State of the Union by Carl Moore
- July 01, 2009
- From Beginning
- Previous feature
- Show Calendar
- Next feature
- Current
Comics A-Z Navigation
Speed Bump by Dave Coverly
Stone Soup by Jan EliotAbout State of the Union
State of the Union is the result of a self-professed "fallen liberal’s" journey from radical socialism to conversative cartooning. Combining startling caricatures with a sly sense of humor and a sharp eye for satire, this innovative new strip will be sure to tickle your funnybone while making you think.
© 2009 Creators Syndicate - All Rights Reserved.
Comments (33) Jump to Comments Form
GJ_Jehosaphat
said,
4 months ago
Google Query: Who pays Rush the big bucks? From an article dated 7/2/08:
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=52345&cat=14
“Limbaugh signed the deal with Clear Channel and Premiere Radio for a reported $38 million a year salary”
So what’s happening with Clear Channel Communications:
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=98772
“As reported earlier this week, Clear Channel Communications is laying off 1,850 employees, or about 9% of a total workforce of 20,500”.
What’s an easy way for Clear Channel to reduce expenses by $28 million a year(and save jobs for those who actually work for a living).
Flush Rush! Who knows, Rush’s salary may have been the proverbial “straw that broke the economy’s back”! Coincidence? I think not!
moosegirl said, 4 months ago
Jehosaphat said, “So what’s happening with Clear Channel Communications?”
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=109000
“…, it is becoming apparent that Clear Channel Communications’ creditors intend to push the behemoth into bankruptcy, hoping to gain control of its equity at a big discount, then sell them off.”
My guess is that Rush’s contract is a big asset for Clear Channel Radio. Without that, and the business ads it attracts, Clear Channel might be in much worse trouble. Then, instead of laying off 9%, it might be laying off 49% or more. Remember that Clear Channel Radio is a major cash cow for the parent company.
According to Rush, listeners and revenue (i.e.: ads) are way up. So it seems the creditors would gain more by a takeover than a payback.
Also, since the economy is in the tank for over $3 trillion, $28 mil is “just chump change” according to BHO.
HUMPHRIES
said,
4 months ago
Take a vacation only to come back and find the same old BS from Moore.
GJ_Jehosaphat
said,
4 months ago
Re: Flush Rush & the 2009 economy. Ponder how advertisers are going to pay for their advertising budgets.
I don’t listen to Rush or talk radio in general. Repetitive & boring - like the folks who like to parrot him (ditto’s). I noticed that Clear Channel went private - so did Chrysler when Cerberus Capital Management purchased it in 2007.
Going private and having creditors wait for you to file bankruptcy so U can purchase their assets at a reduced cost. What would Rush say at the prospect of being bailed out by the gov’t because Clear Channel Communications is “too big to fail” (tongue in cheek - implied).
Notice the date of the first link - 7/2/08. It’s a different economy - moosegirl. Advertising budgets are not what they used to be. As for the proverbial cash cow - I like mine cooked medium rare…unless it’s part of the E-coli recall, then make it well done.
Jaws2z said, 4 months ago
I truly wonder how she’ll feel sitting on the Supreme Court with the same people that just overturned one of her rulings???
dwyant said, 4 months ago
Obama can sure pick ‘em! He’s got the most incompetent staff and advisors to prove it. What else stupid can he do next?
BirishB said, 4 months ago
“If you proabortion loser liberals don’t like this STRIP.. don’t READ it. …
Move on losers.. who needs you!”
America needs them. Your America, in particular, MarkTrail, needs them. This nation has always been a nation of counterbalance.
MarkTrail screams about conserving the American way of life, but … he … just … doesn’t … get … it. America is not an echo chamber, and nor should this little chat room be one.
Conservatism has been described as the negation of ideology. I’ll buy that, because … ad hominem attacks concede the argument. And ad hominem is all I seem to be hearing these days.
I hear from conservatives how much Obama sucks, what horrible things he is doing to the American way of life. This is the same crowd that labels anyone who disagreed with our last president a “Bush Hater” or an “America Hater” or as someone not contributing to the greater conversation. It’s ironic how convictions change in the face of political necessity.
In fact, conservatives don’t want an American conversation. They only want a monologue. And, in fact, conservatives, if they let the likes of MarkTrail speak for them, don’t want to preserve America … they want to turn back history to a day where only stodgy white men sat in power and sent down edicts from on high.
Lewreader
said,
4 months ago
Hey, at least she hasn’t cheated on her taxes for years like numerous BO’s appointees, has she? Besides, she knows better than me, I’m a white male so I can’t interpret firefighters being denied promotions cause they are white.
rlsaxion said, 4 months ago
Umm BirishB, you want to talk about ad hominem? What, do you think conservatives don’t know what that means? Or could you be possibly be trying say that liberals don’t mindlessly attack opponents character? What a laugh that is! Attacking anyone who doesn’t agree with them is the only way liberals know how to deal with anything. They create victims so they can create arguments instead of trying to find solutions. Of course, a liberals solution to every problem is to sit back with their hand out and allow the government to control every aspect of their lives, all they have to do is proclaim loudly how much of a “Victim” they are.
Of course, all of you seem to miss the point that Mr. Moore is making. The thing that matters is that Justice is Blind for a Reason - otherwise you have a police state, government controlled, with no right to a fair trial. That is the frightening part. Someone with a history of racially questionable rulings should not hold a supreme court position. If, and I say if, there is a question of possible racism in her rulings, then we as a nation should stand up against her nomination, just as we should if the nominee were a David Duke type.
GJ_Jehosaphat
said,
4 months ago
Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - The day “Lady Justice’s Blindfold” came off & she got poked in the eye:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/magtimeline.htm
“9:54 p.m. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 ruling split along ideological lines, steps in to end the election and Al Gore’s quest for a final recount. It reverses the Florida Supreme Court decision ordering a statewide recount of undervotes, stating, in the per curiam section of its opinion, that differing vote-counting standards from county to county and the lack of a single judicial officer to oversee the recount violated the equal-protection clause of the Constitution. The majority opinion effectively precludes Gore from attempting to seek any other recounts on the grounds that a recount could not be completed by December 12, in time to certify a conclusive slate of electors. Several justices issue bitter dissents. “One thing … is certain,” Justice John Paul Stevens argues. “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.” Justice Stephen G. Breyer adds that “in this highly politicized matter, the appearance of a split decision runs the risk of undermining the public’s confidence in the court itself.””
BirishB said, 4 months ago
ummm rlsaxion ….
You seem to have shifted the conversation to the creation of victimhood. I’ll leave aside that you conveniently sidestepped the rest of my comment: that the conservative movement is undermined by practitioners given to that sentiment who advance ideas that run contrary to traditional American thought.
That said, I’ll follow your strawman, because the specter of victimhood is especially germane to Sotomayor and the New Haven case. When in fact Sotomayor handed down a ruling that correctly interpreted the law, and established that rule of law is not always fair, but at least can attempt to be equitable in its execution, conservatives ran around screaming about racism. The appellate New Haven ruling correctly stated that the lower court had properly read the law as it reads, and, hence the stink of impropriety should be on the New Haven Fire Board, not on the judges who found that while the Board’s ruling was disturbing, it was within their purview to cancel the tests. The appellate ruling was not only extremely conservative, but also the very epitome of blind justice. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the ruling of the Sotomayor court, waded into the territory of a living Constitution by applying a “fairness” litmus test. The Supreme Court ruling, then, was the very epitome of justice peeking from under her blindfold, because the court allowed itself to be swayed by a perceived injustice against individuals even though the ruling undermines the law as written.
Ironically, in New Haven, the conservative majority of the SC took it upon themselves to rewrite legal precedent and establish new law. Isn’t that the type of judicial activism that conservatives hate so much?
And so, ask yourself: Who’s making victims of themselves to create an argument instead of finding solutions?
rlsaxion said, 4 months ago
Traditional American thought, such as Thomas Jefferson, who believed in limited government, and the fact that people should have the right to keep what they earn through their labors? Yes I know that slides away from the issue, but I would like a clarification of how traditional you are talking.
mytinytown said, 4 months ago
GJ_Jehosaphat
I bet with out Rush they would have laid off 50% of there work force.
But you liberals never think about them points.
dwyant
What else stupid can he do?
Put GOVERNMENT regulations on credit card companies so they can not charge so much for late and over limit fees.
So to fix things Chase is raising their payment from 2%+interest to 5%+interest, in some cases more then doubling the payment.
Less money due to Obama, now even worse credit card conditions.
Thank you President Obama!
BirishB
I will not say this again, most REAL conservatives did not like Bush’s last 2 years.
GNWachs
said,
4 months ago
To conservatives I suggest you gladly accept the nomination. She is going to be confirmed. If by any chance she were to be defeated all Obama would do is pick someone far worse. She is a very average, non brilliant run of the mill liberal. Obama had available far worse (conservative POV)/ far better (liberal POV).
What liberals have to hope for is a brilliant articulate groundbreaker who could actually change the vote of one of the STARK five. I don’t think she will be able to do that.
Herbabee said, 4 months ago
Humph!!! ‘Bout time you got back on the horse.
Quite a few of us were concerned for your well being.
BirishB said, 4 months ago
I don’t know if you are now referring back to the original post, so …
If you meant the original post, I’m talking framers and the intent of the American experiment. In my response to MarkTrail, I was suggesting that his sort of unilateralism is in stark contrast to the marketplace of idea. And I suggested it before, but now I’ll say it: the brand of conservatism that person suggests does not want to make new laws based on traditional ideas; that brand of “conservatism” wants to simply turn back the clock and suggest new laws based on what is convenient to the present day needs of our nation. Ironically, that is the approach of a political pragmatist and a liberal.
If you meant the New Haven case, then I’m talking legal precedent and history of Supreme Court cases, and, therefore, a more conceptual interpretation of traditional thought. The 5-4 ruling in New Haven bucked years of legal precedent, and actually, flies in the face of conservative interpretation of the law. It is yet another example of alleged conservatives changing their rhetoric to fit the needs of political convenience.
But the Thomas Jefferson quote goes in another direction. Seems to be a wider comment on what is perceived as the coming of big government under the current administration. I disagree with that assessment, as well as the implied nanny-state, because I see a government that is equalizing the playing field so that individuals have equal opportunity. This administration is not discounting individual responsibility or individual will; rather, this administration is making sure that advantage is not given to a select few at the expense of the many. In fact, I think populism is more in line with our tradition than oligarchy. Of course, I also think that a society is judged by how it treats its weakest members, but that’s probably a discussion for another day.
SQUIDBREAKER said, 4 months ago
Keep the libs here at this relevant site so they can ensure a good look at the other side of the fence.
And I do like today’s artwork. I do not find going from blind to seeing redundant.
The statue is now ready to kick some legal butt! Sword beats the hammer, and don’t you forget it! Now if the statue is holding a golf umbrella, the hammer still loses!
ha ha ha ha…….
WebEditor said, 4 months ago
WebEditor says …
EMET said:
EMET may have really meant to say the following:
WebEditor also says …
WebEditor is a free service that aims to ensure that the English language is used properly. WebEditor does not discriminate on the basis of political ideology, but does seek out and attempt to correct incoherent thought.
WebEditor said, 4 months ago
WebEditor says …
BirishB uses a lot of words. Perhaps BirishB could have said:
WebEditor is a free service that aims to ensure that the English language is used properly. Sometimes that entails boiling a bunch of thoughts down to a more simple format. WebEditor will not apologize for misinterpretation; WebEditor only deals with the words on the screen.
Brainiak said, 4 months ago
Unique experience we call Uhmerica….Ya right……Yawn….
JarrodM said, 4 months ago
de Tocqueville’s image of America was one that I liked, but for all his well thought out predictions, he never could have imagined the current state of politics here.
pschearer
said,
4 months ago
Meanwhile, back at the cartoon,…
It’s not the loss of the blindfold that bothers me. It’s the possibility that the scales may get tilted that is worrisome, resulting in different judgments for different groups. But then, that is what Sotomayor none-too-subtly advocates.
sablebrush5 said, 4 months ago
This cartoon is on the nose. Sotomayor represents everything that’s wrong with the debate over affirmative action.
Affirmative action originally meant companies and government agencies should make a special effort to recruit minority applicants. Unfortunately, it has morphed into quasi-quota systems and a form of reverse racism that has led to egregious decisions such as Sotomayor’s decision in the New Haven case.
The substantive question in that case is - was the test fair and job related? Was the test biased in favor of whites and against blacks? If the test was biased, then the Supreme Court has said in the past that it must be thrown out because it will produce a “disparate impact.” The fact that the test in this case was fair and was job-related seemed to make no difference to Sotomayor. Why not? Because in her oh-so-progressive-and-politically-correct mind the fact that no blacks did well was, by itself, evidence that the test was unfair.
This is the kind of thinking that needs to stop. And one small way to stop it, in spite of the fact that she will surely be confirmed, is to make clear in her nomination hearings how wrong and unfair this assume-the-worst about tests blacks don’t do well on.
That intelligent, well-intentioned people still argue that somehow this New Haven case was not a blatant act of discrimination against the white firefighters speaks to the nuttiness of our current debate on race.
johnnydoc5 said, 4 months ago
Matthew, a big kudos for finding corruption in politics, I am sure I could find many a Democrat with prior or current issues. I do understand your point though, and find it irritating that Republicans still try that Holier- than- thou tactic. It also shows, however, how much politics has split the masses into an us versus them thing. (i.e. you republicans, you liberals, etc.) It is a shame that people who don’t know each other at all in any other way can go and turn everything into a your with us or against us thing. Methinks it might be time to change this two party system.
FLS I saw your reference to the Three Stooges the other day, and thought it was Shemp. At any rate, we have some common ground in that we both like the Stooges
GJ_Jehosaphat
said,
4 months ago
Re: Clear Channel Communications layoffs (I know off subject, but was continuing from several posts yesterday regarding Rush Limbaugh).
One of the legislative changes of the 90’s was the Telecommunications Act of 1996 - you can look it up if not familiar. I won’t bother with the copy/paste here regarding what I found when I looked for more detailed information regarding Clear Channel Communications - much was inflammatory but the article by the NY Times was the most interesting.
What I remember was The Fear local radio stations would lose their uniqueness that comes from local talent and local news. Some got bought up by Clear Channel giving them national broadcasting range (that & billboards). What is interesting in the NY Times opinion piece is the part about the blending of politics & big business.
Rush is referred to as a comedian (Ha Ha). What I think would be “funny” is having his words regarding the government’s attempt to “repair” the economy FAIL come back and bite him in the Butt if Clear Channel can’t afford him - talk about Toxic AssEts ;-)
Why did Clear Channel Communications give him such a big salary along with a signing bonus worth $400 million? Who knows - probably can’t even do a slam dunk, catch a forward pass or hit a grand slam home run.,,humm.
BirishB said, 4 months ago
sablebrush …
In a word: No.
“The substantive question in that case is - was the test fair and job related? Was the test biased in favor of whites and against blacks?”
That is not correct. The substantive case in the lower court was whether the decision by the New Haven Fire Board to cancel tests intentionally created racism or whether the decision was made even though it had a racial impact. To violate the Civil Right Act and the Constitution, the decision would have to be intentionally racist. The court found – and the evidence supports – that the decision was not intentionally racist. The substance of the test was never in question; the legality of the Board’s decision was.
The question before the Sotomayor Court was (as is the case in most all appellate cases): Did the lower court correctly interpret the law? If not, should the case be reopened. And because the lower court did read the law correctly, there was no reason to reopen the case.
People seem to forget that there were two other judges on that panel. That Sotomayor has been singled out on this one only demonstrates that these attacks are personal and not a matter of law. People also forget that the onerous decision was made by the Fire Board – not the lower court, nor the appellate. The two courts simply upheld the law. The Supreme Court, by contrast, is the one that changed the question … and changed the law! C’mon … somebody … please … that is judicial activism.
If you want egregious legal wrangling over affirmative action, Google: University of Michigan and affirmative action.
The Sotomayor saga does not bear on the debate on affirmative action. It does, however, bring to light some disturbing trends among those who oppose her nomination:
A belief in strict Constitutionalism until it doesn’t work in their favor
A belief that judicial activism is wrong, unless it supports their viewpoint
A willful distortion of the facts at hand because it is politically convenient
And, lastly, the desperate steps people will go to to undermine a good public servant
But you’re right about one thing: The fallout from the New Haven case does show how far we are from an honest debate on race. The only thing that keeps us from that discussion is that people continue use the specter of racism for political fodder.
GJ_Jehosaphat
said,
4 months ago
Re: The 3 Stooges - Shemp. What comes to mind sounds something like: “oooh oooh oooh” when he gets an idea or trying to make a point,
Re: Lady Liberty getting poked in the eye (above posting) - also borrowed from The 3 Stooges - those classic pokes Moe would do to the other 2 Stooges who tried to block/or got boinked in the eye.
Who would I nominate as the 3 stooges that came out of the 2000 election? Try Googling ” Iron Triangle Bush Advisors “. An article I remember reading in a news magazine talked about one of them carrying a copy of Atlas Shrugged (read that in the 60”s). Couldn’t find it referenced on line but hey, I can remember lines from the 3 Stooges & it’s been years (40+) since I watched them on tv;-)
NancyPelosi said, 4 months ago
If you read the blatherings of the liberals on here, then you’d think that every non-liberal was an evil moron and every liberal is a saint, full of compassion and intelligence. Then they try to talk of understanding and tolerance!
What a bunch of hypocrites! FarLeftSide, Satipera, Birish and Matthew say one thing then turn right around and show just how incredibly biased, dishonest and without priniciples they really are.
Total hypocrites!
johnnydoc5 said, 4 months ago
Hey, don’t drag the Stooges into the politics, they were here to make us laugh, not argue.
I think Rush could hit a home run. Babe Ruth was a big guy too.
GJ_Jehosaphat
said,
4 months ago
johnnydoc5 - Re Stooges & Politics. They did make us laugh - posted several days ago that I almost missed the school bus watching them on TV. Sorry, got carried away - I’ll go hang out with Laurel & Hardy (today’s Bloom County strip). ;-))
BirishB said, 4 months ago
“What a bunch of hypocrites! FarLeftSide, Satipera, Birish and Matthew say one thing then turn right around and show just how incredibly biased, dishonest and without priniciples they really are.”
Please explain. Since you know me only from behind the anonymity of your keyboard, please explain how I show you anything …
Ron
said,
4 months ago
Yeah, MatthewJB…
It looks as if the Republicans’ group of leaders is about the same as the Democrats’.
Look - if it walks like a politician, talks like a politician, and looks like a politician, it must be a politician.
Forget party monikers…
Herbabee said, 4 months ago
Ahh, “Nancy”, I think you just gave your ersatz-Vulcan identity away.
(that dreaded “H” word w/exclamation mark being the clues, of course)