Two of my least favorite political cartoonists have actually produced work that I approve of in recent weeks. The first is by Chuck Asay, who tends to be a rather partisan conservative. Every now and then he reveals himself as someone whose beliefs transcend political parties, if marginally (unlike wholly-owned GOP subsidiaries like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Man Coulter). Anyway, in this cartoon from last week he pretty much sums up my thoughts as to the whole 527 fiasco.
Way to go, McCain-Feingold!
I also tend to really dislike Etta Hulme. Her politics are closer to my own but her cartoons are generally rather opaque and out-dated by at least a few weeks. I think this one qualifies as out-dated (it just showed up this week) but still makes me tingle.
That's all.
I don't think that first cartoon is very fair. The swift boat guys have been fairly called-out all around the media for basically lying in that commercial, while I doubt that MoveOn.org has had to stoop to fabricating things about Bush to show that he's an unfit liar.
i think the point is that unaccountable groups on both sides of the spectrum have made claims that the other side considers outrageous, but (1) there's nothing wrong with that and (2) both groups are a hideous, mutated, unintended consequence of the mccain-feingold bill. the cartoon doesn't really make the second point, but it's part of the whole matzoh ball.
the first cartoon would be more fair if it had bush more clearly expressing a desire to "call of the attack dogs," since he's come out against all 527s (including moveon.org and the swift boat fools).
Word. I guess I just don't like MoveOn.org being called an "attack dog" since it implies some sort of unwarranted and unnecessarily vicious attack.
The phrase "wholly owned subidiary," like all expressions too often seen in print, is a drain. Drop that sort of language from your arguments; the message will always be stronger.