Let's take a look at some more disgusting/vile/right-wing New Yorker covers

[Seen the light]

Right-wing garbage I say!

[hedgehog]

1. How did you find the one of Bush and Kerry? I tried every which way

to bring it up!

[Seen the light]

3. Coverbrowser.com I think

I just googled "new yorker" cover. Think it was the second link.

[last_texas_dem]

2. They've been working for the Repugs all along, I tell ya!

[bigwillq]

4. Thanks for posting.

K and R.

[hedgehog]

5. and 1 more:

[KittyWampus]

7. a friend of mine had that one on the fridgy for months :-)

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. Bill Blitt's work doesn't stand up to the other artists

Oh, look Bush and Cheney are the odd couple!!! ......

Oh, look Bush broke some China at a store and has to pay!!........


not funny or even thought provoking.


I don't think the cover is a big deal but of course the TV will make
it the only thing to talk about besides other mindless stuff they talk about

[JoFerret]

15. And you'll be watching....?

Why?

[WinkyDink]

8. I missed the cover of Laura with an Uzi.

[MH1]

11. Yeah, I'd like to see that one too. I'm sure someone can come up with it?

No?

Anyone?

[HardWorkingDem]

21. Does anyone give a shit about art and provocative art anymore?

When has anyone ever had an idea of Laura Bush as being "militant?"

Use a valid argument will you.

This cover is a reflection of ignorance in America.

[sakura]

24. How about one showing Laura with a bloody steering wheel in her hand?

She did kill someone when she was a teen, and there were plenty of emails circulating about it during the 2000 election. Wouldn't depicting that skewer that perception in the same way as this cover?

It's ridiculous to imply that this cover is "provocative art." It rehashes stereotypes of the far right-- it makes no satirical comment on them. It's obvious that its only purpose is to get a dying magazine some publicity.

[WinkyDink]

26. Michelle is "militant"? I guess I'm ignorant of the ignorance. Okay. How about with lung cancer

as a warning not to smoke (Laura does)?

Oh, and the cover IS a brilliant "argument"? Okay then.

[MH1]

9. Sorry, I don't see any of those as being as offensive as the caricatures of the Obamas.

I think there's a lot more racist stereotyping in the Obama cover. That's what I'm having a problem with.

The herd of elephants crossing the bridge into NY before the republican convention is offensive, how? I can't even see why that would be offensive to republicans - it's their party symbol.

The first picture, aptly depicts a sad state of affairs for disabled veterans. Who would be offended by that? The people running the VA?

Heck the cover of Cheney getting a physical shows him in much better physical condition than he actually is - it even makes him look fit for his age!

Nope, you'll have to try harder if you want to find something comparable.

[Seen the light]

12. I know right it's almost like

a smart, progressive magazine is purposely exaggerating the stereotypes the freeper-types have out there to point out how stupid and racist they are! Oh the humanity!

[HardWorkingDem]

19. Come on, it's about context....

What is racist about an artist pointing out that some idiots in America think about the Obama's in this way?!?!? The cover is a statement about America and it's perceptions, not the character of the Obama's.

He is not saying this is how the Obama's are, but how the fear machines have caused people to see them.

Ask some right wingers about their perception of Michelle Obama and they'll usually add some sort of idiotic comment about her being "militant."

[slinkerwink]

25. and they're not even being depicted as Muslim-loving terrorists with an Afro

[JohnnyLib2]

10. Reality check. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[scarletwoman]

13. I missed the cover of McCain partying with the Viet Cong & helping them torture other GIs.

Where's that one?

[BlueCaliDem]

14. Fair enough but in the above there's always a degree of truth...

... not so in the depiction of the Obamas, am I right or am I right?

That's what makes it so outrageous and disgusting to me. Show one with Barack and the on again off again flag pin, or for his FISA bill support or any number of other issues he's making himself unpopular with but to pull one straight out of his ASS is what makes this depiction disgusting.

As a Democrat, you should feel the same thing.

[frazzled]

16. Bingo--satire magnifies some element of the truth in order to mock or scorn

The cartoon of the Obamas is not a magnification of the truth about them: they are not bin-Laden worshiping Muslims, AK-47 toters, or flag burners. This week's cover cartoon is not in keeping with the other covers, which I have been following for a quarter of a century. This was an editorial misstep.

The only way you could compare this to the Bush as Nero cover, for example, is if you said that was a satire of the left-wing conception of Bush. ... and that Bush was indeed nothing like the emperor fiddling while Rome burned.

[Ian David]

17. I still like Macleans better

Maclean's Cover Featuring Bush as Saddam Causing Flap in U.S.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3001709

[Neshanic]

18. One tidbit to think about. This race is close. Too close. Too close

to do a cover like that.

[redstate_democrat]

20. But these covers speak the truth.

The cover of the Obamas does not.

What am I missing? :shrug:

[burythehatchet]

27. you aren't missing a thing. The OP, however, is short a clue.

[sam kane]

22. These are so gentle compared to the Obamas. nt.

nt.

[pnorman]

23. Frankly, I was INCENSED at the cover illustration under discussion.

And I was tempted to jump in on at least one of the threads now aboil on DU. But after I saw all those other "equal opportunity satires", I now feel kinda sheepish/foolish.

THANKS, for helping me get the right perspective!

pnorman