It shows a man lying on the ground labeled “Economy”. He’s been beaten, has a cut cheek, a black eye, several lumps on his head, his clothes are dirty and dishevelled, and his tongue is hanging out of his mouth. Behind the prone man is an ambulance, marked “ambulance”. To the left, a man with closecropped hair and large hornlike ears (who is apparently Obama) says to the prone man, “And we’re putting the Wall Street guys who did this to you in charge of your recovery.” To the prone man’s right, one man in a suit whispers to another “He’s trying to give it a ‘jolt’.” Below, in the small area where Toles sketches himself, the man who is apparently Obama is saying, “They have ‘hands on’ experience.”
This has been another edition of “Describing Electoral Cartoons”. “Describing Electoral Cartoons” is a service of Captain Amazing and is available upon request.
That depends on who you mean by “we”. If the President is a good man, with a good vision (as of course he is in the ideal world), then the citizenry at large should, of course, get behind him and help him. But the media, I think, has a responsibility to be as harshly critical as they can be of whomever is in power. Nobody’s perfect, and so everybody needs someone to point out how they’re imperfect, so they can work towards getting closer to perfection.
This isn’t even really a conflict, actually. Every sector of the country helps the nation and its government in different ways, and criticizing the administration as harshly as possible is, in fact, the way that the media helps them. Yes, we should follow a good leader, but there’s a difference (sometimes a complete opposition, in fact) between following and toadying.
But not contemptible enough to remember their names? It’s a miserable ad hominem and straw man rolled into one. Many liberals were opposed to Iraq and predicted disaster, but not a single party leader or pundit for the left hoped for disaster. You might be able to find a poster on a message board somewhere, but it was never party policy or even a talking point. In short, your statement is not consistent with reality. Disaster was inevitable in Iraq, and some liberals opposed it. Far fewer conservatives opposed it.
How the fascists thought that a long term occupation of a distant and volatile land divided by religion and chock full of small arms weapons would turn out to be a long term “welcoming us with flowers” was intellectually dishonest in the extreme. It was wishful thinking by fascists who like wars as the only way to solve problems.
lol…the liberal criticizing is only begun IMHO. I think a lot of the more rabid lefty types are going to be making their voices of protest heard in the next year or so when Obama doesn’t immediately do everything they have wanted since before Clinton. Hell, they criticized Clinton quite a bit while he was in office because he adopted what a lot of them considered ‘Republican Lite’ type policies (it was kind of funny in a sad sort of way seeing Clinton getting hit from both sides…which is what happens when you take a middle ground I suppose). I think Obama is in for the same sorts of things if he does what I THINK he’s going to do in his first term.
And the funny thing is that if he DOES do what I think he will, he will be a hero to the center and will win his next election by a landslide…and the grumbling of the left (and the foam of the right) will be drowned out in the roar of approval.
JMHO there and it’s still early days, but as a poster said up thread, anyone who thinks the left has been silent about Obama hasn’t been really paying attention to the real left wing blogs or sites…or even really paying attention here on the SD to some of our board lefty types.