E. Leight: Conservative cartoon was 'shameful'

I would like to comment on the shameful editorial cartoon you ran on Monday, Aug. 13.

It was not only completely disrespectful of the president, but it represented a point of view that is wildly inaccurate, inflammatory, discriminatory and demeaning.

The implication was that the president is an immature, power hungry communist.

I guess you won't have to bother with your presidential endorsement editorial now that you've shown us all where you stand.

Ellie Leight, Poland

Editor's note: The Sun Journal offers space on its opinion pages for our readers and syndicated writers and cartoonists to express their personal opinions on the news of the day. Editorial cartoons, guest columns and letters to the editor are not necessarily the opinion of the newspaper's ownership and editorial board.

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



 's picture

Andrew K. Dart is the wackiest of wacky Conservatives

In four articles on the cost of the GM rescue, Andrew K. Dart's links use four different costs. Most of the articles referred to mean something completely different than the link implies. Kinda like the Drudge Report for the ill informed.

 's picture

Obama continues to govern as a moderate Republican

The real truth is that before Romney etch-a-sketched himself as a conservative; the differences between Romney and Obama hardly existed. So to make their case that Obama is "the other", the "communist" Conservatives are left with nothing but name-calling. No evidence. Fantasy, delusion, paranoia are their only argument.

 's picture

Let me see here,

Father: Barack Sr: Kenyan Economist and well known Marxist.

Grand parents, well know leftists liberals who raised the President and who allowed the young Barack to be influenced by well known Marxist, Frank Marshall Davis.

It is also well know that Barack is well versed in the book " Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky another Marxist.

Look at what this administration has done in the last 4 years and tell me we are not on the path to becoming a Socialists/Marxist country.

If walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a duck. That's the real truth Jonathan.

 's picture

Your labels aren't facts and even if they mean nothing

I suspect anyone born outside the US is a Marxist to you. Have you studied in detail Barack Sr.'s economic writtings, speeches, and conclusions. Doubt it. More important who cares; Barack Sr. had almost no contact with our President.
Frank Marshall Davis again almost no contact, no influence. If he is the model for Obama's literary "Frank" then Obama viewed him as an out-of-date, irrelevent, child of the 30's.
So, how many thousands perhaps millions are well versed in the Rules for Radicals. How many have read Lenin. And how many of those are right-wing conservative nuts today. We are not what we read. If we were, I'd be James Madison's secretary.
Yes, look at what this administration has done in th last 4 years and tell me we are not on a path to corporate supremacy, right-wing fanaticism, and a bank directed dictatorship as was attempted in 1934.
Name one just one act of this Administration which is not right-center policy. Be it immigration, economic policy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, health care, etc this administration is implementing the Republican Party's platform position of just a decade ago or so.

 's picture

Ah but I have Jonathan,

I have. Sounds to me like you need to make a move to a socialist utopia you so long for. Yes the US is not perfect but it's far better than the socialism you so desire. If you really read the truth and not what you desire to read, you would certainly know that Frank Marshall Davis was an influence on the young Barack. Davis and Barack's grand parents ran in the same social circles in Hawaii. So you go right ahead and keep defending this man and watch what is store for you if he gets another 4.

 's picture

So! You act like you have evidence of something, you don't

"Barack's grand parents ran in the same social circles in Hawaii". So. Your interpretation of this situation is determined not by the facts but by your prejudices. Running in the "same social circles" doesn't mean you agree on anything. Frank Marshall Davis' social circle was every african-american, union member, poet, journalist, writer, worker, and small businessman in Hawaii. That's probably the majority of the state's population. The state's former Governor had a closer relationship to Davis than Obama.
But I did notice that you wouldn't answer my challenge. You apparently couldn't come up with any policy positions that Obama has promoted that are not straight out of the Republican Platform of just a few years ago. Which makes your conclusion not a result of the facts but of your prejudices. I by the way can - repeal of Don't ask, don't tell. But that doesn't make anyone a Marxist. The 14th Amendment is not Marxist.
Your's is just more of the groundless conspiracy theories, the birther nonsense that 2 + 2 make 5.

 's picture

Sorry not a birther nor

am I conspiracy theorist. I just did my homework about the man. Apparently you haven't. I have also paid attention to Barack's recent speeches, the same speeches where his socialist beliefs have come out for everyone to see, but you refuse to admit are there. He's a statist, admit it. He said it just a few days ago in one of his speeches, how he wanted the government to take over more industries and make them part of the state. Using his take over of GM which is failing again, as his example. Were you not paying attention. Looks to me like you are choosing to ignore what came right out of his mouth.

 's picture

You never supply specifics

What speeches? What socialist ideas? Of course he's a statist in your! your! mind. Anyone who believes in the Constitution of the United States starting with James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay are statists in your! mind. Good thing they are. If you aren't a statist; you can not support the US.
When did he ever say that he wanted to "take over more industries". Where's the quote not your interpretation of it. He said repeatedly that he did not want to run GM. That that was not what he had been elected to do.
First, the takeover of GM did not fail, has not failed, and will not fail. Its one of the most successful government interventions into the economy ever made. Second, its not his alone. Paulsen under Bush began negiotiations to rescue GM but didn't finish the job. Obama came in and negiotiated a much more successful plan. Third, America today would have the economy of a third world country had Obama not saved GM. Fourth, since the rescue of GM is based on stock as the stock price changes the profit from the rescue will change and the taxpayer may in the end have to pay something for the rescue. That's not a failure. A failure is if GM goes broke; it isn't and is very unlikely to go broke and take American manufacturing with it.
Lastly, The US Constitution was created to "create a more perfect union" i.e. a more perfect state. Statism is good; its Constitutional; its American as apple pie.

 's picture

Thank you for the specifics. They confirm my previous comments

I couldn't display the first URL
But the AKDART article on your comment was right on the nose.Given that the website is from its very title biased.

The ABC News artcle's basic point was "Republicans interpreted Obama as proposing government bailouts for other industries." Then the article repeated what Obama had actually said in context. No mention of bailouts of any kind. Obama said that that government should SUPPORT our manufacturing industries so that new jobs take root here and not in China. And that is precisely the role the Federal Government has played in the economy for the last 80 years quite successfully. Not bailouts. Not ownership. Support.
As I commented previously because the cost of the investment is based on the changing price of GM stock at any moment that cost can increase of decrease. Right now it is 25 billion half of the governments initial investment. Tomorrow it might be 30 or 20 or 15 billion depending on the vagaries of the stock market. Has nothing to do with the success of the program. Because it doesn't include what we would have lost if the investment had not been made.

 's picture

Nothing in Obama's speeches is socialist

His comments in context are no different than speeches made by any President from Reagan to Bush II. The government should help companies create jobs in America not in China. That's just sound policy not socialism.

Amedeo Lauria's picture

Make your point???

Is there a problem with a little truth now and then??? I would have used the term "socialist/Marxist" but you got it pretty well down. Gee, one out of 100 and the left gets their shorts in a wad.

Amedeo Lauria's picture

Make your point???

Is there a problem with a little truth now and then??? I would have used the term "socialist/Marxist" but you got it pretty well down. Gee, one out of 100 and the left gets their shorts in a wad.


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...