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 much-anticipated long-delayed 32nd, over-sized installment of RWCW, covering ten weeks of terrifying turmoil and tabloid tumult. See our usual gang trot out their favorite attacks against their avowed foe! Watch them swoon over their latest conservative darling! And observe as economic woes make the reality-based community grow just a little bit larger.

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

 

IRAQ

Ah, it just wouldn’t be RWCW without a declaration of the glorious success of “the surge” and an accusation of Democratic “surrender”! As usual, this is a highly selective, deceptive take. As we’ve often covered, any reduction in violence is most welcome. The escalation of American troops has been one factor in that. However, there are other key factors, such as previous sectarian killings and fleeing Iraqis, paying off Sunni militias 25 million per month not to attack U.S. forces, and the ceasefire ordered by Moqtada al-Sadr and his Madhi army. As usual, the cheerleaders tend not to mention any of that, nor the 4-5 million displaced Iraqis, a staggering number in absolute terms, but even more so when considered proportionate to the entire population of roughly 27 million. I have more in “The Truth on “The Surge,”" but additionally, a recent study of infrared aerial photographs confirms that sectarian killing played a key role:

“By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left,” geography professor John Agnew of the University of California Los Angeles, who led the study, said in a statement…

“Our findings suggest that the surge has had no observable effect, except insofar as it has helped to provide a seal of approval for a process of ethno-sectarian neighborhood homogenization that is now largely achieved,” Agnew’s team wrote in their report.

Did you know? The mainstream media has in fact spent a fair amount of their (too paltry) Iraq coverage on the reduced violence in Anbar province. Did you also know? The Anbar “Awakening” responsible for that reduction started in the summer of 2006, before “the surge” was even announced in January 2007, despite McCain’s attempts to claim otherwise.

Ramirez ignores that the violence is still horrific in parts of Iraq. Still, some people do sincerely fear that violence will spike even higher once again when the Americans withdraw. In the short term, that may well be the case, although as we’ve covered before, plenty of experts have pointed out that the overwhelmingly unpopular American occupation is a chief cause of the violence. Meanwhile, had Bush followed his generals’ advice, a troop drawdown would have started in 2006 and we might already be out. Bob Woodward’s recent book confirmed what should have been obvious, that “the surge” was in part a domestic political strategy (that may have been its largest component).

(Bonus: Neocon pal and liar Amir Taheri recently accused Obama of secret negotiations with Maliki to extend the occupation of troops in Iraq, a charge which makes little sense considering Obama’s position, and like most Taheri claims, it’s been quickly debunked. However, Maliki claims Bush asked him to extend the withdrawal deadline due to “political circumstances related to the domestic situation” - which would be to help John McCain.)

In this installment, you’ll see Henry Payne is fond of infantilizing Obama. I guess not every one can be McCain in 2007, claiming that Americans were “not getting the full picture” of Iraq, and that one could walk freely through some neighborhoods - well, at least if like McCain, you were wearing a bulletproof vest and accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” (In March 2008, the same open-air market McCain visited was deemed “unsafe” for Americans, although it may have improved to bulletproof vest levels of safety since.) McCain has repeatedly said we have already succeeded in Iraq, and that victory is in sight. He’s generally pretty vague about what “victory” entails, and apparently disagrees a bit with his professed hero, General Petraeus, who earlier this month told the BBC he didn’t think he’d ever use the word “victory” for Iraq. (Meanwhile, Petraeus’ never-ending “fragile but reversible” assessments have been used both in arguments to “stay the course” and in arguments to withdraw.)

Umm… We’ve discussed the atomic bomb somewhat in earlier installments. How tasteless you find this cartoon may depend on your feelings about the use of those bombs in WWII. However, I’d say a demonstration of overwhelming force destroying large sections of two cities and killing over 200,000 civilians makes for a poor analogy with an escalation of troops. WWII of course had a clear end followed by peaceful occupations in Germany and Japan, whereas in Iraq, George Bush declared major combat operations over in May 2003, yet we’ve been engaged in a bloody occupation for over five years since. But pass the “victory” Kool-Aid, and celebrate that “surrender” from, um - who, exactly? Al-Qaeda, who have no chance of taking over Iraq militarily or politically, and are based primarily in Pakistan? Moqtada al-Sadr, a powerful and popular figure among other Iraqis? The Sunni militias we’re paying off? Surely not the government of Nouri al-Maliki we currently back (and whose office we bugged)? Perhaps if the cartoon were completely in black and white it would help make the reality in Iraq simpler.

Historically, Afghanistan has been a quagmire for invading and occupying armies. The U.S. lost a tremendous amount of ground by pulling troops out and invading Iraq needlessly, and that ground may prove impossible to regain. Having fewer ground troops has led to more use of air power, and disastrous air strikes against civilians have further destroyed good will toward the United States. Obama’s pitch for moving troops to Afghanistan satisfies some of the Beltway crowd who believe that the only way to be “serious” is to use military force. That doesn’t make it always wise, and we’ll see how his policy actually plays out should he be elected. (The New York Times has more on the Bush administration’s approach in its last months to Afghanistan.)

 

PAKISTAN

You see, Bush’s prized ally Musharraf was not quite a civilized human being, Pakistani tribesmen are sub-human, the Taliban are sub-sub-human, and al-Qaeda are sub-sub-sub-human. Once you’ve adopted this very Colonialist (and tribal) view of the world, it’s much easier to just say, “Exterminate all the brutes.”

Yeah, where is bin Laden, anyway? Maybe invading Iraq wasn’t such a great idea, huh? Steve Coll has a good rundown on bin Laden and why the 11 billion the Bush administration gave to Pakistan didn’t work out so well, and Dan Froomkin covers how the Bush administration has amped up efforts to catch or kill bin Laden before the November election.

 

GEORGIA

There’s no doubt Russia is the greater power…

…But Georgia was the country that attacked, not Russia (not that Russia is entirely pure here, and they rolled into Georgia). George Friedman has a superb overview of the situation, and Tristero further covers U.S. involvement in this affair.

The Obsidian Wings gang did a nice job of covering the Obama and McCain responses to Georgia (and foreign policy in general). I’ll also pass on McCain’s petulant attack on Obama (while defending Palin), scolding him for not taking sides and not declaring Russia the bad guy, as McCain did. Both Colin Powell and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Michael Mullen recently pushed for a more neutral, responsible engagement with Russia, in contrast with McCain.

This sorta disturbing cartoon of “Commie Pooh” was easily the most bizarre on the Russian bear theme, so I had to include it.

Boy, the sub-human theme is popular this time around, isn’t it?

Uh… Eric Allie seems to be trying to comment on the Georgia situation, but this seems pretty incoherent, beyond a rage, rage against the imaginary, evil liberals who stalk his subconscious. Anti-war activists oppose unnecessary death and destruction everywhere. It is hypocritical of the Bush administration to condemn any nation for unilateral military action, but I guess I missed any Americans, liberal or conservative, cheering the deaths in Georgia and South Ossetia. (But then, authoritarians typically judge morality - and the wisdom of foreign policy - in terms of tribal identity versus objective principle, experience and empiricism.)

 

GUANTANAMO

I’m really sick of hearing the ridiculous right-wing bullshit about troops being required to read anyone Miranda rights. Justice is not something to be feared or undermined, and the Guantanamo trials are a disgrace to the standard set at Nuremberg after WWII. One would think conservatives would want to punish bad guys and free the innocent. A fair justice system protects us all, and an unfair system endangers us all. There’s honest difference of opinion, and then there’s lying and ignorance. Law and order conservatives, such as most of the JAGs, have opposed the legal abuses of the Bush administration. But I don’t think I’ve seen a movement conservative yet who has discussed those abuses honestly. Just a little clue. For more, see the Scott Horton pieces referenced in “Hamdan and the Shame of Injustice.”

 

BUSH

Yikes! More bears! Bush was very much absent from conservative cartoons this time around - just like at the RNC!

 

CONGRESS

So should we assume Chuck Asay wants to abolish the FDA and car licenses from this assault on ‘big government’? In Asay’s defense, he drew this cartoon in late July, before the economic news this week (not that signs weren’t apparent earlier), but this just isn’t a good time for conservatives to be lecturing anyone about handouts. In fact, “never again” might be the best time. But here’s the thing with the fish analogy. FDR created jobs versus just giving handouts. And teach the guy to fish, sure. But while you’re training him, yeah, give him a damn fish or two from your warehouse of fish, and maybe a few extras for his family and his retired, eldery mother. Since Asay’s a Christian, I’m sure he’s familiar with some tales about fish, and generosity…

Clever, and I’m not going to sing the praises of the Democratic leadership, even with all the Republican obstruction. But as we’ve often covered, the dismal approval ratings of Congress are in large part due to not opposing Bush enough, not because voters prefer Bush! Meanwhile, Obama’s approval ratings are of course much higher than Bush’s.

 

TED STEVENS

A few cartoons referenced the Bridge to Nowhere with Stevens. I did want to give credit that some conservative cartoonists did criticize him, and also note the mention of the bridge…

…Especially since I saw no mention of either the Bridge to Nowhere or Stevens in any conservative cartoons on Palin later on. Hmm…

 

THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION

I suppose one could say Payne was poking fun at The New Yorker cover (we covered that one previously) and not claiming that Michelle Obama is really an “angry feminist” and revolutionary. Decide for yourself…

…But I think Ramirez has much less deniability with this very tired, pathetic old smear. (Laura Bush vouching for Michelle Obama carries no weight with this crowd…)

The Democratic “soap opera” was always mostly a media invention. Would Hillary and Bill Clinton damn Obama on national television? Would they praise him enough for media vultures? Ooooh!

Ramirez’ is probably the most colorful of the many conservative cartoons on this theme. (He likes drawing that podium!) I’ve criticized some of Hillary Clinton’s policies and rhetoric in my time, but personally, I thought she handled herself with a great deal of grace and class throughout the convention.

Bill, too, gave a strong speech. (I haven’t been overwhelmed by some of his statements since, but credit and blame where it is due.)

Still, surely there’s always time for conservatives to engage in Hillary-bashing, like saying she’s a man…

…Or a cannibalistic serial killer. (Glenn McCoy keeps using this gag!)

Well, the Republican base isn’t so sure of McCain’s conservative credentials, but it’s much easier to make this charge against the Democrats if you completely ignore absolutely all of the speeches at their convention.

Payne makes the same basic charge against Obama. It’s a conservative favorite. Do they ever actually listen to any of his speeches, or read his proposals?

Payne also trots out another odd charge that’s a right-wing darling. (The right-wing blogosphere was very exercised over those Greek columns, apparently having never visited Washington, D.C.) Funny, I thought the other party was the one invoking Messiah imagery.

In another cartoon, Payne did note the historic nature of Obama’s nomination, though (as did Bob Gorrell).

 

BIDEN

There’s that infant theme again! Guess the primary voters don’t agree with Payne (and I’m still waiting for a coherent, accurate and responsible foreign policy position from McCain).

Payne’s right about one of the chief concerns from Democrats about Biden. (The Biden announcement saw many different reactions among liberals, and also received a AP hit piece. Since then, Biden’s been too praiseworthy of McCain for some Democrats, has said some silly things, but has also delivered some good campaign zingers.)

Obama-Biden are no Bush-Cheney in their foreign policy views, but I still think this is a very clever cartoon by Chip Bok (and pretty scathing to Bush-Cheney from a conservative).

Umm… this is an endorsement for Palin? Her hunting? Meanwhile, lessee, Asay is attacking Biden for opposing incredibly wasteful missile defense programs. We’ve already covered the surge. Many experts pushed for a partition of Iraq in some fashion to match the divisive reality; Biden was engaged and debating the issues in public when the Bush administration was mainly just saying “stay the course” and ignoring that things were getting even worse. Lastly, it sure looks like Asay is implicitly defending Iran-friggin-Contra. Yikes.

 

OBAMA

How many familiar attacks on Obama can we spot? Well, he’s a celebrity! McCain probably has the better claim to that specific mantle, but really, how compelling is it to attack one’s opponent for being popular and drawing large crowds? (Nice angle by Benson, though.)

He’s not one of us!

But, uh, he was created in God’s image and was sent to save us…?

He’s gonna raise your taxes! Aaaaahhhh! Well, only on the richest 5% of Americans, while McCain’s going to give them even more money - one estimate put his wife’s take at $370,000. I swear, has any Republican in any campaign since 1979 ever honestly discussed an opponent’s tax policy?

Funny, Ken Catalino made the same charge about the DNC! I guess he still doesn’t know how to use them internet tubes to read policies, doesn’t read the newspaper, and doesn’t listen to the teevee or radio… (Surely some part of 700 billion could help rectify that.)

Oh no! Who cares about the policies he’s discussing? Palin’s all in his head! (We’ve discussed this silliness before.)

Did you know? Celebrating Obama’s achievements denigrates Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln! (Even more than opposing MLK’s birthday as a national holiday, I’m sure.)

Dear MSM - Eric Allie would really really really like it if you spent even more time on Obama non-scandals than you already have.

Funny, I thought being well-liked abroad helps American prestige, diplomacy, national security and trade deals. Just ask George Bush!

The notion that Obama can’t deliver a speech without a teleprompter is a long-discredited attack that just won’t die among right-wingers (shocking, I know). I’d suggest they watch this speech, but I wouldn’t want them to break with tradition…

Conservatives are free to make the experience charge against Obama, but McCain picking Palin as his VP makes it pretty laughable, as even loyal Bushies such as Charles Krauthammer and David Frum admitted. Palin has come off as scared and lost in her serious interviews so far. McCain’s often incoherent. As for Obama - well, the primary voters had their say, and the nation will have another chance to compare candidates in the upcoming presidential debates.

On one level, ya gotta sorta admire how Michael Ramirez goes for broke with his smears. It’s not just any trooper Obama’s dunking Jordan-esque over; it’s a dismayed double amputee being kicked in the face. This charge is mostly bullshit, of course. Obama visited wounded troops without fanfare in Iraq and at Walter Reed. According to his campaign, he called off his visit to troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany because he was concerned it would be portrayed in a political light. The Pentagon had taken the apparently unusual step of banning a single aide to Obama, who was working for the campaign, but also a military advisor and veteran. If Ramirez or the McCain campaign wants to criticize Obama on those grounds, fine, but that doesn’t account for his other visits, nor does it excuse the McCain campaign’s repeated lies even after challenged - they claimed that Obama didn’t visit the troops because he wasn’t allowed to take cameras and reporters in with him. (That lying’s a pattern that should be pretty familiar by now.) Oh, and according to Business Week, the McCain campaign wrote a script to attack Obama if he did visit the troops at Landstuhl. The attack was coming anyway, regardless of what Obama did. (That, too, should be a pretty familiar pattern by now.)

And did you also know? Obama spends his ample free time climbing through dumpsters, hunting for abandoned babies to club them to death!!!!! This exaggerates a charge that’s circulated on right-wing blogs for a few months now that Obama supports infanticide in some fashion. It’s a pretty appalling distortion of the record, and hinges on Obama’s votes against bills designed to do an end-around on Roe v. Wade. Oh, by the way, Maha points out that abortion rates fall where abortion is broadly legal. The war on reproductive freedom has never made much sense outside of an agenda of social control.

Obama’s line about declaring when life began being “above his pay grade” apparently infuriated some social conservatives. To each their own, I suppose. He made it clear he was pro-choice, so it’s not as if he was ducking that, but I thought the “pay grade” line demonstrated some humility. Ya know, some Christians feel it’s presumptuous to claim to know God’s will or to claim certainty without perfect knowledge…

Mike Lester apparently recycled this ridiculous attack we’ve seen before to defend Palin. It’s pretty weak to claim that Obama, the father of two adorable daughters, thinks babies are a “punishment.” What Obama was speaking about was the punitive mindset of the most extreme anti-abortion activists, who think if a young woman gets pregnant, she should be forced to carry the child even against her will to ‘learn her.’ Obama’s campaign issued a clarification, but Lester’s just after the pot shot.

Ya know, not too many conservative cartoonists made the same ridiculous claim the McCain campaign did - that Obama had called Sarah Palin a pig. But as for liberalism being a pig - my god, has Gorrell been awake for the past eight years?!? As Obama recently remarked, the recent news on Wall Street is “the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed.”

 

THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION

Ah, Chuck Asay, chastising the Democrats for not spending their convention performing disaster relief for a disaster that hadn’t happened yet. Never mind that the Democrats pitched in when it did, and that the Republicans were grateful to have any excuse to keep Bush and Cheney away.

Yeah, when even your own side depicts you as the Sith Lords… Bush had only a short speech from a video feed, and was hardly even mentioned at the convention (and when he was, often his name wasn’t).

Eric Boehlert has a great piece on how the press whitewashes Bush, and really did so in their Republican National Convention coverage. Just imagine if they spent the same time they did pursuing their manufactured Clinton soap opera at the DNC on Bush being sidelined at the RNC, Cheney not even showing up, or how steamed Bush was over the whole thing. I guess imagined spite is more intriguing than the real thing…

McCain really did run against his party, with a painfully uninspired speech…

…And many conservatives were much more excited about Palin. (Many conservative cartoonists went with this theme.)

 

McCAIN

Chip Bok apparently isn’t terribly impressed by McCain… (Like almost every political blogger in creation, we previously covered some of this house story.)

…And as always, Chuck Asay finds some way to blame the Democrats! (Wait, and the bailout would make you lose your house? Is the implication that this man will no longer be able to afford his own mortgage because his taxes will rise so massively?) If you’re going to cast any blame on Barney Frank, it might be fair to also note who’s been running the White House, the Fed and the Treasury for two terms, who’s controlled Congress for most of the past 14 years, who actively stripped protective regulations and who actually proposed the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts. Hint: it’s not the same folks who warned the Bush administration and their congressional pals about the need for oversight, accountability and regulation.

Apparently, Chuck Asay continues his bold strategy of ignoring actual policies. McCain has voted the Bush line over 90% of the time. His positions on the economy, taxes, energy, foreign policy, and almost everything are almost identical to Bush’s, and in some cases more extreme. Asay’s free to argue the merits of those policies, but to pretend McCain isn’t continuing in the Bush vein is just laughable.

Well, it’s not as if the preznit really needs to understand our internet tubes, anyway. (And I’m sure Jonah Goldberg has a creative explanation for why McCain doesn’t.)

Lester goes dark…

Here’s Glenn McCoy, claiming the media is lying about the McCain campaign lying! When even Howard Kurtz says “there have been some Obama falsehoods as well, but of lesser frequency and magnitude,” you’re in trouble. PolitiFact has been doing an impressive job of fact-checking all the candidates. McCain has lost many of his former cheerleaders over the dishonorable way he’s run his campaign, including Joe Klein and Richard Cohen. (Personally, I’d say McCain’s lying attacks against Obama over a bill to help protect young children from sexual predators are among the most sleazy, despicable and unforgivable I’ve ever seen. Eisenhower Republicans, please take back your party.)

 

PALIN

Many conservative cartoonists went with this general theme. Palin’s definitely energized the base.

Bok captures some of the fervor - and myopia.

Umm… voting the Bush line over 90% of the time? Some maverick! Not picking Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge as he wanted because social conservatives would hate their pro-choice positions? Some maverick! Picking someone he’d hardly met in part because powerful figures of the authoritarian religious right wanted her? Mmm-mmm, that’s some mavericky goodness!

Palin for VP causes grave concern in itself, because while she’s bright and ambitious, she’s clearly unqualified and in way over her head. But McCain’s decision to pick her is very troubling as well. It was impulsive and reckless, a stunt for coverage and ratings, and an appeal to the base, rather than a choice for good governance. Several accounts relay that McCain thought the pick would emphasize his “maverick” credentials. His voting record shows he isn’t one, and this pick shows it as well. But McCain apparently believes his own hype, and really thinks he is. It’s ironic to see some of the personal attacks on Obama, because it’s really McCain who’s been running a campaign of vanity and personality, selling himself and his constructed persona far above any actual policies (his own campaign manager has said that “this election is not about issues,” which fits with McCain’s staggering number of major policy reversals - the policies themselves are largely superfluous).

Hilzoy’s written several superb pieces on what the Palin pick says about McCain (linked in this post), but this passage really sums it up:

Picking Palin without doing a thorough background check first is of a piece with this: chafing at discipline, playing the odds, liking to bend the rules and get away with it, wanting to be a bad boy. These are not character traits I’d like to see in a President.

I think Glenn McCoy actually believes this crap - liberals hate fighting terrorists, and celebrate abortions! Many liberals - and conservatives - favor fighting terrorism in smarter, more effective ways than the Bush administration has, since a 2007 NIE on Iraq and a recent Rand study have further bolstered the view that the Bush approach has made us less safe. Pro-choice voters - among them a significant number of Republicans - uphold Palin’s choice to do what she wants with her pregnancy. They just don’t want Palin, who opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest, to take away their choice.

It’s interesting to see social scold Asay acknowledge this and try to smooth it over, especially since we all know if this were Obama or Biden’s kid, social conservatives would be screaming their heads off. As with Sarah Palin, I haven’t seen any criticism of Bristol keeping her child, only on the Palin and McCain campaign praising Bristol’s decision while pushing policies that would remove that choice from other women. The brilliant Samantha Bee tackles this one the best I’ve seen.

Umm… more conservative projection? After Palin’s speech, many in the media were swooning over her. Who the hell has been denouncing her as “impure”? Pointing out that she’s not knowledgeable, she’s abused power, and she’s a serial liar, sure, that’s happened, but those are reality-based objections.

Stantis riffs on a sexist demonstration against Clinton back during the primaries. I have seen some questions in fairly prominent outlets about Palin being VP with five kids, but also plenty of pushback that it’s a sexist double standard, since a man wouldn’t have the same question raised. By all means, criticize sexist attacks, but most of the questions raised about Palin have been based on her positions and her character, not her gender. (Stantis might be easier to take seriously, too, if he didn’t used the beloved conservative caricature of the frumpy feminist to make his charge.)

Really, what the hell is Payne talking about? Palin has definitely been subjected to some sexist attacks, but what prominent Democrat has said anything approaching this? Trot out the straw man smears to try to silence legitimate criticism, with a healthy amount of shameless irony…

Umm… Whatever else he’s charged with, Mike Lester will never be accused of being too restrained and tasteful.

Palin’s energized the conservative base, and may have solidified some other swing voters for McCain, but as Maha points out, a recent poll shows Obama’s lead growing among women, including a small lead among white women. If Palin and McCain’s actual policies become better known, that lead’s likely to increase.

Umm… Looking over Teddy Roosevelt’s career, I’d say this is a stretch at best, but also, being “outdoorsy” was hardly Roosevelt’s defining characteristic. I’ll add that being “outdoorsy” in this case means “abysmal environmental record.”

Oooh, that snobby Charlie Gibson! Look, Palin getting confused by terminology wasn’t nearly as damning as her clearly not knowing what she was talking about (repeating the same talking points over and over again in hopes of appeasing Gibson didn’t help, either). As Jack Shafer put it, “Never mind about her not being ready to be president. She wasn’t even ready for this interview.” James Fallows still has the best dissection I’ve seen - Palin simply wasn’t conversant because she doesn’t know the subject matter well. Her recent interview with Couric proved to be a train wreck, too. Anonymous Liberal explores the “damage control” take on McCain and Palin that many are voicing with McCain’s “suspension” of his campaign.

Matt Damon’s comments were very sharp, but conservatives know better than to listen to actors! I mean, really, who ever heard an insightful comment from Chuck Norris, Ron Silver, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan or Gopher from The Love Boat?

(Interestingly enough, at least from what I saw, even our usual crew didn’t try to shill the widely-discredited “Thanks but no thanks to the Bridge to Nowhere” BS, nor the thing about Sarah Palin having foreign policy experience because Alaska is close to Russia! She’s still flogging that one, joined by McCain and an army of flacks and surrogates.)

 

THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE

More proof Catalino didn’t watch the conventions, since McCain has been running on change from his own party - while keeping Bush’s policies.

Don’t worry, if you don’t like McCain’s positions right now, wait five minutes and they might change. Why, just this week, he discovered he was for economic regulation!

I guess Gary McCoy is conceding that the Democrats are better regarded (for good reason) on the economy (as recent polls bear out). As for national security, well, besides those aformentioned studies bolstering the view that Bush’s antics have made us less safe, Dan Froomkin has a good breakdown on the “counterterrorism victories” Bush has claimed. It’s a far from impressive list.

“Negative” ads can have great value as long as they’re accurate and pertinent. It’s the smears and lies that are the problem. Jamison Foser has a great piece on exactly this point. (As we’ve already covered, McCain’s leveled far more false and misleading attacks.)

Some rumors certainly get traded about by average citizens, but their genesis and dissemination are often very deliberate (and/or irresponsible).

It is history for the Republican Party to make a woman the VP nominee - albeit 24 years after the Democrats did it. At this rate, by 2032, they’ll have a serious female contender in the GOP primaries for president. (Honestly, I’d be a bit surprised if it took that long, but who knows.)

My friends, this is a bipartisan sentiment we can all believe in.

Less than six weeks to go. Wow. The campaign season sorta feels like 1984’s endless war…

 

THAT DAMNED LIBERAL MEDIA

Varvel at least captures the right-wing critique of media coverage, inaccurate though that critique is…

Umm, yeah. As Josh Marshall observed after McCain campaign strategist Steve Schmidt went ballistic on the press:

It’s also notable that while virtually all the aggressive questioning of Palin has been on her troopergate scandal, her manifest lack of qualifications, ties to a political party that embraces secession, etc. Schmidt focused on stories that if you look closely were actually never written. Yes, there was a storm of speculation on blogs. And maybe reporters followed up with inquiries. But who published any of it? Think about that for a second.

The McCain camp is using the rumors about Palin’s family as a cudgel to beat back entirely legitimate questions — which may amount to a feeding frenzy — about Palin’s political record, alleged pattern of abuse of the power of her office and political associations. When you see Steve Schmidt getting weepy, believe me, you’re getting played.

Give Bok credit for noting some of the journalist arrests. (Although he didn’t do the same for those at the RNC - more on those arrests from Sara Robinson, Cernig and Democracy Now!.)

Oh no, some of the reporters who once loved McCain have shifted their affections to Obama! And they’ve gone from Dirty Friggin’ Hippies to ravers who take their tops off! (Lock up those slutty reporters, especially the white wimmin, ’cause you can’t let ‘em get too close to that stud Obama!)

 

HOUSING

Several cartoonists went with this specific gag…

…And at least one other also invoked The Wizard of Oz.

Lisa Benson about sums it up.

 

THE ECONOMY

Cartoons on the economy abounded, and more are surely on their way. There are a few dozen good articles and posts on the proposed bailout, and the debate rages on (although most every economist, politicians across the political spectrum, and most of the public hated the initial White House version), so I won’t link everything. Paul Krugman has been quite sharp, though, Dan Froomkin has been rounding up opinions, the Campaign for America’s Future has good overviews and a petition, and Naomi Klein discussing the Shock Doctrine has been ridiculously relevant. For starters, Paulson lying right out of the gate isn’t encouraging, nor is his inability to answer why he can’t start with 150 billion instead, nor the Treasury Department admission that it’s 700 billion because they “just wanted to choose a really large number,” nor White House spokesman Tony Fratto claiming they’ve been sitting on this plan for a while. Proceed with extreme caution, and caveat emptor and all that - let the congressional buyer beware the deal, or else beware the taxpayers and their pitchforks and torches…

Um - nice try. This is the Karl Rove “You caught us! But everyone’s equally to blame!” gambit…

…And Benson pushes it even further. Clinton deserves some blame for not vetoing Phil Gramm’s disastrous deregulation schemes, as do some congressional Democrats, but Bush and other Republicans have brushed past the very deliberate Republican moves that caused this crisis, and they’re ignoring the pesky fact of who’s been in office. (And blaming minorities, as a few conservatives have, ignores that many borrowers who received subprime loans were eligible for prime loans.) Some of the crisis is due to unregulated greed, but that’s too passive a characterization for some of the schemes perpetrated. Hint to those making the pitch: With taking responsibility comes credibility…

We’ll see if limiting executive compensation survives into the final bailout bill, but while the public rightly hates the idea of golden parachutes in this crisis…

…It sure makes ya glad the same jokers didn’t succeed in privatizing Social Security!

Bok offers a pretty clever (and dark) cartoon.

As we’ve noted before, pocketbook issues tend to make some of our conservatives go more populist. There were plenty of duelling metaphors! Is the crisis a crashed car? (Crashing vehicles were popular.)

A marooned ship? (Sinking ships were also common.)

A beloved board game turned sinister?

Maybe we should turn to cinema. Surely, it’s a mess for WALL-E to clean up!

No, not diabolical enough - we need an Exorcist!

No, that doesn’t capture the mass devastation - it’s a Japanese monster movie! (The size of government can be a red herring, and I don’t think efficient, competent government is evil, but Glenn McCoy is actually funny here.)

And as for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are the taxpayers human shields? (A striking, somewhat creepy cartoon.)

Or are Fannie and Freddie unwelcome house guests? (Foundlings were also popular.)

A few cartoonists tried this attack. Let’s see, the McCain campaign accuses Obama of ties to Fannie Mae that prove to be weak at best, while McCain’s campaign manager Rick Davis apparently lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for deregulation. Moreover, Davis apparently still has ties with his old firm and Freddie Mac - but appears to still be lying about this. This bears more scrutiny.

Oh, good grief, this charge even more shameless than McCain accusing Obama of Fannie and Freddie ties! I guess in addition to being a dead-ender on supply-side economics and deregulation, Ramirez is choosing to ignore his previous charges against filthy liberal Obama - and history itself on Hoover and that filthy liberal FDR. (Perhaps Ramirez also hasn’t heard of the conservative Hoover Institution.) Via Digby, here’s Harry Reid (emphasis added):

On the morning of October 30, 1929, President Herbert Hoover awoke the day after the biggest one-day stock market crash in American history, surveyed the state of the U.S. economy and declared, ‘The fundamental business of the country, that is production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis.’

In the coming weeks and months, President Hoover remained in an economic bubble, unaware of the extreme suffering of ordinary Americans – even declaring that anyone who questioned the state of the economy was a ‘fool.’ For Herbert Hoover, ignorance was bliss. And it wasn’t until the American people replaced this out of touch Republican president with a Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt, that our nation’s economic recovery began…

We can’t afford another Republican president who will follow his party’s ghosts down the path of recession, depression and more suffering.

Well, given that legacy and where the fault this time chiefly lies - lies about who’s to blame aren’t that surprising, huh?

Credit Beeler for noting Bush’s rhetoric…

And Stantis for noting McCain’s…

…As well as his actual positions. Hilzoy has a very good overview of the “reform” credentials of both Obama and McCain on economic legislation, particulary regulation.

Wow, if Palin is the brains of the outfit, we’re really in trouble.

Apparently, Henry Payne either buys McCain’s own hype, or is shilling it anyway. Gosh, no one can see through this ploy at all. (We’ll see how this one shapes up.)

 

ENERGY

Glenn McCoy continues to pretend that Democrats don’t have any energy proposals…

…Whle Gary McCoy chooses to misrepresent Obama’s, instead. Yeah, sure, that was that hick Obama’s only proposal…

…Never mind that, agreeing with Obama and many energy experts, even McCain said proper tire inflation was a good idea. As Obama said, “It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.”

Payne hates ethanol subsidies with a burning hot passion. Disliking them is a legitmate position (sugar cane and switch grass ethanol are much more efficient than corn ethanol), although Payne seems pretty hostile to all forms of alternative energy. The Obama camp does have ties with the American ethanol industry. However, on the “pockets” front, currently, due to the price of corn, the ethanol industry involves “large profits or major losses.” For comparison, Exxon Mobil alone earned $40.6 billion in 2007 and announced $8 billion in profits for the first three months of 2008.

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen the oil-rig-in-the-ass motif from conservative cartoonists this year. I don’t plan to feature it often, but consider this a warning - it’s out there.

Ramirez yet again tries to tag Obama as Carter. Professor Andrew Bacevich, a conservative and no great fan of Carter, dicusses what Carter got right on energy and how Reagan sold a fantasy on it about 30 minutes into this Fresh Air interview. Meanwhile, earlier this year, Digby revisited a July 15th, 1979 speech by Carter on energy that’s pretty damn frank and prescient.

 

THE ENVIRONMENT

Payne always attacks environmentalists for being holier-than-thou. There are some like that, I suppose, although most I meet tend to be trying to save energy, save money and just be conscientious.

One of the great conservative myths is that one can’t work to safeguard the environment and increase prosperity at the same time - in some cases, they’re directly related. Meanwhile, speaking of a lack of compassion, this cartoon makes me think of a famous Hurricane Katrina photo.

 

HEALTH CARE

Yeah, try selling this one to the uninsured. As to this scare tactic, let’s let Sara Robinson debunk it.

 

THE EDWARDS AFFAIR

A few conservative cartoonists worked Bristol Palin into their Edwards jokes (as did many late-night hosts). I don’t begrudge the media covering it, but there wasn’t proof early on, and Edwards was no longer in the race. When the story finally did break, some of the media coverage was TEXT TEXT

 

THE OLYMPICS

I thought Benson’s was the most clever of the many cartoons on these theme…

…and Ramirez’ the most striking of the cartoons on this theme.

Phelps was pretty remarkable (as were many of the athletes). Oh, and Phelps actually does a dolphin kick better than just about anyone else.

 

OTHER

Calfornia sometimes goes overboard for my tastes, but I’d at least like to see trans fats listed.

Detroit-based Payne sure gets this one right.

Gosh, who can tell the difference? Not even an African-American man! And who can blame him, since affirmative action and slavery are so very, very, fucking similar.

Bob Gorrell notes the string of natural disasters.

Payne drew a few homages to Solzhenitsyn, probably best known for One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and The Gulag Archipelago.

Pretty funny from Stantis.

A few cartoonists drew cartoons for 9/11, all along these lines.

 

Well, that’s it for this time!

Editorial cartooning is a fine American tradition, and as always, we celebrate the right of cartoonists of all sorts to mock others, as well as our right to mock them.

As usual, feel free to vote for the most offensive/ridiculous/stupid/funny cartoon(s) of this installment in the comments.

If you need a palate cleanser, let me suggest Bob Geiger’s latest roundup of cartoons (nice to have him back) and Nothstine links some good pieces.

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