Home
mooreroom [userpic]

In Contempt: Cartoon Delayed Until This Afternoon

January 29th, 2008 (10:46 am)

I finished the durn thing, but ran out of time and steam before I could post it. I thought, "Oh, I'll just post it after I put Owen to bed." Then, as I laid there with him waiting for him to drop off, I dropped off myself. These things happen.

When I get home from work I can do it then. Until then, please tell me what these two political cartoons on President Bush's state of the union address are trying to say. Why did both Bok and Higgins portray Speaker of the House Pelosi surrounded by children? Yes, I know, she did that herself when she took the speaker's gavel last year. But is that the most relevant way to characterize her in this context? I thought Higgins' portrayal of Cheney behind the bars and stripes was clever, and worthy of a cartoon unto itself. But how does it work in this context? These cartoons are examples of what I consider ersatz caricature. They have no central joke, so the cartoonist is throwing whatever desperate gag he/she can think of at the canvas and hoping it gets a laugh.

Comments

Posted by: cbrubaker2 ([info]cbrubaker2)
Posted at: January 29th, 2008 09:27 pm (UTC)

That Jack Higgins cartoon was published last year, for the 2007 State of the Union address.

Higgins took his editorials off syndication in July 2007 (although he still has a staff position at Chicago Sun-Times), so you won't be able to see his cartoon on the 2008 STOU unless you get that paper.

Posted by: cbrubaker2 ([info]cbrubaker2)
Posted at: January 29th, 2008 09:34 pm (UTC)

And it looks like the Chip Bok cartoon is from 2007 as well. Note that the copyright line says (C)07 Akron Beacon Journal

I can't find any Bok cartoons on the '08 STOU yet.

But in short, the cartoons you linked are outdated (although that Higgin cartoon is still relevent if you redraw Pelosi without the kids)

Posted by: mooreroom ([info]nevikmoore)
Posted at: January 29th, 2008 09:41 pm (UTC)
yakkety jack

Hey, good detective work. I just assumed they were recent, because Slate had them together with "State of the Union" themed cartoons, some of which addressed SOTU themes more directly.

And yet the very generic nature of the content of these cartoons means they are timeless in their irrelevance.

3 Read Comments