP base on some social issues, but he’s still a hardcore authoritarian with extremist war-mongers as his advisors. He ain’t no liberal, nor is he even a really a Democrat.

 

HUCKABEE

Several conservative cartoonists noted Huckabee’s ascendency. Many liberal bloggers are all for it, and the meltdown in some conservative circles over Huckabee has been fun to watch.

 

ROMNEY

I’m not entirely sure about the first part, but I heartily believe the second.

I’m uncertain whether Catalino is trying to dampen or enflame questions about Romney’s faith. Any takes?

Fairrington’s stance is much more clear.

I don’t know, if Romney evoked the Mothership, he might steal a few Clinton votes - George Clinton votes!

As embarrassing as all the pundit man-crushes and girl-crushes on Romney are, they pale in comparison to the embarassment of the Romney campaign itself. (Quick, it’s five pm in Des Moines. What’s my position for this group?)

 

RELIGION

The Gospel According to Asay! You see, only the godless could possibly vote for Obama!

And why is that? Because liberals are godless!

I really can’t be fully offended by Asay’s bigotry, hackdom or imbecility here, because it’s just so pathetic.

I’m with ya, Michael Ramirez, but Romney himself invoked religious standards in opposition to the Constitution as he pandered to the religious right in his “Anti-JFK” speech.

 

GUNS

Umm… Benson plays it a bit cagey here, but doesn’t it seem like she’s suggesting that gun control advocates should be shot?

Indeed, those not-bright-pigs, too stupid to ask that policeman to do anything about the Big Bad Wolf! And is Asay conceding the militia point? (I don’t think so.) Or urging people not to lock their gun cabinets? (I hope not.)

Great artwork by Ramirez, but what makes this so damn funny is that in this very installment, he advocated for torture! He’s championing the Second Amendment, but consistently attacks the Fourth, as well as the general rule of law, habeas corpus, and most of Constitution.

 

STEM CELLS

The new stem cell discoveries are exciting, but the stem cells that would have been used in the federal research banned by Bush would have be discarded anyway. As the saying goes, “The conservative commitment to life ends at birth.” All Bush did was set back medical science and give other nations a head start.

While odious hack Charles Krauthammer tries to claim these new developments as vindication for Bush, they’re no thanks to Bush. But then, even on the subject of stem cells alone, Krauthammer’s got a track record of dishonesty.

Not really true, but a well-delivered punchline. The dog is a nice touch.

 

GAS AND THE ENVIRORNMENT

Well, the auto industry got a major concession in that the MPG mandate will be a fleet average. But Detroit’s biggest woes can be majorly improved by two factors. One, push for universal health care to compete with the Japanese and drop the per-car cost of current pensions and health insurance. Two, build better cars.

I’d like to see more details on the actual technology the industry already possesses, but certainly better mileage and more environmentally-friendly cars can only help their business. Benson’s right that California standards drive the industry.

Can we go a RWCW without someone using this hackneyed gag, implying that all enviromentalists should use a horse and buggy to cross the United States and a rowboat to cross the Atlantic? I say thee nay!

This Varvel cartoon is much better, with a good punchline.

Catalino’s gag is even better!

 

THE ECONOMY AND TAXES

Ah, here’s Allie’s characteristic aggression. This is complete bullshit, of course, as we’ve covered before. The Democrats have tried to prevent the AMT from hitting thousands of middle class families. The Republicans blocked the bill, because they object to any taxes on the already obscenely wealthy (who are getting wealthier still, as we covered in a previous link). Perhaps Allie can ask the GOP about that.

Green cities are booming economically, compared to others (at least from what I’ve read). See, when the standards are inevitable, and increasingly international, it pays to adopt them early.

A good gag by Ramirez.

 

THE WRITERS’ STRIKE

These cartoons are pretty tired. I just wanted to note that rather than supporting their fellow creative types, these conservative cartoonists attacked them, and with hackneyed gags, no less. So shame on Bob Gorrell…

Michael Ramirez…

…And Gary McCoy. Those smut-mongers in Hollywood! (Well, apart from the 24 crew, of course!)

In truth, while there’s some colossal crap out there, there’s always been a fair amount of crap, and some of TV’s best stuff has been created in the past ten years or so.

I have a roundup post on the writers’ strike, and Skippy is a great source for daily developments.

 

THE MITCHELL REPORT ON STEROIDS IN BASEBALL

An elegant design by Ramirez.

Benson’s also good.

Gorrell revisits an old gag, but does it pretty well.

A few cartoonists ran with this gag, but Varvel’s was the best of those I saw.

What’s really sad is that steroids in baseball have received a more thorough investigation than the manipulation of pre-war intel and a slew of other Bush administration scandals. It’d be nice to tackle just one or two. War profiteering, for instance.

 

MISCELLANEOUS

Some jobs definitely do require good or at least decent English skills. But suuuure, this straw man situation is conservatives’ only objection to immigrant workers.

(Lester doesn’t say whether this man is an illegal immigrant or not, but cetainly most illegal immigrants aren’t applying for air traffic control jobs. Nor, for that matter, are many legal immigrants, as far as I know.)

Homophobe Chuck Asay pushes a more ludicrous straw man argument! You see, Democrats are irrational and touchy! Even though Chuck Asay doesn’t approve of homosexuality, in this one specific fantasy he’s constructed, the Republican is reasonable, and has a good reason for penalizing the gay guy! Asay posits that passing a law preventing discrimination against gays for being gay means no one gay can ever be fired for cause. That’s utter bullshit, of course. Hell, even Asay seems to agree, given that the Dem says, “That’s different.” So what the hell is Asay saying, other than Dems are pushy and irrational and advocate for them gay fellars? In any case, Asay needn’t worry about the gay hordes, given Bush’s vetos. He can fire all the godless sexual deviants he wants with impunity, in the right states. But I really do wonder if anyone’s ever convinced by an Asay argument - even Asay.

Back when I had a subscription to The Atlantic, I read the two-part feature by Eric Schlosser on “Reefer Madness” (now a book). Although the feature was nominally about pot laws, it wound up being largely about mandatory minimum sentences. They’re bad, for many reasons, but here’s two: they rob judges of sentencing discretion (and sentencing guidelines already exist), and violent offenders are released on parole to make room for minor drug offenders.

A good gag by Payne!

(The film is mainly spectacle, but Jolie is very good at the Morgan Le Fay-ish demonic seductress, and if you’re going to go revisionist with Beowulf, it’s cool to get Neil Gaiman to work on the script. Of course, then there’s John Gardner’s Grendel, since turned into a so’so opera by Elliot Goldenthal and Julie Taymor. Seamus Heaney’s 1999 translation is considered one of the best, for those folks who want to read the real thing. But more on Beowulf in a film roundup.)

Speaking of reading and culture and all that - yes, there’s some awfully stupid people in our culture. Still, the pamphleteer ethos is very much alive in the liberal blogosphere (although I understand Ramirez isn’t familiar with that). Speaking of Oprah, while some of her book choices ain’t fantastic, she does promote reading, and has picked some great books. Finally, given John Yoo, David Addington and Cheney’s blatant disregard for The Federalist papers, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, not to mention Ramirez’ boy in the White House, I’m not sure he should be casting any stones.

Sorta predictable, but still funny.

Meanwhile, Bok’s is more original and clever.

 

And that’s it for this time!

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.

See you in the next installment, next year!