The Haunting Question (Updated)

This is an updated version of a cartoon I did twenty-some years ago. Partisans on either flank will no doubt cry foul, but I stand by my observation. If anything, I’ve left out too many of their worst traits.

It’s a crying shame, watching this slow motion descent into total dysfunction. If anyone really believed the Democrats were going to right the ship of state, this week’s bungle-fest should make it clear that their agenda is in serious jeopardy.

Just a few months ago, Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm was giddy at the prospect of doling out billions of dollars to unions and cities for the Democrats’ grandiose green agenda. Now she’s become invisible, probably smacking herself in the forehead as she watches the President talk himself out of a bi-partisan infrastructure bill that promised to at least begin to patch the holes in our crumbling corner of civilization.

We’ll see if he’s as good a negotiator as he thinks he is, but the window of opportunity is closing fast for any legislation in 2021, and ’22 will be another shit-slinging election cycle. Redistricting, strict voter laws and new seats in red states give the Repudlicans a decided advantage unless the Dems can make good on their promises.

And if that comes to pass, the Neanderthal Party will effectively shut down the government until 2024.

And then the cycle begins again…

This entry was posted in History, Inept vs. Insane, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to The Haunting Question (Updated)

  1. Michael Kesti says:

    I’ve long respected that you don’t stoop to name-calling and regret that I have now lost that respect.

    • rlcrabb says:

      And I regret that the current state of the union has sunk to this level of scheming and stupidity. “Inept v. Insane” was not meant to be complimentary, and can be interchangeable with either faction.

      • Michael Kesti says:

        I see “Inept v. Insane” as justifiable judgments rather than name-calling and that these terms are indeed interchangeable. My reference was to, “Neanderthal Party” which is obviously pointed at one faction and in no way justified. Perhaps we will have less to regret when we less readily call names.

  2. Barry Pruett says:

    #truenews

  3. Bill Rolland says:

    Yikes – did you really use “atheistic” as an insulting pejorative meant to vilify and degrade? Can you explain why you believe “atheistic” should be paired with “criminal”?

  4. RL CRABB says:

    These are terms that each side throws at the other. “Criminal” is meant to be paired with “apologist”, referring to progressive policies regarding the abolition of, bail, police defunding and revolving door justice. Perhaps I could have been clearer if I put atheist next to Marxist. I certainly see a lot of anti-religion coming from the hard left.

  5. Bill Rolland says:

    You’re being evasive – you did not explain why you view “atheist” as a pejorative and agree with that characterization (“what if they’re both right”). No matter what you intended to pair with criminal, you still use “atheist” here as a slur. Still waiting for an explanation that contains even a hint of honesty.

    • Chris Peterson says:

      “You’re being evasive”
      And you’re chasing a parked car.

      Try to imagine two guys standing at a street corner, each being of the opposing political bent. One calls the other an “atheist.” The other counters with “religious fanatic.”

      Now imagine neither one is Bob; he’s just an observer in this scenario. That’s when you enter and begin demanding to know why he used such language, because by gawd, you take offense to atheist not being used as a positive description IN A FUCKING CARTOON!

      Add it all up, Mr. Rolland, and you come across as a very silly man.

      By the way, I’m an agnostic, but I’ve never been called that by a trumper, because they haven’t a clue what that means. Matter of fact, I was once called an atheist and when I corrected the man and said, “No, I’m an agnostic”, the guy said, “Oh… well…OK then.”

  6. rlcrabb says:

    I see religious intolerance every day while scrolling through the endless maze of social media, and so I included it. That’s all. No hidden agenda here. You’ll note that I included religious extremists on the other side of the coin. If I wanted to portray their disdain for Democrats, baby eating Satan-worshippers might have been more accurate.

  7. Bill Rolland says:

    Shorter Chris Peterson: I got nothing. Maybe I’ll try swearing, SCREAMING, and name-calling
    rlcrabb: Again, you’re evading the question: why do you agree that “atheist” is “the other side of the coin” of “religious extremists” and “religious intolerance”? I get it if you can’t or won’t explain (it’s your blog so you’re free to draw/write anything you want) but at least have the courage and honesty to say so

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What is 4 + 12 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
Please solve this math problem so we know that you are a human :-)