New Feature -- Political Cartoons

[ Posted Tuesday, July 24th, 2007 – 12:12 UTC ]

It seems that events have conspired to make this "new features" week (or perhaps "multimedia" week) on

To kick this off, I am featuring our very first original political cartoon. I was emailed a few cartoons by a blog reader, and will be running a few of them over the coming days as an experiment. Please feel free to post your comments to let me and the artist know what you think.

I've included the short bio the artist wrote for himself after the cartoon. He's a guy that draws these for fun, and he sent them to me to see if I could use them. I must admit, having original political cartoons on my site is an intriguing idea to me, so we'll see how it goes for a while.

The first of these could have been drawn right after Bush took office, or it could have been used during the recent White House spin job on the Libby commutation. In other words, it has kind of a timeless quality to it.

Anyway, here's the debut cartoon from Charles W. Cunningham:


The Buck Stops…

About the Cartoonist  |  Reprint Policy


About the Cartoonist

Doctor Dentist Daniel David Duck, world renowned neurosurgeon and part-time janitor, made his first million removing teeth from the rich and selling them to the poor. Due to a minor misunderstanding over whether a bicuspid can be fitted with disc brakes, he's had to retire from his janitorial duties and devote himself part time to cartooning. He hopes someday to become an artist.

But seriously, My name is Charles W. Cunningham, unemployed, likely unemployable, and I draw these things for nothing more than the hope I might make you laugh. I encourage you to copy and distribute them freely on the condition that you leave the copyright and reference to intact. If you are posting onto a blog or webpage, I ask that you provide a link back to this site. Come back and get more, I'll crank 'em out as they come to me.

As I say, if I can make you laugh, you've made my day, but the real magic of this site is in Chris' writings. You'll find him well read, well considered and well worth reading, so come for the laughs, but stay for the magic.

-- Charles W. Cunningham


7 Comments on “New Feature -- Political Cartoons”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    While I will concede it's true that the Bush administration does frequently pass the buck to the Clinton administration, the reasons for this are twofold.

    First and foremost, it's legitimate to do so. Many of the problems facing this country ARE the result of Clinton's mismanagement. His lack of a spine against terrorists and terrorism beget 9/11.

    But the most important reason for it is because of the vicious and hypocritical attacks by the Left against Bush and the Administration..

    How can the Democrats castigate the Administration for the Attorney Firings when they have the Clinton Attorney Firings and Travel Gate in their closets???

    How can the Democrats, with a straight face, condemn Bush's use of his Presidential Pardon powers to pardon a victim of an obviously political court case, when they (the Democrats) have Clinton's pardon of the likes of Mark Rich??

    If Clinton is always getting the buck passed to him by the Bush Administration, perhaps... just perhaps, it is because the buck passing is well-earned and well-deserved..

    Just a thought... :D


  2. [2] 
    Herm71 wrote:

    @CW Cunningham
    Nice work!

    Regarding the attorney firings, maybe you can answer this, then: Why is it that the Right only points to the fact that Clinton fired all the U.S. attorneys but fail to mention that Reagan did the exact same thing. In fact, it's *every* president's prerogative do do just that. Then, what the Right also fails to mention that both Clinton and Reagan fired their attorneys at the *beginning* of their administrations, not in the middle as a way to pay political favors, and not in a way that slanders the reputations of the attorneys being fired.

    Regarding Clinton's "lack of spine" agains terrorism. The Right conveniently forgets that it dogged Clinton during his entire eight years making mountains out of molehills and wasting the taxpayers hard earned money to do so. Remember "Wag the Dog"? I'm not talking about the movie of the same name, either. When Clinton ordered the air strikes on Al Qaeda training camps -- and missed killing Osama Bin Laden by, what, an hour? -- the Right wing got its panties in a bunch and said he was just trying to take the national spotlight off the sham of an investigation that was Whitewater/Paula Jones/Monica Lewinski. What's more, Clinton wanted to do more, but the Congress, then controlled by Republicans, wouldn't allow it because they were more interested in learning about Clinton's sex life.

    And regarding the pardon of Mark Rich. I'll admit that that was pretty suspect. But again, think of all the convicted Iran Contra figures that Bush I pardoned. If you want to find a parallel to the Libby commutation, you'll do better by looking at his father's administration. Again Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence on the grounds that it did not fit the crime does not hold water. The Supreme Court ruled just this year on a similar case that the resulting punishment, which was within a month or two of Libby's, was just and not excessive. The Right fails to remember this. So, with these facts in mind, I can easily see how Democrats can condemn Bush's *reasoning* for commuting Libby's sentence.

    I'm aware that all administrations point to earlier precedents to justify dubious assertions, such as the constitutionally suspect 1984 Ted Olson opinion Bush Co. is currently waving around to justify it's radical assertion of "Executive Privilege", which is mentioned in the constitution exactly zero times. The thing is, I'm waiting for a politician to actually grow some ballz (or uh ... ovaries?) and say "Stop! This is slimy and dishonest and I don't care how many presidents before me did this, I'm not going to do it!" That's the fantasy world I evidently live on. Since that ain't likely to happen any time soon, it's the duty of every good American people to look closely at these comparisons and call "Bull Shit" when warranted.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:


    >In fact, it's *every* president's
    >prerogative do do just that.

    And THAT is EXACTLY my point..

    It's every President's perogative to do that..

    But did Congress have Reno up on the stand DURING A TIME OF WAR, for political target practice??

    Not that I can recall...

    The Gonzalez/Attorney flap is just pure unadulterated political BS.. Nothing more... And, it's borderline malfeasance to be pulling this kind of political grandstanding during a time of war..

    That's all I am saying..

    >Regarding Clinton's "lack of spine"
    >against terrorism.

    Regardless of the details of the era, the simple fact is that the Terrorism "buck" DOES stop at Clinton...

    >Again Bush's commutation of Libby's
    >sentence on the grounds that it did
    >not fit the crime does not hold water.

    I agree. It was a pretty piss poor excuse.

    MY point, though, was that it was an excuse that shouldn't have HAD to been made, because the entire LIBBY case was nothing but a political witch hunt with Democrats throwing heaps of kaa-kaa at the wall and hoping something sticks. Much like the very same tactics that the Republicans used (and the Democrats belly-ached about) with the White Water mess. Once again, this particular "buck" stops at Clinton..

    Libby was nothing more than political payback for Whitewater... That's it..

    >I'm waiting for a politician to actually
    >grow some ballz (or uh … ovaries?) and say
    >"Stop! This is slimy and dishonest and
    >I don't care how many presidents before
    >me did this, I'm not going to do it!"

    As am I... But, in the interests of your health, I would advise not holding your breath... :D

    My entire point with regards to the political cartoon is that in many MANY cases, the buck does, justifiably, stop at Clinton...

    Just as it would probably be accurate to have a Clinton caricature sitting in front of a sign that says, "THE BUCK STOPS AT BUSH"...

    THAT would surely confuse the hell outta people who don't know our presidents.. :D

    "Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed"
    -Austin Powers


  4. [4] 
    CDub wrote:

    I think the attorney firings would be a non-issue if the president had just done them for any reason he wanted to. His prerogative, no big deal.

    The reason this captures the imagination is that the president claims he had nothing to do with the firings. Compound this with his entire staff claiming they had nothing to do with the firings. Compound this with no one in the admin willing to disclose who might have had anything to do with the firings.

    It's pretty mundane stuff for a president to fire attorneys, even though it's unusual to fire so many of your own appointees mid-term. If there's really not a story here, why are so many in the executive branch falling all over each other to make sure no-body finds out about the reasons for the firings or who may have been involved?

    If there's really no story here, half these idiots should have to spend an hour in the corner for trying so desperately to cover up nothing. More likely, they're desperately covering up something, and since their paychecks come right out of my paycheck, I wanna know what they're covering up.

    It's possible Greg Palast has already uncovered what they're trying to hide ...

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    There IS no story here..

    The reason the Executive Branch is "falling over itself" is because the Democrats are trying to MAKE it a story, strictly for political purposes. To show their base how "tough" they are...

    Too bad they couldn't have had this "toughness" when it comes to the Iraq War, eh???


  6. [6] 
    CDub wrote:

    > Michale wrote:
    > There IS no story here..
    Those republicans are laughing all the way to the bank on this one. Already three of them have resigned over this fiasco just to hide the fact that there's no reason to resign. Gonzales will likely be forced to resign too and won't we all laugh when it turns out to be a joke on Democrats.

    Great fun.

  7. [7] 
    CWCunningham wrote:


    Thank you for the compliment, I do appreciate it!


Comments for this article are closed.