Right-Wing Cartoon Watch: Challenging GOP talking points, celebrating the fine American tradition of editorial cartooning, and having a little fun in the process. (The longer blurb.)

Welcome to the 30th, long-delayed, super-sized installment of RWCW, covering eleven weeks of election mayhem, skyrocketing gas prices, and um… surely other things happened elsewhere in the world, too?

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

 

IRAQ

We’ll get to the election in a moment, but Iraq always demands attention. Here, Eric Allie shows classic conservative projection, and uses the tired straw man argument that opponents of our continued occupation of Iraq refuse to acknowledge any progress anywhere in Iraq. Meanwhile, you’re never likely to hear Allie or leading hawks such as Robert Kagan acknowledge the dire realities in Iraq, such as the 4-5 million displaced Iraqis. Like Baghdad Bob, they’re still insisting that all is well, or at least improving in a significant way. For a more accurate picture than you’ll get from them, check out the McClatchy Iraq page, NPR’s “Iraqis’ Deep Wounds Hamper Resettlement” and Dan Froomkin’s “Another Backfire in Iraq.” The hawks are still looking for a pony in Iraq.

Gorrell delivers the equally tired “surrender” smear, although it’s a sign o’ the times that it’s now personalized for Obama. Surrender to whom? To the Maliki-led, U.S.-backed, sovereign government of Iraq? To Al Qaeda, who could never take over Iraq militarily or politically, and who are mostly holed up in Pakistan, a country that’s our erstwhile ally? To the Iraqi people we’re supposedly protecting, and who overwhelmingly want us out and who feel it’s acceptable to attack and kill American troops?

Give credit to Ramirez for being pretty good at crafting misleading arguments leading up to a punchline. “Quit” and “surrender” are juvenile characterizations denying the complexities in Iraq, most of all the main problem: political reconciliation between warring Iraqi factions, a reconciliation that is in many ways exacerbated by the American presence there. And need I point out another aspect of Ramirez’ false comparison, that no one died because of the Democratic primary fight, nor did it cost 2-3 billion per week, and it actually ended? But what matter casualties, when the vanity of chickenhawks is on the line?

One could say we’ve “turned the corner” in Iraq, only we’re driving ’round and ’round the same building, looted long ago and on fire.

This argument is sorta new, although as an accusation it’s a stretch. Glenn McCoy’s main point is to accuse the Democrats of being hypocrites. Funny, I don’t see how saying the Bush administration argued for war in bad faith, and saying they’re managing our ongoing occupation incompetently, is contradictory at all.

It’s fair to say that Iran doesn’t want America to be any stronger in the region, but the U.S.-backed Maliki government has met with Iran, and probably has the closest relations with Iran of all the major players in Iraq (more than Sadr and the Mahdi Army). Meanwhile, the Bush administration sure didn’t need any help from Iran in setting fire to Iraq.

Nor, despite the best saber-rattling efforts of Lieberman and other hawks, has there ever been conclusive, objective proof of Shiite Iran supplying the primarily Sunni insurgency in Iraq (see the previous link for more). But Iran has been a right-wing boogeyman for some time now, and sober threat assessments and “proof” aren’t really big with that crowd.

To be fair to Henry Payne, he’s been pretty good about acknowledging Iraq is a mess. There are some experts who sincerely believe America withdrawing from Iraq will make things worse. The sad truth is it probably will in the short term, but many experts (such as Retired General William Odom) have argued that the American presence there is actually the cause of many problems, and of course the Iraqis themselves overwhelmingly don’t want permanent American bases in Iraq (nor do the American people).

There is no graceful exit. There is no good exit. There are only degrees of peril and turmoil. That said, the interests of Iraq and the interests of America as a whole point toward withdrawal, whereas the Bush administration, focused on legacy and PR, wants to stay the course (and is trying to tie America into a long-term occupation deal to sandbag the next president).

Holbert goes for a lighter take, as he often does. Nevertheless, the most delusional or irresponsible Iraq policy is that of John McCain, whose recent statements on Iraq reinforce everything we explored in an older post, “John “100 Years” McCain.”

I’d say Fairrington’s take is the best of the bunch.

(Oh, since Afghanistan so rarely gets covered, here’s Lara Logan on The Daily Show and here’s To The Point.)

 

IRAN

I’m guessing Glenn McCoy is taking up the “Bomb Iran!” cause.

Iran does not have a nuclear bomb, and is not currently building one. That hasn’t stopped right-wingers from claiming otherwise for at least two years now. (Right-wingers also consistently mistake a lack of hysterical hyperbole for a lack of concern.)

 

MYANMAR/BURMA

Most conservative cartoonists went with a take like Chip Bok’s.

The interference with humanitarian aid has been distressing.

Gary McCoy sums up the attitude…

…And Michael Ramirez also uses a simple, striking design.

 

FOREIGN POLICY

I have a much more comprehensive piece on this, “Brave Cowboys of the Junior High Lunch Room,” but the White House made it clear that Bush’s “appeasement” comments in Israel were directed at Obama. Some conservatives tried to pretend Obama was touchy, “prickly,” or egocentric for strongly denouncing a very intentional attack by Bush. It was only when Obama, other Democrats and “realist” foreign policy Republicans started justifiably hitting Bush back that the Bush administration backpedaled. Under direct questioning, Bush was too cowardly to own up to the target of his smear.

Eric Allie goes with a similar tact, although his use of Perry Mason is a little odd. He seems to be trying to evoke some objective, unassailable principle. We cover this in far greater detail in the aforementioned post, but of course, basic diplomacy is hardly “appeasement” any more than all speaking is swearing. Even Bush family fixer James Watt, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense William Gates disagree with Bush and his more hawkish ilk on this one. If one thing should be clear after the past eight years, it’s that the hawkish policies of pseudo-tough morons are disastrous.

Not a bad punchline. I would say that living in another country, and travel, are pretty important life experiences for internalizing the important notion that not everyone else in the world lives and thinks as we do. I’m not at all convinced that John McCain’s pugnacious, imperialist outlook shows any actual wisdom. Foreign policy surely benefits from experience, but sound judgment is also rather key. (As Obama’s repeatedly pointed out, Cheney and Rumsfeld came into office extremely “experienced.”)

Holbert goes topical with pop culture to present a straw man. Obama hasn’t talked about negotiating with terrorists. Nor is it naive to at least attempt to engage in diplomacy with the most irrational or dangerous of regimes. It would be naive to think it would always work, or that they will operate in good faith. But it’s generally foolish not even to try. (See the Hilzoy “underpants gnomes” passage in the brave cowboy post for more on this point. You can read a basic overview of Obama’s foreign policy here, read about recent Obama-McCain campaign sparring on foreign policy here - plus, a bonus Hilzoy debunk!)

Oh, and did we mention that Iran doesn’t have any nuclear weapons? They do have a nuclear power program in development, which is the subject of great international attention. But the Bush “let’s give them the silent treatment” approach sure didn’t work with North Korea. With Iran, the Bush administration has insisted that Iran concede to all Bush demands before they sit down to negotiate — which sorta defeats the pupose of negotiating. (Of course, active diplomacy would also undercut the rationale for the military strike on Iran urged by the usual slobbering hawks.)

Obama sure as hell knows more about foreign policy than Bush did when he took office, and shows much better judgment. Somehow, I don’t think Obama would order an invasion of another country without even knowing basic facts about it.

Allie accuses Obama of not learning the lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis. That’s pretty rich from such an avowed hawk. First of all, diplomacy often entails tough talk and demands. What it doesn’t entail is starting unnecessary, and potentially catastrophic, wars — and that’s exactly the point of the Cuban Missile Crisis, something the Bush administration apparently never learned. Allie also seems to have missed another key element of the Cuban Missile Crisis. To quote from an older post:

Many folks have speculated that if the Bush administration had been in charge during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we’d have had a nuclear war (and some historians would posit we were lucky to avoid it under Kennedy). To date, it seems there are few if any ‘cooler heads to prevail’ in the Bush White House. Dean Rusk’s famous line was that “We’re eyeball to eyeball, and I think the other fellow just blinked.” For years, the “lesson” of the Cuban Missile Crisis was to taken to be: Act tough and make the other guy back down. However, with more interviews of the central players, and greater access to documents of the time, a different picture has emerged. Books such as Graham T. Allison’s The Essence of Decision have made clear that defusing the Cuban Missile Crisis was due in large part to quiet diplomacy. While Kennedy could talk tough in public, behind the scenes his administration told Khrushchev if he removed Soviet missiles from Cuba, they would be open to discussing the removal of American missiles from Turkey.

Granted, I was pretty young during the Iran hostage crisis, but here again a conservative cartoonist seems to have a shaky handle on history. First of all, Ramirez offers a false choice and a straw man: the only choices are not between “unconditional talks” and “the threat of force,” neither of which accurately describe Obama’s foreign policy, anyway. But the hostages were not freed due to military action by the United States, who actually conducted a rather disastrous raid. It was diplomacy that did the trick. (Last thought: not that we need to approve, but it’s silly not to expect countries to pursue their own agendas, and the term “rogue” leaders is awfully imperialistic.)

I guess I missed that point in the Cold War where Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan or Bush the elder believed that the Soviets were negotiating with the U.S. with the best interests of the U.S. in mind. Childish views of foreign policy are best left to children’s fairy tales.

Did you know? You need to like someone to make a deal with them! Do we really need to run down the list of all the dictators and repressive regimes America has dealt with over the years? Hell, yesterday’s Hitler du jour, Saddam Hussein, was once one of them!

On this note, it’s really remarkable how one of the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein gassed his own people, although Bush left out that it occured roughly 14 years previous to Bush’s statement, when Hussein was an ally of the United States, before Rumsfeld had his famous meeting with Hussein to assure him America would stick by him, and before we fought the first Gulf War. (Honestly, many of the things done in our name as Americans by our government have been pretty awful.)

Glenn McCoy thinks Obama’s a clown! Um, yet again, compared to deciding to invade a country, and months after that decision still not knowing basic facts about it? I’m not convinced. No one’s dead because of Obama.

Did you know? Glenn McCoy does Holbert one better, and sez that Obama doesn’t just talk with terrorists, he likes ‘em and wants to hug ‘em! Oh, and Obama’s for peace, that sap, like, oh, most combat veterans and generals with a lick of sense. McCoy suggests a narrow range of options, and implies that wanting peace is capitulation in some fashion, as opposed to what it really is - basic sanity.

Did you know? Carter engaged in diplomacy, and that makes him a pink, frilly girl!

And Obama’s a girl, too! (Get ready, this is the first of many!) Manly men start wars and strut on flight decks with their genitals puffed out! (More on this in the “brave cowboys” post.) I swear, the neocons and other hawks are goddam children, horrible scoundrels or both when it comes to basic history and common sense. They need to read up on World War I, among other conflicts, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, or else stick to games of Risk where they’ll do less harm and only slaughter themselves.

Notice the implicit false assertion here - Obama is the “enemy” of reg’lar, “real” Americans. Even though most Americans live in urban or suburban neighbohoods now, they ain’t real! And heaven knows, the depicted demographic has done so very well under eight years of Bush, who keeps giving more money to the already super-wealthy.

See, see, this is funny, right, and completely original, right, because Hillary Clinton is a threat to America!!! (I mean, not as bad as the Dixie Chix maybe, but close.)

 

GUANTANAMO AND HABEAS CORPUS

Ah, this time it’s Lisa Benson who delivers the beloved crashing plane motif. It goes perfectly with all the conservative fear-mongering on the circuit right now. What’s so appalling is that despite repeated evidence that some detainees have been innocent all along, conservatives still pretend that everyone ever arrested and detained is guilty, and that holding them for as long as six years without charges is no biggie. What is to fear from justice? It’s not as if an actual terrorist is liable to get off easy in an American military or civilian court! It’s not as if a habeas hearing means a prisoner will actually be freed - just that the government needs to have charges and show cause. Besides subdued to overt bigotry, and the notion that dusky-hued foreigners who speak funny languages are all the same and just don’t deserve fair treatment (read some right-wing blogs to see this attitude), perhaps it’s mainly the fear that Bush administration officials could be prosecuted for war crimes?

The Bush administration has tried to eliminate due process and the justice system, and just declare everyone guilty. It’s hardly surprising, given that they eliminated intelligence vetting and covered up significant dissent to help claim Iraq was an imminent threat, that they tried to eliminate honest evaluation by the public in making the case for war, and they eliminated civil liberties to spy on Americans illegally. That’s on top of their whole zeal for torture. Lucky for us their infallible judgment is matched only by their incomparable integrity and peerless competency.

Ya know the other thing I don’t like ’bout them Muslim fellars? They’re all homos!

Stantis has been pretty good about noting the assualt on civil rights by the Bush administration, a stance which does have some tradition in conservative circles, but is heresy to the authoritarians of movement conservatism.

 

BARACK OBAMA

There were plenty of cartoons on Wright (shocking, I know), but I’m not going to focus on all of them at length just because we spent so much time on similar accusations in the previous installment. Several conservative cartoonists used this line of attack, ignoring that Obama condemned Wright’s statements before finally repudiating him altogether (it’s a bogus but well-constructed gag).

Since last time, Wright spoke with Bill Moyers at length, and I thought came off much better than in the endlessly played clips - even if some of his theories are pretty wacky. But again, consider the “global warming is a myth,” “Iraq did so have WMD,” “George Bush didn’t lie” and “a war in the Middle East will bring about the Rapture” crowds. It’s been interesting to see mainstream media figures such as Howard Kurtz repeatedly refer to Wright’s craziest views as “lies,” since that suggests Wright is deliberately saying things he knows to be false. I don’t remember Kurtz, who flogged the Wright story endlessly, ever using the word “lie” for Bush or for any of the other aforementioned crazies.

All that said, at the National Press Club, Wright adopted a rebuttal style during the Q&A versus one of explanation and reconciliation. I could be wrong, but I thought his pride got involved. He was a PR disaster, and the Obama campaign really had to sever ties. Personally, I still don’t give a damn about someone’s preacher or what-not unless he or she is giving poltical counsel, and McCain seeking Hagee’s endorsement for political benefit matters much more to me (although McCain’s rejected Hagee, now, too). I’d just say that while there were people who were sincerely upset by Wright, there was also plenty of hypocrisy and BS flying about as well.

Varvel constructs a similar cartoon, clever in its Biblical allusion, although that allusion suggests that a fearful Obama rejected Jesus, and that… Wright is Jesus! Huh.

Gorell doesn’t think Wright is Jesus, nor even a man of god. Hey, Gorrell’s entitled to his opinion (and I’m with him on the Jesus part), although I’ve never considered many of the most ostentatiously religious folk out there “people of god,” either, including the very un-Christian Pat Robertson, James Dobson, William Donohue, the late Jerry Falwell and whoever the latest family-values Republican caught in a sex scandal is.

Oh, by the way, while I haven’t seen more recent polling, a May Gallup poll found “38% of likely voters saying McCain’s association with Bush makes them less likely to vote for McCain, while 33% say Obama’s association with Wright diminishes their likelihood of voting for Obama.”

Lester’s cartoons often have a violent streak. I agree with the take of some Dems that Obama’s received some valuable training for the general election from the various “scandals” of the past few months.

Umm… This cartoon strikes me as pretty tasteless. Fair game? Other takes? Wright’s 9/11 sermon was much less inflammatory in fuller context (even if personally, I wouldn’t express things at all that way). I do think part of the problem - besides deliberately misleading editing by Fox News - is that 9/11 still produces such a strong emotional reaction for many people, and one must tread carefully. Wright actually expressed sympathy for all the victims of 9/11. He certainly didn’t say any of them deserved to die. He did try to explain why. Now, I don’t think Wright is the best person at all to lead that discussion nationally. But like it or not, justified or not, Al Qaeda acted as it did because of their perception of United States foreign policy. Having that discussion, which is rather important for our future foreign policy, in no way means Al Qaeda’s victims deserved to die, any more than studying the crime scene of a murder and investigating the murderer’s motives means the victim deserved to die. Rudy Giuliani, among others, consistently tried to shut down any such discussion or reflection, and tried to claim, like Bush, that Al Qaeda and similar foes ‘hate us for our freedoms,’ when our foreign policy has always been the key issue. Even that doesn’t mean all our foreign policies are necessarily bad, which is a separate discussion, only that they have consequences and they are perceived in certain ways by others affected by them. Bush, Giuliani and McCain (with his recent September 10th bullshit) want to keep any discussion of 9/11 purely emotional, on a fear and anger basis. Every individual has a right to his or her own emotional reaction, of course, but we’ve seen far too much Orwellian fear-mongering and “you’re a traitor” crap, all to try to pre-empt any rational discussion on the national political level. Meanwhile, one of the chief idiocies of the hawkish “you’re an appeaser!” crowd is their notion that it’s somehow not in our interests to understand how other people are thinking, including our declared enemies (I’ll recommend the doc The Fog of War yet again on this front).

Glenn suggests Obama’s a heretic who’s offended God!

Meanwhile, in an odd cartoon, Ken Catalino notes that the Obamas left Trinity Church. They said they did so with some regret, but the move was hardly surprising, given that they were effectively being held hostage by every idiotic statement made there. That’s in addition to the harassment and bomb threats cited by parishioners, who are mainly angry at the media, not the Obamas, over all the hoopla. But notice that here, Obama is some exotic foreigner - a Muslim, no doubt! - with a harem.

Hey! Glenn McCoy sorta stole my line! 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. McCoy accuses Obama of not being a patriot, and also implies (yet again) he’s not a true Christian, either.

We featured a roundup of posts on Obama’s “bitter” comment in the previous installment. Obama never said religious people were “bitter” - he is a religious person - he said that when people are bitter, they turn to religion and other familiar things that mean something to them. But they were offhand comments, and he quickly apologized for poor word choice. His main point, that people were and are getting screwed, is dead on. Here McCoy yet again questions Obama’s faith. (McCoy’s composition is pretty good here, but of course it helps if you’re cribbing Norman Rockwell, yet another way of suggesting Obama ain’t a real American.)

We’ve seen Obama depicted as a woman before, but not with cleavage! Lester’s laying it on thick as he combines two favorite conservative attacks: all Democratic men are women (and therefore weak), and all Democrats are snobby elitists! Obama never denounced racist working class voters, although you may have seen the videos and heard about the incidents confirming racist opposition to Obama. There was always something ridiculous about millionaire pundits and millionaire candidates chiding another millionaire candidate about lacking ‘the common touch.’ (Bob Somerby of Daily Howler actually sometimes calls our press crops “Antoinettes.”) Of course, Obama grew up very poor throughout much of his life, and working as a community organizer is hardly the path to a lucrative life, despite some desperate sneering by conservative pundits suggesting otherwise.

Much more importantly, GOP policies typically help the rich and powerful while leaving the poor and middle class in the dust. An analysis of the Obama and McCain tax proposals shows a pretty stark divide. As Kevin Drum put it, “If you’re really rich and think that George Bush’s tax cuts for the rich didn’t go nearly far enough, John McCain is your man.”

Did you know? The GOP wants you to believe that all tax cuts are the same, and giving even more money to the richest Americans is good for average Americans! Expect to see this standard “tax and spend” GOP attack much more, although the truth is that McCain can’t pay for his tax cuts, and Obama’s are far more fiscally responsible, as well as better for the poor and middle class.

Wow! I know Eric Allie specializes in conservative projection, but when exactly did Michelle Obama attack conservatives? (By the way, “feeling offended” by something not directed at conservatives does not qualify.) Was it before or after Fox News talked about the Obamas’ “terrorist fist-jab” or referred to Michelle as Barack’s “baby mama”?

Ooooh, Lester’s saying Obama’s a scaredy-cat, hiding behind the skirts of his wife! Look, I thought Obama saying conservatives should lay off his wife was a bit silly - if she’s campaigning, her remarks are a fair subject for criticism (although the criticism leveled here is pretty silly). But it was just a man defending his wife, quite understandable, and he said conservatives should come after him instead - hardly the attitude Lester’s showing here.

I should also note that Laura Bush showed some class by sticking up for Michelle Obama over these remarks, who in turn expressed her gratitude. (No, I don’t think many other conservatives will follow her lead, either.)

Aaaaaah!!! Gary McCoy sez Obama hearts terrrorists, OMG! This William Ayers “connection” has always been some awfully weak crap. But maybe we can get Elliott Abrams, Lewis Libby & Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and George Bush to explain it to us.

Notice that none of this “baggage” is anything substantial, and only one piece, “bittergate” refers to something Obama himself did, and that’s as gossamer as Bush’s enduring wisdom and the Miami Dolphins’ Super Bowl hopes in 2009.

Ken Catalino delivers a nice design, but although it had been in the news before this 6-9-08 entry, I guess he missed that Obama’s campaign will not accept lobbyist donations, while McCain’s campaign has extensive lobbyist ties.

If you missed where Obama proposed that we take everyone’s guns and destroy them, it’s because - shockingly! - he never did. To date, Obama has affirmed the individual right to gun ownership, but has made the unremarkable observation that some gun control restrictions are both constitutional and in a community’s rights to pursue. This is more about Asay scaring the GOP base than anything else.

I feel as if someone’s just sincerely insisted that the Sun revolves around the Earth or that Battlefield: Earth is an unsung cinematic masterpiece. Some of the debates featured good answers by the candidates, but that was largely despite horrible questions by the moderators (the best debate by far was the NPR one). Mostly, they weren’t even real debates, just joint press conferences. And of all the horrible debates, ABC’s was surely the nadir, with not a single policy question in the first 50 minutes or so. The few policy questions they did feature were pretty damn loaded and crappy, too. The whole affair was a cautionary tale for the ages about intellectual sloth, mendacious hackdom, abuse of power and contempt for the American people - who were overwhelmingly disgusted by ABC. See C&L #1, #2 and #3 for just a sample. There’s a big difference between “trying to make a candidate uncomfortable” and “asking a candidate a tough, pertinent, incisive question.” Asay apparently can’t tell the difference. I know high school students who could have done a better job than Stephanopoulos and Gibson - if their “job” was to ever to run a good debate, that is.

Ya know, it wasn’t until years after hearing about the “potatoe” incident that I finally saw the video, which was cringe-inducing (and Quayle’s self-pleased look is remarkably reminiscent of Bush). Keep in mind that McCoy, attacking Obama over misstatements, backs walking malaprop and foreign policy dunce Bush. Obama misspoke; he faced Clinton in fifty-seven contests. Does anyone actually believe that he thinks there are fifty-seven states? As to saying Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald, I can link a piece or two on that. But again, so what? How are any of these consequential? McCain is consistently confused on Iraq, his own energy policy and in the past, his stance on abortion. On war more generally, in contrast to Bush, I’d argue that it’s good to have general knowledge of major conflicts and understand major concepts, such as knowing key facts about a country before one invades it, and most importantly of all, not starting wars when they’re not necessary.

Did you know some Obama supporters “hate America”? Who knew? I guess Asay also missed the story about young, evangelical conservatives considering and in some cases supporting Obama, with their eyes wide open. I liked the closing tag the best:

Braun, the seminary student, said he’s not totally committed to any candidate yet.

“I just keep thinking, if Jesus were alive now, he wouldn’t necessarily be voting Republican,” he said.

Ya know, Obama may be right about that “hope” thing.

This has been a consistent attack on Obama. He’s about as experienced as JFK or Lincoln or Bush was, and shows much more intelligence and better judgment than Bush. His campaign beat Hillary Clinton, who started with a huge advantage in name recognition and funds, in large part due to better organization, and he’s increasing his lead over McCain, too. I know Ramirez bemoans that Obama isn’t as likely to bomb Iran, but somehow, I can live with his disappointment.

I think Varvel’s suggesting Obama needs to grow into the job - well, hell, as Bill Clinton recently said, everyone does to some degree. I have some concerns about Obama’s experience, myself, but I’ve found his recent rebuttals and critiques of Bush and McCain pretty sharp.

Glenn McCoy stoops really low to sling some crap. Now Obama’s a baby who needs his ass wiped! So far, he seems to be mopping the floor with Bush and McCain. In the words of McCoy’s guy, “Bring it on.”

Gorrell jumps on the diaper bandwagon to fling feces. Sad.

Allie tries to sell three beloved right-wing tropes here, by 1) reminding readers Obama’s middle name is Hussein 2) suggesting Obama is arrogant, and 3) claiming Obama is all show, a fake, a wimp who has to stuff a pillow in to have a chest.

Not long ago for the right-wing, Hillary Clinton was a Marxist (hahahaha), and now using “liberal” as a pejorative against Obama is ramping up. Obama, of course, is not the most liberal senator by a sizable margin, despite Fox News’ claims to the contrary.

But hey, guys, please keep depicting Obama as Superman! It’s like when you’ve depicted Cheney as Vader and the Democrats as good Jedis - I’m all for it!

 

HILLARY CLINTON

Several cartoonists tried to tie in the Mars probe somehow - although this gag strikes me as sub-Leno. I’ll say again that it’s not the best move to hold obnxious supporters against an otherwise worthy candidate, and there were respectable, serious reasons to support or oppose both of the Democratic contenders. (As in our previous installment, there weren’t as many Hillary Clinton cartoons because conservatives have mostly shifted to Obama, although we’ll see more of Clinton in the next section.)

Catalino goes to Mars as well - and continuing our interesting-depictions-of-Hillary-series, here she’s an errant probe with scary Killer Rabbit teeth! Aaaaah!!!

Shockingly, conservatives didn’t trust Hillary Clinton on guns, either.

The race was close, and plenty of people clearly did and do like Hillary Clinton. I’ll mention again that most of the press liked Obama much more than Clinton - but they absolutely love John McCain, whose campaign has been trying to sell the idea that the press is in the tank for Obama over Saint McCain!

Boy, that Bill Clinton sure is whipped! We’ve covered sexism for quite a while here at RWCW, especially as directed at Clinton, but that’s been from conservatives. The sexism Clinton received from some journalists and pundits was really appalling, most of all how blasé they seemed about it. The liberal blogosphere did lead a campaign to get Chris Matthew to apologize for some of his more outrageous remarks, and he did, but his pals were happy to soothe him afterwards, and in the primary postmortems absolved themselves of bad behavior. But then, they always do that. Digby has a video of some of the more egregious incidents posted, and (as I generally do) I agree with her take:

I have written before that I don’t believe Obama’s win is attributed to this phenomenon [of sexism in the media]. He won it fair and square, carrying a heavy historical burden of his own. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Acknowledging that doesn’t create a “toxic legacy” and neither is it just the sad lament of “lonely people” (translation: lonely old women.) But I’m sure those memes will catch on and we’ll all be told that we imagined it all. (Youtube is our new best friend.)

Clinton’s campaign ripped open a hole in our culture and forced us to look inside. And what we found was a simmering cauldron of crude, sophomoric sexism and ugly misogyny that a lot of us knew existed but didn’t realize was still so socially acceptable that it could be broadcast on national television and garner nary a complaint from anybody but a few internet scolds like me. It was eye-opening, to say the least.

Oh, by the way, Jerry Holbert wants you to know that Hillary Clinton’s got a fat ass.

We already covered this from another angle, but in addition to the absurdity of millionaire pundits and candidates throwing around such accusations, I’m not a fan of Democrats adopting right-wing talking points, such as the notion that cultural versus economic/political elites are our oppressors, or that liberals are a “Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show.”

I’m also not a fan of the Cult of the Offhand Comment, as Bob Somerby calls it. In most cases, just clarify, apologize if necessary, and everyone should move on. Honestly, Hillary’s RFK comments did make me do a brief double-take, mainly coming on the heels of her highly questionable Zimbabwe analogy. But while they warranted a clarification and apology, I thought some of the reactions were massively overblown (I like some of Olbermann’s stuff, but I’ll call him out on this one.)

That said, with “Bittergate” (and some earlier instances) Clinton did establish a Cult of the Offhand Comment standard herself. That doesn’t for a moment excuse any crappy reporting, of which there was plenty, but her past stances sure didn’t help her. The more fervent Clinton supporters may have missed this, but I read several bloggers who said they had liked and respected the Clintons, and really regretted feeling differently as the campaign season progressed. Liberal bloggers more fair-minded than I did find it difficult at times to defend them. (And a word of advice to everyone: if you ever find yourself in jam legally, or need an advocate to speak for you on TV, do not under any circumstances hire Lanny Davis.)

Did you know? Kentuckians are racist, inbred hicks! (We earlier linked pieces about racist opposition to Obama, and I’m happy to excoriate those people yet again, but obviously, the majority of Hillary Clinton supporters did not fall in this camp.)

 

THE DEMOCRATIC RACE

I’ll spare you the many boxing match cartoons. Race cartoons were also popular, of course. (Nice leading diagonal and “camera angle” here, by the way, but Benson’s got a good eye.)

Clinton actually did do better in the final stretch, although it wasn’t enough. Still, overall, Obama was more the tortoise, albeit with rocket skates. Jack Shafer made a key point about Clinton not losing so much as Obama winning:

Here’s my two cents, idiosyncratic as they may be: According to the chart, Clinton’s national poll average was basically unchanged between the beginning of October and the middle of May, starting at about 41 percent and ending at about 42 percent. Although Clinton verged on 50 percent of the average poll and dipped to just below 40 before the New Hampshire primary, her numbers remained relatively steady. Meanwhile, Obama’s numbers started at about 22 percent in October and rose faster than CO2 levels in the atmosphere, breaking 50 percent at the end.

Shafer ignores a key factor in Obama’s win, but as Atrios and other bloggers noted, most every MSM type ignored it in their postmortems: Iraq.

There were many cartoons on this theme (as there were last time), but unsurprisingly, Allie’s was the most violent. (Me, I prefer Wednesday and Pugsley’s rendition of Hamlet in the first Addams Family movie.)

Stantis’ was easily my favorite of the Mars cartoons.

Many a blogger in the past month has cited the aphorism that those with a respect for the law and a love of sausages should not watch either one being made. If anyone thought of politicians as morally pure beings rather than political tools requiring pressure from their constituents to do the right thing, this primary season was sure to disappoint them. I like this clever gag by Varvel, but a large share of the blame for our shallow national political discourse rests squarely with our vapid, gossipy, policy-hating pundits.

This was a key Clinton argument (and we’ve seen Varvel and other conservative cartoonists use baggage or similar metaphors before). What I find interesting is that Varvel depicts the ridiculously overblown Whitewater, even though the Clintons were cleared of any wrongdoing there, and that he suggests that Obama does have baggage, we just don’t know it yet. (Funny, the last few months have seen plenty of accusations!)

Clinton’s claims of leading or winning the popular vote were, um, contentious at best.

After Super Tuesday, and 11 straight victories for Obama, Clinton’s chances grew ever slimmer…

…But really, the race was remarkably close. Personally, I never thought the key question was how long Clinton or another candidate kept in the race; my chief concern was how they ran.

Plus, given that Obama couldn’t hit the magic number without superdelegates, either, Clinton had every right to make her case. Obviously, not everyone found her case convincing. I didn’t personally have a problem with Dean, Pelosi and others pushing the superdelegates to pick their person after Michigan and Florida were resolved and all the primaries had finished. (Although obviously others felt differently, and I did meet people who were gung-ho for a brokered convention. As the famous Will Rogers line goes, “I belong to no organized party - I’m a Democrat.”)

I mean, gosh, who really wanted to vote for that Hillary woman, anyway? Not those superdelegates! They didn’t like her and found her scary.

Not only that, but she (and her supporters) weren’t pretty enough, and if there’s one thing 18th Century etiquette books tell a “gentleman,” it’s not to inflict a homely female relative or friend on society. (I guess that makes Obama a “pretty girl,” then, too. Slick.)

But then, all Democratic men are just girls! And all Democratic women are masculine, uppity bitches. (Personally, I didn’t have a problem with key players such as Gore sitting out the nomination season, nor with Carter saying he’d vote for whomever won the state delegate count, nor with Edwards or Richardson endorsing Obama.)

Sorta cute, although Dean rightly resisted badgering that Clinton should drop out, and also pointed out that whoever didn’t get the nomination would play a key role in the party’s election prospects. I also didn’t like how some of the press jackals behaved. Let’s go to Digby again:

Look, I have the same analysis of the outcome of the elections in Indiana and North Carolina that most people have this morning. Clinton’s best argument — which was essentially that the voters were taking a second look at Obama and showing some buyers remorse — didn’t pan out last night. And there’s nothing wrong with political junkies sitting around the virtual pot-bellied stove and saying the race is “over” or exhorting her to drop out. We’re citizens and, in some cases, political players. There is, however, something unbelievably distasteful about a handful of powerful, millionaire, celebrity pundits “declaring” such a thing and having the paper of record breathlessly report it as if it was decisive and meaningful.

Who the fuck anointed Tim Russert as the final arbiter of anything? His job is to analyze the political landscape not declare the decision as if he were some kind of Roman Emperor giving a thumbs up or thumbs down. It’s bad enough that these gasbags put those thumbs on the scale as hard as they do, but actually taking the initiative to say when the race is over is even worse. To coin a favorite Village phrase, “it’s not their place.”

We’ve been over this many times before. Florida and Michigan were royally screwed up, and I don’t blame anyone for being angry about that. However, a constitutional right to vote in a national presidential election is very different from voting in one party’s nomination process.

Not a bad gag from Holbert. Of the two options they weighed, I thought the Rules and Bylaws Committee was wise to allow full delegate counts with half-votes for Florida and Michigan, because more people who really wanted to go can now attend the convention as a delegate.

Umm… to their credit, I saw some strong “seat the full Michigan and Florida delegates as voted!” Clinton supporters smack this argument down as offensive, which is is. First of all, slaves never had 3/5ths of a vote; white men in their states received a boost to their voting block. Second and more importantly, this analogy minimizes one of the most shameful chapters in our history, slavery.

I saw several liberal bloggers characterize Clinton’s position as “Change the rules until I win.” My take was that, again, Clinton had every right to make any case she wanted, but no one had any obligation to pretend it was a good case if they thought it wasn’t (I tend to think the obligation is to hear everyone out and then do one’s best to make an independent, conscientious judgment). As many bloggers noted, the RBC essentially ratified the proposals of the Florida and Michigan state parties. Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan. The Clinton campaign countered that that was his choice. The response was that Clinton had changed her stance. Basically, since we were dealing with party rules and bylaws versus federal statutes, it really came down to a political game, with both campaigns making their cases to the public, the party, the media and the committee. The Clinton campaign’s push for no delegates for Obama from Michigan did not go over well in some circles, and in the end, even some Clinton supporters on the RBC did not back her.

A clever design by Varvel.

Um, I’m not convinced anyone thought of Obama as a “wimp,” outside of the “Iraq is such a stunning success, let’s bomb Iran!” crowd. But look for this line of attack to pivot. Let’s go to Roy Edroso’s latest hilarious right-wing blogger roundup:

Indeed, some used KnifeGunGate as a jumping-off point for a topic new to us: the seething cauldron of rage that is Barack Obama.

“Obama has tried to justify his anger as a reaction to what he learned to see as the pervasive racism of American society,” claimed The Astute Bloggers. “The humble, self-effacing mask that Obama wears conceals a very different personality. And as he thinks he is getting closer to the Presidency, the ego rush will eventually generate enough psychical energy to overwhelm the mask… It won’t be pretty.” Strangely, there was no tie-in to the new Hulk movie.

Don’t worry, Roy, we gotcha covered.

(And remember kids, if there’s one thing worse than a girly liberal guy, it’s a scary black man.)

Several bloggers invoked Monty Python’s Black Knight, actually. (I am not yet convinced, though, that Glenn McCoy is aware of all internet traditions.)

Hillary Clinton is the worst of villains, a conscienceless gas guzzler! (Holy crap. We are reading conservative cartoons, aren’t we?)

Here, the Clintons are a malignant growth! (I’ve never fully understood the depth of animosity toward the Clintons.)

Glenn McCoy uses a lighter touch here, and this one’s at least sorta funny.

Eric Allie envisions Clinton as a death row inmate! (He does love his violent undertones - and overtones.)

Obama’s a girl! And Clinton’s a witch! A witch that can’t be killed! Aaaaah!

Glenn McCoy goes with the same motif, but here, Clinton’s so evil (and stinky), better use that wood chipper!

And here, Clinton’s an undead serial killer! Not even teenagers having sex can distract her from her murderous rampage! My god, can anything stop her?

In the words of Dogbert, we can’t let children think it’s okay to go around dressed like Vikings, hollering at each other.

And did you know? Bill Clinton likes his ladies zaftig!

I think it’s fair to say that Clinton’s speech on Tuesday, 6/3/08, when Obama reached the magic number, was to her supporters, not the party as a whole, and not to the electorate as a whole.

However, her concession speech on Saturday, 6/7/08 (before this cartoon from 6/9/08) was quite gracious, and even some of her critics found parts inspiring, touching, or classy.

If the New York Times‘ postmortem is accurate (apart from ignoring Iraq as a major factor) Clinton actually called a halt to bargaining tactics despite some internal pressure to do otherwise.

Ah, Salmonella-tainted tomatoes! How topical! Like Bob Somerby, I find it silly that journalists pretend that high-ranking officials shouldn’t be, or at least aren’t, ambitious. (And how did the un-ambitious Fred Thompson and George Bush work out?) There are good reasons for Obama to consider Hillary Clinton for VP, and good reasons not to, and plenty of good reasons she wouldn’t want to accept. (Points to her, too, for publicly saying it had to be Obama’s choice alone.) But I obviously don’t hear enough news chatter, because I was still taken aback by statements like this one from Nancy Giles:

No, it’s not worth losing over because I don’t think he’ll lose [if he doesn't pick Hillary Clinton for VP]…I think it would be a real liability. But his whole campaign is new—change, not old politics. And Hillary—look, if he gets Hillary as his VP, he’s got to hire somebody to be the official presidential taster because you don’t know what’s going to be in your food. You don’t know what could happen. I literally feel that way.

But what can ya expect from an evil, conniving, withcraft-practicing, undead serial killer, anyway?

Bok has drawn Hillary drinking Crown Royal a couple of times now, I guess because the common folk don’t drink it. And Bill’s a rich hick who likes to lounge around without his pants on. (Umm, rather elitist of Bok there, since Bill’s got plenty of company on that one!)

Obama’s nomination win really is rather remarkable. (By the way, I look at this cartoon as a standard David vs. Goliath pic, not a Hillary-is-an-evi- ogre pic.)

Sigh. Things got pretty ugly at times. My apologies to any and all for whom going over all this primary stuff is like picking scabs (feel free to pick an even more repulsive metaphor). I’m pretty sick of it, too, and not long ago offered a metaphor for reconciliation.

Glenn McCoy notes Obama’s historic win by giving us a preview of the crap he’ll be slinging for the next several months.

Supply your own profanity in response to this sanctimonious, revisionist crap. We went over some of this in the previous installment, and in an older post, but I get rather annoyed by what Rick Perlstein, Cornel West and others have called the “Santa Claus-ification” of Martin Luther King. King’s famous quotation is not about being color-blind, and he supported affirmative action, which continues to be necessary, even if we’ve made progress. MLK was, among other things, strongly anti-war, and while his son wrote a lovely letter to John Edwards, there’s little doubt he would have been proud to see Obama win the nomination. (He also sure wouldn’t be backing the hawkish, illiberal John McCain, who incidentally voted against making MLK’s birthday a holiday several times.)

Gorrell also says “color-blind,” but unlike the inaccurate, revisionist sourpuss McCoy, he’s being celebratory here. Classy of him. It’s pretty astounding, actually, that to date all American presidents haven’t just been white men — apart from a handful, I believe they’ve all been white, anglo-saxon protestants with ancestry from the British Isles. (And now I have a new research project!)

Whatever his other faults, Henry Payne consistently celebrates MLK Day and gives a nice shout-out here.

Stantis does the same. Well done.

 

JOHN McCAIN

McCain, to his credit, has made fun of his age as well. There has been some “age-ism” around (although claiming that calling McCain “confused” when he really has been confused is “age-ist” is just silly BS to work the refs in the press). I do think his health is a legitimate subject, especially given his bouts with cancer (then there’s Reagan having Alzheimer’s). McCain did release some health records, but only allowed access for a few hours (The Daily Show had a funny take).

Bob Gorrell notes that conservatives aren’t that enthused over McCain.

Ramirez notes that McCain hasn’t won any friends by speaking about combating what Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) calls the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people, global warming!

McCain was very lucky in a way to win the nomination, and the GOP are lucky to have him over the other candidates, given that the press love him and the public has a rosier picture of him than is warranted. But he’s also unlucky in that he’s saddled with the most unpopular president in history (since modern polling, at least), and most of his policies are the same or worse as Bush’s. As Digby and others have noted, should he lose, the loss will be blamed on him not being conservative enough.

 

VOTERS AND THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE

Slamming all the candidates is better than we can normally expect from our usual gang.

Give Asay some credit, I guess, for not liking pandering, although I doubt he’s going to make big money as a political advisor anytime soon with this view of the political landscape.

Score points for Holbert…

…And nice composition by Varvel.

A good design by Stantis. The presidential election could be close because of the electoral college, but Congress might see a tidal wave. (But we’re still months away, so who knows.)

Okay, good punchline, but the law is a measure to fix a virtually non-existent problem. Heaven knows, we have to deny elderly nuns and other senior citizens the vote. It’s just a coincidence that the poor and elderly tend to vote Democratic! (Let me link The Brad Blog for more on voting issues.)

Um… I guess Ramirez hasn’t visited the White House recently, since you need to show ID to enter. But okay, he means voting. Well, one’s a constitutionally-protected right, one’s the issue of a private business admitting someone or not (and imagine in many cases, trying to avoid violating state laws about minors). Free photo IDs do solve the problem - but only if the state then makes a concerted (and possibly expensive) effort to transport elderly or infirm folks to get them to the ID facility, or better yet, goes to meet them. I simply don’t see the problem with the old method - bring in your election mailer, or show ID, or show a bill or other piece of mail. The serious answer to Ramirez is that, per the links above, we’ve already seen negative consequences of this law that outweigh any demonstrable benefit. The snarky answer is that more people try to sneak into strip clubs than try to vote twice.

What’s funny is that to slam Obama, Ramirez actually (accidentally?) slammed Bush. But this “Carter” thing is the new appeaser liberal traitor pinko Griffindor star-bellied sneetch meme conservatives are trying to sell. Steve Benen dissects this one nicely, and passes on a good quip by Oliver Willis: “McCain went from a 19th century comparison to a 20th century comparison. At some point in his campaign I suppose he might join Sen. Obama and the rest of us in the 21st century.”

 

BUSH AND THE GOP

Yup, with a straight face John Boehner keeps claiming that Republicans are the real “agents of change.” Good luck with that one.

Not bad. Rice and Cheney have been particularly adept at flattering Bush. (Dumb, lazy, incurious and insecure makes for a great mark.)

Decent gag! This time, even most protesters in Europe ignored Bush.

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN

This was the take of many a liberal blogger. McClellan confirmed the truth, but was a weasel.

Um… I hate to break it to Gorrell, but at best Bush will land in the worst five presidents of all time without any help from McClellan. Like many people, I’d put him at the worst ever.

Scott “flop sweat” McClellan did indeed do a pretty lousy job of it, but given what Bush was doing, and flat-out lies to McClellan’s face from Rove and Libby, he has a pretty tough job.

What’s most interesting is that Holbert doesn’t challenge that McClellan’s telling the truth.

An old gag, but worth a chuckle.

Man, Bush really still does not get it at all. It’s tragic, because other people continue to pay the price. I will say that McClellan’s entire demeanor has radically changed. Not having to tell obvious lies probably helps. But he does seem to have experienced a crisis of conscience. John Cole, a former conservative, reflects on the bunker mentality and Kathy G offers a thoughtful defense of McClellan as a belated truth teller who could have taken an easier path.

 

THE ECONOMY

A familiar gag, but I love the visual.

I’m glad that at least a few conservatives don’t like the idea of saddling future generations with any more debt. Yeah, nine trillion is pretty horrendous, and Bush’s “contribution” to that is even worse than Reagan’s was. Nothing like not paying for an expensive war of choice to do that.

Those ungrateful voters, after all the GOP has done for them! Did you know? Giving even more money to the rich will help you with your middle class taxes! If citizens actually voted their economic interests all the time, McCoy’s GOP would have have a problem winning dog catcher.

A clever design by Payne…

And a good punchline by Holbert! (It cuts a little close, doesn’t it?)

 

ENERGY

You probably won’t be surprised to learn that after the Democratic race, this subject had the largest field by far. I could have easily supplied over 50 cartoons. As always, this is one of the few issues where some (but not all) conservatives go populist.

Solar power works wonderfully for some homes in some regions, but it’s less viable in others.

Some people are big proponents for nuclear power.

Asay is never the populist as much as the corporate apologist. What cracks me up is how he attacks “the Green Lobby” but has never criticized the incredibly powerful oil lobby (that I’ve seen, anyway).

Points to Asay for constructing original, if bizarre and entirely unconvincing cartoons. Did you know that corn, not clear-cutting, was the prime thing destroying the rain forest? Did you know that “Jack” could have just gotten oil that other people got? (Hmm, I wonder if that oil was in their own countries, perhaps? But what’s another war or two?)

This one cracks me up, too. Points to McCoy, I guess, for coming up with a way to try to claim that more drilling is “new,” while biofuels and other alternative energy options are “old.”

One thing I do like about Jerry Holbert…

…is his healthy disdain for oil execs.

Funny cartoon. But $4.00 per gallon ? For a 6/2/08 cartoon? Where does Fairrington live? Lucky dog!

A good gag by Holbert. (Out here in LA, my last four fill-ups have been $3.90 per gallon, $4.00, $4.20, and $4.56. It was 4.70 or higher for the lowest grade at the stations I passed on the way home.)

I’m really glad that conservatives have discovered the plight of starving children around the world, even if it’s primarily to bash political opponents.

The Washington Post has a good series on the global food crisis. There are many factors, and ethanol subsidies are indeed one of them. Another one, though, is the ever-plummeting dollar. From the first piece in the series:

At the same time, food was becoming the new gold. Investors fleeing Wall Street’s mortgage-related strife plowed hundreds of millions of dollars into grain futures, driving prices up even more. By Christmas, a global panic was building. With fewer places to turn, and tempted by the weaker dollar, nations staged a run on the American wheat harvest.

Foreign buyers, who typically seek to purchase one or two months’ supply of wheat at a time, suddenly began to stockpile. They put in orders on U.S. grain exchanges two to three times larger than normal as food riots began to erupt worldwide. This led major domestic U.S. mills to jump into the fray with their own massive orders, fearing that there would soon be no wheat left at any price…

“We have never seen anything like this before,” Voge said. “Prices are going up more in one day than they have during entire years in the past. But no matter the price, there always seems to be a buyer. . . . This isn’t just any commodity. It is food, and people need to eat.”

This one also demands a more detailed debunk. Bush just pushed for drilling in ANWR and off-shore (California’s Republican Governor, Schwarzenegger, is an opponent, actually). I’ve read a number of excellent pieces on this subject this week. There are three main things to remember: 1) Bush, Gingrich and other Republicans are trying to blame Democrats for high gas prices, despite their own central role. 2) The GOP is trying to sell the idea that cheap gas could be easily had if only they get their way, when it would take years to see results. 3) Oil companies already have access to public lands, with oil on it, but they’re not drilling there. This legislation would allow them to acquire even more land they also wouldn’t or couldn’t drill.

From a report discussed by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) on Thom Hartmann’s show:

In the last four years, the Bureau of Land Management has issued 28,776 permits to drill on public land; yet, in that same time, 18,954 wells were actually drilled. That means that companies have stockpiled nearly 10,000 extra permits to drill that they are not using to increase domestic production…

If we extrapolate from today’s production rates on federal land and waters, we can estimate that the 68 million acres of leased but currently inactive federal land and waters could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day.

That would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and increase natural gas production by 75%. It would also cut U.S. oil imports by more than a third, and be more than six times the estimated peak production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

I wonder why former oil man Bush didn’t mention that? There’s much more, but suffice to say any knowledgeable conservatives are arguing for new drilling leases in bad faith. I’ll also pass on, from the Campaign for America’s Future alone, Bill Scher, Terrance Heath, Isaiah J. Poole, Bill Scher and Bill Scher. I’ll also throw in Balloon Juice, Unbossed, Seeing the Forest and The Newshoggers. Whew.

Decent gags from Varvel…

…and Holbert.

An old gag, but a good one.

A newer gag, but a good one.

Easily my favorite of the Wizard of Oz cartoons in this installment.

 

THE ENVIRONMENT

Who’s more alarmist than environmental activists? Environmental reform opponents! (Points for a classical reference, if an easy one.)

I have to laugh at this one. Chuck Asay wants to assure us that polar bears will be just fine - they’ll adapt and survive. How touching. His long-standing cred as an environmentalist and meticulous, fact-based researcher no doubt inform this view. Actually, my bet is that this confidence came to him in a vision: polar bears will quickly develop gills to prevent them from drowning on ever-longer swims.

Ah, the beloved conservative trope that it’s impossible to care about more than one thing at once! And did you know that Al Gore doesn’t care about the dead in Burma? You can tell, because he cares about the environment!

I don’t like this cartoon. I just feel obliged to note how many times Henry Payne recycles the same gag. (He’s used this 5-6 times now, I think.)

Hmm, somehow, I never find Republican astroturf groups attacking Al Gore don’t terribly convincing:

Former Vice President Al Gore’s Belle Meade house is bristling with brand-new solar panels, energy-efficient windows and uncountable multitudes of energy efficient light bulbs. Retrofitting the 80-year-old house earned the Gores a gold certification from the U.S. Green Building Council.

How could their utility bills possibly be going up?

They’re not, says Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider.

In fact, over the past year the Gores’ utility bills have dropped 40 percent, thanks largely to the house’s spanking new geothermal heating and cooling system, which has reduced the Gores’ natural gas bill by 90 percent in the past year.

Cheap gag, but I admit, I laughed.

Same here.

Stantis’ ain’t bad, either.

 

GAY MARRIAGE

I have yet to hear anyone explain, convincingly, how anyone’s heterosexual marriage is harmed by letting gays marry.

It’s also pretty funny to see Eric Allie, typically a fan of authoritarianism and George Bush’s monarchial presidency, suddenly come out against the concept. (There’s likely to be a ballot referendum on this in the fall out here in CA, actually.)

We’ve seen plenty of homophobia here at RWCW, but I’m trying to remember if we’re specifically seen fear of transgendered people before. Oh well, Chuck Asay’s always been a pioneer that way.

 

ABORTION

Look out, mom! Hillary Clinton’s entirely mainstream, unremarkable views mean she’s personally going to come and kill you! (With either a spell, or a machete and hockey mask, I’m guessing.)

Gary McCoy really does seem to think that people have abortion parties. He also always depicts pro-choice women like this - obviously bitter and jealous that all the pretty gals got pregnant and had families, because, really, how could any mother or non man-hating woman be pro-choice? (As we’ve discussed before, most pro-lifers’ positions make little sense outside an agenda of social control.)

 

TEXAS POLYGAMISTS

Yikes! Um, “consenting adults,” Brian Fairrington. (And it’s much tamer than than the last Republican Family Values retreat, I suspect. Thanks to reader aangus for making sure I saw this one, since I sometimes skip Fairrington. I’m sure you’re all, um, grateful as well.)

Lester picks up on exactly this consenting adults angle. It’s normally a terrible thing to break up a family - but it’s a blessing where there’s abuse. In the case of these polygamists, there were forced marriages and what amounted to rape of minors.

 

AIR TRAVEL

A series of good gags. We’ll start with Gorrell.

Holbert.

Payne.

You said it, Payne.

Stantis. A great visual.

 

SPORTS

Funny if you follow Red Sox-Yankees at all.

Henry Payne give Danica Patrick a shout-out…

…and salutes his Detroit Red Wings.

 

MISCELLANEOUS

Not bad.

I’m all for criticizing school administrators, but I get the sense that Ramirez has a larger target. Okay, quickly: 1) There are private schools and the home schooling option. 2) Kindergarten, elementary school and higher education in America are all generally decent to superb; it’s middle school and high school that tend to be messy. 3) The goal of education is not to provide a work force for companies, although a good education will allow graduates to do well in a number of environments. 4) The most essential factors for improving education are paying teachers better, investing in their initial training and continuous education, and reducing class size. Teachers need support, not animosity.

Gosh, what possibly could be the social benefit of helping to pay for someone to go to school? (I know that one stumps Ayn Rand devotees.)

Somehow, the latest Indy film didn’t seem quite the same… (Everyone rates it #3 of the the 4 films.)

Several cartoonists went with this gag.

Umm… I’m assuming something like this actually happened to Lester? There is such a thing as editorial judgment, but I’d say political cartoonists should be granted fairly wide license. (Obviously, though, Lester managed to get this cartoon published!)

Stantis was the only conservative I saw to even note this decision, let alone bemoan it.

Gary Varvel’s good about noting disasters and saluting volunteers and aid workers.

The few Heston cartoons went with a similar theme. (I wasn’t a fan of Heston’s politics, but I liked some of his films as a kid, and for some folks he was an icon.)

Maybe I missed them, but while the McCoy brothers especially tend to attack Ted Kennedy, I didn’t see a single cartoon mocking his alarming brain tumor. So credit for some class where credit is due to our usual gang. Gorrell went one better with this one.

So did Holbert.

Like many other liberal bloggers, I was not a fan of some of Tim Russert’s work. However, every account describes him as a very nice guy as a person, and although the deluge of coverage has received some fair criticism, clearly his death has deeply hit many people, especially in the media. Bob Somerby has being writing a good series on Russert the man and Russert the journalist (start here and read forward). Meanwhile, skippy provides a lighter piece that I suspect would’ve made Russert laugh.

 

MEMORIAL DAY

I rarely agree with Glenn McCoy, but well done.

I’m with Lester, here, too - all the more so because he was remarkably cool about being criticized by a certain snotty blog series.

Nice designs by Gorrell…

Ramirez…

…and Payne.

 

And that’s it for this time! Whew! (One of these days, maybe I’ll get back to putting these things out in a timely and more manageable fashion!)

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.

Reader ycz passes on sites for two more conservative cartoonists: Red Planet Cartoons (the style reminds me a bit of Keith Giffen) and The Ryskind Sketchbook.

Note: Due to a server move and a hostility to em dashes, any previous links to past RWCW installments are currently broken, but will still point to the overall RWCW category, thanks to the efforts of BH’s tireless coding wizard, Buck.

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

Email this Post  | RSS 2.0  |