Political Cartoons

lol

From:

Ah, Duke Cunningham. You're the reason I don't currently have representation in the House. And, it seems, even when you were still in office, you never really represented your constituents anyway.

I do kind of wish TT had said "politicians" instead of "Republicans." It's not like the Democrats are any better.

From:

Duke wasn't in a band but he was still able to live like a rock star.

From:

No, at this point there is only evidence to suggest that the Republicans are worse than the dems.

All the guys in the above scandal? Entirely Republican.

K-street project? Entirely Republican

Abramoff? Entirely Republican

Tom Delay? Entirely Republican

At the moment, the dems have one rep from lousiana.

From:

And it isn't even fair. A "crooked politician from Louisiana" is an extreme example of redundant.

From:

Locally, around the same time as the Cunningham scandal, my city also saw a few Democrats on the city council charged with taking bribes from a strip club owner.

I just read an opinion piece about the bipartisan culture of corruption in Washington:

"Democrats were salivating, much as Republicans did in the late 1980s and early 1990s when Democratic corruption cases accumulated.

Slowly, though, the creature from the sleaze lagoon has been undergoing a bipartisan mutation. First, there were the stories about Democratic Congressman Bill Jefferson of Louisiana. Jefferson and his family may well have benefited financially from some of his official actions in an all-too-familiar, Edwin Edwards-like, Bayou State way. Then some unsettling information began to surface about longtime West Virginia Democratic Congressman Alan Mollohan. He also has possibly enriched himself in office in questionable ways, and under pressure from his party's leadership, Mollohan had to step down from the senior Democratic post on the House Ethics Committee. Next, an old reliable, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia), resurfaced and struck a Capitol Hill policeman after he failed to recognize her as a Member and tried to stop her as she entered a House building. "
Larry J. Sabato

So, you'll have to excuse me if I don't buy into the idea that one Party is more corrupt than the other as a whole. Nor will I accept the guilt-by-association argument that becuase this Dem/Repub is corrupt, all Democrats/Republicans are corrupt. That said, I am fair beyond the point where I will grant anyone complete trust based upon the political party label they choose.

From:

I heard that!

From:

When you have to resort to McKinney hitting a capitol officer as an example of "corruption" you have lost any and all arguements about the composition of corruption in Washington.

The evidence is clear that as of this writing, the depth and breadth of corruption is deeper and wider within the Republian party.

From:

Whether or not you feel one example should not be included on a list, it does not negate other examples nor my other points (ie, "any and all arguments").

In any case, corruption is defined as an "impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle, an "inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means," "a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct." I would say McKinney's actions fit the term as much as prostitution or bribery.

From:

bullshit, you know what definition we are using.

The rest is entirely uncompelling to the breadth and depth of corruption.

Looking at the cases, i dont know how you could even begin to say that the Republicans werent more corrupt.

From:

It's a shame that this is boiling down to a pissing contest.

From:

I once moved a 10-ton truck with my urine stream. Can you say the same?

From:

You, my friend, are more powerful than me.

From:

I know exactly which definition you're using: "illegal activities by conservatives, but we'll ignore those by liberals."

Looking at the cases you present, you could say that. But you of course have a vested interest in playing apologist for a certain party, and are unwilling to look backwards in time a few years to names like Walter R. Tucker III, Tony Coelho or Jim Wright. Or it seems to hold Democrats accountable for their corruption as well.

What gets me in this better/worse argument is the assumption that because maybe one (or ten, or twenty) more Democrats or Republicans are FOUND to be corrupt in some fashion than in the other party during an arbitrary period of time, then that party overall is "more corrupt." Should we apply this same logic to other human groupings as well - like say ethnic groups?

Personally, unless you can show to me that all or even the majority of one party or the other are "corrupt" in some fashion, I have no interest in playing this game. Criminals in both parties should be rooted out and held accountable. Nailing the other guy but not cleaning your own house is not reform.

From:

kmilligan.livejournal.com

Don't forget our good friend Dan Rostenkowski ;)

You're quite correct about the bipartizan nature of sleaze. I think it has more to do with the type of people who are drawn to politics than any party.

From:

Do you have any examples that are anywhere close to recent? Say, not 10 years old? Besides our good friend in Louisianna of course.

The sleaze is not evenly distributed.

From:

Old Dan stole stamps, which is the highest offense an elected person can commit.

From:

?

he did a bunch else as well

From:

kmilligan.livejournal.com

You can believe that if you want, but corruption is something that's endemic in human nature; the old saying that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's not surprising to me that the Republicans, the party in power, are having corruption issues, but the Democrats had the same problem when they were in power.

Notice how the Republicans are sticking up for Rep. Jefferson? This doesn't help them any. People are pissed, and when people are in that mood they take it out on incumbents.

I'm not a fan of either party, and it's because of shit like this. If power corrupts, the solution is to limit that power. We have a guide on how to do that in the origianl understanding of our constitution; it's a shame we have't really been following it.

From:

True, it almost hurts my head that Nancy Pelosi is asking Jefferson to step down from his committee seats while the Republicans are upset about what the FBI did. But house Republicans are kinda freaking out because if the executive branch can invade Jefferson's office on a weekend then they could be next.

From:

I am not ignoring those by democrats. I am simply saying, at the moment, the republicans are more corrupt.

Yes, when the Repubicans came to power in 94/96 based largly on democratic corruption. And, at the time, the democrats were more corrupt. Of your examples the most recent is one from 1998, and most are from the early 90's

The operative word in that is "were", as in "in the past", as in "no longer", as in "it was 10 years ago".

This is recent and it is a majority republican problem.

From:

No. I said that looking back to when the democrats were corrupt, to people not in power anymore is a piss poor way to make an arguement that, "The democrats are as or more corrupt than the republicans now".

The problem is that if you want to say "the democrats are as corrput as republicans" you need to provide some evidence that shows that the breadth and depth of corruption are anywhere near similar levels.

From:

Abramoff? Entirely Republican

lolz

From:

I'm sure by now there has been a Demoncrat found that has taken a check from Abramoff. I didn't know that Harry Reid took Abramoff money.

From:

More than one. But you don't trust the source (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/6/100900.shtml) that I use to cite it, and I don't trust the source (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=latest_threads) that you have to say otherwise.

And the dance continues...

From:

I clicked the links, but I could not find the parts that said Demoncrats took money from Abramhoff.

From:

That is because it didnt happen.

Clients of Abramhoff gave money to democrats... then again, they gave similar amounts of money to democrats before they were clients of Abramhoff and decreased their lobbying efforts in that direction after becoming clients.

From:

All I know it that "Abramhoff-related-money" does not equal "Abramhoff money." No matter how many people I ask, "Which Democrat(s) took Abramhoff money?" they never have an answer. That is why I figure the number is zero.

From:

All I know it that "Abramhoff-related-money" does not equal "Abramhoff money."

Reeeeeaaaaaach for it now. Na, they didn't get it from Abramhoff. They got it from Abramhoff's bank, Abramhoff's lawyer, Abramhoff's courier...

Since that's the current justification engine, I don't want to hear anything more about "Bush's War". The president didn't personally carry a gun into Iraq so a "Bush related war" does not equal a "Bush war".

From:

You brought funny to the

politicartoons potluck. Thank you.

From:

When you talk like a liberal, it's easy to laugh at what gets said.

From:

Luckily anything that isn't neo-conservative is considered liberal. Thanks, again, for bringing the funny. I also enjoy the irony of your icon. It makes me giggle.

From:

No, Abramhoff's clients =/= Abramhoff's Money, and all of the sources you described are considered Abramhoffs money and not his clients.

So again, if you wish to provide evidence of Abramhoff directing money to democrats, please do so. But you cant, because it doesnt exist.

From:

No really, Abramoff was entirely republican. Not only did he only give to republicans, but the clients he represented, who have a history of donating more to democrats than republicans(that being indian tribes typically donate more to dems than pubs), donated disproportionaly large amounts of money to republicans (as opposed to others who donated largly to democrats).

After reading 3-5 news articles on the matter, there doesnt seem to be an issue.

Are we even talking about the same scandal?

Fact: Jack Abramoff never gave one cent to a Democrat,

Fact: Abramoff clients contributing to Democrats have a history of contributing before Abramoff.

Fact: Some of those clients never gave to republicans before Abramoff.

Fact: Some of those clients reduced their contributions to Democrats after they took Abramoff on as their lobby representitive.

Fact: No Democrat is under scrutiny by the DOJ for changing legislation or interfereing or pushing bills before congress as a result of Abramoff lobbying.

This is a republican scandal, not a bi-partisan scandal and it galls the right and the media who speaks for the right.

From:

somethingbleu.livejournal.com

Great post. I do hope the republicans get what is coming to them in the midterms.

From:

Wow, so you can violate copyrights and blatently steal content as long as you put "with apologies to" at the end? The RIAA is gonna be pissed. When can we expect the first ever suck-free version of Doonesbury "with apologies" to Gary Trudeau?

From:

Why would the Recording Industry Association of America get pissed? Peanuts is distributed through a publishing syndicate that is independent of the recording industry.

From:

Everytime you get done downloading a song a java script window could pop up with "Apologies to the RIAA."

From:

The above most likly qualifies as fair use.

From:

studmuff.livejournal.com

The "Apologies" part was the only part that made any sense. Sick.

From:

Perhaps you should read it again, but a little more slowly this time.

From:

madmethod.livejournal.com

I was going to comment on the cartoon, but after reading all the bickering I've forgotten what it was about. I only remember that it wasn't very funny, much like the actual Peanuts.

From: