CORRECTION for this Sunday's cartoon!

In panel three of this Sunday'sCandorville, I mention "Republican Senator Strom Thurmond from 1957." The point of the cartoon, and the reason I bring up Thurmond, is in response to Republican claims that the filibuster of many of Bush's judicial nominees is rooted in anti-Christian bigotry. This cartoon points out that the Republican Party is no stranger to bigotry itself. The only problem is, Strom Thurmond was a Democrat in 1957, not a Republican.

I realized that when I wrote the cartoon, and while I thought I'd made that clear, the amount of mail I've received this morning tells me that apparently it wasn't as clear as I thought. I meant to say that this is Republican Senator Strom Thurmond who switched TO the Republican Party because of the civil rights act, as he was back in 1957. I thought the following panel (where he says "Democrats are bigots, pure and simple, and I should know...) made it clear he was a Democrat at the time. But to head off confusion, I should have written "Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond from 1957, who later switched to the Republican Party.")

However, Thurmond's party affiliation in 1957 isn't the issue, because the Democratic Party is not the same party it was prior to the 1960s. The bigots in the party fled to the Republican Party (and now the power base that supported those Democratic bigots is the same one that supports modern-day Republicans) as a result of Nixon's "Southern Strategy." Strom Thurmond was instrumental in persuading segregationist Southerners to vote for Nixon rather than for George Wallace in 1968, and that's what gave Nixon his victory. The same Southern coalition that gave Democrats so much success beginning with Andrew Jackson, and going all the way down to Lyndon Johnson, has given Republicans equal success ever since Johnson left office (which is one reason why the only two Democrats to be elected president since 1968 have been Southerners who, before taking office, were considered to be conservative Democrats). The South, because it is the only segment of the Union to vote cohesively most of the time, is the power broker in this country.

Today's Republican Party is yesterday's Democratic Party. The parties switched in response to the tumultuous civil rights era. Jefferson Davis and Ben Tillman would be Republicans today, and Lincoln and Eisenhower -- if they were alive today -- would either have switched to the Democratic Party or they would be powerless moderates, in the vein of Olympia Snow, Lincoln Chafee or Christopher Cox.

A reader takes issue with Monday's Candorville

A reader took issue with this past Monday's strip, which satirized the White House's offensive against Newsweek Magazine. Since it appears to be based on a misconception, I'll post my answer to this reader here in case anyone else got the wrong idea:

Hello, Mr Bell,

I'm still catching up after an absence, but I wanted to take issue w/
C'ville Monday.

Hey, I'm a staunch fan, but I think you crossed a line w/ this edition.
Sure, you satirized the GWB/CBS News brouhaha last fall, but no one got
(physically) hurt. I think that satirizing the Newsweek fiasco that
resulted in lost human lives and casualties is equivalent to satirizing
9/11. I think you owe an apology to your readers.

-*******

Hi *****,

I understand how you feel, but if I were to refrain from satirizing blunders because lives were lost, I would have to refrain from satirizing Bush's handling of the Iraq War, wouldn't I?

I think you may have misunderstood the cartoon. I wasn't satirizing Newsweek, I was satirizing the way the Bush administration desperately tried to blame Newsweek for making a mistake that caused deaths in the Middle East. If that isn't a prime example of hypocrisy, I don't know what is. They said Newsweek shouldn't have published an article that was sourced by one person. Well, they started a WAR (that's killed, by some reports, 100 THOUSAND civilians) based bascially on the word of one source: a man the CIA thought was so unreliable that they gave him the code name "Curveball." All the rest of their intelligence was likely fixed around Curveball's claims, to add legitimacy to them. The White House tried to blame Newsweek for our tarnished image in the Middle East, but Newsweek didn't launch a war based on faulty intelligence. Newsweek hasn't gone almost two years without restoring electricity and water to much of Iraq (and Newsweek didn't deny Iraqi businesses the lucrative rebuilding contracts). Newsweek didn't build enormous, permanent military bases in Iraq along an oil pipeline (stupidly giving Iraqis even more reason to think we're there for the oil). Newsweek didn't torture prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. The Bush administration, not Newsweek, did all that, and THAT'S what's destroyed our reputation in the Middle East.

Newsweek made a technical mistake in the way they characterized the story, but let's not forget that the content of the story has been corroborated for the past couple years in other published stories featuring accounts of prisoners in Guantanamo. People in Afghanistan didn't riot because Newsweek wrote a story, they rioted because the Bush administration's actions over the past few years have made it very easy to believe the Newsweek story (and in fact, what Newsweek wrote about is mild compared to, again, the incidents of torture, rape and murder, and all the civilian deaths).

So, while I understand how you feel, I will never apologize for pointing out hypocrisy, especially when it's such a big, steaming example of hypocrisy. I would think you'd ask the Bush administration for an apology, instead, for callously using those 17 Afghani deaths as a way to shift blame from themselves to the Media.
•
•
•

The Door's Wide Open

I was on stage at the Reubens a couple hours ago with Lalo giving a talk about "edgy" minority cartoonists. It really drove home the need for such a panel when I looked out at the audience (of about 100) and noticed they were ALL white. But the thing is, I know syndicate execs and sales people, and I know a few editors -- and they're just as eager as I am to see more minorities on the comics pages. So if you're a woman or a member of any minority, now's your chance. The door is wide open for you. The climate is nothing at all like it was when I was trying to break in 6 years ago...
•
•
•

Bush: U.S. Image Tarnished by... NEWSWEEK?

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House says Newsweek took a "good first step" by retracting its story that U.S. investigators found evidence interrogators at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Quran, but it wants the magazine to do more to repair damage caused by the article.
Newsweek on Monday retracted the report in its May 9 issue after officials in the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department criticized its publication and its use of an anonymous source. Protests in Afghanistan, where more than a dozen people died and scores were injured in rioting, and demonstrations elsewhere in the Muslim world were blamed on the article.
"The report had real consequences," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Monday. "People have lost their lives. Our image abroad has been damaged. There are some who are opposed to the United States and what we stand for who have sought to exploit this allegation. It will take work to undo what can be undone."

Apparently Newsweek is to blame for the U.S.'s tarnished image abroad. It makes sense. After all, Newsweek did lie to the world about the certainty of Hussein having WMD -- so that Newsweek could invade Iraq, kill tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and over 1600 U.S. soldiers, and install a Newsweek-friendly government. And let's not forget how Newsweek tortured and murdered prisoners at Abu Ghraib and other prisons throughout the Middle East and Cuba -- and definitely let's not forget how Newsweek's been coddling the dictators in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

And then there's the way Newsweek has unilaterally pulled us out of global warming treaties and the international criminal court. Oh, and the way Newsweek pulled funding from international family planning organizations in AIDS-ravaged countries unless those organizations taught abstinence-only instead of performing abortions and handing out condoms.

Newsweek has an awful lot to answer for.
•
•
•

Lucas jabs at 'Bush's empire' in new Star Wars film

From today'sJapan Today:

"And then came the zinger, with the protagonist, Anakin Skywalker, saying just before becoming Darth Vader: 'You are either with me or you are my enemy.'"

Come on, I hardly think this is enough to draw parallels between the prequel trilogy and the Bush administration. I mean, in the prequel trilogy the Galactic Republic was attacked by an army that had been programmed by a former associate of the Chancellor. Then, in response, the Chancellor started a war based on faulty intelligence in order to consolidate his power and diminish individual rights under the guise of a wartime act passed by the legislature.

Nothing at all like what's happened in the US in the past five years.
•
•
•

White House Reporters Actually Do Their Job!

They're ordering knit caps and parkas in the underworld, because for once - for one brief, shining moment, the White House reporters decided to do their jobs (even if it's about a virtually inconsequential story). If they'd behaved this way during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, there may not have been an invasion of Iraq.

When reporters back each other up by repeating the same questions until they get answers, one of three things happens:

1. The reporters look like a-holes (if the questions are frivolous, such as, oh, I don't know -- questions about oral sex in the oval office)
2. The White House spokesman gives up spinning and answers the questions.
3. The White House spokesman keeps on spinning but at least it becomes obvious he's bullsh!tting.

Since I think this was a trumped up story to begin with, I'd say this is a combination of 1 and 3 (but mostly 3).

From Editor & Publisher:

Q: Scott, yesterday the White House was on red alert, was evacuated. The first lady and Nancy Reagan were taken to a secure location. The Vice President was evacuated from the grounds. The Capitol building was evacuated. The continuity of government plan was initiated. And yet the president wasn't told of yesterday's events until after he finished his bike ride, about 36 minutes after the all-clear had been sent. Is he satisfied with the fact that he wasn't notified about this?

McCLELLAN: Yes. I think you just brought up a very good point -- the protocols that were in place after Sept. 11 were followed. The president was never considered to be in danger because he was at an off-site location. The president has a tremendous amount of trust in his Secret Service detail. ...

Q: The fact that the president wasn't in danger is one aspect of this. But he's also the commander in chief. There was a military operation underway. Other people were in contact with the White House. Shouldn't the commander in chief have been notified of what was going on?

McCLELLAN: John, the protocols that we put in place after Sept. 11 were being followed. They did not require presidential authority for this situation. I think you have to look at each situation and the circumstances surrounding the situation. And that's what officials here at the White House were doing. ...

Q: Even on a personal level, did nobody here at the White House think that calling the president to say, by the way, your wife has been evacuated from the White House, we just want to let you know everything is OK?

McCLELLAN: Actually, all the protocols were followed and people were -- officials that you point out were taken to secure locations or evacuated, in some cases. I think, again, you have to look at the circumstances surrounding the situation, and it depends on the situation and the circumstance. ...

Q: Nobody thought to say, by the way, this is going on, but it's all under control?

McCLELLAN: And I think it depends on each situation and the circumstances surrounding the situation when you're making those decisions.

Q: Isn't there a bit of an appearance problem, notwithstanding the president's safety was not in question, protocols were followed, that today, looking at it, he was enjoying a bike ride, and that recreation time was not considered expendable to inform him of this.

McCLELLAN: Well, I mean, John mentioned 36 minutes after the all-clear. Remember, this was a matter of minutes when all this was happening. ...

Q: But has the President even indicated that even if everything was followed that he would prefer to be notified, that if the choice is: tell the commander in chief or let him continue to exercise, that he would prefer to be informed?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, it depends on the situation and the circumstances. And you have to take all that into account, and I think that's what people were doing here at the White House, as well as those people that were with the president.

Q: I think there's a disconnect here because, I mean, yesterday you had more than 30,000 people who were evacuated, you had millions of people who were watching this on television, and there was a sense at some point -- it was a short window, a 15-minute window, but there was a sense of confusion among some on the streets. There was a sense of fear. And people are wondering was this not a moment for the president to exercise some leadership, some guidance during that period of time?

MR. McCLELLAN: The president did lead, and the president did that after September the 11th when we put the protocols in place to make sure that situations like this were addressed before it was too late. And that was the case -- that was the case in this situation. ...

Q: I have one more question. When we walked out of this door yesterday, when those of us who heard that there was a situation, when we walked out of the door, we heard aircraft, jets overhead. There is a concern that that plane came closer to the White House than the White House said, more -- it came within the three-mile radius, it was closer than you --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I said that it came within three miles.

Q: OK, but you said three miles. How close --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, it came within three miles.

Q: How close was it? Because someone has taken a picture of a plane being escorted on K street. How close was the plane?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I mean, if the Department of Homeland Security or FAA has any additional information, I'm sure --

Q: Scott, how close was it?

McCLELLAN: April, it was within --

Q: You know how close it was. Please tell us.

McCLELLAN: Yes, within three miles. I don't know beyond that. Go ahead.

Q: Might there be something wrong with protocols that render the president unnecessary when the alarm is going off at his house?

Read the rest of this amusing exchange at Editor & Publisher

•
•
•

Cartoon in the NY Times Today

My "Rudy Park" partner and I have a cartoon in today's New York Times, in the Circuits section. Check it out if you get a chance. I don't think they've posted it on their website, so you'd have to check out the dead tree edition.