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 literally seems to 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 28th installment of RWCW, covering six weeks, with the emphasis on the new year. It’s been a crazy political month, with tight races for the presidential nomination in both parties, pundits more blatantly wrong than usual, and scandals ranging from the overblown to the manufactured. Meanwhile, the greatest threat ever known to democracy conservatism - since the previous one, that is - spurred our right-wing cartoonists into action!

Who would be the focus of their ire? Who? Who? (I’m sure the suspense is just killing you.)

As always, pace yourself, and skip whatever you wish. Too many right-wing cartoons at one time can lead to a toxic overload!

 

IRAQ

Since so many of our pundits are ignoring, downplaying or spinning Iraq, let’s not. I’ve lost track of how many times we’ve tackled the straw man attack offered here by Chuck Asay. No major Democrat denies limited success in some areas of Iraq, but it’s simply not true that things are good overall. Perhaps, on Iraq, Asay prefers John “100 years” McCain’s view? Or Huckabee’s claim that there’s a “good chance” that Iraq’s WMD went to Jordan? The reality deficit ain’t on the Dem side of this issue. For a more accurate assessment, see Andrew J. Bacevich’s op-ed, “Surge to Nowhere.”

I guess Asay didn’t see Charlie Gibson, Tim Russert and Wolf Blitzer claim, sometimes insistently, that the surge was working to the Democratic presidential candidates. I guess he hasn’t noticed the eagerness of many prominent pundits and reporters to trumpet how much Iraq has improved, and how they’ve ignored or downplayed that pesky violence in Iraq. As for Asay’s characteristically infantile charge that “It kinda makes you wonder who they were rooting for,” I think that calls for a triple dose of Glenn Greenwald: “The agenda of our pro-war pundit class,”“What “winning” in Iraq looks like” and “Michael Gordon “reports” on the “only serious” Iraq option: Staying forever.” (Ha! Take that!)

None of the Democratic presidential candidates has claimed that everything would be wonderful if we but withdrew. Most experts predict further violence, and probably greater chaos in the short-term. It’s not a pleasant thought. But most Iraqis want us gone, and the American presence in many ways makes the situation worse. There are smart, sincere people who disagree with withdrawing now, but if you really want a “fairy tale” about Iraq, just ask a neocon or any other unrepentent hawk. In contrast, there’s Dahr Jamail’s recent piece on the Iraqi perspective and some of the Iraqis “injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” Remember them?

Apples and oranges, and 3 of 18 is hardly impressive. But hey, I’m all for sending obstructionist George Bush and congressional Republicans over to Iraq to help out.

This is a weird cartoon. Heath Ledger’s death was unexpected and tragic. The deaths of troopers and civilians are tragic, all the more so when unnecessary. Michael Ramirez seems to be arguing that the press is bemoaning Ledger while ignoring the troops, those bastards! Um, I don’t buy it. First of all, the Hollywood tabloids will always care more about Ledger or Britney than Iraq, and it’s silly to expect anything different. Meanwhile, the legitimate media certainly covers the deaths of American troopers, including, sadly, the five killed on Monday. Besides, most conservatives don’t actually like the press covering such deaths. I don’t doubt Ramirez’ sincerity about caring about troop deaths, but I do question the sincerity and coherence of this attack.

 

PAKISTAN

This is a striking but misleading cartoon by Chip Bok. We’ve covered Pakistan in more depth in earlier installments, but while extremist forces such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban are very real threats, President Musharraf himself has been quite the threat to democracy.

To get up to speed, here’s Digby with “Pakistan Crisis For Dummies” (featuring some Juan Cole) and “White Flag.” Among other things, it really would have helped if the Bush adminstration had anyone with expertise on Pakistan working for them, instead of Cheney’s office running everything. But then, just as with Iraq, torture, the economy and everything else, Cheney’s always felt reality-based analysis just crimps his style.

(I’m always grateful to know who the Satan du jour is.) Gosh, it really might’ve helped if we had focused on going after al-Qaeda and bin Laden instead of invading Iraq and getting bogged down there! It also might help if Mursharraf was actually hunting for bin Laden, if indeed he ever was.

Oh yes, Pakistan, one of those countries that actually has weapons of mass destruction. Over 10 billion in foreign aid just doesn’t buy the same amount of democracy it used to. Of course, not catching bin Laden for the low, low price of 10 billion plus is a total bargain compared to staying in Iraq at a cost of 2 to 3 billion per week and a total cost of over one trillion and rising (not to mention the lifetime medical costs for injured troops, the damage to the economy, the loss of American prestige and its effect on foreign trade, and much more).

 

IRAN

I was a bit surprised that more conservative cartoonists didn’t saber-rattle over this, but perhaps it was debunked too quickly (and the most virulent of the “Bomb Iran!” crowd among conservative cartoonists aren’t in the biz anymore). Still, this gives me the opportunity to highlight the superb work of The Newshoggers debunking the initial Pentagon hype.

 

BUSH AND CONGRESS

Jerry Holbert lampoons Bush’s last minute term paper efforts.

(I do dearly, sorely wish that Bush were merely an ineffectual but largely harmless buffoon versus a truly dangerous buffoon.)

Gary Varvel deserves credit for noting Bush’s obstructionism (more on this from Bill Scher, Digby,
Steve Benen, Glenn Greenwald, and an older piece by Kevin Drum with a key chart).

While it really would be nice if the press highlighted that obstructionism, I can’t applaud the Democratic leadership in Congress. Why has Reid forced Chris Dodd to actually filibuster, while the Republicans can only threaten it? Why not make a big to-do about each GOP threat, force an actual filibuster on popular issues, and work the media angle relentlessly? Why even allow Bush to have a chance at telecom amnesty, when it’s horrendous policy and bad politics, to boot? None of the answers are positive.

As Glenn Greenwald puts it, “If the Democrats had even the slightest strategic sense and/or courage — just the slightest amount — this is a political confrontation they would be uncontrollably eager to have.” (Follow-ups and a postmortem on the latest FISA vote from him here and here, and I’m sure more will come.)

 

THE ELECTIONS

Both parties’ races are competitive, but despite the claims of some conservatives such as Asay, the Democrats are mostly happy with their choices, while Republicans really aren’t. (But then, Asay was wrong about this when he peddled the same line at least a month ago. Maybe he just assumes that everyone sees the world as he does - he’s unoriginal - or both.)

Lisa Benson’s cartoon is much more clever.

There are folks that argue for keeping the election cycle as it is, with Iowa’s ridiculously inflated importance, for this reason of lower advertising costs, not to mention the whole “retail politics” angle…

…However, I’m much more with Fairrington on this one. (I have much more on this in “That Fragrant Horse Race Coverage,” but even with a record turnout in Iowa, one estimate says only 16% of eligible voters participated, compared to 53% in New Hampshire).

If Mike Lester is saying what I think he’s saying, boy, do I agree. Mike Huckabee implying his jump in numbers before Iowa was due to God’s will and Romney’s “anti-JFK speech” were particularly appalling, but I’m sure there’s far more religious pandering to come! (Huckabee’s ‘God over the current constitution’ shtick is even worse, and Crooks and Liars has more Huckabee theocracy here and here.)

As with many an Eric Allie cartoon, this doesn’t make a great deal of sense, except as a generic attack. Since Allie’s party supposedly isn’t the party of big government (nevermind the massive expansion of the federal government under Bush), I assume he’s attacking the Dems here? Nevermind that this figure suuuure resembles a Republican rather than any of the Dem candidates? On the stock attack front, the “big government” critique is a standard and deliberate GOP oversimplification, since as Bill Scher would point out, the real questions are whether government is effective, responsive and representative. Any other takes on this one?

Ah, yes, let’s pretend that Democratic economic policies would impoverish most Americans, when any honest assessment of Democratic and Republican policies over the last couple of decades would show differently. Sure, if you were already obscenely wealthy, you’re likely to hoard less loot for the ol’ gold pile under a Democratic presidency, but Bushonomics haven’t helped many other people in terms of real dollars, buying power, financial security and quality of life. Let’s kick it to Krugman for more.

This slightly bizarre cartoon from Bok does make a fair point about Hillary Clinton versus Edwards, although Edwards opposed much of the hawkish rhetoric of Clinton, as well as her vote on Iran, so there was a significant difference. But the cow’s backing Obama, I guess! (Surely the cow ain’t going Republican on “change”?!?)

I know the Republicans are talking about “change,” but on almost every position, they’re running as Bush 2.0. As Gary Kamiya puts it:

…What really makes this group pathetic is that instead of trying to make up for their inadequacies and appeal to voters by taking new positions, these candidates are running on the same platform as George W. Bush — the lamest of presidential ducks, whose policies have failed and whose approval ratings are abysmal.

With the exception of Paul, all of the GOP candidates agree with Bush on about just about everything. All of them vow to stay in Iraq until “victory” is won and to continue the “war on terror” indefinitely. All of them agree with him on taxation and healthcare. And they sing from the same pious songsheet on moral values. They are essentially running as new, improved clones of Bush.

This is not a winning strategy.

The GOP’s campaign mess reveals just how big a disaster Bush’s presidency has been for the party. At a time when the electorate is urgently demanding a new direction, Republican candidates, chained to a rigid party line and a ruinous war, can only flap their arms and pretend they’re flying.

Jeff Parker isn’t one of the cartoonists I usually sample, but we’ve seen conservative cartoonists use this attack previously. There’s nothing wrong with Parker objecting to the Dem primary votes not counting, and I’m glad he’s aware that Katherine Harris helped to disenfranchise voters (see Greg Palast here and here). Still, it’s really pretty appalling to equate them, and it’s the usual “the Dems are bad as the Republicans” false equivalency we too often see. Florida and Michigan lost their votes in the Democratic nominating process because those states defied the national party and moved their elections earlier, hoping for more influence. One may certainly disagree with the national Democratic Party on their decision, but these are primary votes. It’s hardly the same as a deliberate, hidden effort by Harris and Co. to deny people (how shocking that most of them are black) their constitutionally-protected right to vote in a national presidential election. (Ain’t it funny how disenfranchising voters, caging voters and purging voter rolls is always undertaken by one particular party? Let’s also recall that, in addition to the recent Indiana vioter ID case, the U.S. Attorney scandal stemmed in large part from similar issues.)

 

POLLSTERS

That about sums it up! (For more, see the aforementioned “Horse Race” post.)

A great design. Really, how dare those pesky voters decide?

A good gag, but (as covered in that “Horse Race” post), it might have helped if reporters bothered to note the high level of undecided voters in their coverage (as much as 20% before the day of voting) - or just abandoned authoritative, sweeping predictions altogether. (Fat chance of that!)

Lisa Benson wasn’t the only cartoonist to write off a candidate prematurely. (This one is from 1/2/08, before McCain’s victories in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.)

Still, after a while… (This cartoon is from 1/3/08, before Clinton’s victory in New Hampshire.)

…It really just becomes embarrassing. (This cartoon is from 1/10/08, after Obama’s victory in Iowa and before his strong victory in South Carolina.)

At least Jerry Holbert treats pollsters with the respect they deserve!

 

THE CLINTON-OBAMA BATTLE

It’s fair to criticize Hillary Clinton’s comments as artless, but what she said was basically accurate. She definitely did not say anything like this!

Nor did she say this! (I have much more on this in “That Damned Liberal Racism.”)

This progression exists almost entirely in Scott Stantis’ mind, but would you be shocked by the revelation that there was some really crappy media coverage of Clinton’s remarks? (For more, see the aformentioned “Liberal Racism” post.)

In the left panel, Asay seems to be suggesting that Obama is co-opting King’s rhetoric and exploiting people, while in the right panel he suggests that Hillary Clinton is exploiting both MLK and LBJ - and that she’s presenting herself as “the 1st black female president.” Good grief. Any other takes? (Oh, and Bill Clinton is a horny dog, fantasizing about a menage à quatre.)

Benson’s cartoon is at least funny, although it, too, centers on comments taken wildly out of context by the press and conserative hacks. (Wouldja believe? This one is also covered in that “Liberal Racism” post!)

This one doesn’t make much sense to me. The press has played up race and gender faaaaaar more than the candidates (see that aforementioned post for more, although the dynamic has been hard to miss!). But Ken Catalino also seems to be saying that liberals don’t care about race and gender, and have rejected Clinton and Obama, at least on these lines. Of course, Clinton and Obama both have been doing splendidly, and much better than the GOP candidates. I’d agree that liberals are pro-diversity in service of meritocracy and in opposition to discrimation. Liberals are more likely to view being black or being a woman as a plus in their candidates (just look at the presidential field), but that’s hardly the only factor for most liberals. Meanwhile, at least some conservatives sadly view being black or a woman as a negative. (Consider Fred Thompson’s astonishingly paternalistic pronouncement that “I am all for a woman president, just not this year, not next year.” Ladies, make sure to clear it with Fred before you run for office! Don’t be uppity!) But then, many conservatives and some MSM pundits have some pretty pronounced hang-ups about masculinity and gender roles, which might be solely funny if these social dinosaurs of tiny brain but great power didn’t still roam the earth wreaking havoc. (Any other takes on this cartoon?)

Allie makes his usual charge of the Democratic candidates being “inexperienced,” and adds in that they’re awfully touchy (as chicks and black guys tend to be, ya know). Of course, they’re both much more qualified than Bush was, and they have better judgment, but who wants to use those standards?

Speaking of chicks and black guys… If I’m reading this Bok cartoon right, it’s pretty good, not only slamming the press for its superficiality, but also poking fun at the people who just don’t get such objections. Any other takes?

Given some of the chatter by MSM pundits and concern trolling by right-wing bloggers about an Obama assassination (for more, see that “Liberal Racism” post!), this Bob Gorrell cartoon seems to be in really poor taste. (Actually, even without the Obama angle, just picturing Hillary Clinton is in a sniper’s scope is pretty damn poor taste.)

Tom Toles used the zipper motif too, but only for Bill’s mouth. How unsuprising that Glenn McCoy wouldn’t stop there (but then, Jay Leno will stop with Bill Clinton infidelity jokes when he’s dead and buried).

 

HILLARY CLINTON

Did you know? Henry Payne thinks Hillary Clinton’s a witch!

No, he thinks she’s Darth Vader! (Silly Payne - even your fellow conservative cartoonists know that Cheney’s Vader!)

Mike Lester thinks she’s a witch, too!

But Glenn McCoy thinks she’s a vampire! (I thought Nixon was the vampire, as in that old SNL sketch…)

Eric Allie casts his vote for witch…

But wait, now he thinks she’s a robot! A robot, sent from the future to destroy us! Aaaaaaahhh!! (Wait, wouldn’t the robot be a current Republican governor or Republican presidential candidate?)

Now he thinks she’s Saddam Hussein (or Ozymandius) or something!

(Man, I just can’t trust a flip-flopper like Allie. I guess at least he didn’t stoop this low, but I imagine that wouldn’t fly in most newspapers.)

Scott Stantis at least shows some visual ingenuity with his Obama thought balloon.

Speaking of off-base pundit predictions - ladies and gentleman, here’s Glenn McCoy, with his cartoon from the day of the New Hampshire primary! Take a bow, Glenn!

Well, first of all, if you look at the video, Hillary Clinton got choked up, but she didn’t cry. Secondly, many women felt sympathy for Hillary Clinton versus betrayal, and there’s at least anecdotal evidence for women choosing Clinton in backlash against the unrelenting sexism of dolts such as Chris Matthews. (As for Steinem’s fish-bicycle line, it was always a poor analogy if taken literally, but a memorable quip conveying an attitude of defiance and independence.) Racist and sexist attacks may work with some voters, but at least among Democrats, they’re more likely to provoke backlash.

Ramirez thinks she was faking. So do several other conservatives, including Robert Novak (covered in that damned “Liberal Racism” post) and a few liberals as well. I don’t think she was, in part because she simply isn’t that good an actress.

Did you know? Bill was a philander!

And Hillary is a shrew!

As always, Gary McCoy and his horribly unflattering cartoons seems stuck in a time warp. It’s really amusing how conservatives pretend that American Democrats are socialists and that Barbra Streisand is a leading figure in the Democratic Party, with great sway over its members. Do these attacks work with anyone except the diehard (and over 45) GOP base?

As we’ve covered before, most voters welcome Bill Clinton back in the White House should Hillary win (although his popularity overall may have dropped in the past week or two).

Brian Fairrington sounds the great GOP rallying cry!

But he goes waaaaaaay over the line with this pre-Christmas cartoon. The baby Jesus doesn’t want Hillary for president? For shame, Mr. Fairrington.

(Perhaps you can make amends by pushing your party to actually be the Jesus party in deed rather than invoking religion to condemn others and make false claims about your moral superiority. Ya know, you could help the poor and work for peace? Not that one needs religion to work for such goals, but as long as you’re invoking Jesus…)

 

OBAMA

Eric Allie continues to pretend that Obama doesn’t actually stand for anything. Personally, I have concerns about some of Obama’s positions, but as this speech at Martin Luther King, Jr.’s church shows, Obama’s proposed a number of very clear policies.

Let me grant that there are Obama supporters swept up in his charisma who haven’t paid as close attention to his actual policies, if Asay admits he still hasn’t bothered to visit Obama’s website and read those policies. Besides, plenty of Obama supporters, including the young, are very well informed on the issues (and young voters and volunteers have often been that way). For Asay, here’s Obama’s South Carolina victory speech, which addresses exactly such dismissals.

I know Lester isn’t the only conservative offering this critique, and I have indeed heard some stupid comments thrown Obama’s way, but I certainly haven’t seen it across the board from civil rights leaders. It was certainly a civil rights crowd that invited Obama to speak at MLK’s church in honor of the national holiday.

 

BILL RICHARDSON

Perhaps the problem was that Richardson mainly ran on his resumé, without offering a more compelling vision, combined with his lack of funds?

(I’m sure he’d make a good cabinet official, but speaking solely for myself, I found Richardson’s complaints about incivility and pleas for “bipartisanship” at his last debate cheap and/or naive, given the extreme partisanship practiced for years by Gingrich, Delay, Rove, Cheney, Bush and the rest. It’s irresponsible not to note the current GOP obstructionism in Congress and the monarchial assertions of the Bush adminstration. Bipartisanship is merely a means to an positive ends, not an end in itself, and “unity” is often not a positive value, especially in a culture that allows and thrives on diversity. There wasn’t much “middle ground” to be found with those who opposed civil rights in the 60s, nor is there with those who oppose civil rights now, or who insist that torture and pre-emptive war are moral. I attribute Richardson’s comments to the desperation of a long’shot candidate. Still, perhaps I’m being uncharitable, and may Richardson serve honorably, whether in New Mexico or elsewhere.)

 

JOHN EDWARDS

There were no cartoons specifically on John Edwards from conservative cartoonists, at least that I saw. He did feature in a few group slams, but it seems that conservative cartoonists adopted the MSM’s propensity for just not covering him. (He never helped GOP fundraising the way Hillary Clinton does!)

 

THE GOP CANDIDATES

That about sums it up! (The race is now narrowed, but Republicans remain very divided and ambivalent about their choices.)

On target! (I’m still trying to figure out which of the GOP candidates is the virgin and which is the recovering meth addict, but I’m pretty sure they’re all cheerleaders.)

Payne’s used a similar gag before, but I think it’s pretty clever.

As long as you’re picking image over substance, choosing pleasing rhetoric over good policies, and looking for Reagan (or at least Saint Ronnie versus the real one), why not just go all the way and elect a guy in a Reagan mask?

This is a pretty clever design by Payne. Romney’s cash is a huge advantage for him, but just because people hear your pitch doesn’t mean they buy it.

 

McCAIN

Ramirez offers some straw men and cherry-picking, but for all that, he does sum up conservative dislike for McCain. What really leaps out at me his pro-torture argument, all the more appalling because torture isn’t just immoral and illegal, it doesn’t work (as covered before in several posts on torture). Sadly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, many conservatives continue to ignore all the evidence and expert testimony on the subject.

How strong is the opposition to McCain, and how pro-torture is the modern Republican party? Well, over at National Review, where they’ve endorsed Romney, Katherine Jean Lopez writes:

I don-t see how [John McCain] wins the Republican nomination. I-m second to none in praising him on his surge leadership. But on a whole host of issues - including water boarding, tax cuts, and the freedom of speech - he’s not one of us.

Boy, I liked Republicans much better when the central plank of their platform was screwing over the poor versus torture.

A few conservative cartoonists went with the Dole theme.

I’m in rare agreement with Allie on this one. Most of the media luuuuuuvs them some McCain!

Umm… this one strikes me as both inaccurate and tasteless. McCain was correctly predicted to win New Hampshire, as I recall. It’s fair to say that the media wrote McCain’s obituary earlier in the campaign when it foundered, but much of the press still gave him very favorable coverage, vouching for his character regardless of evidence to the contrary. As for Iraq, it’s not going well, the civilian body count and displacement have been staggering, and there’s no end in sight.

True, Huckabee has Chuck Norris, but McCain now has both Stallone and Schwarzenegger backing him in the all-important Aging Conservative Action Star Endorsement Race. (Steven Seagal could not be found reached for comment.)

I find this cartoon interesting, since Payne’s based in Detroit. McCain’s remarks on jobs in Michigan seemed pretty realistic, while Romney’s attack was pure, opportunistic hackdom. McCain lost in Michigan, but does Payne believe McCain was being dishonest, or simply that his honesty hurt him?

 

ROMNEY

Meanwhile, here Payne slams Romney with a gag many have been using for ol’ Mitt.

Voters can decide for themselves what’s more troubling, Romney lying about his ties to lobbyists, or the ties themselves.

Yes, like Steinbrenner, Romney thinks money can buy him victory.

Ramirez is likely trying to slam the Dems for “tokenism” here as a side issue, but give him credit for good delivery on his punchline, and calling out his party.

 

HUCKABEE

Asay actually criticizes a fellow Republican and Christian with a valid point over Huckabee’s transparent “I won’t run a negative ad - like this one!” move. Mark this day in your notebooks, kids; it’s a rarity.

I appreciate Brian Fairrington questioning divine will in Huckabee’s campaign, but it doesn’t erase Fairrington’s previous presumption to speak for God with his cartoon about baby Jesus wanting “Anybody but Hillary.” (I mean, jeez.)

 

THOMPSON

A few conservative cartoonists went with this theme for Thompson. His drop out of the race was as electrifying as the rest of his campaign. There are some true believers who are actually pushing for a write-in campaign for Fred, with the idea that this will bring him back to the race. As James Wolcott quipped in “I Believe in Encouraging Exercises in Futility”:

“Fred ran because he hoped to influence that, but he failed.” But he didn’t run very hard (apart from one debate performance, his public utterances resembled the farting of an old horse, to quote E. B. White on Hemingway), and he failed real bad. So now it’s up to online Republicans willing to toss their vote away to pick up the banner Fred is too bored or indifferent to pick up himself; besides, he doesn’t like to bend down, unless circumstances involving Jeri require it. Perhaps the most laughable aspect of this rightwing weenie roast is the notion that Fred Thompson represented something larger than himself, as if he were the last Sequoia in a field of poppies, the final patriarch from the age of giants. Perhaps this write-in campaign is their way of grieving, combining the stages of denial, anger, and bargaining into one useless gesture. If so, I’m all for it!–they have my blessing.

 

GIULIANI

If you want a good laugh, check out this Monday AP story, where the Giluiani campaign tried the same spin Gary Varvel captures above, that Giuliani meant not to compete in all those early states, because he’s a macho maverick or something. If you want a groan, read the same story and note that AP scribe Devlin Bartlett fell for the spin that, “In an unconventional move, Giuliani largely bypassed the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina…” A passing knowledge of Giuliani’s troubled finances and stumping, or a more in-depth look, shows it just ain’t so. 44 days in New Hampshire? Yeah, that’s bypassing. As Joel Achenbach observes:

Rudy may have run the most incompetent presidential campaign in history. But he had a handicap, a fundamental problem, and we should cut him some slack because of it. Basically, people liked him less the more they got to know him. That makes campaigning hard.

True, even in departure, Rudy’s massive ego remains undimmed, and some day soon enough, he’ll return to large speaking fees for invoking 9/11 and distorting his record, and serving on various boards where he pretends to expertise on global affairs he doesn’t possess. Oh well, at least he’s quite the role model for wise and temperate leadership.

So many moving elegies have been penned for Giuliani, it’s hard to excerpt just two, but let’s check out James Wolcott:

Everybody and his doppelganger (me included) observed that 9/11 was the only power chord Rudy Giuliani knew how to play, rendering his campaign immobile once other concerns came to the fore. We may all deplore the horrific damage Islamofascism has inflicted on Martin Amis’s prose style, but there are other challenges America faces as it shifts into low gear, other issues to be demagogued. Rudy’s gift for demagoguery, which he filed to a serpent’s tooth as mayor of New York, seems to have abandoned him once he became a money-hooverer for Giuliani Partners. A vacancy has taken hold in the executive suite of his brain…

And then there’s Digby:

What happened? My suspicion is that his absurd braggadocio about everything 9/11 just finally became too much. He was a mayor. He wasn’t Patton or Churchill and the only thing he did was wander around on the ground and hold press conferences, which was only meaningful by comparison to the president who ran around the first day like he didn’t know what to do.

His “foreign policy” was completely nuts, even in by the standards of the Republican nut grove…

There’s much more, of course. And before you chastise yourself for schadenfreude, remember that Giluliani would have been a truly dangerous president, and that even when you’re mocking him, it makes Giluliani happy, because at least you’re still talking about him. So mock away. You owe America - and much more importantly, one of the most famous Americans in the world, Rudolph Giuliani - at least that much.

 

ROE v. WADE’s 35th ANNIVERSARY

Abortion is an emotionally charged issue, so I can’t completely begrudge someone for being pro-life, even though I vehemently disagree with them….

…However, attacks such as Gary McCoys are really beyond the pale. Those cold, heartless doctors!

Sigh. Well, at least Asay didn’t pull a Huckabee and compare abortion to the Holocaust, although he comes close, and attributing abortion to “fear… pride… selfishness… greed…” is as insulting as it is incoherent. I have a post on the anniversary, mainly useful for its links, but I will make two points here. One, there’s a shared factor in these three cartoons (and the other two on the subject I didn’t feature): The woman isn’t shown. Two, that is not coincidental.

 

THE ECONOMY

Eric Allie peddles several falsehood here. One, that the economy was doing well under Bush. Two, that somehow the Democrats are undermining Bush’s noble efforts (although this cartoon is from 1/17/08, before the Congress announced a “stimulus” package). Three, that Bush’s tax cuts have been good (they’ve been great if you were already rich, otherwise, not so much). For more, check out the trio of links from Mike Finnigan at C&L and Dan Froomkin.

Still, trotting out typical conservative BS on tax cuts and the economy is at least more sophisticated hackdom than juvenile accusations that Democrats are happy the economy is having problems. (Democrats hate America, you see.)

Gorrell at least shows some knowledge of the debt!

And Payne seems pretty accurate (see the Froomkin post for more).

 

ENERGY

A decent twist on an old gag by Ramirez…

…While Bok is even more on target.

Okay, it’s a hodge-podge here. Payne, based in Detriot, hates any sort of emission or MPG standards. Not reaching international green standards hurts American auto manufacturers overseas. Meanwhile, California buys more cars than any other state in the nation (unsurprisingly). California has seen the effects of pollution earlier than many other American cities, and at least occasionally has tried to act. Out here in L.A., I see plenty of hummers and other SUVs. I also see many, many hybrids and compacts, and if there weren’t waiting lists for green cars, I’d see still more. Finally, how pathetic is it that Payne trots out the ol’ “how can it be snowing if there’s global warming?” shtick?

 

THE ACLU

Chuck Asay takes on one of his greatest foes, the ACLU! Ah, those innocent boy scouts, unaware of what a homophobe is, thus probably unaware that homosexuality exists, ignorant - as God intended! This is one of Asay’s beloved false analogies, since at issue is federal funding for an organization that discriminates. He’s free to remain a raging homophobe in the privacy of his own home, for instance, or at a meeting of the private He-Man Homo-Haters Club.

(I’ll add, as a former boy scout, that the most swearing I had ever heard in my life up to that point was hanging out in that church with the boy scouts, and it was a far from an “innocent” crew. Even in Asay’s halcyon days, when sex didn’t exist and homos had the decency to stay miserable and closeted, I’m sure the young men in the boy scouts weren’t completely “innocent” about the world.)

I do wonder why supposed conservatives aren’t actually members of the ACLU, since I’d think someone who actually respected American “tradition” would be all for upholding the Constitution. Rule of law conservatives are, of course, but movement conservatives are an authoritarian bunch who want to control others’ lives.

Here, Ramirez implies that the ACLU are one step more sleazy than ambulance chasers, really a bunch of gay whores. What’s so interesting is that Ramirez seeemed to be arguing entrapment in a previous cartoon. But hey, why be consistent when you can bash the ACLU?

If you read Mike Lester’s headline and said, “Hmm, I bet he’s full of crap,” give yourself a point! Via the mysterious power of Google, here’s the ACLU release (emphasis mine):

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union supports Senator Larry Craig’s attempt to have his guilty plea withdrawn because the Minnesota law under which he was arrested is unconstitutionally broad. The statute punishes “offensive, obscene or abusive language” which tends to arouse “alarm, anger or resentment” in others. Clearly, this law has the potential to ensnare and criminalize legal, constitutionally protected free speech, including solicitation for private sex.

The Minnesota Supreme Court and other courts have found that a closed bathroom stall is a private location. The police have no business spying on people in places where there is an expectation of privacy. The ACLU is in no way advocating sex in public bathrooms. If law enforcement is genuinely interested in stopping sex in public bathrooms rather than ensnaring people in sting operations, posting a sign prohibiting it and announcing police patrols would be much more effective and would meet constitutional requirements.

Points to Lester, though, for at least being funny. While sex for votes at a polling place would break electioneering laws (among others!), it would at least mean politicians put out once for their constituents before screwing them over.

 

MISCELLANEOUS

It’s very rare for Asay to criticize Bush, who he normally depicts as the betrayed. Does anybody know what specific bill Asay is complaining about? There are a few gun bills being proposed that I found, but nothing that seems to match Asay.

It’s funny how proud Christian Asay continually takes a “screw the needy” position. Most young people really don’t have a problem with the idea of aiding the elderly and sick, because they realize one day they’ll be elderly and sick. Sure, there are obscenely wealthy elderly people, but there are also plenty living on modest, fixed incomes with mounting medical needs. In any case, the existence of the privileged is hardly a compelling case to deny good social services to everyone else, not that “compelling” or “good policy” ever have much to do with conservative think tanks and supposed libertarians. (You’ll notice if you’ve read Asay over time that he doesn’t have any problem with transferring wealth to the already wealthy.) Really, what the hell is wrong with these people?

Sadly, No! already dispensed with this particular health care argument from upper-class glibertarian twit of the year Megan McArdle here and here. On one level, it’s really a sorta ingenious bit of hackdom or natural obtuseness, but it’s precisely the sort of “reasoning” liable to convince only think tank “scholars” eager to agree with its conclusion. Those possessing basic compassion and common sense aren’t as easily swayed.

(On that note, why not also check out Sadly, No!’s recent posts on Michelle Malkin, “Shorter Michelle Malkin”and “People who lose their homes are the stormtroopers of liberal fascism.” Maybe medical science can work on giving her a shot of basic compassion next.)

Another conservative cartoonist who just doesn’t read the news! Here, Chip Bok accuses David Letterman of hypocrisy, ignoring that Letterman’s production company settled with the Writers’ Guild of America. While there was some debate in the guild as whether that was a good thing, the general consensus was that it might help pressure the studios to settle as well. (Meanwhile, Letterman’s show continues to highlight the strike in sketches.)

Lester’s based in Atlanta, and I don’t know if there was some specific statement that set this off. Ya know, there are certainly smug yankees out there, particularly those that claim that northern states don’t have racism but all southern states do. But many southerners also freak out over a single inch of snow, and could use a little help on the “removal” front. I’d have more sympathy with Lester if he didn’t cop a “Yankee go home” attitude here.

Ya know, the real problem with executions is that prisoners aren’t tortured for days first and then killed in the most brutal, painful way possible. There is a “we’re better than than that, we’re not barbarians” view out there, of course. But hell, as long as we’re ing with Michael Ramirez’ punitive view, why not go all the way? We can even torture suspects in routine roundups. Gandhi and Jesus were wimps, and legislated brutality would be a splendid idea, especially given that our justice system never, ever makes mistakes.

As we’ve covered before, Chuck Spinney has been talking about Pentagon waste for over a decade. The Pentagon consistently fails audits, with as much as 2.3 trillion unaccounted for to date, and can’t account for 25% of what it spends. Glenn Greenwald’s examined the 623 billion set for military spending in Fiscal Year 2008, which exceeds by a large margin military spending by the entire rest of the world. Even Cheney and Rumsfeld at points in their careers spoke of reducing the military budget or at least a massive retooling. Currently, the Pentagon is having some troubles because maintenance costs have increased due to our presence in Iraq and the harsh conditions there. There’s no fiscal crisis at the Pentagon that couldn’t be solved by bringing the troops home from Iraq, eliminating military pork and waste, and good management (you could even increase troop salaries and help pay for social services). It wouldn’t be an easy job, but it’s impossible only because of a lack of political will.

I tend to agree with Stantis here. The United States could do more, especially if we weren’t bogged down in Iraq, but the United Nations is hardly impressive on these conflicts, just as they dropped the ball on Rwanda (as did the U.S. and France especially).

Update: I heard the story “Kenyan Talks Resume After Second Killing” on NPR this morning, with the United Nations taking an active role. After “more than 850 deaths in a month of unrest,” here’s hoping those peace talks succeed.

On a lighter note…

Run run run as fast as you can, you can’t escape the gingerbread man cookie girl.

(I bet she swears less than a boy scout, though.)

Granted, celebrities normally get away with all manner of misbehavior, but if Clemens really wanted to get away with murder, he should have gotten himself elected to high office.

 

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. Thanks!

Update: I fixed some typos, made some minor revisions and added an update to the Kenya cartoon.

14 CommentsToggle Meta