Sen. Jim Bunning made newspapers across the United States again yesterday — this time in the funny pages.A national cartoonist with a reputation for wry political humor took a swing at Kentucky’s Hall of Famer after Bunning called for The New York Times to be charged with treason.Candorville, which runs in about 50 papers across the nation as well as another in Ecuador and the Pacific Stars & Stripes, featured a faux political commercial yesterday from “Senator Bunting.” However, the face on the TV is that of Bunning, a Republican in his second term in the Senate and a pitcher in the Baseball Hall of Fame. The strip’s main character, Lemont Brown, hears the ad apparently from the bathroom — the third panel features a flush as “Bunting” denies that his attack on the “Candorville Chronicle” is politically motivated.Cartoonist Darrin Bell said Bunning caught his eye last month after condemning the Times’ report on the Bush administration’s not-so-secret surveillance of international banking transactions.”Senator Bunning at the time seemed to be the GOP’s point man for the treason charge against The New York Times, so he was the logical one to use as a representative for the whole party,” Bell said yesterday. The flush was “the most appropriate” activity that came to mind, he said.He had not gotten any feedback yesterday from Bunning’s office on Capitol Hill. “I don’t really expect to. Somehow, I really doubt they read Candorville,” he said.Bunning’s office did not return calls or e-mails seeking comment for this story.Bell said he doesn’t see his work as falling into either the Democrat or Republican camp. In the 1990s, he was called a fascist for picking on President Clinton.”I just go after whoever’s in charge,” Bell said.As for Senator Bunting, he could make a return appearance, but that depends on Bunning.”He’s got my attention,” Bell said. “The next time he gives me material, I’m going to use it.”
Apparently, one reader was not amused:
I have always thought political cartoons to be inherently anti-Republican, and this has gotten to be even worse with all the nationwide progress witnessed in the last 5 years. It’s even possible that this drawn criticism has in fact lent itself to limiting the progress we have had…because it’s so treasonous and traitorlike.Posted by: Bill
This was one of the comments below the article (comments have since been removed, possibly because the argument got sort of heated. People stopped just short of burning each other in effigy. Barely.The “treasonous and traitorlike” comment doesn’t interest me as much as “limiting the progress we have had…” in the last five years. What progress is that, again? And if there is any progress, how can it be undone by a comic strip? If only Bill would have explained himself further. It would have been fascinating.
View Comments (28)
Where did you find it? Interesting read » » »
I have been looking for sites like this for a long time. Thank you! »
What a great site Palmers pursuit shop paintball nature girl bondage vancouver pilates Removal of cellulite pilates job nj Diagnosis impotence stretch band pilates exercise online Pilates warren nj Fat lady sex laptop repairs Lotus notes 6 nsd is running error Atlanta+botox George mason basketball information Lesbo dildo fuck
Hey, Darrin... Boy, that strip this morning has STILL got me laughing! Great, just great! I have to stop staring at the screen... I don't want to go blind! :)
Doug-- it takes a HECK of a lot for me to declare someone an "Enemy". And, being a bit... in your term... vehement-- is to be expected when discussing politics of any sort.
Friends. And peace. :)
I'll get my girlfriend to at least make the cursor visible.
I like your blog too. Sorry about the "ignorance" remarks earlier in thread. I am... vehement.
Friends?
To quote an old friend of mine, Doug... "Spiffy"!
Stopped by your blog. Comments difficult to give. :)
Peace, or at least SOME peace, to all! :)
Yeah. I'm cool.
As for the first part about firearms and self defense, I'm not only for it, I've studied the truth behind it. I've learned that when you shoot, you only shoot when you are in REASONABLE fear of your life. And when you are in that state of fear, "wounding" shots or warning shots are contraindicatory because your fine motor control skills will disappear due to that fear for your life. Hitting an arm or a leg will be significantly more difficult than hitting the relatively nice-sized torso of the aggressor who has forced you to shoot in your own defense or the defense of a loved one.
I'm a gun nerd in the extreme. Almost as much as I am a comic nerd (I still wish Lemont would wear his Green Lantern shirt more, but at least he wears his Flash shirt enough. :D ). When it comes to the when and how of defending your family, I am as pro-right wing as I am pro-left wing on nearly every other detail, such as not ever getting into Iraq without a SOLID reason, nor seeing people who criticize a right wing presidency as treasonous.
Doug, Doug, Doug.... I'm disappointed. Here's one thing you say:
No incidence of shooting in self-defense can entail "shooting to wound." Prosecutors see that as malicious intent to cause greater harm.
And that's a problem isn't it? I mean, really. If we shoot not to kill, but to defend, WE are the ones charged with the crime, even though a crime was being committed.
If we kill, we're killers. If we merely wound to end a robber's escapades in our home, prevent a rape, or along this line--WE are the one at fault? Sorry, I don't agree with this line of reasoning. It's annoying to think that we cannot defend ourselves from lawlessness.
Your quote:
Perhaps you might be more interested in the mutilation of women, but I'd rather have legal abortion and then educate women to minimize such a problem than have some knee-jerk reaction by a religious fundamentalist with no knowledge of biology deciding what is evil and what is good.
I really have NO IDEA where you came up with the idea that I was for back-alley abortions. And, if you had read closely, perhaps you would have seen the fact that I had said "If they are not from aborted fetuses, I have no problem with that." I guess you missed that, huh? It's forgivable, especially since I DO tend to ramble. As for another section:
I make the case against third trimester abortions because the creature produced CAN survive, even if it is exceedingly fragile. Any earlier, and it is not a viable independant organism, no matter how human it is.
--There HAVE been cases of 18 week old fetuses being kept alive, and surviving to become a fully functional human. Of course, if we cannot agree when life begins, we have difficulties. Does it begin at conception? When brain waves first appear? At birth? At 5 years? Until THAT can be settled, once and for all, by simple declaration of ALL, we will continue to debate.
your quote:
As you SEE IT is from a place of biological ignorace. Educate yourself, and then maybe your rallying cries will hold some bearing.
I wonder what my brother-in-law, an MD, would say to that.
You've scored some points. Perhaps I have, too. The best we can do is agree to disagree.
Are you OK with THAT?
No incidence of shooting in self-defense can entail "shooting to wound." Prosecutors see that as malicious intent to cause greater harm.As for aborted masses appearing human, I apologize on that point. However, how viable an organism are they if they cannot survive outside the womb?I make the case against third trimester abortions because the creature produced CAN survive, even if it is exceedingly fragile. Any earlier, and it is not a viable independant organism, no matter how human it is.I'm not pro-abortion, but I'm not so eager to see women butchered by back alley abortionists that I'm interested in bringing back the days of illegal abortions. Perhaps you might be more interested in the mutilation of women, but I'd rather have legal abortion and then educate women to minimize such a problem than have some knee-jerk reaction by a religious fundamentalist with no knowledge of biology deciding what is evil and what is good.Either way, Stem Cell research has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER because blastocysts ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS! They're fertilized eggs created in an artificial environment. It's the same situation as if a fertilized egg never set root in the womb wall and was discharged in the menstrual cycle. Don't beat your chest on abortion because of stem cell research because that argument has been rendered an absolute fallacy and only continues to display anatomical ignorance that can be easily dispelled by two seconds of research on the internet.As you SEE IT is from a place of biological ignorace. Educate yourself, and then maybe your rallying cries will hold some bearing.