That’s Rich.
-
- September
- 12
The laughable idea of the GOP throwing around charges of misogyny and sexism against a Democrat is too precious to ignore, but I couldn’t bring myself to draw some pig with lipstick to illustrate that. If you go and look elsewhere on the web, you’ll see a lot of lipsticked pigs in cartoons…
This entry was posted
on Friday, September 12th, 2008 at 8:05 am by Matt Davies.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
| 
Leave a Reply
It is a condition of your use of the comment features associated with the blogs that you do not: Use the site to post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane or indecent information of any kind, including without limitation any transmissions constituting or encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any local, state, national or international law. You alone are responsible for the material you post or send. Refer to the
Terms of Service.
You could always draw a cartoon showing Hillary being (uncharacteristically) VERY quiet right now…
On another note, great lecture at the museum the other night. (I meant to ask you and the other cartoonists about how you feel about job security, after reading this:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/comic-riffs/2008/09/interview_with_the_cartoonist_1.html)
I have long wondered what the job requirements are to be a cartoonist for the Journal-News. Over the years, Mr Davies has consistently shown that intelligence, originality, grasp of reality, and even-handedness are not among the criteria. I am quite sure the man has never had an independent thought. He doesn’t even draw that well. Perhaps the only requirement is the ability to read and act upon the DNC talking point fax that is sent to him each day. In all seriousness, can the editorial page editor unequivocally state that Davies does not predicate his cartoons on the daily DNC fax? This particular cartoon, depicting the GOP as made up of old, white men is a good example of all the things wrong with Davies puerile scribblings. He conveniently forgets that the head of GOPAC is Michael Steele, a young African-American; that the Secretary of State is an African-American woman; that the Bush administration has appointed more women and Hispanics to high level jobs than the Clinton Administration did; that the first woman on the Supreme Court was a Republican, appointed by a Republican. I could continue in this vein, but don’t want to belabor the obvious.
I’m guessing the Pulitzer judges are all lily-livered west-coast liberals seeking to destroy the universe with socialised health care, who never take into account things like intelligence, originality, grasp of reality, and even-handedness.
Yeah, that’s it, must be…
-Thanks Nicole. Borgman quitting editorial cartooning was sad news. He’s one of my all-time cartooning favorites. He went to great pains to explain that The Cincinnati Enquirer didn’t want him to go. Nonetheless, what’s equally sad is that, as Jim also said, there’ll probably be a Sprite machine where his desk was within a few weeks of his leaving. It would be nice, but I’d be surprised if his paper hired a new cartoonist.
“Puerile,”
”(lack of) intelligence, originality, grasp of reality, and even-handedness.”
“He doesn’t even draw that well.”
LOL – I actually don’t disagree with these assessments by Meli.
Bill – You sound an awful lot like a defensive old white man. I’m thinking maybe you’re second from the right, above.
“defensive old white man” how dare you make a racist comment like that Lord Baltimore in this day and age. What
a dip s@#t!!
“racist”?
Why you ageist, mysogynistic scum! How dare you ignore two thirds of Lord Baltimore’s prejudices! He is one of the aristocracy and deserves your respect for ALL of his failings, which are clearly far more impressive than your failings, and obviously the result of superior breeding.
This is the biggest problem with your petty little republic – no respect for the divine right of monarchy, the superiority of nobility and the fine traditions of dynastic succession. With this kind of attitude you will never succeed in settling the continent from coast to coast…
I gotta admit Disasterman i do like your sense of humor.
Lord Baltimore…...I’m the one with the glasses, and rather than being “defensive,” I have oft been told that I am rather offensive.
Matt…..thank you for your good-humored “agreement” with my assessment. Now I wish my posting were less ad hominem and more about the substance of the cartoon. Cheers.
Bill, You’re welcome. I fully understand that I display opinions offensive to some, though they are mostly reactions to other people’s opinions that I find offensive (particularly the Right’s social political views.) But it’s rarely my aim to deliberately offend, so much as frame my thoughts in as creative and interesting a way as I can muster. And I never take myself seriously. What’s funny about what I do for a living, is that in person, I’m not abrasively political at all. I kind of keep my opinions to myself outside the workplace. Pretty much the polar opposite of everyone else, huh?
@Bulldog:
Humour? Sorry, you’ve lost me…
};p
You lost Disasterman? Now were all in trouble.
Matt,
I would be more than willing to show you the error of your ways regarding the social/political views of the Right. In summary, conservatism, above all, values individual liberty. But, it also values social and institutional traditions, which is a primary distinction between conservatism and libertarianism. Conservatives also recognizes that there is a “Creator” (without presuming to define the deity)from whom rights and obligations flow. A good and comprehensive starting point for developing your understanding of the conservative philopsophy in its full historical context(although it is not an easy read) is The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk.
Seriously? You think *C*onservative politicians ACTUALLY enact policies inline with the values of *c*onservative individuals?
The briefest encapsulation of this that I can come up with off the cuff is thus:
The *c*onservative values of personal freedom translate into *C*onservative policies of corporate anarchy where the rights of individuals are trumped by those of business. Actual social policies are tailored solely to pander to voters for the preservation of power.
I think we can see this principle in action without having to cast our nets too wide…
And of course, similar comparisons can be made with Liberal politics too.
It’s politics, baby.
Polical cartoons are satire.
“conservatism, above all, values individual liberty. But, it also values social and institutional traditions”
Sorry Bill…From a purely ideological standpoint, I believe that those two are mutually exclusive.
Hmm… precise definitions again – as I understand it the American principle of liberty was originally largely concerned with the liberty of the individual from the interference of government – hence the War of Independance (You guys remember that doncha? We won. We left you over there. It was all just a cunning ploy!) in response to the tyranny of oppressive taxes for George IV to fund european wars half a globe away.
And yet, many of those self proclaimed guardians of modern liberty are massively concerned with the intimate details of your reproductive and pharmacological habits amongst many other things.
Still, on the other hand, they do make an enormous effort to free millions of Americans from the most onerous burdens of government, in the form of relieving them of the unbearable task of casting a vote once every four years.
Indeed, “No taxation without representation!”
I can still hear it echoing today…
Matt,
This really isn’t the forum to get into this at length, but I didn’t blithely posit two of the core tenets of conservative political philosophy. Nor should you blithely suggest that a regard for the primacy of individual liberty and a secondary regard for social and institutional traditions are inconsistent, particularly with no supporting argument. I thought I stated rather clearly that adhering to these two principles is what separates conservatism from libertarianism.
Now, I have read Marx and Lenin, and innumerable leftist theorists (I also read the Journal News). Before you dismiss conservatism as a serious political philosopy, you should, at the least, read Russell Kirk’s excellent compendium of conservative thought over the past several centuries.
Bill, that’s not a blithe statement on my part. I really do find that in practice those two are at odds with each other. I don’t dismiss conservatism as a political theory (and I will take a look at Mr Kirk’s book.) In fact I respect those who wish to keep Government’s role in our lives to an acceptable minimum. I’m one of them. What I do have trouble with is the strange neocon hybrid that “Disasterman” outlined perfectly above.
Also the sneering, overbearing style of governance foisted upon us all in the past almost eight years has probably put the cause of true “conservatism” back way more than any reactionary editorial cartoonist could.