John Deering by John Deering

Tags: Be the first to tag this comic!

Comments (65) Jump to Comments Form

d_legendary1 said, 2 months ago

Same Sh*t, different format.
Obamascares said, 2 months ago

Exactly.
cdward said, 2 months ago

Only you don’t pay for it online.
oldlegodad said, 2 months ago

Yet
bueller said, 2 months ago

oldlegodad is right - it’s just a matter of time. Newspaper
publishers who put their content online for free have been
discussing how to “put the genie back in the bottle ” for a
while now.

Thanks for letting me jump in. I’m the author of the above cartoon.
bueller said, 2 months ago

satipera4-In some cases, not a lot. But the key phrase in your question seems to be “a LOT of online newspaper sources…”

Some are superior, some inferior. But just like in all other areas of media, it’s all about the expanding number of
choices available to the consumer. More and more, the
choice is up to us in how we want our news delivered. Niche marketing certainly wasn’t a passing trend.

Not so much the medium of delivery but the focus and emphasis, the idiomatic cultures of the organizations
we choose to get our news from, etc.are the real consideration, right?
The delivery systems for “print” will be paper or online, And in the
future we may be as likely to have to pay for either , if certain
developing trends happen to creep too far. But I hope not.

Some readers will always prefer to have the Washington Post to dunk in their morning coffee. I happen to like Slate
Magazine along with the Post and some of the other onlines.Since all
major newspapers have an online presence and some, like the Seattle
paper, have switched to online only,
it’s all about which is the better news gathering organization, again, right?
GNWachs said, 2 months ago

There are fewer and fewer sources of news gathering. I read where there are now only 5 newspapers that have a full time presence in DC. That means AP, Reuters and the TV stations are the only alternatives. We need the press to uncover the mess in DC (both parties)
motivemagus said, 2 months ago

GNW - I agree 100%. Especially since a smaller and smaller group controls more and more of the traditional media. Whether you agree with the group or not, it’s a bad thing for us.
ReasonsVentriloquist said, 2 months ago

“Some readers will always prefer to have the Washington Post to dunk in their morning coffee.”

GREAT line! I’m stealing it!
oldlegodad said, 2 months ago

notice satipera4 BIGEAR is deleted. The limey bigot finally got thrown off for comment on State of the Union
GNWachs said, 2 months ago

I don’t know the rules. Is that true? Someone can be totally thrown out? How do you know that about Big Ear?
motivemagus said, 2 months ago

There was someone pulled from the list earlier for openly racist, abusive remarks. It may have to do with how many comments get flagged, I don’t know.
HUMPHRIES said, 2 months ago

motive it was arrogant sarcasm aimed at the “unwashed” in the posters view.
omQ R said, 2 months ago

^ agreed, the arrogance got the better of him when someone misunderstood the satire attempted (serious misjudgement at how polemic the word is in the US) and it escalated through unnecessary confrontation. He should have foreseen it might be construed as racism by those who did not know him and he took the wrong route by calling that poster stupid.
Then the knives came out from others who took advantage of the lack of past context in the post for the poster’s remarks. Also perhaps misjudged how many disliked his confrontational style; or was that intentional.
However, the poster is clearly not racist. His attempt to call out the latent racism in Moore’s comics was deliberately controversial but misguided.
Others here continue to be racist and are rarely called for it because they are liked.
believecommonsense said, 2 months ago

bueller

wait a minute wait a minute … you said you’re the author of the above cartoon …. you’re John Deering? I like the intent of the toon.

IMHO, without a free press, without solid journalism, there is no watchdog over government and our democracy loses
GNWachs said, 2 months ago

I deeply resented the inference that if you oppose Obama you are a racist. I sincerely oppose many of Obama’s policies but really have nothing against him as a man. He worked very hard to get where he is and was brilliant enough to take advantages of the breaks our society gave him. The breaks were different in each case but Bush, Sotomayor and Teddy all got them. It is nothing from my viewpoint like the hatred from the left for Bush.
HUMPHRIES said, 2 months ago

GNW you start out with a good point then drop the ball with a feint at Bush face saving. Don’t “hate”, as the pious right likes to yam, but consider the individual disgusting. W failed time and again while the others stepped up. And just think, fer or ‘agen, we’ll all pay for W’S tenure.
believecommonsense said, 2 months ago

GNW, I don’t think people who don’t support Obama are racist …

I see hidden racism in the “birthers” and those who are outraged when Obama does same things other presidents have done that were perfectly OK at the time

I see overt racism in many of the signs held up at tea parties, town hall meetings lately

are you saying you don’t perceive ANY racism in the “I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK” crowd?

what a cheap shot to suggest Obama got where he is because society gave him breaks ….
GNWachs said, 2 months ago

BCS

Is there racism in this country? Of course. But it goes both ways. Blacks voted for Obama 95-5. Standard reply is yes but Blacks always tend to vote Democratic. But that doesn’t explain Obama 95 Hillary 5. And she was the wife of the first black president.

The guilt vote from white liberals overwhelmed the anti-black vote from white racists. And you don’t consider Affirmative Action to be break?

Bottom line he got many many breaks just like Bush did because of his father and grandfather. Sotomayor specifically personally said she got into both college and law school on affirmative action. That is by definition a break. We give many people breaks, please just don’t deny them.
bueller said, 2 months ago

believecommonsense - Hello, and thanks for the comment
on the intended message of my cartoon.

I decided to start commenting here myself occaisionally.
Mainly because this site and a few others online are where
the liveliest discussion of cartooning, political and otherwise, seems to be taking place.

Whatever print media evolves into, political cartooning will
survive because of forums like this.
believecommonsense said, 2 months ago

^ bueller, hey, really cool your showing up on the site (I’m probably older than you, I still say cool). I like your toons. Can I have your autograph? ;-D

yes, lively discussions abound here …. and examples of hypocrisy abound which is always fodder for a good editorial cartoon !
believecommonsense said, 2 months ago

GNW, I didn’t ask if you perceived any racism in the country, I asked if you perceived any racism in the “I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK” crowd

I’m white and I voted for Obama and not because of liberal “white-guilt” … I think that’s bunk, BTW

95 percent of blacks didn’t vote for Obama in the primaries, quite obviously. What is your source for saying that 95 percent of blacks voted for Obama in the general?

Lastly, are you saying Obama got “many breaks” because he has African heritage and dark skin? (He had two grandfathers you know.) Obama had the grades, the scores and the intelligence. Do you have some credible source for this assumption of yours or do you just assume he got “many breaks” from affirmative action because he has dark skin?

And we’re not discussing Sotomayor here, nor affirmative action in general. So explain your cheap shot at Obama directly.
motivemagus said, 2 months ago

bueller – totally cool! Watch out on this bridge to the 21st century, there are trolls underneath…
motivemagus said, 2 months ago

Given a choice between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden, I don’t care if they were white, black, green, blue, or rainbow-colored, I’d have voted for Obama based on the stands they took.
GNWachs said, 2 months ago

Wash Po

“Obama has swamped Clinton among black voters in each of the 20 contests that had exit polls and large enough samples of African Americans to be meaningful. Just to put that kind of shutout in perspective, black voters represent the only demographic group that the New York senator has not carried at least once during the Democratic primary campaign. Obama now has such a lock on the loyalties of African Americans – 84 percent of the black vote in Alabama, 87 percent in Georgia, 84 percent in Maryland, and on and on – that the black vote is no longer contestable.
believecommonsense said, 2 months ago

GNW, do you have a source for the November election that shows 95 percent of black voters voted for Obama?
GNWachs said, 2 months ago

BCS I am not certain why you have asked. Did you not realize the fact that black voters over-overwhelmingly went for Obama?

“Breakdown of demographics reveals how black voters swept Obama into White House

By Claire Cohen
Last updated at 6:33 PM on 05th November 2008

Yesterday, 140 million Americans - a staggering 65% of the registered electorate - cast their votes to make Barack Obama the 44th president of the United States of America. Here we show how the results break down…

Black Americans

95% of black voters went to the ballot for Obama and only 4% for McCain.

Obama has succeeded in mobilising African-American voters who, although strongly Democratic, have in the past been apathetic in turning out to vote.

Yesterday’s surge in black voters, however, only boosted black turnout by two percentage points from 11% to 13%.

As in previous years, more black women turned out than men.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1083335/Breakdown-demographics-reveals-black-voters-swept-Obama-White-House.html#ixzz0QCUCtBQO
NoFearPup said, 2 months ago

“Bueller?…Bueller?”
BOMP, BOMP. shick-a-shick-a, BOMP, BOMP.
[ oh, yeah ]
motivemagus said, 2 months ago

You know, GNW, your apparent contention that there is a black racist tilt towards Obama would make more sense if you also acknowledged the white racist tilt away from him to McCain, especially in traditionally overtly racist parts of the country. Racism in all its forms is our national curse.
And even if all the African-Americans voted for Obama (and they didn’t), he’s still a good candidate. It’s not exactly a “legacy” deal like his predecessor.
NoFearPup said, 2 months ago

Let’s please let Americans of African-ancestry have the joy and fulfillment inherent in seeing a person of similar background to themselves reflected finally in the occupation of this nation’s highest office. This is not “racism”; this is Liberty accomplished. But, his crazy marxism; we gotta oppose it. We can do this best by reasoned and understanding but firmly held-to and opinionated discourse.
DrCanuck said, 2 months ago

PuddlePuppy, Obama’s policies are slightly leftist, nowhere NEAR socialism or Marxism. I told you a thousand million times, don’t exaggerate.
GNWachs said, 2 months ago

MM

As I said above, there is still racism in this country. But when people say to oppose Obama and his policies is at least partial racism I bristle. There is opposition to Obama from a tiny non-influential sliver of racists. But the vast majority of opposition is from people who do not agree with his proposals. What I did above was to say it is a two edged coin. that, for instance, in the 2008 election “racist” votes were a net positive for Obama.
NoFearPup said, 2 months ago

This is true. I was called a racist by Bob H @Nick Anderson’s page - apparently because I cautioned Obama against instituting marxist-like tactics and policies.On the one hand the leftist philosophy makes me nervous; Yet, on the other hand, it does appear that much of the visceral reaction from the right is generated from a position of IGNORANCE and fear; which is one step away from true racism. One poster tagged Obama with “Buttinski” - I think this sums it up for me as well.
cdward said, 2 months ago

bueller, it’s totally cool that you’re checking in. I hope most of us will be respectful of each other. I would like to say that while I don’t always agree with you in your editorial cartoons (sometimes do, sometimes don’t), I enjoy them. And I love your other ‘toons on the comics pages.
cdward said, 2 months ago

It seems we throw that word racist around right and left. I do not think it is fair, for example, to say it is racist because a large percentage of blacks voted for Obama. Not sure what to call it but this one instance can’t be called institutionalized (or organized, or even deeply embedded) marginalization or intimidation of a minority, which is roughly how I would define racism. I’m sure others will have fuller and perhaps more accurate. Of course, just hating someone based on their race fits the bill pretty well, too.
believecommonsense said, 2 months ago

lots of good posts here and I appreciate them

GNW, I asked for your source because you stated something as a fact and I wanted to read/see it myself. I looked up other sources too and found that it is a supposition based on exit polls that Obama won 95% of black voters. Maybe that’s accurate but without doubt he won vast majority of black voters. Here, I agree with motive and even NFP. You seem to put a negative cast on that fact that I don’t agree with.

Clinton won sizeable portions of black voters in primaries, so the race-based voting you seem to imply didn’t exist at that time.

In any case, I once again agree with motive and even NFP … so what? to be balanced, as motive said, you would have to put an equal emphasis on the fact that the majority of whites voterd for McCain, which you don’t do.
believecommonsense said, 2 months ago

not everyone who opposes Obama and his actions is racist. I’ve made clear in other posts that I find a significant strain of racism in the “birthers,” the folks who shout “I want my country back,” and, now, the folks who find something very evil in the president wanting to talk to school children about the value of education. I’ve now listened to many parents and GOP spokespersons in interviews and I hear racism on the behalf of parents and taking advantage of that fear on the part of GOP

As has been pointed out, Reagan talked about tax cuts to school children quite openly, so it can’t be outrage over getting into policy issues unless those same people wanted to remove their children from hearing Reagan.

When people speak/act as if somehow this president is not a REAL president, as if he’s somehow a lesser President, I see racism underlying it. And I find it appalling.
believecommonsense said, 2 months ago

GNW, you still have not explained why you believe Obama got “many breaks” because he has dark skin.
GNWachs said, 2 months ago

BCS Several comments. I was surprised to see someone as well read as you are didn’t “know” that Obama won 95% of black voters votes in November 2008 and 85% against Hillary in the primaries. (BTW, 15% is not sizable) You actually had to look it up. My guess is because you either don’t read or reject any media that doesn’t agree with your views. Thus you never see opposing opinions. That fact would never be emphasized by the liberal media.

To inform myself I read daily the NYT, CJR, Slate, CNN, etc etc to get the liberal viewpoint. You should read the WSJ opinions every day.
believecommonsense said, 2 months ago

GNW, note: third time you’ve avoided explaining your remark that ”Bottom line he (Obama) got many many breaks just like Bush did because of his father and grandfather.”

and earlier stated Obama ”was brilliant enough to take advantages of the breaks our society gave him.”

you assume too much too often and I refuse to indulge you by sharing what I read on a daily basis .. perhaps it is more telling about you that which you choose to retain and that which you don’t

again: why do you believe two remarks I quoted verbatim?
GNWachs said, 2 months ago

BCS Since Reagan, to the best of my memory, the majority of blacks have voted Democratic and the majority of whites have voted Republican. So to say the majority of whites voted for McCain is not a racism indictment.

Why did I say Obama got racial breaks? If you truly in your heart believe that a white student by the name of Barry Owens with the exact same grades and qualifications would have matriculated at Columbia and Harvard Law then we should agree to disagree. Then you would also believe a man with the exact same qualifications but with the name of George Best would have received the nomination as governor of Texas etc

There was much hostility to Bush and it carried over to McCain. I would not vote for McCain. But the number of white Americans who because of guilt or inherent liberallsm voted for Obama far exceeded the bigots who would not vote for a black man to be president.

Nobody here has called me a racist because of my opposition to Obama but others have accused his opponents. Of the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court my personal favorite is Clarence Thomas. I suspect he may be your least favorite but I would never call you a racist for that opinion. In both cases these are policy differences with race having zero effect.
DrCanuck said, 2 months ago

Where I come from, it is considered racist to even separate people into races. There is really no such thing as race; there are no objective, scientific criteria to do so. Skin colour itself does not neatly separate itself categorically into black and white so much as on a continuum from more to less, and, as such, there is no point along the line to choose as a demarcation line. The same holds for any other human characteristic. Evolutionarily, we are all the same race. It is a completely arbitrary dichotomy and to simplify people in such a way is racist in itself.
believecommonsense said, 2 months ago

GNW, you’ve cited Sotomayor’s statements that she benefitted from affirmative action. There is no such evidence that Obama benefitted. You choose to believe it, then believe it based on your own assumptions. I don’t

I will not assume that every black who goes to an Ivy league School is there as a result of affirmative action, nor should others.

Nor do I accept your statement that whites voted for Obama because of white guilt. They, like me, voted for him because they believed in what he said, liked the vision for the country he spoke of, appreciated his intelligence and thoughtful analysis of what our country faced.

I think you’re seeing things too much according to race alone and making assumptions from race alone.

Your favorite SC justice Thomas, BTW, played the race card very heavily during his confirmation hearings. I’m sure you remember that.
GNWachs said, 2 months ago

In medicine rule #1 is “do no harm”. We learn that all therapy has some negatives associated with it. One of my problems with liberals is they go into denial about consequences of actions. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Affirmative Action. How do you know which black who goes to an Ivy League school is there because of AA? You say you don’t make that assumption and neither should others. But the very action of AA has the consequence of not knowing and it as a matter of fact is more likely that the student is there because of AA than not. If you don’t like that consequence repeal the action.
bueller said, 2 months ago

A lot of Obama’s harshest critics lose credibility by calling him a Marxist, a radical leftist, and so on. By comparison
with, say, Bill Clinton - how far left is Obama, really?

He’s already displaying some of the same pragmatism
that clinton was forced into after the midterm elections
of his first administration

If you look objectively (that IS still possible, isn’t it?) at
Obama’s defense policies, the differences between what he’s done and what George W. Bush did seem more like
clashes between two denominations of the same religion.

Eliminating the name “War on Terror”? A name is a superficial thing. No one could claim that there is not a
war going on. Moving to close GITMO? They’re talking
prisoner re-location, nothing more, thank goodness.

As long as people continue to confuse political superficialities with substance, there will be hysteria and paranoia. And,
unfortunately, accusations of racism.
believecommonsense said, 2 months ago

bueller, thanks for weighing in on this spirited discussion. I agree with your statement, I don’t see any radical or far left actions by Obama administration. He’s disappointed some of his supporters by not being bold enough and not departing substantively from some of Bush’s policies.

Re racism; when I hear the calls of Marxism, Nazism and comparisons to Hitler, and this hysteria over Obama speaking to school children I see an underlying racism when it continues even in the face of hard facts and knowledge that Reagan and Bush 41 did the same thing. (And Reagan spoke about pollcy issues, tax cuts)

If not racism, what do you think is causing parents to pull their children out of school and say some of the ridiculous things they’re saying?
bueller said, 2 months ago

believecommonsense - Actually, I think a lot of it probably IS racism. What I was trying to get at is that, absent any
substantive differences between Obama and some of his
predecessors, the hysteria some are expressing toward
this president could most likely be chalked up to racism.

I should have expressed that more plainly in my earlier post.

I drew a cartoon for my paper Friday which probably won’t be posted here until Monday, which shows an elementary
school office with a television being pitched through a window. Obama is on the tv screen. The school proncipal
has taken down portraits of Washington and Lincoln, and
the U.S. Constitution is next. He’s telling some aides , “To
avoid any risk of parents complaining that we support ANY
agenda, let’s toss out all of this”
cdward said, 2 months ago

bueller, great comment.
charliekane said, 2 months ago
bcs and bueller: well said!

When the terms “Marxist” or “socialist” are bandied about, three possibilities come to mind:
1. A little innocent hyperbole.
2. Hysteria of the ill informed.
3. Code for … well, you know. I guess it got Big
  Ear bounced.
For anyone offended by 2 or 3, above, I recommend a cursory definitional review of socialism and Marxism.

I see 2. or 3. at work in some calling our president a socialist/Marxist, while others say he’s a facist. Think really hard. If that’s your style, are you using terminology that is way off, or are you just name callin’. An’ iff’n your just goin’ for some nasty name callin’, are ya’ just maybe unwillin’ to use the one you really mean.
Loco80 said, 2 months ago

Was that supposed to be John Wayne?

I actually thought that Marxism and socialism were philosophical and economic concepts. Also, from what I understand, NAZI, in the German historical sense, stood for the National Socialist Party. Can anyone here confirm or correct this info?