CSotD: Sunday political roundup
Skip to comments
The big theme in political cartooning this week has been "inevitability" crossed with a bit of "what have we done?" and Scott Stantis spent the week asking that question in Prickly City. I like that both his liberal and his conservative characters are appalled.
First of all, it's politically accurate: Neither party has a lot to be proud of in this election cycle, though I'm not falling back on "They all do it," the mantra of the person who is too witless or lazy to look into things.
There is, after all, a difference between deflecting an opportunity for change and entirely rejecting human decency and Constitutional government, and that's not a partisan position: There do not seem to be very many conservatives who aren't recoiling in horror from Trump.
I even went to check some fringe dwellers I normally avoid, all but one of whom are either down on Trump or are studiously ignoring the issue.
(Not naming the one because his response to criticism makes Trump look like Sir Alec Guinness and I don't need the grief. Plus, it's not an important detail.)
But most conservatives have been working along the lines, for instance, of Bob Gorrell, a reliably conservative commentator appalled by Trump's failure to distance himself from David Duke.
Glenn McCoy and Gary Varvel focused on the damage to the apparently helpless Republican Party …
… while Dana Summers expanded to comment on the overall nature of the GOP debates, which metaphor, as it happens, was the literal focus of some clickbait about how the debates are (allegedly) impacting actual classroom decorum.
That clickbait assuming that there has been no impact over the growth of insult comedy and fart jokes in every other sector of our culture over the past two decades or so, or else that teachers have been able to outlaw the viewing of Beavis and Butthead and Two Half-Wit Men but can't manage to keep students from watching the GOP debates.
Anyway, it ties into the fallacy that Donald Trump invented this issue, while Joel Pett suggests perhaps a more extended pedigree.
And Tom Toles blames the GOP mainstream for letting things get to this point.
Jen Sorensen aims the blame in another direction, at media whose "neutrality" masks an unwillingness to apply any sort of responsible judgment to what they cover, so that they simply pass it all on, no matter how clearly toxic or nonsensical, as if their only civic duty were to point the cameras and step aside.
There are some pundits suggesting alternatives, mind you, but David Fitzsimmons penned this response even before last night's races showed Cruz making progress.
And Crowden Satz exploits the old fact that sometimes all you have to do to make somebody look ridiculous is to depict them accurately.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle
As noted at the start, the GOP does not have an exclusive on dubious achievement, and Jeff Danziger's panel appeared well before Hillary Clinton made her impassioned speech last night in Detroit about how we just can't allow special interests to control the process.
For the Democratic Party, this is somewhat akin to Kentucky Fried Chicken changing its name to KFC so that they can keep serving up the same stuff but it won't sound quite so unhealthy.
I wonder how Norm McDonald would look in a pants suit?
And I would note that Andy Nostradamowitz
predicted this back in April
I'm not surprised that Clinton is steering back towards what the voters say they want, because, after all, that's part of how campaigning works.
But I am surprised at — and disappointed in — the number of cartoonists who are accepting the Clinton Party's talking points as gospel, starting with this bit of doubletalk:
Face 1. When Sanders supporters said the fix was in because the Party had already awarded so many Superdelegates to Clinton, the Party responded that Superdelegates are not committed and would shift if the popular vote indicated that people felt otherwise.
Face 2. But following Super Tuesday, the message is that Bernie supporters should give up, and the numbers being used to prove Hillary's dominance include those same Superdelegates.
The result being that, while pundits continue to parse ways in which Cruz can still shoulder Trump aside, they are discussing November as an issue of who the GOP will be running against Hillary.
And, with the exception of a few like Dan Wasserman, that Party line is being echoed in progressive cartoons.
Here's where it actually stands: Of the 4051 non-superdelegates, Clinton has won 651 and Sanders has won 454, which means she has a strong lead but it's only a little past a quarter of the way over.
And we know that later primaries are influenced by prior results and current expectations. Declaring it over at this stage is for political operatives, not for responsible commentators.
(Sorry, no examples: See "Prime Directive.")
In other news:
Ted Rall has a good takedown on the Guantanamo "controversy," which isn't a controversy at all but just more brush to pile on the Fear and Trembling bonfire that is warming us up for the coming police state.
While Clay Jones points out the wisdom of that old adage of keeping your mouth shut and letting people think you're a fool, versus the alternative.
I actually remember this being an issue when I was in New York State, where wife-beating police were afraid that they would lose their jobs if they were not permitted to carry guns just because of something that happened on personal time. And the thin blue line remained as silent as a lawn jockey.
But fear not: Guantanamo and domestic violence and hiring a new babysitter for Clarence will all get resolved once the voters have a chance to make their voices heard.
Because the wisdom and forthrightness of the American voter is a founding principle of our great nation:
I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. — Thomas Jefferson
Comments 7
Comments are closed.