another round of TERRIBLE POLITICAL CARTOONS

[Alphawolf55]

It seems more like the Housewife is saying, you're only to deliver on your promises no compromising as if to back up the GOP saying they refuse to compromise on their promises and will deliver upon them.

[xt828]

You don't think that it's maybe saying that the Tea Party isn't allowing the GOP to compromise? Pretty sure that a framed teapot on the wall behind the housewife and another on the table to the left.

[Drooling Iguana]

At any rate, the fact that no one can tell what the comic is actually trying to say pretty much clinches its status as a terrible political cartoon.

For the record, I'm at as much of a loss as anyone else. I can't even figure out if the elephant is supposed to be picking up the bags or dropping them off, or whether he's entering the house or leaving it.

[Crossroads Inc.]

The response to Kieth from the right has been as predictable as always:

[dantheman40k]

The response to Kieth from the right has been as predictable as always:

Because Olbermann has always passes himself of as unbiased. Oh wait.

[Flagg]

Countdown has a journalistic pretense?

[Thanas]

The response to Kieth from the right has been as predictable as always:

As are your spelling mistakes...how the heck do you get to Kieth when the name is even spelled in the comic?

[Phantasee]

At any rate, the fact that no one can tell what the comic is actually trying to say pretty much clinches its status as a terrible political cartoon.

For the record, I'm at as much of a loss as anyone else. I can't even figure out if the elephant is supposed to be picking up the bags or dropping them off, or whether he's entering the house or leaving it.

Maybe you should learn to read editorial cartoons? He is clearly leaving for Washington, and he's grabbing his bag of promises and ready to take some compromise with him, except the Tea Partiers he's been in bed with to get elected are reminding him they aren't going to let him pull a wham bam thank you ma'am one night stand. He's going to have to do as she (the Tea Party) says.

Edit: and that analysis is from the last time I looked at it when it was posted. Looking it over again, I think it was drawn by someone who may be a GOP supporter, but closer to the centre. A tea partier would have drawn her in a more positive light and expression.

[Terralthra]

It is a terrible cartoon because it shows the traditional democrat colour = promises, whereas the traditional GOP colour = Compromise. Which the elephant is not allowed to pick up because a Pelosi-drawn housewife forbids him to.

10 years is "a tradition" now? Explanation here.

[Thanas]

I think my point got across despite the valid nitpick, thanks.

[Themightytom]

I think my point got across despite the valid nitpick, thanks.

It did, but beyond the color of the bags this is the first time I've ever disagreed with anything you've said.

I kind of like that cartoon because it looks like promises are baggage, and compromise is carry on, suggesting you should plan your promises to provide for your long term needs while compromises tends to provide for short term needs.




Also because the painting in the wall behind the Lady-Stay-At-Home-Liberty ( ) reminds me of Babar.

[Themightytom]

Although now that i look at it, I suppose the painting could be ANOTHER tea kettle, so that we really get the point that the Republican party is in bed with the Tea party. At first glance it looked like an elephant's snout.

[Zor]

This is not exactly a cartoon and if nothing else it does have some production values behind it, but i feel that this deserves mentioning...



-Historical Wrongness for sake of Red Scare sentimentality (Maoist Posters)
-Irony, given the shift from Planned Economics to Market Economics under Deng Xiaoping
-Nationalistic Fearmongering with some Yellow Peril

Zor

[PeZook]

Actually, it's pretty good as a propaganda piece. Clear message, good production values, clever ending.

[Lusankya]

Yeah. It is very well done. While it might be absolutely hilarious to anyone who knows anything about China (Chinese people as a whole supporting libertarianism, lol), it's a perfect message to send to everyone else. One of the key things that makes it well done is the fact that one does not actually have to be already in the same camp as the producers in order to be affected. Even people who don't necessarily feel that America has some divine right to be the Leader of the Free World are likely to feel nervous at the prospect of an emergent China, because to them a powerful China is an unknown. That's the reason they chose China as the successors to America, rather than some pan-European Francosocialist alliance: Europe is too familiar to people, and a much larger proportion of people feel that they understand how Europe will behave, which (even though Europe didn't act very nicely last time it had power) is a more comforting idea than just handing power over to the cultural "other".

I suppose that one could describe it as "terrible" in the sense that trying to provoke Cold War-like tensions with China is a terrible thing to do, and not really in America's best interests, but I doubt the people making this ad were thinking further than the next election.

[Soldier of Entropy]

I also feel that it's terrible due to the fact that simply changing the subtitles and the ending organization name drop can make the ad mean almost anything, as evidenced by the 'the rich distracting the poor while stealing their money' and 'outsourcing' destroy empires parodies, also makes the ad pretty terrible.

[Lusankya]

I'm not entirely sure if "Changing all the words will make it mean something different" is a valid reason to call something terrible. We may as well call Downfall a terrible movie, in that case, since changing all the subtitles means that Hitler is raving about the Superbowl, or whatever sports contest is on at the moment. Alternatively, if I changed all the words to To Kill a Mockingbird, I could probably turn it into a book on the virtues of Capitalism over Marxism.

[Soldier of Entropy]

Hmmm... maybe. It's subtly different, though. In those parodies, Hitler is saying nonsense; the 'new' version makes no sense. In the parodies of this ad, however, the entire thing looks like the real thing (assuming that you don't know mandarin Chinese), and the position being expressed by the professor is not only relevant, it can, in fact, be the exact opposite of the viewpoint expressed by the ad's creators. There are no visual cues aside from subtitles to indicate which side of the argument the ad is on.

Additionally, could you do that task with To Kill a Mockingbird changing only dialogue? I feel that that is more analogous. Further, since it is easier to give such a message when one has more time to reinforce the theme, an even better analogue is doing so with one scene and giving it the opposite moral from the one the author intended.

[Lusankya]

There aren't any visual cues in radio ads, either.

What the visual cues do is reinforce the idea that China is "scary" and "other". This is crucial, not because it's helping you understand the argument, but rather because it's promoting fear of the consequences if you go along the path that the Chinese Professor says America will go along. If anything, your claim that "changing the words makes the meaning of the ad change" is evidence that the imagery used is successful - because whatever the Chinese Professor says, you still fear for the future of America. Which is the whole point of making him a Chinese Professor, as opposed to a Canadian Professor.

Consider this ad:



Putting aside the morality of your argument being "vote for me or we will all die in horrible nuclear war", it was a highly successful ad which achieved its aim in making people want to vote for LBJ, yet the ad itself says nothing about the Democratic Party. If I changed the "Vote for President Johnson" mark at the end, and replaced it with "Vote Goldwater" the meaning of the ad would be completely reversed. That wouldn't significantly change the way it affected people on an emotional level, though.

[Azazal]

Ok, who let Chuck get his crack pipe back?



Guess Chuckie forgot about that little election in 2000, something like Bush vs Gore or some such.

And as a bonus round we have



That's right America, we're Obama's personal ATM.. wait, what? It doesn't work that way?

[Agent Sorchus]

Anyone remember how much Palin charged the RNC to go shopping?

[Pelranius]

Is Chuck whining about Colorado and Washington?

The upside to that Yellow Peril tv ad was that apparently Americans will be employed again in 2030.

[Zor]

That's right America, we're Obama's personal ATM.. wait, what? It doesn't work that way?

How much do Presidents (and their families) usually spend on themselves?

Zor

[PeZook]

How much do Presidents (and their families) usually spend on themselves?

Zor

Don't you know Obama had the gall, the sheer contemptous attitude to take Michelle to dinner on their anniversary?

The evil bastard!

But to answer your question, IIRC the POTUS gets 400 000 a year, and of course his living expenses are all paid for, so I guess his family has plenty to spend on themselves.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Also I think (but I'm not sure) that the President doesn't have to pay taxes on his income.