Jim Borgman has been the Enquirer's editorial cartoonist since 1976. Borgman has won every major award in his field, including the 1991 Pulitzer Prize, the National Cartoonists Society's Reuben Award for Outstanding Cartoonist of the Year in 1993, and most recently, the Adamson Award in 2005 as International Cartoonist of the Year. His award-winning daily comic strip Zits, co-created with Jerry Scott, chronicles the life of 15-year-old Jeremy Duncan, his family and friends through the glories and challenges of the teenage years. Since debuting in July 1997, Zits has regularly finished #1 in reader comics polls across America and is syndicated in more than 1300 newspapers around the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 Comments:
at 3/26/07, 5:21 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 3/26/07, 8:48 PM 
JohnDWoodSr said...
-
-
at 3/27/07, 8:06 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 3/27/07, 2:21 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 3/27/07, 3:04 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 3/27/07, 4:01 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 3/28/07, 9:28 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 3/28/07, 1:24 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 3/28/07, 1:28 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
Post a Comment*tsk tsk. you know what this country needs? another full-blown, down and dirty watergate. none of this sensationalized tabloid politics junk.
Jim, please tell me you are just playing the devils advocate here, or that the rest of the editorial board threatened your family if you didn't draw this cartoon.
If this actually represents your views, I'm very disappointed that you missed so badly on this issue.
Just two components of this mess involve the politicization of the Justice Department and lying to Congress, and this is lame? Would it take a tawdry sex scandal to "un-lame" it?
Cliton fired ALL of them. Every single one.
Where was the outrage?
Anon: Read up on the details, please.
Here is a good example:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17801225/
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday dismissed any comparison between the firing last fall of eight U.S. attorneys with the replacement of 93 U.S. attorneys when her husband became president in 1993.
"That's a traditional prerogative of an incoming president," Clinton said in an interview with The Associated Press.
She conceded that should she win the presidency in 2008, she likely would replace all of the U.S. attorneys appointed by President Bush. She said that's merely following traditions in which presidents appoint prosecutors of their own party.
93 v 8 - just the details.
As i, i and i posted :
– Of the 468 confirmations made by the Senate over a 25-year period, only 10 left office involuntarily for reasons other than a change in administration prior to the firings that took place in December.
– In virtually all of those 10 previous cases, serious issues of personal or professional conduct appeared to be the driving issue. Prior to December, for example, only two U.S. Attorneys were outright fired for improper, and in one case criminal, behavior. The CRS report identifies six other U.S. Attorneys who resigned during the 25-year period who were implicated in news reports of “questionable conduct.” For two others, the CRS was unable to determine the cause.
In other words, the Bush administration pushed out almost as many U.S. Attorneys in December as had been let go over the past 25 years.
(In other words it's different.)
Cliton fired ALL of them. Every single one.
Where was the outrage?
If you really don't understand the difference between Bush's actions and Clinton's, read this column:
When a president takes office, he or she nominates federal prosecutors at the beginning of the first term. Under normal circumstances, these U.S. Attorneys serve until the next president is sworn in.
In 1993, Clinton replaced H.W. Bush’s prosecutors. In 2001, Bush replaced Clinton’s prosecutors. None of this is remotely unusual. Indeed, it’s how the process is designed.
The difference with the current scandal is overwhelming. Bush replaced eight specific prosecutors, apparently for purely political reasons. This is entirely unprecedented. For conservatives to argue, as many are now, that Clinton’s routine replacements for H.W. Bush’s USAs is any way similar is the height of intellectual dishonesty. They know better, but hope their audience is too uninformed to know the difference.
Need more? How about this: All of Clinton's replacements required Senate approval. All of them. Bush's replacements were able to side-step that requirement due to a provision in the USA Patriot Act. A misuse of power? I would argue the country deserves to know the truth.
I think this cartoon is right on board with the status of the current political climate in this country. The media is constantly looking for the next story, and the President and his administration are good for that, however, this is not a scandal. These individuals are political appointees that serve at the pleaseure of the President. Regardless of party afiliation, they can hire and fire at their discretion, even if only for strictly policical reasons. We certainly can't condone it as okay one minute and then not the next because we are unhappy with the process. Even though the situations are different between what Clinton did in 1993 and Bush now in 2007, the fact remains the same. They employment or status was determined strictly by political means. Even if Bush did this to avoid allowing the Democratic congress to dictate his nominees, it is the process we live within.
could you draw a cartoon about Michael Flannery he's done so much and he leaves ch9 at the end of the week.
thanks
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.
<< Home