Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Cruz monkey cartoon – Make liberal media live by its own rules

Cruz monkey cartoon – Make liberal media live by its own rules

The disparate treatment of Democratic and Republican candidates’ children is a metaphor for a larger media bias.

Washington Post cartoonist Ann Telnaes drew a cartoon showing Ted Cruz’s children as monkeys dancing to his tune.

The pretext was that the children appeared in a campaign ad. As if this is the first time children have appeared in a political context.

There was a firestorm of controversy, and the cartoon was pulled:

I have mixed feelings about the controversy.

On the one hand, I’m against the culture of outrage that pervades campuses and increasingly the media. But I also understand why lines need to be drawn for candidates, particularly as to minor children.

Many commentators have pointed out the obsession of the media with protecting Obama’s children from even the mildest of criticism. I don’t disagree with that, and it’s been our policy since the earliest days of Legal Insurrection to Leave Malia Alone.

But the liberal media has not applied its rules consistently. And that’s the main point.

Trig Palin was mocked in the left-wing media; Sarah Palin was excoriated by liberal feminists for bringing Trig on stage at the Republican Convention, despite that fact that children almost always appear on stage with parents at such events. So much for Republican kids being off limits.

At first I thought this would be just a multi-hour news story. But it’s developing into much more.

The disparate treatment of Democratic and Republican candidates’ children is a metaphor for a larger media bias.

We need to make the liberal media live by its own rules. Use Saul Alinsky’s Rule 4 against the Alinskyites:

“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Imagine that cartoon with the Obama girls.

You can’t, of course. The cartoonist would have been Lynched…

(See what I did there…?)

My rule of preference would be “Anything Goes!” But as long as there are gentlemanly understandings about what should be off-limits that are adhered to by left & right, I have no objections to observing such unwritten rules.

Crass arrogance sometimes can’t help itself, though. As in the case of this cartoon (not to mention the cartoonist’s comments).

Monkeys portraying Obama’s kids would have gotten this woman fired and banned, but then it would never have made it past an editor. Hispanics are also a protected class, but that is negated for Republicans.

And why not show them as kids, since they drew Dad as human? Kids on leashes would be inappropriate I guess, better to make them monkeys?

yeah, if PC is the law of the land, we should force equal justice under the “law”.

    And why not show them as kids, since they drew Dad as human?

    Come on, whatever other problems exist with this cartoon, that isn’t one. Organ grinders don’t (or rather didn’t, when they existed) have kids dancing, they had monkeys. You can’t depict an organ grinder’s monkey as human, any more than you can depict him as a monkey.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to Milhouse. | December 23, 2015 at 4:23 pm

      Leaving them as children still gets the same message, and would put more of the fault/abuse on the parent. The children would be laughed at less at school if they were at least still human. She obviously didn’t care about harming the kids, which is the jab I’m going for.

      “You can’t depict an organ grinder’s monkey as human,” But of course she could have done that, with the message still clear. She had to explain the cartoon anyway … “used his monkey kids as props”

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | December 23, 2015 at 1:49 pm

Nobody believes WaPo would ever, under any circumstance, publish a cartoon depicting the Obama children as animals. Let alone monkeys.

But once the editorial decision was made to publish this cartoon depicting Cruz’s children as monkeys, then let it stand. Defend it. They intended to be provocative, and repugnant, so take the criticism.

I am as tired of people cowering to mob pressure as I am of the mobs themselves. The more people back down or apologize due to mob pressure, the more powerful it makes the mobs. Stop giving the mobs, whether they are on the right or the left, the de facto veto power to shut down speech they don’t like.

    “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

    That’s hard to do, when they just rewrite the rules, when you try to do that.

    I agree. Own it & defend it, or don’t bother publishing it.

    Don’t know, but I strongly suspect she/WP did not publish a cartoon of The Prophet in free-speech solidarity after the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack. My recollection is that they pretty much blamed the victims.

    Petard, hoist.

      Daiwa in reply to Daiwa. | December 23, 2015 at 4:19 pm

      I stand corrected – she did an op ed including the cartoons at the time. Props to her for that, at least.

The moral position is to be consistent in your moral outrage. If you believe portraying the president’s children as animals in a cartoon is outrageous and wrong, you should display the same amount of outrage to this cartoon.

Liberals don’t. Conservatives do.

The poor, corrupt Collectivist cartoonist is not wrapping herself in “Charlie Hebdo” flags about “silencing cartoonists”.

No, stupid. Nobody came at you with guns.

Taste is ALSO “free expression”, and NOBODY has a freehold on any particular media outlet.

You can continue to draw your racist crap.

http://twitter.com/AnnTelnaes/status/390105107926228992/photo/1

DINORightMarie | December 23, 2015 at 2:27 pm

It’s racist. Straight up.

To portray two Latino-descent children as monkeys is racist.

Just as much so as it would be to portray Obama’s children that way.

Children ARE used by politicians – often. Obama used them in 2012 often enough for the WaPo to write a story about it.

This is indeed worth the effort to push back. It’s more than using the Alinsky Rule against them; it is the right thing to do. He can have his children in an ad, reading if they so choose. But mocking them is NOT okay.

Latinos need to see how these so-called “compassionate” “fair” “unbiased” MSM leftists REALLY feel about them………

Since we’re talking about candidate’s kids, can someone explain to me why Chelsea Clinton, with zero relevant experience, is making more than $600,000 per year as “vice chair” of the Clinton foundation?

And how many hundreds of millions of dollars went into that organization as quid-pro-quo when Hillary was Secretary of State? I seem to remember some language in The Constitution forbidding such payola schemes.

    Anchovy in reply to Paul. | December 23, 2015 at 2:38 pm

    I am beginning to suspect that public service might not be the only reason the Clinton family is involved in politics. Not jumping to any conclusions, understand but my awareness has been raised.

    CalFed in reply to Paul. | December 23, 2015 at 2:41 pm

    “Since we’re talking about candidate’s kids, can someone explain to me why Chelsea Clinton, with zero relevant experience, is making more than $600,000 per year as “vice chair” of the Clinton foundation?”

    Uhh…because she is the boss’s daughter?

    Observer in reply to Paul. | December 23, 2015 at 2:57 pm

    What’s the point of engaging in all that graft if you can’t spread some of the wealth around by handing out 6-figure salaries to your talentless, qualified-for-nothing offspring?

    Plus, it’s a convenient way to launder the pay-offs . . . er, contributions.

    Chem_Geek in reply to Paul. | December 23, 2015 at 3:21 pm

    Why do you hate the rich? /sarc

    (Hint: they’re just like all the other 1%er MBA CEO Managers – talentless hacks who got lucky.)

    Milhouse in reply to Paul. | December 23, 2015 at 3:50 pm

    I seem to remember some language in The Constitution forbidding such payola schemes.

    What language would that be? I’m fairly familiar with the constitution, and don’t believe any such language exists. Nor would it make sense for it to exist, any more than there would be language forbidding officers of the United States from robbing banks or drowning babies. It’s sort of taken for granted.

      The Emoluments Clause, found in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, reads in part:

      “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

        Milhouse in reply to Paul. | December 23, 2015 at 4:14 pm

        Not relevant. That’s about conflicts of interest, not bribes. There’s nothing at all unconstitutional about an officer’s relatives being employed by foreign powers, or receiving gifts from them. Nor is there anything unconstitutional about an officer receiving gifts from individual foreigners. Bribery is a crime, subject both to crimnnal prosecution and to impeachment, but it isn’t specifically barred by the constitution.

          Well, we know at least seven foreign countries which received clearance from Hillary’s State Department for arms purchases made donations to the Clinton Foundation while they were lobbying her.

          The Clinton Foundation, by the way, spends about 15% of it’s income on actual “charitable” work. It’s essentially a money laundering and slush fund for the Clinton’s and their lackeys to live like royalty.

          If a Republican with a set of nuts gets the nomination, all of this will come out during the general campaign, and then we’ll see if it’s “relevant” or not.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 23, 2015 at 8:49 pm

          Yesa, of course it’s a slush fund, and we all understand that this was a thoroughly corrupt practise, but it does not fall foul of the emoluments clause. The emoluments clause is not about bribery or corruption, but about conflicts of interest. What it bans is an officer of the United States holding an official position with a foreign government. The assumption is that this is all above board, but we don’t want the conflict. If you work for the USA you can’t at the same time work for Canada. Bribery is a completely different matter, and is dealt with by the criminal code and by the impeachment process.

          Mind you, his family members are allowed to hold such positions. There is nothing in the constitution preventing the ridiculous situation they have in Denmark and the UK, where the Danish Prime Minister is married to a UK member of Parliament. There’s no reason Michelle 0bama couldn’t be Prime Minister of Canada, if the Canadians wanted to give her that job. Or she could be the Japanese ambassador to the USA.

      The Payola Clause, found in Article 5, Section 12 of the Constitution, reads in part:

      “No payola.”

The key thing to watch for: Most of the media reports omit the word, “Monkey.”

It’s not racist – after all, Cruz is a “White Hispanic”, just like Zimmerman

At least they were depicted as happy monkeys,
That justifies it.
Anyone got a black lawn jockey with big red lips & wide open white eyes they’ll sell cheap?
I need it to pair with my fat, towel head black mammy.

Alinsky tactics apply, in particular, Rule #4:

“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

Come on, has the image of the organ grinder completely disappeared from the cultural memory? She’s depicting Cruz as an organ grinder, and therefore there was only one way to draw the girls. The cartoon is in extremely poor taste, and would never have been published if it were about a Democrat, but not for the choice of animal.

    The Confederate Battle Flag is being wiped as best leftists can do to cultural history.
    So the Muslim’s killed 14 people, more than the white gunner in S.C. at the church, so lets get rid of mosques, Islam and all symbols related to that religion, you do want to be correct politically don’t you? Islam has a longer history of hate than the Confederate Battle flag.
    The leftists do seem to love to hate, it’s the democrats (un)official party platform. Led by the biggest purveyor of hate who now leads this country.

As for the reaction from the other side if someone had dared draw such a cartoon about 0bama, just recall the outrage when the NY Post ran a cartoon on a story about an actual chimpanzee, with an allusion to Congress. The entire left jumped to the unfounded conclusion that the allusion was to 0bama instead, and denounced it as racist.

The hatred is deep in the cartoonist, the pathology great. She must spend every waking hour seething with her irrational neuroses.

How sad a life, what a miserable existence…to be eaten up with projected rage. Pity the poor creature, pity her.

http://patterico.com/2015/12/23/media-dishonestly-represents-ted-cruzs-objection-to-his-daughters-being-denigrated-by-cartoonist/

Would there be leftist outrage if someone drew a picture of hillery holding a monkey as she shamelessly uses her granddaughter for political gain?
Scroll down the link for the picture of “abuela” hillery and the caption of the 7 things she has in common with your abuela.
How about a drawing of chelsea making her look like an elephant with “another vote for abuela” on her belly with her latest pregnancy? Surely that would be fair as chelsea is campaigning for hillery. Fair game isn’t she now that she’s an adult?
Or maybe someone could do a drawing of chelsea getting an abortion and having political donation cash flow out in place of a dead baby. That should be fair also shouldn’t it?

Expect LibDem commentators to start complaining that conservatives are trying to censor the free press.

So are the GOP candidates going to ask each DEMOCRAT about the cartoons

It is all good and well to go after WAPO. Several other candidates, Rubio and Trump, were quick to castigate WAPO.

Yet real progress will come only when the LIBERAL candidates that WAPO supports are hurt. IF these candidates are tarred by such tactics, then their supporters will minimize their use.

It is obvious that shame alone will not stop such acts. WAPO, and its ilk, are interested in getting and maintaining power. Cutting that power is what they understand.

Is it okay to call Obama an organ grinder’s monkey? (Valerie Jarrett, being the organ grinder.)

Or would that be too great an insult to organ grinder monkeys?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend