A little bit a politics

[meirwen_1988]

So, yesterday there was the "news" that the GOP party bigwigs developed some fairly tasteless images to use as...conversation starters...yeah, we'll go with that term. ;-)

By now most of my readers know that I tend to sit just left of the center line on most issues except the defense budget, where I'm firmly in the "and how many zeroes do you want on that check, General?" camp (yeah, deal with it), and the marriage issue (where I think the government should just restrict itself to the contractual parts and let the moral parts be handled by, well, the religious bodies, because that's their job. Which I guess makes me a Pinko on that). And I'm a registered Democrat, and don't see that changing.

Still, the histrionics about these images have me rubbing my head, very puzzled. How is putting the current Commander-in-Chief in theatrical makeup, or styling the Speaker of the House as a Disney villainess any worse than making art of the then Vice President in brown attire consistent with Berlin ca. 1939 or styling the then Commander-in-Chief as the best-known character from MAD magazine, to speak nothing of styling one as a famed ventriloquist (father of "Murphy Brown") and the other as the best known of his...dummies.

I see them as differences in specifics, not differences in kind. And, frankly, in the long history of American politics, these sorts of tactics are pretty mild.

So, people, get a grip. It's political rhetoric--all of it. And since all of national government seems to be more about style than substance lately, you'd think it'd feel comfortable. It's not like this is interfering with all their posturing. It's not like it was making them do any real work. Why, then they'd actually have something to complain about.

Comments

[dicea.livejournal.com]

hooah.

[unique_name_123]

This.

[alricthemad.livejournal.com]

What has Doonesbury chosen to represent Obama? I haven't followed the comics is some time

[alricthemad.livejournal.com]

Found my own answer;
From the Slate/Doonesbury FAQ:

We appreciate the interest of the hundreds of readers who have written to ask -- with varying degrees of impatience -- whether there will be a Doonesbury icon for President Obama. Suggestions for an image have been generously forthcoming -- halo, basketball, Ray-Bans, Blackberry, teleprompter. ..snip..

[sheapottery.livejournal.com]

Did the democratic party put out a pic of W as the mad magazine mascot? Or any of that stuff? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

If I'm wrong, then both parties have something to be ashamed of.

If not, there is a HUGE difference in a comedian or cartoonist lampooning any politician and a political party doing it.

Lately (starting with the aftermath of 9-11), the GOP seems to becoming more and more petty and spiteful. Just plain mean. Call it the "Cheney effect". (IMO, that man is EVIL.)

[meirwen.livejournal.com]

I don't think he's evil (I know people who actually know him). I just think about some things he's terribly, terribly wrong. Which is okay if your only power is the same power the rest of us have. Unfortunately, he's been in a position to do more than that, which makes him dangerous. But I don't believe he's evil.

[meirwen.livejournal.com]

As to the other, the GOP didn't commission the images--they've simply embraced them. The same is true of what happened with the GW and DC images. The DNC didn't commission them, but they used them.

[retiredmaj.livejournal.com]

As noted, both parties have been/are behaving badly. There were plenty of Bush/Cheney as Nazi pics up for the better part of eight years. Now the disgusting caricatures of the current Prez have started. For every outrageous outburst from the "right," there's an equally egrgious one from the left. The only thing that truly pisses me off about it is either side acting like they *aren't* doing it. Also, splitting hairs about whether the "party" created the picture, or simply one it's "mover and shaker" components did is pretty disingenuous.