Or will this be repudiated by Democrats?
http://www.ucomics.com/patoliphant/2004/11/16/
I think this cartoon is absolutely disgusting.
What, characterizing Condi Rice as Bush’s pet parrot? Apart from the fact that she’s smarter than he is, it’s dead on.
What does a political cartoon pointing out that Condi is a yes-woman have to do with being tolerant and diverse? And what does that have to do with the Democrats? Did they draw this at one of their meetings? I don’t see an official seal of approval from the Head Democrat (I don’t even know who that is). I certainly don’t know who the hell Pat Oliphant, and I don’t think he’s an official party spokesperson. I’m so liberal I’m not even a democrat, and that still has nothing to do with nothing. Do you want me to go through digging up all kinds of crappy political cartoons made by no-name Republicans? Give me 20 minutes, and I’ll have as many batshit-insane completely untrue Republican webpages.
Hey, at least he didn’t draw Bush’s face like a chimp. You guys usually complain about that, consider this a step up!
Oooooh, the answer to my own question just struck me.
To a Republican, being tolerant and diverse means subjugated and subdued. Like a pig. In a cage. On antibiotics.
Why is the entire party responsible for the content of one add?
What’s the problem anyway? It claims that Rice is merely a “parrot”, a deabtable proposition, but hardly offensive.
Oh, it’s because she has big lips, right? Yeah, some people don’t see racial epithets everywhere they look.
It’s an editorial cartoon, for crying out loud. It’s like blaming Carl Rove for Mallard Fillmore.
Lame. Uber lame.
Zagadka, Oliphant is a Pulitzer winner (among many other awards) and has had exhibitions at the Smithsonian and Library of Congress in the past. He has been drawing political cartoons since the '60s.
Oliphant has been drawing editorial cartoons that pissed off members of both parties as long as I’ve been reading him. Bricker has been drawing bizarre and unsupportable conclusions that pissed me off as long as I have been reading him. There is something comforting in how consistent both of them are.
I will admit, it’s a particularly scathing depiction, and a bit more pejorative than I’m used to from Oliphant. Though I do think Condi is pretty much a Yes Woman, I also have a lot of respect for her intelligence, and like her pro-choice stance (however muted). How she manages to bear her company is beyond me, but there’s no accounting for taste. One might say the same about the cartoon.
Applying Oliphant’s cartoon rant to the whole of the Democratic party is just nuts, I’m afraid. I’m serious: You seem too smart for that, Bricker. What gives?
I am a little confused where you draw these lines, Bricker. Here is a page of jokes about a Democratic African American figure, Jesse Jackson. For example:
Do you find these offensive? (Personally, I thought some of them were pretty funny.)
I think it is understood that public figures have to have a pretty thick skin. They are bound to be the butt of all sorts of jokes and cartoons.
Perhaps the OP would care to point out the place where it says that Pat Oliphant is a member of the Democratic Party, or that his views represent those of the Party, or even the majority of its members/supporters.
FWIW, i don’t think the cartoon is very funny or clever.
I’m also wondering what is up for Debate in this thread? I guess we could discuss the accuracy of Loopydude’s proposition:
Where’s the debate here?
Are you saying Condi is or won’t be a yes gurl?
Was Powell?
Of course she will be.
But then isn’t that what the SOS should be??
Who runs the ship of state?
You are so funny sometimes Bricker
I should say that firstly is Oliphant this guys real last name or a pseudonym?
Secondly you shouldn’t criticise cabinet officers too much for being “yes men” or “yes women” they are supposed to give the President private advice but in public they are not supposed to disagree that much. If they have strong disagreement with the administration then they are supposed to resign their post.
Cabinet officials are there to aid the President in carrying out his duties as Chief Executive, not to act as a counter balance to him.
Not very bright.
But funny nonetheless.
Democrats have poopypants.
[sub]Pssst! Rick! Dude, you’re turning into the Republican Reeder.[/sub]
You thank him for that compliment.
Bricker, I think you’re going to have to explain what’s “intolerant” about the cartoon. Are you suggesting that any mockery of Rice is necessarily racist?
I don’t see anything racist about the cartoon unless you think it’s just present in the caricature itself (which I personally don’t see).
he was referring to her being a yes grrl.
And she will be.
As she should be.
If she wants to keep her job.
That is the point of the cartoon. The difference between Powell and Rice is that, especially with respect to the Iraq war, Powell had opinions different from the president’s and told him so – in private, but it was not a well-kept secret; while Rice apparently tells him nothing but what he wants to hear. Powell was not a “counter balance,” he was a dissenting voice, which is not the same thing, and which is something every leader needs to have around, to help keep him grounded in something close to reality; and now Bush no longer has it.
Hmmm. Oliphant is usually funnier than that. I thought the cartoon was rather silly, but I don’t see the issue here. I assume that **Bricker **means that Dems should condemn this as a racist charicature. But he’s drawing Condi as a parot, and it doesn’t have anything to do with race.
Bricker: Why don’t you outline specifically what the debate is and what you expect the Democrats to do. Your OP is more like a lame Pit ranting than anything else.