Some Classic DNC Toons on Why We Need to Be Strong

[ellisonz]

We have an image problem, and it's getting us not as far as fast as we'd like. I think clearly we need to be asking ourselves how we better express (not change) our positions on some of the basic issues that effect American life. For example, I chuckle every time we get called socialist, when the truth is that there is no better advocate for capitalism than the Democratic Party; we have a sort of binary neurotic thinking that goes on and it just looks uncertain to many Americans. This is why the GOP this year is trying to smear us as not leadership material, they think that it will work and that they can ride that elephant to the White House. President Obama is getting mean; we need to get him to be meaner. Change starts within us; we have the power to build the world anew, the question is if we're ready to put aside petty difference and offer the American people a Real Deal.


By Gary McCoy, Cagle Cartoons - 12/12/2010


By Daryl Cagle, MSNBC.com - 12/10/2010


By Andy Singer, Politicalcartoons.com - 6/4/2008


By Dwayne Booth, Mr. Fish - 9/18/2006


By RJ Matson, Roll Call - 1/25/2006


By Dwayne Booth, Mr. Fish - 1/4/2006


By RJ Matson, Roll Call - 2/15/2005


By Patrick Chappatte, The International Herald Tribune - 9/21/2004


By Huffaker, Politicalcartoons.com - 10/27/2003

[Scuba]

1. Rove as portrait artist. n/t

[JDPriestly]

2. The Democratic Party is a big tent.

We need to be more inclusive, not more ideological.

The Democratic Party attracts people with ideas. The Democrats I know like to disagree, like to discuss, like to be free to think their own thoughts.

Don't try to cage or harness us Democrats.

You can do that with Republicans, but Democrats are fighters. That's how we got rights for labor, for African-Americans, for women. In-fighting, introducing new ideas, rejecting the status quo, criticizing authority even within the party, that's how progress is made.

Our feisty tradition goes back a long, long way.

Ironically, the cartoons criticize Democrats for shooting each other down but the cartoons themselves are shooting dissenting Democrats down.

The cartoonists are way out of line. Let Democrats be Democrats.

Don't expect us to be "nice" to each other.

Whoever created these preachy, holier-than-thou cartoons did not understand what it is to be a Democrat.

[ellisonz]

3. "Whoever created these preachy, holier-than-thou cartoons did not understand what it is to be a Dem"

This is the perception of the Democratic Party among many; these are all from mainstream publications and newspapers.

You don't think we have a bit of an image problem?

I want us to fight, but together, and against a common enemy. Is that asking too much? Are there any beliefs too extreme for inclusion in the tent of the Democratic Party? Why shouldn't we present a single unified popular front for the Democratic Party and all of its candidates? Is it really too much to try and stop the backbiting?

[JDPriestly]

4. Yes, you are asking too much.

We should "present a single unified popular front" sound to me like a fascist slogan. I know you don't mean it that way.

People work together better when they feel free to express their opinions.

Which Democrats would you leave out of the "single unified popular front." Because when you decide to exclude points of view, you decide to exclude people who hold those points of view. That is because those people who hold excluded points of view will not cooperate or participate in the "united popular front." So the front won't be so popular.

It's best to just accept that Democrats are individualists with different ideas.

In the past, although Democrats held disparate ideas on some issues, we all agreed on basic things like support for human rights, labor unions, progressive taxation, Social Security, labor laws, minimum wage, public education. Those policy ideals were shared by all Democrats. Recently, virtually all Democrats have agreed on strong government protection for the environment.

Obama has not held to these traditional values. He gives lip service to labor, but really hasn't done much for working people. His trade agreements are anti-labor for example. Obama's administration has worked to replace traditional public education with a charter school system that traditional Democrats like myself do not like.

Eleanor Roosevelt inspired some of the international standards on human rights. Obama has not been nearly strong enough on these traditionally Democratic issues.

I have great difficulty with Obama because of his lax stance on these traditional Democratic principles. Who is the Democrat? I who stand staunchly behind the ideals of Democrats like Eleanor Roosevelt or Obama who sends drones to kill enemy combatants without affording them a trial?

I will vote for Obama, but I will not fail to argue for things that I strongly believe in. And I would not ask anyone else to remain silent about their deepest convictions.

[ellisonz]

5. Actually, his trade agreements aren't that bad considering the protections built-in to the deals...

They're small potatoes to the overall picture. What we need is trade reform, not the elimination of trade.

I'd note to that manufacturing jobs are up for the first time since 1997.

I'm talking about putting aside differences and focusing on beating the Republicans for awhile. I'm tired of losing, aren't you?

Also, I don't get where you're concluding Obama isn't sticking to those positions. I think you need to review his record and realize that Democrats only effectively controlled the Congress for like 40 days. BTW healthcare reform is huge, we've been trying to get something like what was passed done since 1948.

John Edwards himself couldn't have reasoned with this bunch of Republicans.

[JDPriestly]

6. John Edwards wouldn't have tried to reason with this bunch of Republicans.

John Edwards was a plaintiff's attorney. He tried products liability cases among others. He would have known going in what he was up against because he had been up against the recalcitrance of corporate defense attorneys for many years. That is why he warned that Democrats could not sit down at the table with the insurance companies and negotiate health care insurance reform. In fact, I believe that Obama would have done much better had he insisted on obtaining from the insurance companies an agreement to permit a public option before sitting down to negotiate with them.

John Edwards would have been a much tougher negotiator than Obama has been. That's one of the reasons that I liked John Edwards better. It's really a shame that Edwards made the personal mistakes that he made. He could have contributed a great deal to the discourse of our time if not to the political decisions.

[ellisonz]

7. And John Edwards wouldn't have gotten any bill passed...

The Democrats would have split and the GOP would have won just like in 1993. As it was healthcare reform got 60 votes in the Senate and passed by like 3 votes in the House. The amount of political skill it took to get those margins is tremendous. His approach would have floundered on its own bombast. Besides, as we now know, John Edwards isn't exactly the paragon of truthiness and Hillary had failed before. President Obama's leadership on this issue has directly benefited myself and my family, I've read scores of reports about how it's helped people already, and as it takes more effect the health insurance history will have been brought to heel.

Yes we fell short on a public option, but give him stronger majorities and it will pass...give the man some credit where it's due, he got something new done in Washington D.C. on health insurance reform - That's been on the Democratic agenda for decades.