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 29th, long-delayed, super’sized installment of RWCW, covering nine weeks, with conservatives overwhelmingly focusing on the Democratic presidential race. If all the scandals, real, manufactured, underreported and overblown are already slipping from your memory, never fear! We’re here to, um, help.

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

 

IRAQ

Speaking of stubborn, Eric Allie always sticks with his narratives, facts and context be damned. While there has been some progress in some areas of Iraq, and any decrease in violence is welcome, the purported purpose of “the surge” was to buy time for a political reconciliation between warring Iraqi factions that still hasn’t happened, and shows no signs of doing so. As CBS’ Lara Logan reports, any gains of the surge have largely disappeared. While the picture was a bit different in late February when Allie drew this cartoon, he’s never acknowledged the complexity of the situation in Iraq, or its many disasters; it’s always ‘the Democrats are cowards and traitors who hate America’ stuff. And even back in February, it was clear to those who were willing to look that “the surge” was still not working.

As I was saying - did you know that Democrats hate America, the military, and the prospect of success in Iraq? Allie really only hits a few notes. It’d be nice to know what “success” actually looked like, too, wouldn’t it, considering how the Bush administration keeps lowering the bar? As for the poll issue, let me kick it to Glenn Greenwald, who in the course of critiquing “one of the most blatantly one’sided, journalistically flawed “news” articles on the Iraq War in quite some time” (from The Politico) observed:

The entire Politico article — every assertion — is based on a single, cherry-picked outlier Pew poll from February which found that a “slim majority” now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. The “trend” on which The Politico exclusively relies is, in fact, negligible, within the poll’s margin of error, and, more importantly, is contradicted by virtually every other poll, which they steadfastly and inexcusably ignore.

Shockingly, Greenwald has more recent poll information bolstering this.

It’s really rather sad that Allie thinks this helps his case. His attack rests on the premise that Iraq is doing much better now, but Democrats refuse to acknowledge it. The truth is that the situation has rarely if ever been good, and it’s pretty bad right now. On the change front, electricity, water and food are still unreliable five years later, and that’s not to mention the employment situation. Let’s turn it over to CNN’s Michael Ware:

“That, perhaps, is the darkest reflection of all. 4,000 deaths and very little so far has changed. . . .

“[T]here’s still nothing to say that anything is getting any better in a real sense; that the fundamental building blocks of this war have been changed. And to now have the 4,000 American deaths really is a chilling moment.”

Of course, it’s been even more terrible for the Iraqis. Ware continued: “[N]o one can give you a figure of the number of Iraqi souls that have been lost in the five years so far of this conflict. But it’s exponentially greater than two or three or even ten times this terrible number of American casualties. We’re talking about — on conservative estimates between 80 thousand to 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives.

“And that’s not to mention more than 4 million Iraqis are displaced from their homes. . . . And the entire social fabric of this country has been torn asunder with a legacy of this war that it’s now divided along sectarian lines, Sunni versus Shiite, when it never was before. Not even under Saddam. So the impact and the toll that this conflict has taken on these countries is almost immeasurable.

Um, try three trillion, and that may conservative. Bush used the same “how much will it cost if we lose” language in his war anniversary speech, and John McCain’s pushed it, too. The 2007 Iraq N.I.E. concluded (in accord with common sense) that our invading Iraq has made us less safe from many factors, including stretching the military thin and making for one hell of a recruitment tool for America’s enemies (Bush will not release the 2008 one). And there’s no way Iraqis would somehow let Al Qaeda take over the country, as some right-wing politicians and pundits like to threaten. Asay might want to check out Mark Danner’s recent piece, “Taking Stock of the War on Terror: A Defeat Only American Power Could Have Brought About” which explains how the Bush administration’s foreign policies have hurt America and helped Al Qaeda.

Scott Stantis deserves credit for being more honest than most conservative cartoonists on Iraq…

…As is Henry Payne here…

..But Payne still needs to forward an old conservative chestnut, ridiculously untrue, about that damned liberal media. We’ve never seen casualties or the sort of violence from Iraq that was shown with Vietnam. Even when the American media has actually bothered to cover Iraq (and I’m mainly criticizing television, not print journalists here, who have been much better overall), it’s been extremely sanitized.

It’s hardly a shock that Glenn McCoy would push the same line. As Howard Kurtz reports:

Iraq has faded dramatically on all the network newscasts, although it made a brief comeback late last month after the 4,000th American died in the war and renewed fighting broke out in Basra. According to the Washington-based journalism project, the network newscasts devoted 26 percent of their air time to the war in the first three months of 2007; that has plunged to 5 percent so far this year.

That’s shameful, but contrary to McCoy, some of the press has been cheerleading the Bushies on “the surge,” even though a close look at Iraq does not yield a rosy picture.

It’s no surprise America doesn’t like Sadr, since we’re backing Maliki, but in “Five Things You Need to Know to Understand the Latest Violence in Iraq,” Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar write:

…The sectarian-based street-fighting is a symptom of a larger political conflict, one that has been poorly analyzed in the mainstream press. The real source of conflict in Iraq — and the reason political reconciliation has been so difficult — is a fundamental disagreement over what the future of Iraq will look like. Loosely defined, it is a clash of Iraqi nationalists — with Muqtada al-Sadr as their most influential voice — who desire a unified Iraqi state and public’sector management of the country’s vast oil reserves and who forcefully reject foreign influence on Iraq’s political process, be it from the United States, Iran or other outside forces.

That’s a more complex view than we’re normally fed. On the Basra attacks, Holland and Jarrar write that “Maliki’s goal, shared by the like-minded allies among the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities that dominate his administration, and with at least tacit U.S. approval, is to kill off the opposition and then hold a vote.” Meanwhile, I’d recommend this Gary Kamiya piece to debunk some of the Bush administration’s latest round of charges against Iran, since among other things, Maliki’s ties with Iran are closer than Sadr’s.

You can read Obama’s actual Iraq policy here. Judge for yourself how accurate Ramirez’ representation is (certainly depicting Obama as babbling isn’t). However, Al Qaeda didn’t exist in Iraq before we invaded, so sure, that is Bush’s fault. Finally, the “surrender” framing is just juvenile, dangerously so, since as Matthew Yglesias remind us:

Few people seem to appreciate it, but it’s quite literally true that al-Qaeda’s strategy is to cripple the U.S. economy by dragging us into quagmires abroad. Osama bin Laden himself has said this, and it’s the only strategy that makes sense. A smallish number of people with no base of resources can’t possibly defeat us unless we shoot ourselves in the foot repeatedly as Bush and McCain propose.

Staying in Iraq costs us 2-3 billion per week. The “no surrender” policy McCain’s currently running on just happens to entail a victory for bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

McCain’s “100 years” comment was taken out of context, but it was a dodge, his policy is to stay the course and he doesn’t have an exit strategy. I have much, much more in “John “100 Years” McCain.”

This cartoon is nominally about the presidential race, but directly relates to conservative misconceptions about Iraq and the “war on terror,” so I put it here. Chuck Asay presents one of his beloved false choices - did you know you can only have an effective defense policy if you ignore the economy? Did you know an administration can’t handle both defense issues and economic issues? Well, the Bush administration can’t do either, so even one would be an improvement, but this is just silliness, especially given that U.S. military expenditures exceed those of every other country on the earth combined. Even if Asay’s talking about the basic pitches of Obama and McCain, it’s not even accurate, since Obama has spoken out extensively on Iraq and national security issues. Finally, let’s tackle Asay’s false premise in the last panel, especially since he sure seems to be referencing Iraq. Americans troops staying in Iraq is the cause of much of the strife there, it’s made us less safe, and prevents us from actually curtailing global terrorism. Asay’s also dead wrong about many young Obama suppoters. It’s not as if economic issues are their chief reason for supporting Obama, although it’s a factor. Withdrawal from Iraq - the wise defense decision, by the way - is much more important. Perhaps with greater age Asay will achieve the wisdom of youth.

 

CHINA

Many cartoonists ran with some variation on the Olympic rings and shackles…

..While Lisa Benson references an iconic image.

 

SPITZER

I’m sure you’ll be shocked to learn there were far more conservative cartoons on Spitzer than those I’m featuring here. The gang were very excited to focus on a Democratic sex scandal, given the long list of Republican sex scandals.

I’m sure you’ll also be shocked to learn that Bill Clinton was somehow worked into many of the cartoons.

Variations on this theme were also popular.

A pretty good design. While I’m not going to applaud infidelity, it’s really a matter for the couple involved. Other countries laugh at us over our puritanical reactions to sex scandals. As recent American presidential history shows us, job competence and martial fidelity have no necessary correlation. I’d also agree that pesky little things like, oh, lying a country into war or violating the Costitution and the Geneva Conventions might be a wee bit more important.

Well, Spitzer’s actions were certainly inconsiderate toward his wife and kids, but simply being mean is not a “crime.” If it were, wouldn’t pretty much the entire Republican platform be outlawed? Isn’t the legality of predatory lending and many other instances of white collar mendacity one of the prime GOP defenses for wrong-doing?

One thing I think Republicans and Democrats can agree on regarding all these politicians: for goodness’ sake, if you commit adultery, don’t force your poor wife to stand with you at the press conference!

Ramirez launches into full high dudgeon mode here. Good lord, calling Spitzer evil?!? Isn’t that just a tad over the top? Granted, Ramirez has demonized a long list of people over the years, but he’s setting the bar awfully low here.

I suppose, though, it’s not as absurd as David Vitter insisting his “adult-baby diaper sex with prostitutes” was completely different from Spitzer, or Ace of Spades’s integrity gymnastics over sex scandals. IOKIYAR.

I’m confused. Does this last panel mean Ramirez is finally outraged by Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzales, and other members of the Bush administration?

A decent gag from Payne…

…and also from Lester.

Stantis probably has the most appropriate take of the lot.

 

FISA

I’ve been waiting in vain for years for a conservative to debate surveillance issues honestly, since they typically launch precisely this sort of BS attack, regardless of how many times they’ve been challenged on it. No one in Congress doesn’t want to eavesdrop on terrorists. All that’s required is a warrant, and under FISA those can be issued retroactively (with some restrictions).

Chuck Asay peddles the same BS, but also argues that Bush and his buddies only have the best interests of the American people in mind. Even if that were true, there’s no reason not to have at least the superficial oversight of the rubber’stamp FISA court. But given the FBI’s recent admission that they abused National Security Letters (yet again), and that Dick Cheney spied on, and lied to, high-ranking members of his own administration, Asay will have to forgive me if I don’t buy the ‘pure motives’ claim.

A clever gag by Ramirez, although I didn’t know the U.S. Government was hurting for guns! This has been a common right-wing charge, but FISA has not expired, only the most recent Bush’supported provisions. Glenn Greenwald, the go-to blogger on this, explains this in more detail here. Just get a warrant, folks! If you can’t hack spying on the bad guys and honoring the Constitution at the same time, get out of the business and let some competent folks do the job.

Actually, if the telecoms can show good faith, they’re not liable, and some Democrats have suggested that the U.S. Government pick up the tab should that not be the case, removing this latest argument by the Bush administration. But the funny thing is it’s not the telcoms who are pushing for amnesty! DDay breaks down the larger game that Ramirez obscures:

The overriding goal is to shut down these lawsuits and, most important, eliminate the discovery phase so that the full extent of Administration lawbreaking is permanently hidden. This is about burying the evidence, as every single action by the White House since the Democratic takeover of Congress has been. Bush may have a soft spot in his heart for his corporate buddies, but he’s really not interested in indemnifying them. He’s interested in immunity for himself.

What a coincidence! The Bush administration is doing the same thing with their covert authorizations of torture, too!

Did you know? Democrats don’t just solicit prostitution, they hate America, too! (I’m not a big fan of the Dem leadership, but do I really need to debunk this one? That’s not to mention *cough* K Street Project - Abramoff *cough*)

Stantis could be referencing any of a number of issues here, actually, but he’s one of a few conservative cartoonists who’s consistently raised issues of oversight and the abuse of government power. (The rest of the gang will rediscover such issues should a Democrat win the White House.)

 

BUSH

Bob Gorrell’s pretty consistently tweaked Bush…

…while this cartoon seems unintentionally funny. Bush’s main way to prove his relevance these days is to veto legislation, no matter how good, and Bush and the GOP-led Congress were the model of reckless fiscal mismanagement, par for the course with their disastrous incompetence in multiple areas.

 

THE PRIMARIES

Payne often riffs on March Madness when the season comes. I thought this one was pretty good.

I liked Stantis’ the best of the Nader cartoons.

Somehow, Mike Lester’s cartoon made me think of James Watt’s line that his staff had “a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple.” But maybe that’s just me.

 

THE DEMOCRATIC RACE

I lost count of how many cartoons expressed this theme, and a few used boxing to do it. (I’ve got more in “A Pox on One of Your Houses.”)

Benson went seasonal and gentler.

Yeah, I don’t think Hillary Clinton’s pitch to take the top slot in a joint ticket when she’s behind in the delegate count and unlikely to take the lead made much sense, although some Hillary supporters would love it (to be fair, she laughed when she said it).

I’d be surprised if more bowling cartoons weren’t on the way, but I thought Payne’s showed some wit. Clinton is certainly counting on Pennsylvania.

I’ve lost track of how many right-wing cartoons accuse Obama of having no substance, but Benson pulls off the double slam here.

Speaking of Vast Right-Wing Conspiracies - you can’t blame Hillary Clinton for Rush Limbaugh’s actions, but what was even more bizarre was Hillary Clinton meeting with the scumbag who relentlessly attacked and lied about her and Bill, Richard Mellon Scaife. Check out Tom Tomorrow’s take.

A decent gag by Chip Bok. I’m not convinced the superdelegates are a good idea, although the Democratic nomination process is more, well, democratic that the Republicans’ winner-take-all in each state system. (It’d be nice to reform or eliminate the electoral college, too. The only good reasons I can see for not going to a national popular vote is the nightmare that a recount could be if necessary, and inconsistent voting machine standards. But at least if every state wasn’t winner-take-all with their electoral votes, it would be a huge improvement, to my mind.)

Not a bad gag by Stantis, either.

Payne plays a conservative classic (at least it’s been one since Buckley came on the scene). Those Democrats are elitist snobs, I tell ya! They hate reg’lar folks like you ‘n’ me! (This is always particularly funny coming from someone like Bill Kristol or another millionaire.) Getting poor and middle-class people to vote against their own economic interests by making socially conservative pitches has been key to the GOP strategy for over 50 years now. There’s been the GOP’s racist “Southern Strategy,” and Rove’s strategy in 2004 was to run on (in Al Franken’s words) ‘Fears, Smears and Queers.’ We’ve seen the snob attack deployed against Obama already. For more on this, check out website The Big Con and Geoffrey Nunberg’s Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show.

A few conservative cartoons ran with this line of attack, and many a gloating right-wing blog has. I explored some of these issues in “That Damned Liberal Racism”, but in the minds of bigots like Rush Limbaugh, “an end to racism” actually means “conservative bigots will no longer be called on their racism.” The liberal ideal is not color-blindness or gender-blindness, it’s meritocracy, something with which many conservatives can agree. Meanwhile, note that Allie suggests with his brain jars that Democrats aren’t “normal,” even though he’s slamming about half his countrymen. (Hmm, I wonder if like Chris Matthews, Allie also doesn’t think African-Americans or college grads are “regular people.”)

As always, Asay loves false choices. Let’s go through the panels. 1) If we want to fight terrorists, we can certainly do it while honoring the 4th Amendment, and it’d help to withdraw from Iraq so we could better go after, oh, let’s say Al Qaeda, who aren’t that popular or powerful in Iraq and are primarly based in Pakistan. 2) Energy independence would be helped by developing alternative fuels and the same environmental reforms Asay typically attacks. 3) Ah, yes, the conservative chestnut that we should give more money to the rich, who use that wealth to create jobs. Funny how under Bush the wealthiest Americans have grown far richer but job growth has been the worst it’s been in about 70 years. 4) Who the hell is preventing pharmaceuticals from doing research? The FDA is supposed to make sure new drugs are safe, but the main target of liberal health care reform efforts have been insurance companies.

Score one for Jerry Holbert!

 

THE 3AM AD

Countless cartoonists went with this angle, and not just conservatives. Nuthin’ says originality like old Bill Clinton jokes!

Ramirez goes for the double slam, charging that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton lack experience. (I wasn’t a fan of the ad, which struck me as fear-mongering and bad long-term politics. Pam Spaulding has one of the better write-ups I’ve seen.)

I guess Mike Lester deserves some credit for slamming everyone, although the Farrakhan charge is the most ludicrous, since Obama doesn’t take advice from him and has denounced his most hateful remarks.

Meanwhile, Bok brings us back to the primary race.

 

GERALDINE FERRARO

I’m generally inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt for off-the-cuff comments - let them clarify, explain, correct themselves, or if need be, apologize. But Ferraro didn’t do that. As Josh Marshall details in this video, Ferraro just kept on digging.

Detroit-based Payne often works cars into his cartoons, and this one’s quite clever. (I was pretty young during Ferraro’s VP run, but I always thought she and Mondale got far more flak than they deserved. Ferraro certainly faced some sexist questions during her VP debate - as a woman, could she be counted on to nuke the Ruskies and the like. So I was sad to see this, and I have to say my respect for her has taken a hit.)

 

MICHELLE OBAMA

Credit Ramirez for coming up with a good visual concept, at least. But as the campaign explained, Michelle Obama meant her remarks in a political sense. As Howard Kurtz said, it was a “rookie mistake,” but the outrage over this was completely overblown.

Gosh, I think Gary McCoy’s hyperbole here outstrips any from Michelle Obama! They’re roughly the same age… McCoy wasn’t ashamed by opposition to civil rights, or by Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Abu Ghraib?

A decent visual gag at least from Ken Catalino, but notice he’s changed the absence of pride to “hate.” While conservative hacks flog this sort of BS for political advantage, there is a genuine disconnect between liberals and movement conservatives on patriotism. Movement conservatives typically feel that America is the greatest nation ever, but also that it’s infallible and that any criticism of it is treachery. Liberals understand that dissent is not disloyalty, that one can love something yet to still work to improve it (not doing so is a strange sort of affection), and that, as as E.J. Dionne puts it, “the true genius of America has always been its capacity for self-correction.” But there’s another liberal who really captured the idea of making the reality of America match the ideal:

In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.”

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.

Glenn McCoy provides a double slam (popular in this installment). We’ve already covered Michelle Obama’s remarks. We’ve also covered the silliness of attacking Obama over whether or not he wears a flag lapel pin in an earlier installment, and I’ve actually got another post in the works on the latest round of conservative lapel pin attacks, but here’s the tag: Wearing a flag lapel pin doesn’t make someone a patriot any more than wearing a cross makes someone a Christian or wearing a rubber Halloween mask makes someone a werewolf.

 

BARACK OBAMA

It’s a sign of Obama’s lead that, for the first time, more conservative cartoonists attacked him than they did Clinton (and they haaaate her). Countless conservative cartoonists this time around flogged the charge that Obama’s all empty rhetoric. Sure, if withdrawing from Iraq isn’t important to ya, nor heath care, nor fixing the economy, nor healing racial divides, or any of a number of other issues, and you believe he’ll do absolutely none of that. A recent poll showed that 81% of Americans think we’re on the wrong track. Some liberals view Obama as too beholden to corporate interests, and some conservatives view him as a dangerous liberal, but if they’re honest, they have to acknowledge he’s not going to govern the way Bush has, and Obama would have to possess poorer judgment than Dick Cheney to run things any worse. The same goes for Clinton. (Sadly, McCain is essentially running for Bush’s third term when it comes to policies.)

Wow, this is pretty unfair. First of all, none of the iconic lines Chip Bok quotes in the left panel were campaign slogans. Take away the campaign slogan angle and it’s still a rigged comparison, like saying that hot new play off-Broadway is good, but it’s no classic for the ages like Hamlet. (And our current president can be accused of many things, but beng an inspiring speaker is not one of them.) Bush’s “Compassionate Conservatism” slogan wasn’t just empty, it was willfully deceptive, John McCain’s “No Surrender” is just juvenile, and I guess I missed how the diabetes-inducing treacle of Reagan’s “It’s Morning Again in America” gave us a new national sense of purpose. Maybe it’s Republican thing.

Umm… eye of the beholder, I guess. Sign me up! (LBJ on domestic issues, of course, not on foreign wars - although let’s note Ramirez is quite the hawk, so that’s not his objection.) I suppose Ramirez is trying to say Obama’s policies are some big secret and somehow bad, but hmm, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, combating poverty, trying to provide health care, the Great Society… This pitch may work with conservatives, but does Ramirez really think that with most Americans this helps his case, especially invoking Kennedy?

As Obama’s often said, Cheney and Rumsfeld are two of the most “experienced” people we’ve had in office. What matters is judgment. McCain’s judgment has often been wrong, and his policies, mostly extensions of Bush’s, would be disastrous. (Hell, Ramirez doesn’t even like the guy much!)

Wow! A bit of a low blow by Catalino, yeah? And give Obama credit for undercutting the more ludicrously worshipful rhetoric of some of his supporters. Most big-time politicians have some fervent or irrational supporters, so I try not to hold that against them. The more relevant gauge is whether a politician chooses to pitch loathsome policies to voters. (A more cynical gauge would be “How loathsome are the policies he or she pitches?”)

From wine to Kool-Aid… This is really unintentionally funny coming from the far-right, hyper-partisan Allie, but I’ll add that as Professor Bob Altremeyer and others have documented, authoritarianism is overwhelmingly a conservative trait. That doesn’t mean there aren’t Democratic zealots out there, because there are, but there’s a reason a frightening percentage of conservatives still think Bush is doing a good job.

You say Obama’s supporters are Kool-Aid drinkers? No, they’re silly, giddy school girls!

No, they’re slackers and Dirty Friggin’ Hippies! Duuuuude!

Did you know? Whites are voting for Obama out of guilt! And I guess I missed where Obama tried to exploit “black resentment,” but maybe that’s because I don’t share Fox News’ progressive attitudes on race. Obama has spoken about race (quite eloquently), but has hardly made it the cornerstone of his campaign. It’s ridiculous to claim that lily-white Iowa picked Obama out of guilt, and if whites feel so guilty, why has Clinton won the white vote in some states? Perhaps Bok is referencing Obama’s speech on Rev. Wright? If so, wow - but watch Obama’s speech and judge for yourself whether Obama is exploiting white guilt. It must be that part where he validates white resentments, I guess.

You can find many a right-wing blogger or conservative commenter who makes the white guilt charge. One of the most prominent is African-American conservative Shelby Steele. Darryl Pinckney’s review of Steele’s recent book A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can’t Win, is a good introduction to, and dissection of, Steele’s thinking. One excerpt:

Steele accuses Obama of presenting himself as a protester to blacks and a unifier to whites. But when he holds that Obama cannot serve the aspirations of one race without betraying those of the other, it is Steele, calling black people blackmailers, who seems out of date and most threatened by Obama’s candidacy. It is impossible to read Taylor Branch’s three-volume biography of Dr. King and not believe that he and the thousands of black people who joined him were responsible for one of the proudest episodes in modern American history. Obama and his audience know it, when his voice starts to take on somewhat King-like cadences.

It’s a long piece, but very good. But excuse me for a moment. I’m off to get some muthafuckin’ iced tea.

This is a disingenuous cartoon by Ramirez. Unlike McCain with religious extremist John Hagee, Obama never sought Farrakhan’s endorsement, and Obama has repeatedly denounced Farrakhan’s most hateful remarks. Right-wingers tried to push a close Farrakhan association, and Tim Russert followed their lead by repeatedly asking Obama about Farrakhan in one of the Democratic debates, despite the fact that Obama had already answered his question and all the subsequent follow-ups in his initial response! (But Russert is single-minded in sticking to his simplistic “gotcha” scripts.) Ramirez surely knows this isn’t a story. So why run this cartoon? My guess is because it falsely implies Obama was a pal with Farrakhan before he got found out.

It was no surprise that Republican political operatives leapt on Reverend Wright’s controversial remarks, and I thought the whole thing was way overblown, but to be fair, there were a number of people who were sincerely offended or at least taken aback by the clips they saw of Wright. The best response I’ve seen by far is still Barack Obama’s speech on the whole matter.

That said, if you listen to Wright’s post-9/11 sermon at greater length, and hear his remarks in context, they do make much more sense, especially in the tradition of preachers condemning their nations for sin. As Glenn Greenwald explores in “The difference between Jeremiah Wright and radical, white evangelical ministers” there are also some striking double standards at work in the coverage. For one example, let’s recall this exchange from the 700 Club on 9/13/01:

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

As far I could find, Wright didn’t denounce “white people,” it was “rich, white people” who abuse their power or show no compassion for the disadvantaged. I know some conservatives tend to see no difference, but it’s pretty stark to me. It’s also at heart a pretty Biblical sentiment (camels and needles…), even if the language isn’t. You can see the speech I believe Holbert’s referencing in this Hilzoy post, which is a good evaluation of the whole thing (she also has a follow-up).

See, I would say “anger” not “hate.” I heard a few commenters wonder, regarding those who were upset, how familiar were they with black churches and black talk radio? Offended conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck actually asked if white people could go to Obama’s church (but then, she’s not the sharpest mind). But to be fair, people less clueless than Hasselbeck were also upset. Still, even when it comes to famous American historical figures like Martin Luther King, many Americans mostly know the icon and not the reality. Check out Cornel West and Rick Perlstein on the “Santa Clausification” of MLK, or this interview with West, where he makes observations about MLK that relate strongly to the Wright controversy:

Well, Martin Luther King, Jr., as a cross-centered Christian and as a Democrat who focused on the catastrophic in ordinary peoples’ lives, he knew that, when you talk about empires, you’re talking about a golden calf of wealth which is enveloped around a blood’soaked flag that elites use in order to sustain their power.

So from the very beginning, he’s a patriot because he loves America, but he doesn’t confuse dissent with disloyalty. I’m gonna critique America. He even says, very much like Brother Jeremiah Wright who I have unconditional love for, “God condemns injustice in America.”

You know the last sermon that Brother Martin was gonna preach? You know what the name of it was? “Why America May Go To Hell.” That’s what he called in for the last sermon at Ebenezer. He never got a chance to preach it. Why? Because he knows any nation stands under the judgment of the cross. What kind of unconditional love do you have? What kind of unarmed truth are you willing to confront?

If you’re treating the least of these - echoes of the 25th chapter of Matthew - in an unjust way and, if I love them and anytime you love somebody, you hate the fact that they’re treated unjustly and unfairly, then sooner or later, your empire will fall. That’s why he talked about America connected to barbarity in Vietnam. That’s why he talked about America in terms of the arrogance that you and others have talked about, but he did it out of love.

I’m not certain, but I think Bok is echoing the charges that Obama lied when he said he wasn’t in church for either of the sermons that were clipped. Odious hack William Kristol wrote an entire column for 3/17/08 based on the idea that Obama was a fraud and a liar, and the linchpin of his argument was claiming that Obama fibbed when he stated he wasn’t in church on 7/22/07 during the “rich, white people” sermon. Of course, Obama was telling the truth, undermining Kristol’s entire piece, and Kristol had to issue a correction. Kristol is such a hack that’s it’s possible, like many a bad pundit, he just wanted to run his Obama’slamming storyline and didn’t fact-check. However, I don’t think this was an accident. There’s a smear technique called “gettng it out there,” which hinges on the fact that it’s extremely rare for a correction or debunk to get as much play as the original misstatement or smear. (The Swift Boat campaign against Kerry is probably the most notorious example, and it worked because the press mostly just passed along false charges they didn’t fact-check. The Swifites and their backers never faced the political backlash they likely would have if they had been exposed as liars.)

Consider also this Politico article from 3/20/08, interviewing working-class whites in Philadelphia:

A day after the speech, local residents were left wondering whether Obama was candid in the last week when he said he hadn-t heard any of Wright’s most objectionable remarks, but then said Tuesday that he had heard “controversial” remarks while sitting in the pews.

“He lied to Anderson Cooper,” said Rodica Mitrea, an aesthetician and immigrant from Romania, referring to an Obama interview Friday with the CNN anchor.

Actually, Obama was entirely consistent. He wasn’t in church for either of the two sermons in question, as records show (in one case he was in Miami), but he said he had heard other language in church that could be considered controversial or “blunt” (but that Wright preached love overall). Read Obama’s initial condemnation of Wright’s words, this MSNBC account, watch his aforementioned interview with Anderson Cooper and watch his speech again. Regardless, Rodica Mitrea is wrong. Obama didn’t lie. Now maybe Mitrea doesn-t have a great memory, or there was too much nuance for her, or she was at that point inclined to distrust Obama, or she thought that he lied because, y’know, that charge was “out there.” But the glaring flaw of The Politico piece is that it doesn’t bother to fact-check for the reader, who won’t know from reading that article that Mitrea is wrong. The reader is likely to be left with the false impression that Obama lied - exactly what Kristol falsely charged three days earlier. Ain’t that sumtin’? I’m not saying there’s direct causality here, only that lazy, stenographic (but supposedly legitimate) journalism is an ideal conduit for lies and smears.

Not a bad punchline by Payne. “The Audacity of Hope” title comes from one of Wright’s sermons, which as Obama explained, were mostly full of hope, love, inspiration and so on. However, Payne is suggesting here that, despite Obama’s condemnation of Wright’s remarks and Obama’s big speech, he actually shares Wright’s most controversial views (or a caricature thereof). He’s a stealth black radical! (Some right-wing bloggers have tried to link Obama to the Black Panthers, too. Expect much more of this.)

Overall, this is just silly, since Obama is making no such pretensions. I agree the HIV conspiracy theory is pretty daffy, although given the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male and the CIA’s LSD experiments on people without their knowledge or consent, it’s sadly not straight out of science fiction, either. And it doesn’t take much effort to think of some really crazy conspiracy theories held by millions of Americans. Besides the milita’survivalist “black helicopter” crowd, there are more mainstream conspiracy theories. While not all global warming deniers may believe that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” as does Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), amazingly, only 13 Percent of congressional Republicans believe in man-made global warming. I hear the same folks believed Iraq had WMD and still hold that Bush is doing a good job as preznit. So perhaps we should discuss the consequences of daffy beliefs? In any case, the best rebuttal to Ramirez remains Obama’s speech.

Allie delivered this cartoon in 3/23/08, five days after Obama’s speech, so he’s cleary referencing it. Change the subject?!? Obama took it head on, and elevated the national discourse on race. As many a commenter has noted, he took the radical step of talking to Americans as if they were adults. As LG&M noted sarcastically:

What a colossal failure. I just don’t think there’s any way for Obama to recover from the fact that Victor Davis Hanson, Paul Mirengoff, Michelle Malkin, Kathryn Lopez, John Derbyshire, some dude living in his mother’s basement, and Atlas Shrugs remain unpersuaded of Obama’s worthiness to lead America.

Maha had more on this, and I’d recommend Scott Horton’s very poetic piece on the speech. Or did I mention Obama’s speech itself?

Recycled Clinton joke aside, Bob Gorrell seems to have been the only conservative cartoonist who found the whole thing ridiculous.

Notice that Gary McCoy is implying that Wright is an enemy to America. But as to the surface charge - there’s been a great deal of silliness over whether talking to a foreign head is wise or foolish, with some ridiculous hair’splitting and much bad faith bluster. Attempting diplomatic engagement, especially when we’re not at war with these nations, is never stupid. Whether that diplomacy is well executed and whether it’s fruitful or not are other matters, and fair points of critique. But now we’re in the province of adults. These points are apparently too subtle for Tim Russert to grasp (judging from his questions), and they’re points neocons like Charles Krauthammer have repeatedly tried to bludgeon to death, because they view diplomacy itself as a failure. (See Maha’s “The Power of (Right Wing) Myth” for a great dissection of this mentality.)

There are times the conservative zeal for defiant ignorance doesn’t even make internal sense. Don’t they remember that even Saint Ronnie talked with those evil Ruskies all the time? And if someone’s an enemy, wouldn’t you want to understand how they think? It’s a key point Robert McNamara makes in The Fog of War, “Know your enemy,” and McNamara bemoans how badly his crew failed on that count with Vietnam. For instance, surely before you decided to start a war with another country, you’d make sure to know some basic facts about it? Oh - nevermind.

Democrats are monsters, I tell ya! This is just silly. Obama’s remarks were:

I-ve got two daughters; 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don-t want them punished with a baby. I don-t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn-t make sense to not give them information.

Obviously, Obama doesn’t “hate babies” when he has two daughters - and I’d love to see right-wingers try to make this a big campaign issue! He’s just pro-choice and supports accurate and comprehensive sex ed. Steve Benen has a good overview of this whole story, which includes the Obama campaign response:

What Sen. Obama said and what he believes is clear - children are A-miracles,- but we have a problem when so many children are having children. As Sen. Obama said on Saturday - and on many other occasions - parents have a responsibility to teach their children about values and morals to help make sure they are not treating sex casually. And while he understands the passions on both sides of this difficult issue, Sen. Obama believes we can all agree that we should be taking steps to reduce the number of teen pregnancies and abortions in this country.

I’ll add that there are anti-abortion activists who really do feel forcing a teenage girl to bear a child against her will will ‘learn her.’ It’s a punitive mindset, but while there are those who are sincerely distraught by the thought of abortion, overall the anti-abortion movement makes little sense outside an agenda of social control. The saying that conservatives’ commitment to life ends at birth is sadly often true.

(In case you hadn’t noticed, this election will continue to center on attacking candidates for off-the-cuff remarks rather than asking for clarification, or heavens forbid, discussing actual policy. Obama’s recent remarks in Pennsylvania are merely the latest example. If you’d like an early jump on that one before the next RWCW installment, I’d recommend Brilliant at Breakfast, “The Trail” Blog at the WaPo, C&L #1, C&L #2 and Sadly, No… with much more to come, I’m sure. Also as a preview, there’s the media claiming Hillary Clinton was fibbing in a health care story when she wasn’t. As Bob Somerby says all the time, the press love writing their novels.)

What’s funny is that conservatives view Obama as so very liberal! There are certainly Democrats who disagree.

Asay trots out an old conservative scare tactic. Considering how much the rich and powerful have benefitted under Bush, and how the poor and middle class have not, I think this is a hard sell.

Boy, Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court being defeated still chaps some Republicans, doesn’t it? The guy was faaaaar right, way out of the mainstream. He even wanted to terminate judicial review, for goodness’ sake! (He’d get along great with the current the President-is-King crowd.) Payne views rejecting Bork as divisive? Bork was divisive. That Reagan nominated him was divisive. I don’t think this pitch is a winning one outside of very conservative circles!

I don’t know how accurate Gary McCoy’s little story is here. Personally, I would love it if far more Americans were better informed about politics - and a number of other matters. But this election season, more people are voting than ever before, and the turnout rate among young people and recently naturalized citizens has been very encouraging. That’s good for democracy. (And if it’s any consolation to McCoy, had this man, probably a first-time voter, really studied his history and politics, he wouldn’t be picking McCoy’s party, anyway!)

 

HILLARY CLINTON

Speaking of a beloved bugbear of conservatives, Ted Kennedy, here’s our obligatory Chappaquiddick cartoon. Funny, conservatives see Kennedy and claim they always think of that, and when they mention it, I always think of Michael Berube’s wry jab, “I used to consider myself a Democrat, but thanks to 9/11, I-m outraged by Chappaquiddick.” As for endorsements, they may tip the balance for an uncertain voter, but the press always makes far too big a deal out of them.

There’s some chatter back and forth on liberal blogs on which candidate conservatives want to face in November, and how this or that ploy gives the game away. Limbaugh’s pitch to Republicans to vote for Clinton in their state primaries was certainly the most prominent incident fueling such talk. Still, my take is either Clinton or Obama could defeat McCain if their campaign’s well-run, and Karl Rove and his ilk want Dems to be fretting and second-guessing themselves. I say, ignore the head games and just punch them hard in the mouth (metaphorically, that is).

I thought this was pretty funny, because there is a generational divide between women on how they view Clinton. PBS’s Now had a good segment on this featuring the Pogrebin family, and Echidne of the Snakes covers such issues frequently and insightfully.

Clinton hatred really astounds me sometimes, especially in folks like Andrew Sullivan, where it’s completely irrational. The most negative things I can say about Bill Clinton center on him not being liberal enough (eliminating a safety net for the poor, for example, even if was due to Gingrich’s pressure). Alan Greenspan joked that Clinton was a great Republican president. But conservatives certainly aren’t complaining that the poor got screwed! Overall, the Clinton years were very prosperous. Less partisan Republicans accorded Clinton begrudging respect. What’s the real objection?

As with Mike Lester here, it just seems there’s a great deal of personal animus against those hicks the Clintons (law degrees and a Rhodes scholarship not withstanding). Maybe that’s why conservatives get along so well with the possessive, pearl-clutching provincialism of “centrists” such as David Broder, who huffed that Bill Clinton “came in here and he trashed the place and it wasn’t his place.” (Broder, for the record, thinks Clinton should have resigned over the Monica Lewinksy scandal but does not think Bush deserves impeachment, which really says it all.)

Really, I understand if you don’t like Clinton, but calling him one of the worst presidents?!? Lester’s entitled to his opinion, of course, but he’s in opposition to the majority of historians and the American public on this one. Meanwhile, note the straw man attack on Hillary Clinton that smears Obama at the same time (very efficient). Clinton has never pushed the Hussein middle name thing. That would be many right-wing bloggers and operatives, Fox News and (while blaming it on Clinton) Lester himself.

The original story of Obama dressing in “Muslim garb” (there’s really no such thing) was just ridiculous (See Hilzoy’s “Oh Noes! George W. Bush Is Teh Secret Vietnamese!” for more). Meanwhile, as skippy reminds us, when right-wing political operative and all-around slimeball Matt Drudge claims he got these (non’shocking) photos from the Clinton camp, there’s plenty of reason to treat this with skepticism.

I was quite willing to accept the Clinton campaign’s initial explanation that Hillary Clinton was tired and misspoke when she talked of being under fire in Bosnia. What was more troubling and less defensible was that Clinton did it repeatedly. A Tiny Revolution has an interesting take on the whole thing. Needless to say, as with Spitzer and Wright, there were far more conservative cartoons on this, but they get repetitive. (By the way, I really like the visual composition of this cartoon. There’s a nice use of a leading diagonal and selective coloring to make the key faces pop.)

As he often does, Holbert uses a lighter and funnier touch than his pals.

(I don’t begrudge coverage of this one, but I do question the media’s general approach, and I dislike that their supposed fact-checking is often not very accurate or full. I wish that media objections to candidates were due more to their policies (accurately described, with consequences weighed) than incidents like this, but ya just don’t make it on Hardball with an attitude like that.)

Granted, the gun theme gives an “in” for this motif, but if there’s one thing more tiresome than seeing Bob Gorrell trot out this chestnut on 3/25/08…

…It’s seeing Ramirez trot it out on 3/26/08.

It’s actually not a bad punchline, but given Allie’s consistent depiction of Democrats as evil and monstrous, a bit troubling. (I just noticed he gave the reporter an Obama pennant.)

There are times I wonder if Gary McCoy actually understands Marx and Socialism beyond, say, a Reagan-McCarthy-Coulter demonization level. Clinton was arguably the most conservative of all the major Democratic candidates (although much more liberal than any of the Republicans). A real Marxist would give folks like McCoy a heart attack!

His brother Glenn McCoy sounds the alarm as well! There are times I really do wonder, to what degree do these guys actually believe this crap? Oh well, I guess we can feel reassured by the fact that should a Democrat win the White House, Glenn McCoy wil rediscover the idea that executive power should not go unchecked.

Glenn’s on a roll! He can’t seem to decide, though, whether Hillary’s some zombie vampire thing…

Or a witch (there weren’t as many wiches this time around)…

…So we’ll let Henry Payne settle the tie.

Wait! A late contender! Catalino goes with “monster”! (Personally, I think Samantha Power should have been able to apologize but not resign, especially given that it was an interview about her book and not the presidential race, that she didn’t want the remarks used, and I don’t see how the story was more than gossip. I’d say the same for Ferarro, even though her comments were expressly public - let her apologize for poor word choice, perhaps, clarify, and then drop it, but she just kept digging.)

But whoa! I’m afraid Gary McCoy runs away with this one, getting my vote for most appalling cartoon of the installment. Not only is Hillary Clinton a whore, she’s a buck-toothed whore with a gut and horrible taste in shoes and pleather. And is that leg stubble?

Let me add that it’s a much harder sell to claim that Hillary’s push for healh care was due to self-interest. That was never going to be an easy political battle, and there is that little matter of improving health care for millions of Americans (even if one feels the plan itself was bad).

 

JOHN McCAIN

Many conservative cartoonists attacked McCain for not being a “true conservative.” But never fear, Eric Allie…

…McCain will indeed veer! He’s pandered to the right wing on almost every issue at this point!

Lisa Benson at least thinks McCain has a conservative side…

…While Payne’s view remains much more typical, at least among conservative cartoonists.

This Catalino cartoon is a bit disturbing, and a bit bizarre given how pro-life the Republican base is. Is that Catalino’s way of showing how extreme the dislike for McCain is? McCain is a baby you’d abort?

But while babies are at least human, here Catalino says McCain is an alien chest-burster! Aaaaaah!!!

(Wait, is that worse than a sleath black militant? They explained it at the last GOP rally, but I forget.)

Conservatives! McCain’s been taunting you!

He thinks you’re stupid! (Interesting, since as we saw earlier, this is a standard GOP talking point against Democrats.)

He’s a wife beater! (There was also a shotgun wedding cartoon, but I found this one rather disturbing.)

Best to leave him altogether!

Henry Payne’s the only cartoonist (conservative, at least) I’ve seen bring up McCain’s legendary temper. Cliff Schecter has much, much more on that one.

Payne’s also the only conservative cartoonist who pointed out McCain’s very real election issues (many non right-wing cartoonists observed it, though).

What to do when so many big players on your own side hate you? (Varvel seems to be scolding them a bit here.)

And can Republicans do what’s necessary to maintain power, and continue the awesome job they’ve done over the past eight years? Can they achieve what seems impossible? If only they had a rallying incident… Hmm…

 

THAT DAMNED LIBERAL MEDIA

Ask and ye shall receive! The New York Times exposé on McCain did the trick! (If you follow the right-wing blogs at all, you probably know that many movement conservatives distrusted Romney until they felt The New York Times attacked him. That, to them, was an endorsement. It’s also because movement conservatives typically feel persecuted, and they define themselves in large part by who they oppose or even hate.)

Gorrell also spoofs the switch. Let’s be clear, though - for all their foot’stamping and holding of breath, most conservative players were always going to rally for McCain eventually. The New York Times exposé on McCain just provided an excuse.

Many cartoonists went with some variation on this motif, although I thought Varvel’s, here…

…And Holbert’s, here, were the best. Personally, I really didn’t care about any possible affair of McCain’s. What concerned me was the lobbyist ties, and I’d like to see more digging on that count.

While some of the press like Obama, even more luuuuuv them some McCain. I guess Asay missed how much they just adored the barbeque he made them, “courting his base,” the press, as Chris Matthews has put it. Check out Glenn Greenwald and Bob Somerby for more.

The same comment goes to Mike Lester here. I’ll deal with Obama in just a second, but on McCain, as Kevin Drum put it:

Let’s recap. Foreign policy cred lets [McCain] get away with wild howlers on foreign policy. Fiscal integrity cred lets him get away with outlandishly irresponsible economic plans. Anti-lobbyist cred lets him get away with pandering to lobbyists. Campaign finance reform cred lets him get away with gaming the campaign finance system. Straight talking cred lets him get away with brutally slandering Mitt Romney in the closing days of the Republican primary. Maverick uprightness cred allows him to get away with begging for endorsements from extremist religious leaders like John Hagee. “Man of conviction” cred allows him to get away with transparent flip-flopping so egregious it would make any other politician a laughingstock. Anti-torture cred allows him to get away with supporting torture as long as only the CIA does it.

Remind me again: where does all this cred come from? And what window do Democrats go to to get the same treatment the press gives McCain?

A good cartoon by Jerry Holbert, with a take worthy of a liberal blogger! (Don’t worry, we won’t tell.) Holbert picks up on the key dynamic. While there are some great reporters out there, many in the media - particularly the talking heads on TV, in my opinion - are shallow, vapid, and lazy, obsessed with gossip and trivia, and bored with policy and other matters of substance. Clinton has faced undue BS in addition to some deserved scrutiny. Ill-informed, crazy uncle Chris Matthews in particular has said some very unprofessional things about Clinton, including some sexist remarks.

But here’s the key problem. When Clinton complained about her coverage, and that Obama wasn’t getting scrutiny, rather than providing substance-based coverage on Obama, Clinton and McCain, the media’s “correction” was mostly to run shallow BS stories about Obama as well. Thus we have the flag lapel pin BS, long-debunked Muslim rumors, incessant questions about Farrakhan after they’ve already been answered, and on and on and on and… See John Amato, Glenn Greenwald and Digby (and many another liberal bloggers) for more. We’ve got a lousy, gotcha-and-headline obsessed, commercially-driven media, with vapid dolts pretending to be public intellectuals, think tank hacks pretending to be concerned wonks, and millionaires pretending to be reg’lar folks. It’s been a problem for a long time, and it won’t end any time soon. It’s not enough to win elections. We have to reform the media. (There are polls that show the public can’t stand the shallow gossip dominating much of the campaign coverage. The commercial benefit of quality is the best pitch there is to these media mavens.)

 

HOUSING

Lisa Benson comes up with a good visual design…

Many cartoonists used some variation on this gag…

…And Bok delivers a great punchline! Bok even touches on the Bush administration’s central role in creating this mess. Housing and gas are two of the few issues where conservative cartoonists tend to take a populist line over the party line. (It reinforces the notion that conservatives only really grasp how bad conservative policies are when they affect them personally.)

 

ENERGY

An original approach by Benson. Hey, Jimmy Carter warned us, and Al Gore has certainly spoken out on this. Too bad that in conservative circles, a Nobel prize is a bad thing.

Detroit-based global warming skeptic Payne is always harping on ethanol. I don’t have a problem with him criticizing ethanol subsidies, but I don’t see how they play a significant role in the staggering, record profits posted by oil companies, the climbing prices they’ve set, and the massive tax breaks given to them by Bush and the GOP. But hey, that’s me. (I also laughed when they whined to Congress recently, heartless bastard that I am.)

Like I said, this is one of the handful of issues where conservative cartoonists tend to be populists, since they, y’know, drive.

A great punchline by Varvel.

 

THE ECONOMY

It’s a, err, bear market!

No, it’s a bull market! Or not. (I love this design by Benson.)

A double whammy by Stantis!

Boy! These guys are on a roll! Have they been reading Paul Krugman’s The Conscience of a Liberal or something? The cost/standard of living in real dollars is in worse shape now for many in the middle class despite any overall economic growth, which is a factor many Bush cheerleaders try to obscure. (And of course, now everyone’s talking about a recession.)

Ain’t it the truth. The distribution of wealth in America is now the worst it’s been since the robber baron days.

Asay is trying to sell the premise that invading Iraq was a necessity. I have no doubt Asay sincerely believes this, but he’s wrong; it was a war of choice, and our continued occupation is a crippling problem. Asay typically opposes social programs, although since after’school programs cut down on juvenile delinquency and more and better jobs help cut into crime, that three trillion dollar war suddenly undercuts Asay’s prison argument on other grounds as well.

Did you know? Democrats hate business! Just, um, look at the economy under Bill Clinton for proof! I’ve got a pet peeve about the phrase “pro-business” - it’s overly simplistic, since it normally means “pro-management” and “giving companies whatever the hell they want, no matter how harmful.” Lower ranking employees work for a business, too. What are their working conditions? Is management shipping jobs overseas? Is the company a polluter, does it make unsafe products, does it price-gouge, does it practice transparency? Is it receiving giant tax breaks despite outsourcing? What is a given business doing for its immediate community, its state, its country? As with taxes, Republicans tend to avoid discussing details, such as whether a given business is small or a giant corporation. It might also help if the federal government didn’t use taxpayer money to help giant corporations crush small, local businesses. It’s only fair to ask not what the taxpayer can do for a company, but what a company is doing for its country.

This is an unintentionally funny design, especially given that conservatives generally rail against any restriction of smoking, not to mention air pollution standards. Regardless, it’s just a bad analogy: Don’t tax the rich their fair share, or it’ll hurt the poor and middle class - because just as with oxygen, you all share the same financial resources! Nevermind the great prosperity in the 50s with a tax rate of 80% or more on the top income brackets. Conservatives have been selling the same trickle-down crap for decades (if not centuries and millenia). I saw James Whitmore reprise his Will Rogers show several years back, and was amazed to hear him mocking the same “trickle down” arguments the Reagan administration so loved and the current Bush-backing crew adore. Will Rogers sussed it out all the way back in the 30s:

The Hoover theory for relief was to provide welfare by “percolation.” Money given to those at the top would “trickle down” to the needy. Rogers was not sure that finance followed physical laws. He thought Hoover was making a false analogy. Hoover was an engineer and knew that water flowed downhill. “But he didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands” (WA, Vol. 5, 207).

All one had to do was look at what happened to the money loaned to the railroads and smaller banks. They had not used it to create jobs. Instead, they paid off their loans to the New York banks. “So the money went uphill instead of down. You can drop a bag of gold in Death Valley, which is below sea level, and before Saturday it will be home to papa J. P. [Morgan]” (DT, Vol. 3, 271).

I guess it should be no surprise that the Hoover Institute and other right-wing think tanks, funded by rich individuals and corporations, would continue to push economic policies that benefit themselves while screwing over the poor, the middle class and the country as a whole.

Ah, Ramirez, like many a conservative, is a diehard supply sider, nevermind that it’s been long ago discredited as a wise fiscal policy. They pretend tax cuts are always good, that they always lead to larger revenues (they don’t), and that it doesn’t matter who those cuts go to. Funny, though, that they always try to give the most money to those who are already rich. It’s part of the classic YOYO versus WITT paradigm clash some economists describe: You’re on Your Own versus We’re In This Together. Ain’t it funny, too, that when the rich screw over the poor and middle class, that’s perfectly legal, but when the poor and middle class fight back, it’s class warfare? We better get our corporate-controlled media to the bottom of that!

This metaphor seems either inccurate or muddled to me, depending on how one views that coal bin. The bin’s called “Taxes,” not “Tax Cuts.” Raising taxes would put more coal in that bin, which in this metaphor would - help. But mostly, I just think this is a simplistic and inaccurate metaphor for the economy, meant to push the false idea that tax cuts for the wealthy help the country overall.

There’s only one thing to do in a case like this! As they said in Clash of the Titans, Release the Krugman!

Umm.. This Stantis cartoon raises a good point with a rather disturbing design. (Every so often he breaks out a “crazy eyes” cartoon, but coupling that with “fanged pig” is new.)

 

THE ENVIRONMENT

The environment is really the Chuck Asay show this installment. Speaking of conspiracy theories as we were earlier, did you know that combating man-made climate change is nothing more than a Socialist plot? I guess this is because it interferes with our god-given right to despoil the environment at will, or something. Talk about daffy!

Hey! It’s one of Asay’s beloved false choices! Did you know that you can’t help the poor and protect the environment at the same time? It’s a little odd to see devout Christian Asay bemoaning that other Christians, horrors, feel a “Biblical duty” to take care of the Earth. Besides the general civic duty, don’t-be’selfish-or-wasteful thing, that would probably be because of Genesis 1:28, which in the King James Version reads: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and he gave dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. However, a more accurate translation would be “stewarship” rather than “dominion,” and that entails taking care of the planet (contrary to Ann Coulter’s interpretation that this means we’re entitled to exploit the environment at will).

It’s a bit funny to see religious conservative and Bush apologist Asay essentially accuse people who trust empiricism of being authoritarian stooges. But if you bet he was being highly selective with his claims to paint a misleading picture, you’d be right. This is the write-up I found at Knight Science Journalism Tracker:

Corn-derived ethanol has spawned a booming industry, and biodiesel from vegetable oil has near-fanatic adherents, but a new PNAS study concludes that neither can be made in sufficient quantity to make much of a dent in US oil consumption. The farm land just isn-t there to do it, and to try growing enough corn or soya - a main source of vegetable oil - to displace a fraction of fossil fuels would send food prices painfully higher. The AP’s H. Joseph Hebert gets some squawking from corn growers and other ethanol boosters into his story. Maybe this is just more evidence of gaps in The Tracker’s trap line, but this story merits more coverage. The University of Minnesota and Olaf College team behind the report says that if one really wants to use either of the two green fuels, biodiesel is environmentally friendlier. It uses less (fossil) energy to produce than corn and the crop requires fewer fertilizers and other not’so-green farming practices. The report seems to settle one nagging issue in favor of corn ethanol makers - such fuel does generate more energy than it takes to make it. But not by much. It also suggests that biofuels derived from far more available plant cellulose (think grass or wood) rather than plant-derived oil or sugar could be worth trying in a big way.

Basically, Asay is trying to make corn-based ethanol stand in for all “trendy” alternative energy efforts, although the study notes other routes either are or could be very fruitful (commenters at the site also mention that Brazil’s sugar cane ethanol program is quite successful). And how does Asay know all this? Because science professors and students investigated it! Ya see, that’s part of the scientific process, investigating, testing, learning, refining. Funny what happens when you’re not trying to shill a particular policy, but actually search for the best solution for a problem.

Okay, this is a wacky argument. Faulty premise #1 is that climate change isn’t real or that some basic methods of fighting it aren’t clear (#2 is that taxpayers versus companies should be forced to pay). But the bigger flaw here is that Asay is trying to portray a consistency as a contradiction. The FDA exists to protect consumers from unsafe drugs and products. The EPA exists to protect the environment, cracking down on companies that pollute, among other things. (Not that either agency has performed well under the “E.Coli Conservatism” policies of the Bush administration.)

Somehow, a RWCW installment just doesn’t feel complete without someone making the tired joke and ridiculous claim that somehow cold weather somewhere on the globe means global warming is a myth.

 

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY DIES

A fair amount of conservatives memorialized Buckley, most taking a higher road than Payne here. In the negative column for Buckley, there’s National Review’s opposition to civil rights (among many other loathsome positions). That record makes Noam Chomsky’s polite evisceration of Buckley all the more sublime.

In the positive column, Buckley could be personally kind, even to liberals. Personally, I enjoyed watching some of the Firing Line debates on PBS when I was a teenager, even if the debaters ranged from the eloquent to the maddeningly hackish or obtuse. Regardless, there’s no doubt Buckley was tremendously influential in American politics for about 50 years.

 

MISCELLANEOUS

Umm… except the Bush administration has systematically, both secretly and overtly, ignored or tried to subvert the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and due process. For more, see “The Rigged Guantnamo Trials and Torture” and Scott Horton’s “Gitmo and the G.O.P. Election Effort” (and keep following Horton’s blog; he’s one of the best out there, especially on this subject).

Cuba’s record on human rights is not the best, but at first I thought that prison cell depicted Guantanamo. Remember when America was a world leader in human rights? The proposal that Bush boycott the opening Olympic ceremonies in China to protest their treatment of Tibet is well meant, but it seems pretty laughable to think that the torture president would suddenly care.

Umm… this is just a weird cartoon. Obviously, Catalino’s riffing on Spitzer. But what’s the point? Universal health care is a prostitute who might make ya feel just great in the short term, but is really expensive? Clearly, Catalino’s saying people who believe in universal health care are ’suckers,’ but he’s also trying to imply there’s something sordid about seeking it. Anyone else have a take? In any case, let’s go to the debunk, from Krugman, via Somerby:

Now, every wealthy country except the United States already has some form of universal care. Citizens of these countries pay extra taxes as a result-but they make up for that through savings on insurance premiums and out-of-pocket medical costs. The overall cost of health care in countries with universal coverage is much lower than it is here.

Meanwhile, every available indicator says that in terms of quality, access to needed care and health outcomes, the U.S. health care system does worse, not better, than other advanced countries-even Britain, which spends only about 40 percent as much per person as we do.

Here’s another one of Chuck Asay’s beloved false choices! Did you know that you can only care about the environment or Darfur? Did you know that liberals don’t care about Darfur? You can tell, because they care about the environment! Especially Hollywood liberals like George Clooney, Don Cheadle, Angelina Jolie, and Brad Pitt… And did you know the Bush administration was taking positive action on either? Me neither.

Churches can talk politics, they just can’t endorse specific candidates while maintaining a not-for-profit status. Funny, too, that overwhelmingly under Bush, it’s been liberal churches that have been targeted, not that you’d know that from reading Asay.

I like that Bok sees at least some complexity to the issue. In one of the debates, Russert repeatedly pressed Clinton and Obama for a yes-or-no on NAFTA; given its complexity, it seemed reasonable that they said that NAFTA had caused problems, but they’d have to re-examine the details and renegotiate. It would have been both fair and great for Russert to press them for more detail on what specifically they’d renegotiate, but the truth is that Russert, like most of our millionaire talking heads, doesn’t have the chops nor the interest to do that. Reporters should definitely challenge spin, and they definitely don’t enough. But they also should be able to educate and elevate the discourse. I can even buy that Clinton and Obama were both just spinning, but after Russert’s questioning, I don’t have have anything more than a general commitment from them.

Lester’s promoting a selective picture. The problem isn’t safe sex promotion. Neither is it a lack of people preaching abstinence, not that that’ll stop teens from having sex. The problem is “Astinence Only” sex education that doesn’t teach kids the facts. That’s why, when they do have sex (as shockingly, teenagers do), they’re less likely to use birth control. Al Franken, for one, prefers “Abstinence Plus,” that would have all the preaching conservatives want (well, not all of it) but would actually provide accurate, comprehensive sex ed as well. It’s stupid, irresponsible and counterproductive to do otherwise. How bad are things currently? Well:

A recent survey that found some Florida teens believe drinking a cap of bleach will prevent HIV and a shot of Mountain Dew will stop pregnancy has prompted lawmakers to push for an overhaul of sex education in the state.

The survey showed that Florida teens also believe that smoking marijuana will prevent a person from getting pregnant.State lawmakers said the myths are spreading because of Florida’s abstinence-only sex education, Local 6 reported.

They are proposing a bill that would require a more comprehensive approach, the report said.It would still require teaching abstinence but students would also learn about condoms and other methods of birth control and disease prevention…

Funny how lying to young adults or deliberately trying to keep them in the dark doesn’t work out, huh?

Boy, between slumping bulls and dead cows, it’s been a bad installment for bovines, huh? I heard a conservative arguing on Thom Hartman’s show (I’m pretty sure it was David Frum) that the meat industry in America was over regulated. Then this story came out, although anyone who’s read