Shit. This is why we almost always lose...

[PCIntern]

Look at that New Yorker Cover. Imagine National Review doing that to one of their own. Never ever ever. Period.

But nooooooooo....we have to have 'satire'; we have to have 'MoDo'; we have to windsurf in the midst of our national convention coverage; we have to put on a helmet and look like "Rocky the Flying Squirrel" in a tank; we have to announce at a frigging debate that we're going to raise taxes; we have to hire image consultants to tell our candidate who's been in the public eye his entire life, to change his dress and deportment; and we have to pick a guy for V.P. who had electroshock treatments.

So now there's this...congratulations...we'll win a lot of congressional districts and send sternly worded letters to President McCain and President-in-Waiting Romney.

Fuck.

[scarletwoman]

1. "Imagine National Review doing that to one of their own. Never ever ever. Period."

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you.

Rec'd,
sw

[Drunken Irishman]

2. Democrats have always been a chaotic bunch, eh?

We're crazy.

Maybe that's why I'm drawn to the party.

We're good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, sadly.

[HardWorkingDem]

3. Well, then....you better go buy a few copies of National Review..

because they have done things like this in the past.

Besides, there is a huge difference between National Review and the New Yorker - one is an obvious special interest magazine that pushes a certain agenda. The New Yorker is more like a magazine about good journalism, good government work and the like.

[PCIntern]

6. You are incorrect on every single count:

1. Republicans never ever do this...imagine them showing romney and his 5 strapping sons dodging the draft or shoveling money into a bank account.

2. The New Yorker is a magazine which will be shown on every show from Morning Joe to Leno...you won't be able to get away from the 'controversy'.

[HardWorkingDem]

10. I can tell you for a fact....

I have seen unflattering covers on the National Review of conservative republicans. Not only that, just last year both the Weekly Standard AND the American Conservative magazines posted harsh covers.


Years ago I used to read the National Review to try and understand where conservatives were coming from (I never could figure it out).

[scarletwoman]

15. Let's see the "unflattering" covers they're doing on McCain, now that he's the Repug nominee.

And American Conservative magazine doesn't count, they are paleo-consertatives who have been against the bush/cheney/PNAC agenda all along.

When the Weekly Standard posts a cartoon of John McCain eating Iraqi babies, THEN maybe you'll have a point.

sw

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Not the National Review, but...

Just sayin

[kentuck]

5. Or we will begin bombing Russia in 5 minutes...

Or ketchup is a vegetable. Or asking your Cabinet to get on their knees and pray with you in the middle of the Oval Office, or giving George W Bush, the most hated man in the world, a big ol' slobbery hug, or saying that most of the taxcuts go to the working class folks, or bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran? It depends on what the media chooses to exploit and magnify into an issue..

[PCIntern]

9. You won't have to worry about this one....

it'll be shown and even parodied everywhere...

[Youphemism]

7. I blame this all on a lack of involvement...

The New Yorker has cornered the market on not being funny for decades.

It was only a matter of time before it unleashed its tone deaf humor on a sour subject like this.

How could we let such lackluster fuddy duddies believe they're jokesters for so long?

It's a national embarrassment. This incident is just the cherry on top of a banana split of arrogant, "aren't we clever" bombasticy. (Yes, I made up a new word for them -- it only seems appropriate.)

Their publication house should have been auctioned off as an antique the day after their last Norman Rockwell cover hit the stands.

[Beregond2]

19. Norman Rockwell?

That was the Saturday Evening Post.

[Youphemism]

20. Good God, you're right. The New Yorker *never* had any redeeming value. /nt

[tekisui]

8. They do it, too.

I think the difference is that the left is open about criticizing those who print it. We make a bigger deal of it.

[PCIntern]

11. Seen any of those covers on network TV?

I haven't...I'll admit I never saw them, but that's b/c they're not shown by MSM. And those were in Primary season...

[scarletwoman]

14. Bad examples. Guiliani was NOT a popular choice for many consevatives, nor was he the Republican

presidential nominee when that cover went out.

And American Conservative magazine is a paleo-conservative publication -- they HATE the Iraq war and the Neocons because they are old-school isolationists.

None of your examples are the least bit equivolant to the New Yorker cover -- unless the New Yorker publishers are determined to undermine Obama.

sw

[dbonds]

12. I think everyone is underestimating the public and overestimating the power of msm.

People are sick to death of all the wwf brand politics on the news. They tune it out. Maybe a few die hards don't, but most do. And that cover is so over that top that anyone can see it is satire.

[sandnsea]

13. Mostly we have to do the chicken little

over absolutely nothing. I'd prefer these idiots not do these kinds of "satire", but when they do we need to stop helping to turn it into a scandal.

[Dr.Phool]

17. Was it Molly Ivins or Jim Hightower who said,

If god wanted us to have elections, he would have given us candidates.


There's no sense of humor in the world anymore.

[emilyg]

16. Take a look at past

New Yorker covers.

[Beregond2]

18. Could you be any more alarmist?

What you are saying is that the Democrats lose because they are real and the Republicans win because they are fake. WRONG. The Democrats lose because they aren't quite REAL ENOUGH. If Kerry had walked over to Dubya and pulled that radio pack out of his suit on national TV, do you think he would have lost? No way. Americans LOVE people with enough balls to be real and treat them like adults, and to mock the stupidity the Repugs trade in. Which is EXACTLY what the New Yorker has done here.

On top of which, the New Yorker has done dozens of cover parodies of Repugs over the years. Did you object to that? They are an independent publication, not a Democratic party organ. So all this "this is what we always do" talk is nonsense.

What you seem to want is for the Democrats to become just as centralized and controlled and propogandistic as the Republicans, in which case they would no longer be Democrats. What our leaders need is to become MORE like the Democrats of old, and LESS like the Repugs. That is what the public wants.

[CreekDog]

21. someone would get fired

but when we do, forget it. nothing.

[stevedeshazer]

22. Oh, nonsense.

None of the mouth-breathers who vote Republican would be swayed by a cartoon.

Most of them can't even read the big words in the New Yorker.

[JVS]

23. Just because the NYer is literate never meant it's on our side.

Something tells me that Obama is not the candidate for people who need $100 tote bags so that they have somewhere to store their greek sailor cap while taking their kid to the airport to be sent to either a military boarding school for dullards or a fat-camp.

[DeepModem Mom]

24. K&R -- Always too clever for our own good. nt