« Senate Republicans are laying down the gauntlet. | Main | A Simple Suggestion For Senator Obama »

Ever heard of "two wrongs don't make a right"?

Apparently, Vanity Fair hasn't. All the furor over the New Yorker's Obama "satire" cover led them to conclude that... they needed to do exactly the same thing! This time, of course, the target had to be McCain, and it had to be just as offensive. Because, you know, the most mature way to handle the offensive Obama cover -- even though just about every conservative and Republican anywhere derided it -- is to do the exact same thing to McCain!

Here's the cover:

Yes, that's McCain with bandages on his head, presumably mocking his injuries as a POW in Vietnam. Yes, he's got a walker -- making fun of his age, how original! Yes, Cindy's got an armful of prescription pills. Yes, that's President Bush above the fireplace. And yes, it is what you think it is burning in the fireplace.

So original. And real mature, too.

No one praised The New Yorker for the Obama cover. They got slammed for it. So why on Earth would the editors at Vanity Fair feel like attacking McCain on their cover was a good idea? Again, ever heard of "two wrongs don't make a right"? Of course, we have to remember there's a difference here. The media is not going to slam Vanity Fair for having an offensive cover attacking John McCain. There will be silence about this. They won't have to deal with massive outrage as The New Yorker did, because the mainstream media will be secretly applauding the cover, even though they won't say so in public. It's ridiculous how openly the media is in the bucket for Obama. What's even more sickening is how smug and condescending Vanity Fair was about this. I'm just trying to figure out what exactly they're trying to accomplish with this. Are they trying to show off that they have the maturity of a fifth grader?

You know what, that actually makes sense, now that I think about it, because that's probably the best way to endear other liberals to them.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/30699.

Comments (24)

Come on, isn't it obvious? ... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Come on, isn't it obvious? Vanity Fair had to do this to get in the good graces of Team Obama. Now maybe their reporters can get back on his plane. This is their attempt at reconciliation with the messiah.

Well, at least we know that... (Below threshold)

Well, at least we know that Vanity Fair won't be losing any subscriptions over this. They might even gain a few.

Not that this makes it any ... (Below threshold)
PatBattle:

Not that this makes it any better, but I would assume the bandages on the head refer to the skin cancer and not to his POW injuries.

The Obama Cover never seeme... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

The Obama Cover never seemed aimed at Obama to me. It was aimed at his alleged detractors who attack his heritage and his poor wife. It was meant to generate sympathy for Obama and a backlash against Hillary Supporters Republicans.

I don't get that feeling from the McCain cover. The McCain cover is aimed at McCain and no one else, except maybe his wife too.

even more pathetic, it is n... (Below threshold)
seePea:

even more pathetic, it is not even original. The Seattle Times (or maybe PI?) editorial cartoonist did this a couple of days after The New Yorker

Can't wait for the Mad Maga... (Below threshold)

Can't wait for the Mad Magazine version. Probably have Michelle and Cindy slugging it out while Barak and John sit back with beer to watch the fight.

even though just about e... (Below threshold)
Brian:

even though just about every conservative and Republican anywhere derided it

Really? Please let us know where we can read your derision of it. I did see that DJ called it a "parody portrait". Does that count?

The media is not going to slam Vanity Fair for having an offensive cover attacking John McCain. There will be silence about this. They won't have to deal with massive outrage as The New Yorker did, because the mainstream media will be secretly applauding the cover, even though they won't say so in public. It's ridiculous how openly the media is in the bucket for Obama.

Wow, that's pretty good, Cassy. You pull some prediction about the media's reaction out of your butt, get all enraged about their future "secret" thoughts (how's that tinfoil hat working for ya?), and then use your own invented apoplexy as an example of the media "openly" being for Obama (where "open" is defined as inside your head).

Are you REALLY getting this worked up about this when you posted NOTHING about the Obama one?

Thanks for the Thursday afternoon laugh!
depp=true

It's not the same thing at ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

It's not the same thing at all.

The thing about the Obama cartoon is that is was based on lies and it propagated those lies.

This cartoon, while tasteless, is based on truth. (His wife was a hardcore drug addict, he's old and frail)

If ANYONE bothered to open ... (Below threshold)
epador:

If ANYONE bothered to open the NY magazine and read the lead off article, the meaning of the cover is obvious and not derogatory to anyone but BO's detractors. They do put BO to task for a few things but not that covered on the cover. Remember their bedroom and red phone cover with HC and BO reaching for the ringing phone?

If you read the VF blog entry introducing their cover, its a playful dig at the "kefuffle" about the NY cover. Nothing more, especially not as the ever off-base ( maybe too much free base) jp2.

Brian, that was pretty ridi... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Brian, that was pretty ridiculous, even for you. Both Republicans and Democrats were outraged by the first cover and for you to pretend that Cassy's lack of posting on the issue is the sum total of that reaction is unfair.

Ridiculing her for what you infer as her sole basis for seeing that the media is openly for Obama is to ignore that they indeed are.

Glad you have a punching bag though. How does that make you feel? Does it make you feel all strong and righteous when you find someone you don't like and go all verbally medieval on them? Over and over? No matter how petty you sound?

Personally, I feel Cassy uses too much provocative language, paints with too broad a brush and repeats herself too often. But that's just a personal critique that I think she or someone else might resonably consider. Rather than your, "Nya-nya, you're stupid!" approach. It just makes you look worse.

You need to get out more.

"Brian, that was pre... (Below threshold)
devil's advocate.:


"Brian, that was pretty ridiculous, even for you. Both Republicans and Democrats were outraged by the first cover and for you to pretend that Cassy's lack of posting on the issue is the sum total of that reaction is unfair."


Well, you may react to brian's angry reply to cassy, but I have to ask, where did republicans show outrage? Wizbang never mentioned it that I am aware of I never saw anything on redstate either?

don't get wrong, I think any republicans who would reject that kind of charecterization should be commended, just like I would think highly of anyone who rejected that kind of slander on McCain.


I did find this from red st... (Below threshold)
devil's advocate:

I did find this from red state update ( don't know if it really from the site) it says anyone who gets upset over satire is an idiot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YiNw5AMshg

Pull the some slack. After ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Pull the some slack. After all Vanity Fair is a comic book and cartoons are allowed in comic books.

I sure as heck wasn't outra... (Below threshold)
mcg:

I sure as heck wasn't outraged by it, and I'm not now. Both covers are pretty funny, and have managed to prove a good chunk of the country doesn't have the sense of humor they think they do.

Q: How many feminists does it take to replace a light bulb?
A: That's not funny!

The thing about th... (Below threshold)
jpm100:
The thing about the Obama cartoon is that is was based on lies and it propagated those lies.

This cartoon, while tasteless, is based on truth. (His wife was a hardcore drug addict, he's old and frail)


If the HTML in my earlier comment didn't get stripped, it would have made a little more sense. But essentially, these reactions were the exact desired effect intended from each cover. Sympathy for Obama, just a simple cheapshot for McCain.
I wasn't outraged, but then... (Below threshold)
Weegie:

I wasn't outraged, but then, I understand satire and what the author and illustrator were trying to accomplish. I personally thought that people who were outraged were simply, well, foolish.

There was nothing for a thinking or rational person to be outraged about. It's not like we all haven't seen myriad emails and posts that said the very same things.

And, I feel the same way about this cover. It's a nothing.

Isn't it time people grew up and stopped going around being outraged or offended by such trivial stuff?

devil's advocate, conservat... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

devil's advocate, conservatives and liberals (or democrats and republicans) were angry for different reasons. Many Democrats largely assumed the New Yorker was disparaging Obama. Many Republicans rightly assumed the New Yorker was disparaging them.

But we have a two edged sword here. Let's look at those Democrats who actually "got it". Many seized on it as a perfect parody for the right, having little problem with broad brushing. Atrios, HufffingtonPost, Kos, CrooksandLiars, etc. all had postings stating, in essence, that it correctly described conservatives or "the right". While many are so concerned about the magazine perpetuating myths about Obama, they have no problem with the insult many conservatives felt, because, you know, it's true. That was not the artist's intent at all.

The conservatives that "got it" were not outraged so much by the actual image as what it they felt it said about them. They feel it perpetuated the idea that conservatives are all the same and won't support Obama because he's Muslim/black/whatever - anything but a clear disagreement with his politics. That was not the artist's intent either. I'm not one of those offended by the cartoon so much as the responses from Democrats that all conservatives think this way.

Are there conservatives who think it described Obama correctly? Yes. I don't deny that. And those were the people the artist was targeting. Yet, considering this, is it really just a "conservative thing"?

Now we have a whole new cover to argue about. And what is the first response? An attack on the author of the post above and jp2's "tasteless but true" comment.

Good grief.

Well put, Oyster. ... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Well put, Oyster.

Both were cartoons, who car... (Below threshold)
Knightbrigade:

Both were cartoons, who cares.
Are both liberals and conservatives going to hit the streets and riot like some OTHER dumb ass group of people over friggan CARTOONS!!!!

And what IS burning in THAT fireplace? I can't tell..

Both Republicans and Dem... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Both Republicans and Democrats were outraged by the first cover and for you to pretend that Cassy's lack of posting on the issue is the sum total of that reaction is unfair.

And I suppose that you inventing this strawman position of mine that you can attack is more fair?

Where did I state that Cassy's lack of posting is the sum total of that reaction? Her statement was that "just about every conservative and Republican anywhere derided it". Seeing as she is a conservative and/or Republican, and was using that as her base from which to attack the McCain depiction, I merely demonstrated that she herself had not derided it.

Ridiculing her for what you infer as her sole basis for seeing that the media is openly for Obama is to ignore that they indeed are.

Once again you completely misrepresent what I said. Do you really have that much difficulty understanding? I ridiculed her invented paranoia as an "invented example" of the media being for Obama, not her "sole basis" for stating so. Those words don't even look similar, so it's surprising that you would get them so mixed up.

Rather than your, "Nya-nya, you're stupid!" approach. It just makes you look worse.

So pointing out when someone's facts are flat-out wrong, or when they start an argument off with a supposition and use that supposition as the basis for a factual conclusion... that's saying "nya-nya" to you. Interesting standards you have.

You need to get out more.

And you need to work on reading comprehension.

Do ageist Obama supporters... (Below threshold)
Bob:

Do ageist Obama supporters think that Nelson Mandela was unqualified to serve as president of South Africa? They must since he was 76 years old when he was elected. The Left's hero, Castro was still serving as president-for-life when he was in his late 70's. Why did we never hear a word from the Leftist hypocrites about Castro being "old and frail" and senile? Ageist hypocrites who always cry about racism and sexism. Ageism is OK if you're a Lieberal fraud.

No, I understood perfectly,... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

No, I understood perfectly, Brian. You concentrated your entire post on attacking Cassy and offering your opinion of her opinion, rather than your own opinion of the subject.

"Once again you completely misrepresent what I said."

What DID you say, Brian? You said:

"Really? Please let us know where we can read your derision of it. I did see that DJ called it a "parody portrait". Does that count?"

You used her lack of previous commentary on the New Yorker cover as the basis to deride this statement: "...even though just about every conservative and Republican anywhere derided it."

She exaggerated a little, but that was not what you focused on - it was indeed widely derided (mocked) by both sides of the aisle. And for varied reasons. On the other hand, some actually "condemned" it. Furthermore, I'd say she gave her opinion of both magazine covers before you read the first word in the first paragraph. It's in the title: "two wrongs don't make a right".

But let's go beyond that. Then you went on to mock her prediction that the media will ignore it using some pretty strong language. Language like "enraged" and "apoplexy". I'd say apoplexy more described your own reaction than hers. Never mind that her prediction or assumption of their thoughts was born of a verifiable history of the media's behavior in determining what should be non-stop coverage based on one's political designation. Most of what we do or say is based on what we experience. And the media has shown a predilection for beating dead horses if they have an (R) after their name and burying them if it's followed with a (D). Of course that can be mitigated by just how widely known or how big the story really is.

Let me make a prediction here. You're going to mock Cassy again in the near future. You're going to call her names and make snide remarks about pulling information from her body parts. I may be wrong, but history shows me that it's certainly likely.

I gave my own opinion of Cassy's style in a previous comment. But I will say this for her; she has shown remarkable restraint in the face of some pretty vile language directed toward her.

Restraint you don't even have a passing acquaintance with. I would have banned you a long time ago.

using some pretty strong... (Below threshold)
Brian:

using some pretty strong language. Language like "enraged" and "apoplexy".

Yes, strong language. So? Is anyone here complaining of a weak constitution? I respond in appropriate measure to the source. Let's compare my language with some of Cassy's recent, which includes phrases such as: [im]mature, sickening, smug, condescending, effin', better than this clown, BS, screw the American flag, arrogant, egotism, narcissism, anyone with half a brain, morons, stupidest, and Nazi brownshirts.

I can see how "enraged" might cross the line set by the above. (sarcasm, fyi)

Let me make a prediction here. You're going to mock Cassy again in the near future. You're going to call her names

I thought you were a fan of predictions "born of a verifiable history". I called no one names.

and make snide remarks about pulling information from her body parts. I may be wrong, but history shows me that it's certainly likely.

You're probably right. History shows she will probably do so (metaphorically), and so it's likely someone will call her on it.

she has shown remarkable restraint in the face of some pretty vile language directed toward her.

I'll let you take that up with those who may have directed vile language at her. But certainly, as shown above, Cassy is quite accomplished at dishing out the same.

I feel Cassy uses too much provocative language, paints with too broad a brush and repeats herself too often. But that's just a personal critique that I think she or someone else might resonably consider.

Well, that's a mighty dispassionate assessment that you reserve for someone on the right. Meanwhile, those on the left who "paint with too broad a brush" are routinely disemvoweled, and someone who uses far less harsh language than Cassy deserves, in your opinion, to be banned.

I'd say you have interesting standards, but that would be repeating myself.

"routinely disemvoweled"?</... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

"routinely disemvoweled"?

You are kidding, right?

As anyone who reads Wizbang regularly knows, dismvoweling is an occasional occurance.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy