This weekly diary takes a look at the past week's important news stories from the perspective of our leading editorial cartoonists (including a few foreign ones) with analysis and commentary added in by me.
When evaluating a cartoon, ask yourself these questions:
1. Does a cartoon add to my existing knowledge base and help crystallize my thinking about the issue depicted?
2. Does the cartoonist have any obvious biases that distort reality?
3. Is the cartoonist reflecting prevailing public opinion or trying to shape it?
The answers will help determine the effectiveness of the cartoonist's message.
:: ::
Chris Britt, Comics.com, see reader comments in the State Journal-Register
Crossposted at Daily Kos. If you choose to recommend it there, the Rec Button may have been pushed to the bottom after the last diary comment made.
THE WEEK IN EDITORIAL CARTOONS
This weekly diary takes a look at the past week's important news stories from the perspective of our leading editorial cartoonists (including a few foreign ones) with analysis and commentary added in by me.
When evaluating a cartoon, ask yourself these questions:
1. Does a cartoon add to my existing knowledge base and help crystallize my thinking about the issue depicted?
2. Does the cartoonist have any obvious biases that distort reality?
3. Is the cartoonist reflecting prevailing public opinion or trying to shape it?
The answers will help determine the effectiveness of the cartoonist's message.
:: ::
Chris Britt, see reader comments in the State Journal-Register (Springfield, IL)
This is going to be a relatively short essay. In a state where only a few months ago, a popular, moderate, establishment-oriented Republican Governor (Charlie Crist) was not only expected to get his party's nomination for the U.S. Senate but, perhaps, coast to victory over any number of Democratic opponents, finds the governor's party in crisis mode.
Lately, the news out of Florida has not been good for the Republicans. The St. Petersburg Timesreports this morning
As a volatile election season gets under way, the Republican Party of Florida is facing its biggest crisis of confidence in decades.
Donors and party activists are livid over newly revealed records that suggest outgoing chairman Jim Greer used the party as a personal slush fund for lavish travel and entertainment. The records also show that executive director Delmar Johnson padded his $103,000 salary with a secret, $260,000 fundraising contract and another $42,000 for expenses - at the same time the once mighty Florida GOP was having to lay off employees amid anemic fundraising.
This weekly diary takes a look at the past week's important news stories from the perspective of our leading editorial cartoonists (including a few foreign ones) with analysis and commentary added in by me.
When evaluating a cartoon, ask yourself these questions:
1. Does a cartoon add to my existing knowledge base and help crystallize my thinking about the issue depicted?
2. Does the cartoonist have any obvious biases that distort reality?
3. Is the cartoonist reflecting prevailing public opinion or trying to shape it?
The answers will help determine the effectiveness of the cartoonist's message.
President Barack Obama is a superb orator. If anyone can make an rousing speech, he can. He has proven it time and again. For him, words matter. He is calm, rational, never gets too emotional, and always tends towards the logical. Display of emotions is for losers, many an analyst has observed about his speaking style.
Tonight, he had the crowd's attention all the way. Talk about a "captive audience." Oh sure, the Republicans booed him and refused to stand up and cheer. That's what they always do.
Imagine the president's surprise when he thanked the GOP for its invaluable contributions to our national discourse and, instead of screaming "You lie," members of the loyal opposition stood up and cheered him when he uttered the following words of wisdom...
This weekly diary takes a look at the past week's important news stories from the perspective of our leading editorial cartoonists (including a few foreign ones) with analysis and commentary added in by me.
When evaluating a cartoon, ask yourself these questions:
1. Does a cartoon add to my existing knowledge base and help crystallize my thinking about the issue depicted?
2. Does the cartoonist have any obvious biases that distort reality?
3. Is the cartoonist reflecting prevailing public opinion or trying to shape it?
The answers will help determine the effectiveness of the cartoonist's message.
This weekly diary takes a look at the past week's important news stories from the perspective of our leading editorial cartoonists (including a few foreign ones) with analysis and commentary added in by me.
When evaluating a cartoon, ask yourself these questions:
1. Does a cartoon add to my existing knowledge base and help crystallize my thinking about the issue depicted?
2. Does the cartoonist have any obvious biases that distort reality?
3. Is the cartoonist reflecting prevailing public opinion or trying to shape it?
The answers will help determine the effectiveness of the cartoonist's message.
Count me among those who have listened with no small annoyance to the incessant alarmist chorus of worry and hand-wringing regarding the White House's decision to go on the offensive for once and attack Fox News. I have always known the political process to be fickle and seemingly designed for the sake of those who would split hairs and raise concerns, but I have never seen so many degrees of second-guessing from so many different corners as I have with the President's bold attack. Articles like this one prove my point. Any effective governing coalition requires placating not just the base, but also moderates, independents, and conservatives. This should be common sense, but the purveyors of news and politics easily forget it. The big tent is supposed to be big.
If any Democrat in power states a position, it will be automatically criticized for being too partisan. If one doesn't flex one's muscles, the lack of strong response will be lambasted as being spineless and wimpy. A shift to the left will be criticized as catering only to the base. A shift to the right will be criticized as forsaking liberals to appeal to a transparent sense of phony bipartisanship. Aiming for the middle will win critics on both the left and right who would much rather prefer their concerns winning precedent rather than having a foot in one side and a foot in the other. One could almost argue that a President, any President, can't manage to do much of anything right, except be a combination egalitarian punching bag and dart board. Any majority coalition is going to have natural fissures and at times conflicting interests, but the best leaders find a way to not sweat the small stuff and instead advance the common thread upon which all can agree.
Returning again to the recent condemnation of Faux News by the Obama Administration, I probably shouldn't have been surprised that some were so quick to make a Nixon analogy. I personally was surprised that the White House had the courage to take a chance by stating the unvarnished truth for once. Many of us in the netroots had been arguing similarly for years, i.e. that Fox News was not a network that aimed for any kind of objective, unbiased spin in its "news" coverage. That this was decried in some corners as a kind of Chicago-style kneecapping that utterly contradicted the President's earlier stand advancing post-partisanship is petty politics to the extreme. I doubt seriously that Obama keeps a constantly revised hate-list of enemies in the desk drawer of the Oval Office. Post-partisanship is fine but as we have seen over the months it also requires cooperation from the not-so-loyal opposition, who have wished to play by their own rules in their own sandbox thankyouverymuch. Once hopes in future that the substantive networks and news agencies no longer have to chase the narratives and outlandish pseudo-news set in motion by Fox.
Like many, I was among the ranks of the skeptics when our President continued to advance an optimistic agenda that sought to supersede political ideology in favor of cooperation. This Era of Good Feeling lasted, if memory serves, about three full months. As much as it pains me, we've still not evolved yet to the point that we can set aside our selfishness and our suspicion of the other side to truly work hand in hand. One of the open secrets of Washington legislative politics is that many Senators and Representatives do routinely reach across the aisle in formulating worthy bills and many, shockingly enough, even have friendships with those in the opposition party. They are, however, always cautious and careful to prevent this from becoming common knowledge back home among their constituents. Few wish to be accused of "palling around with Democrats" after all.
Part of what drives conservative opposition is the fear of being surrounded and outnumbered. This rally-round-the-flag response I see constantly when I am back home in Alabama. Having a long history of feeling marginalized and having its concerns discounted by the rest of the country provides a substantial ability and precedent to band together. After having fallen out of power altogether, it is a well-worn identity that can be easily embraced yet again. Not only that, at this point at least, Republicans really have everything to gain and nothing to lose. They can afford to speak with more or less one voice projected directly towards their base because, as has been exhaustively reported, moderate voices are currently few and far between. Energy does not need to be devoted to keeping everyone on board. Liberals and Democrats can be easily vilified as smug oppressors, forcing their version of ill-suited progress upon a public which would like nothing more than to be left alone to run its affairs in its own way. Still, at some point free will and laissez-faire produces more harm than good and intervention is necessary.
In the meantime, it might be best for us to embrace, for the first time in decades what being the majority party entails. We seem to have gotten out of practice over the years. It means being inclusive without papering over differences and knowing also how to engage different wings and blocs in honest conversation without degenerating into fratricide. On this point, the media seems poised and eager to pronounce a party at war with itself because doing so promises rapt attention, increased readership, and a steady stream of interesting, lurid headlines. Let's not go there, please. What I see is not exposed fault lines in stretched tautly in anticipation of a major tremor, but rather something quite different. I see the inevitable stress and strain which characterizes the democratic process at work, one which never provides a satisfying rallying cry for anyone until its conclusion, or until its effects are judged by the direct impact made upon those whom it sets out to help. At times we forget that the formulation of reform is often much less important than its role in improving the lives of others, but the former does make for good theater. The latter might not make for interesting copy, but it is upon this standard that we ought to judge success or failure. In so doing, we ought to act and choose our words accordingly.
Crossposted at Daily Kos. Look in the Comments Section of Daily Kos for more cartoons on the economy and sports. Somehow, I couldn't fit them in the main text of the diary.
THE WEEK IN EDITORIAL CARTOONS
This weekly diary takes a look at the past week's important news stories from the perspective of our leading editorial cartoonists (including a few foreign ones) with analysis and commentary added in by me.
When evaluating a cartoon, ask yourself these questions:
1. Does a cartoon add to my existing knowledge base and help crystallize my thinking about the issue depicted?
2. Does the cartoonist have any obvious biases that distort reality?
3. Is the cartoonist reflecting prevailing public opinion or trying to shape it?
The answers will help determine the effectiveness of the cartoonist's message.
Before you can deal with a problem or seize an opportunity, you have to acknowledge the problem and/or recognize that opportunity. Taking a determined stance against the scientific community on what might be the greatest challenge and greatest opportunity humanity might have ever faced is not the path to solving the problem or benefiting form that opportunity.
The Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) (or, perhaps, simply staff) has embraced anti-science syndrome with a fervor that should astound anyone with the slightest regard for the scientific method and for the scientific community (communities).
For the RPV, climate change seems to fall into some form of never-never land of liberal reality-bias, with efforts to deal with it simply promoted by radicals.
Sigh ... for those calling for "bipartisanship", perhaps that "bipartisanship" must be grounded on all parties having their feet firmly ground in reality ...
This weekly diary takes a look at the past week's important news stories from the perspective of our leading editorial cartoonists (including a few foreign ones) with analysis and commentary added in by me.
When evaluating a cartoon, ask yourself these questions:
1. Does a cartoon add to my existing knowledge base and help crystallize my thinking about the issue depicted?
2. Does the cartoonist have any obvious biases that distort reality?
3. Is the cartoonist reflecting prevailing public opinion or trying to shape it?
The answers will help determine the effectiveness of the cartoonist's message.
Ed Schultz: This wasn't flippant, Grayson just took it to them 'by the rules'. And he doesn't have to apologize to nobody for anything. And you know what, there are a lot of Lefties around this Country, in their living rooms tonight saying, 'YES! this is how you got to handle these folks!'
The Republicans are demanding an apology for the same reason they are offering Amendments about Czars -- They have nothing to offer in the Health Care Debate!
[...]
Ed Schultz: Congressman Grayson do you take anything back?
Alan Grayson: Absolutely NOT! -- the people WHO should be apologizing are the Republicans -- they're the ones who should be apologize for dragging us all through the mud here, while we are just trying to improve Health Care in America.
This weekly diary takes a look at the past week's important news stories from the perspective of our leading editorial cartoonists (including a few foreign ones) with analysis and commentary added in by me.
When evaluating a cartoon, ask yourself these questions:
1. Does a cartoon add to my existing knowledge base and help crystallize my thinking about the issue depicted?
2. Does the cartoonist have any obvious biases that distort reality?
3. Is the cartoonist reflecting prevailing public opinion or trying to shape it?
The answers will help determine the effectiveness of the cartoonist's message.
:: ::
Mahmoud, Hugo, and Muammar... Meet Rush, Glenn, and Sean Pat Bagley, Salt Lake Tribune
When you are involved in politics there is often a level of paradox. There is the need to stand firm on your agenda, yet there is the requirement of being open to compromise if you are to get that agenda enacted. There is the need for cold, hard eyed realism, yet there must be passion to push forward, even when it looks as though you are going to lose. It all seems to come down to the idea of balance, the Yin and the Yang, constantly opposed, yet each needed to balance the other, if there is to be a harmonious whole.
This appears to be the delicate stage of negotiations for a health care bill. As War On Error has shown so thoroughly today, the House bill as stands is a pure giveaway, because the "public option" it offers is only available to the self-employed, and then only by 2013, by which time the insurers will have (maybe) a bit firmer control of the Federal government than they do today.
We should understand, then, that we will have to be in this for the sake of building a historic bloc, a larger social movement with a political aim. If we can do that, we can say that it's not over when Congress decides to vote, and we will not have to wait another sixteen years to get what we want. Voting down all sellout bills will, in this light, be our first victory as a historic-bloc-in-formation. It is still early in the game -- it is not "now or never."
Everywhere we look, it seems, the evidence is there.
Whether the "Birthers" or 10-year olds carrying signs equating Obama with Hitler or anti-choice murderers or "intelligent design" propagandists, an epidemic is breaking out across the United States. An epidemic whose manifestation, now, are screaming masses threatening the very underpinnings of American democracy. As per blue aardvark,
In a democracy, power comes from the ability to persuade. You win because people like your ideas.
The Republicans are admitting they can't win a fair fight. They are cowards.
While the attention is focused on the mobs storming Democratic politicians' town halls and highlighted are the depraved (mal-informed) rages about health care, the reality is that anti-clean energy interests are sponsoring their own variations of outright deception and fostered screaming outrage. To a large extent, one thing shared among the "outraged" voices: a deep (and proud) embrace of know-nothingness.
But this outraged know-nothingness isn't targeted solely at Democratic Party politicians seeking to communicate with their constituents, also targeted are Republican politicians who show any signs of seeking to link their policy concepts with reality.
I certainly agree with the jist of Something The Dog Said's currently front-paged essay . . . the grand OLD ?Party? is sucking itself into a black hole of self-immolation, at least on the national level. Their base won't support anyone who has the slightest chance of getting elected outside of the South and/or the Mormon belt out West; and they despise moderates who might ostensibly have a shot at it.
While in certain way, this of course fills me with glee, I think there's potential downsides that need to be addressed as well.
Yes the title is pretty strong, but there is no other way to say it, the Republican Party is at the very best a tacitly racist organization. Those of you who read the Dog's posts on a regular basis (HI! BTW to all six of you!), know he is not one to say inflammatory things just to be inflammatory. The Dog knows that people who read this and do not agree are going to be very unhappy, but this is not something the Dog has come to all at once, this is based on observation of data.
Many in the Republican "base" found John McCain an outrage, his policy views and perspectives abhorrent, not least of which that he deigns to consider reality in stating that Global Warming is a serious issue meriting attention (even if his policy prescriptions aren't enough).
Watch where you drop it ... you could hurt your feet!
There must be something about the number, but Republicans truly don't seem to like 1100 page bills.
At the White House meeting, Mr. Gingrich said, he told Mr. Clinton that any "attempt to ram through an 1,100 page bill, which is what I am told the Mitchell measure is, would so embitter the process that I don't think anything else would pass. I think this is crazy."
Perhaps if the page count had been different, Americans would have universal health care today.
Reform Immigration -
March on Washington
