Posted by
Andrews on Friday, May 15, 2009 3:56:41 PM
After ranting about
John Cole's Washington Post quality cartoons, I now have to add a second to my list.
Ed Gamble seems to be torn between beating up on corporations and running down Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh and criticizing Republicans for
"lacking ideas". Now, I admit I am a Cheney supporter, and have always wondered why the man is so despised. (He speaks well, though unfortunately at length and not in sound bites, suffering from what I called in the 80's the "Phil Gramm Syndrome", good answers that won't fit on the news. And often that do not appease the angry voters who want to hear that everything is some else's fault.) So perhaps I am being a bit too touchy, and I simply am seeing liberalism where there real is a conservative cartoonist.
But decide for yourself if I am being too sensitive, look at Gamble's cartoons:
The last was also the subject of my post "
When Did We Become Liberals?".
So, can someone tell me how TH selects these cartoonists? Obviously it has nothing to do with subject matter, so what do they do, take the ones with the lowest ratings and just assume if the MSM hates them they must be conservative? Because Cole and Gardener certainly aren't convincing me they have anything to do with conservative opinion.
POSTSCRIPT
I will grant Gamble periodically criticizes Obama for national health care proposals and high taxes, but if we weren't stuck with the lap dog MSM, so would cartoonists on the left. Is a periodic criticism of Obama enough to brand someone a conservative? I have to say a guy whose recent cartoons include running down big business, big oil, and portraying Obama as a cop pulling over credit card companies that have "run over" consumers is not exactly my picture of a conservative. In fact, were it not required one never criticize the "Dear Leader" to be considered a liberal, he would seem to me a pretty liberal cartoonist. But apparently, as any criticism of Obama is verboten, we now call even the most mild chiding of Obama signs of arch-reactionary tendencies.
Rather sad, isn't it?