As a Republican and one of five children of a multiethnic family (Mexican father, Anglo mother), I am highly offended by the editorial cartoon in the Feb. 6 Daily News: “Republican Response to the Super Bowl Commercials.”

It depicts a vile looking character identified as a Republican ranting about the recent commercials complaining about Coke being the official drink of illegal aliens, Cheerios endorsing “Mixed-Race Breeding” and saying the Budweiser ad with the cute little puppy shows what gay marriage will eventually lead to.

Seriously, Mr. editor, is that the best political cartoon you could post today?

We’ve got a health care law that’s causing companies to shift people like my cousin and his entire crew from full-time to part-time work and causing millions of Americans to lose the insurance plan our President promised them they could keep.

We’ve got an IRS that is deliberately persecuting conservatives, possibly on orders “from the highest authority.”

We’ve got an administration that repeatedly lied to the American people about the circumstances surrounding the murder of a U.S. Ambassador. We have a President who shows disdain for the Constitution and the separation of powers.

We have a Democratic Senate Majority leader who refuses to allow votes on bills presented by his Republican colleagues.

It amazes me that with these issues and a multitude of others, you chose that cartoon.

Aren’t you aware that the liberal buffoons at MSNBC have already been called out about saying the same thing as your cartoon about the Cheerios “mixed-race” ad? They’ve apologized and fired the staffer who tweeted those remarks.

We Republicans couldn’t care less about what brand of soda illegal aliens drink. We just want our border secured and the invasion stopped. Many mixed-race Republican and conservative families tweeted pictures of their multiracial families to MSNBC to show that they don’t just talk diversity, they live it. 

As a person with a couple of gay and lesbian cousins, I really don’t care who marries whom. So much for your ridiculous cartoon.

I suggest you develop a more “fair and balanced” editorial cartoon policy. As a subscriber, I want you to start publishing the conservative political cartoons of two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

They would bring to light some of the more pressing issues of the day in a much more entertaining way than the offensive and wildly off-base cartoon you published Thursday.

Chris J. Gutiérrez lives in Tiki Island.

(39) comments

Norman Pappous

Way to go Chris!

Lisa Gray

I can't believe the Daily News actually published Mr. Gutierrez letter! The paper, as with most so called journalism in the US today, needs to take a closer look at their reader demographic and understand that there are far more conservatives out there than they realize. Not everyone is a liberal, especially in this county. I applaud Mr. Gutierrez for his letter and am certainly pleased that the paper published it. The way conservatives are portrayed in the media is usually very wrong.

Lars Faltskog

Shame on you, Daily News. You should be frequenting the cowboy dance halls in the rural parts of the county, taking notes at the gun rifling ranges and at the Cavenders Boot City. Go sit in those pews of the churches of christs and gods. Get more of those timeless words of wisdom from the "old time religion" crowd.

Find more of the upright denizens of suburbia in League City and find the real "chew". Gotta get on the beat and bend more of an ear to our good 'ol conservatives. And, get to reportin' the RIGHT way!

Carlos Ponce

That ridiculous cartoon does not represent any Republican I know. However it does reinforce the false perception of the GOP held by those on the left. GDN should know its audience lest they lose more subscribers.

Jim Forsythe

Just remember, what someone finds entertaining another may find offensive. Humor most of the time requires that someone or group is the blunt of homer. When I was doing training my boss would not let me tell jokes or show cartoons,
“I suggest you develop a more “fair and balanced” editorial cartoon policy. As a subscriber, I want you to start publishing the conservative political cartoons of two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez“.
If GDN does as you suggest,. they will probably offend someone else. If your reason for writing this was for GDN not to publish offensive cartoons , then call for them not to publish any. If this is not your reason then you just want them to offend someone else just not you.
Myself, if I do not find most cartoons offensive, but just wonder what kind of mind it came from.
“GDN should know its audience lest they lose more subscribers” which may happen if they publish any cartoons , not just conservative or non conservative cartoons.

Carlos Ponce

As long as the cartoons are balanced, I have no problem. Pure left or right would be dull. There should be a place, since it appears on the editorial page, to comment on each. So GDN should include a separate "Editorial Cartoon" Forum section under "Opinion" so we may agree or disagree with what is being displayed.

Lars Faltskog

Well...The truth hurts. Since the turn of this century, the republicans have been the sector that harbors the intolerant. The party itself became so dysfunctional that the GOP, already "on 10" before the Tea Partiers did their breakout antics, quickly cemented the notion that conservative equals "hate". No wonder the GOP and the Tea Partiers are in disarray and losing what little popularity they had for a short time, respectively.

Carlos Ponce

The GOP and TEA Partiers are not in disarray. They have a "big tent " that allows people to voice differing viewpoints. On the other hand, in the Progressive Liberal Democratic Party, you must march in lock step with a single ideology. They are intolerant of differing philosophies. We'll see who is dysfunctional come November.

Kevin Lang

Yeah, kind of like what you said about the Republicans on the Finance committee that almost got an ACA passed with Republican votes. It sure didn't sound like you "welcome" them into your part of the tent. I don't know if Paul Ryan is wearing out his welcome with you, but I have heard the noise surrounding his working with Patty Murray on the budget deal. There are definitely questions about how welcome any Republican or Tea Partier is if they happen to come to an agreement with a Democrat over anything more pressing than where the nearest rest room is or which horizon the sun will rise over tomorrow.

Carlos Ponce

sverige, I'm glad I kept last Sunday's GDN, list of candidates on page A4. If the Republicans are so "dysfunctional" why no Democratic opposition in 15 local positions? You may say they are unimportant but I'd dare say to challenge in only 6 out of 21 positions is a bit thin. So that answers the question: "How many Democrats does it take to fill a County ballot?" SIX! And you say "the GOP and the Tea Partiers are in disarray and losing what little popularity they had." Really?

Kevin Lang

Perhaps the Democrats are making conservative use of their donor's money, while the Republicans are liberally spending like there's no tomorrow and that their donor's pockets are bottomless :-)

Carlos Ponce

Elections are good for the economy. The sign makers, the button makers, the "Vote for Me" mail-outs all make money every two years. I personally would like to see a political cartoon where a couple is DELIGHTED to get political junk-mail in their mailbox. They then gleefully burn them for fuel during a cold night. (Note: Don't do this: the fumes might poison you!)

Kevin Lang

I put them in the recycle bin so they can be used as paper source for the next campaign. They serve no real useful purpose except to note the candidates that felt that I wasn't worth the effort of sending a card or letter to.

Steve Fouga

Personally, I have no use for political cartoons that AREN'T offensive. If they're not offensive, what purpose do they serve. And I agree with carlosponce that their use should be balanced -- the far left and far right are both hilarious as far as I'm concerned, and equally worthy of derision.

Ah, the joys of being an independent voter. No party line to kowtow to, no stupid politicians to follow, no ridiculous causes or misguided "principles" to support blindly. Neither Republican nor Democrat, conservative or liberal. It does require that I learn something about the candidates and exercise some conscience when I vote, but the reward is the knowledge that at least I used good sense.

Kevin Lang

Trying to recall, but somewhere around here I think I heard something about what non-Christians should do if they see Christmas trees Nativity Scenes, and the like all over the place during November and December? Wasn't the consensus that those non-Christians have every right to be offended at such displays? Oh, wait, that was during my vacation in the parallel universe. Come to think of it, I think the response was that those non-Christians should suck it up, turn their heads, and ignore it. Or convert and enjoy.

It's satire. Sometimes it rubs people the wrong way, and sometimes it goes overboard. If you overreact, you have a greater chance at fortifying the satirical statement than you have of convincing the publisher's of their fallacy.

It reminds me a bit of the adage that you can't teach a pig to sing. Even better is the quip about arguing with an idiot, which is what people at the two ends of the spectrum think about each other. With so many of those types of arguments, it gets to the point where you can't tell them apart anymore.

Reminds me about the part of geometric theory that if you continue along a line long enough, at a point, you'll find you're on the other end of the line. In other words, if you get conservative enough, you'll eventually meet up with the far leftists. All things considered, I'd rather the two sides meet in the middle than the extreme. I think it would scare me more to find out the hard way that they're just like me, than to meet in the miiddle and still be able to entertain a belief that we're still different.

Carlos Ponce

I always wondered where school bullies got their inspiration, now I know it comes from their elders. Some political cartoons are satire if extrapolated on fact. Others are bullying if based on fallacious perceptions and are mean spirited in nature.
Also kevjlang, since a line is infinite and has no width or depth, the concept that "you're on the other end of the line" has no meaning. If you are on the line you will always be collinear. There is no "end" of a line in geometry. It goes on forever and ever and can be defined or named by two collinear points or given a single letter name usually italicized. If you are not collinear then you are least coplanar.

Kevin Lang

Yes, there is really no such thing as being in the middle. What we call the political spectrum is probably better represented as a line segment. We just don't have the definitive coordinates of the end points. In fact, we don't even know the exact coordinates of anyone's actual beliefs.

However, I think that when we really get down to it, even the most liberal of us and the most conservative of us has much more in common than not. That is probably the most painful realization of all for the politicians that claim to represent the extremes. However, until we all own up to that realization, we'll continue to behave like compromise is a sign of weakness or "liberalizing conservatism or swinging liberalism to the right". Until we realize that hanging separately is not preferable to hanging together, the political rhetoric is what will continue to clog the political process.

I do concur that most of the bully traits are developed by mimicking or re-interpreting the behavior of the elders. I guess the first bully kind of figured it out on his own, so there is a certain amount of innate tendency, I guess, but I think it takes a lot more than a political cartoon to ingrain the behavior.

I practically never open up the physical paper, and even more rarely do I look at political cartoons. I used to find some charm in Jack Anderson's cartoons, because he was usually an equal opportunity satirist. However, in all the times I have looked at political cartoons, neither I nor others that I discussed them with believed that they were attempting to depict reality, but just putting a charicature on some aspect of perception. I remember seeing many political cartoons depicting Nixon with a long nose, or Reagan coated with Teflon. Never for a moment did I ever believe that Nixon's nose was truly growing in lenght, nor that nothing would or could ever stick to Reagan.

Carlos Ponce

True political satire is tricky. The targets of real satire don't initially realize it. Good satirists are William Shakespeare and Jonathan Swift who wrote pamphlets for both the Torries and the Whigs.

Gary Miller

Tell a big lie long enough and loud enough some will think it's the truth.
The liberal media joined liberal politicians in calling conservatives biggots, racists and homophobes.
That lie repeated long and loud for decades convinced some people it was true. The only people who really believe it are liberals. Conservatives know it's a lie because they aren't what the lie claims.
Political polling for over 20 years indicate twice as many Americans are conservative as liberal.

Jim Forsythe

IHOG said
“Political polling for over 20 years indicate twice as many Americans are conservative as liberal“.
If this is true, who elected President Barack Obama?. It would seem with this many conservatives it must have been them. Liberals would not have had enough votes!
So if you “Tell a big lie long enough and loud enough some will think it's the truth” quoted from IHOG.

Richard Worth

The party that believes rape is a "gift from God" has been offended.


Lars Faltskog

What I find interesting nowadays are the "conservative" political ads on TV, especially local/Texas. They love to depict the candidates in their younger days supporting our "beloved" Ronnie Reagan.

All I recall back then was how he was already losing his faculties, ignored the AIDs crisis, and was a detached parent to his two youngest children. Great guy. YOU GO, GOPS!!!!!!

Tifosi, remember when Clayton W. a few years ago made his comparison of bad weather to rape? Real side splittin', wasn't it? The sad part is that many folks still think that kind of thing is funny....and I think our own in-house IHOG is one of them. Yet, they don't realize that's what their party represents these days, plain and simple.

Carlos Ponce

There you go again, sverige, the term AIDS was not even in use when Reagan was first elected and doctors did not have a handle on it when he left office in January of 1989. Did you ever check the website at like I asked you? President Reagan 's administration poured tons of money into AIDS research once it was named.
By the way, love your new PAX CHRISTI Icon.

GW Cornelius

Sounds like a perfect world time for the GOP to join the rest of the world.

Carlos Ponce

Why would the GOP want to join the rest of the world? The rest of the World is coming to the United States for Freedom, Liberty, and the ideals set up in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. You should be be joining the GOP in preserving these ideals, the very things that draw people to the United States.
Everywhere around the world
They're coming to America
Every time that flag's unfurled
They're coming to America

Got a dream to take them there
They're coming to America
Got a dream they've come to share
They're coming to America

Just do it LEGALLY.

Carlos Ponce

Since I cannot respond to CHRIS MALLIOS's Letter to the Editor Directly, I will respond to it here. The problem, Chris, is that the cartoon reinforces some misconceptions about the attitudes held by Republicans, Conservatives amd members of the TEA Party. The views expressed in the cartoon don't represent those of any Conservative I know. Chris writes that it was an accurate description of the TEA party. No it is not. He referred to on-line discussions. Did the writers identify themselves as TEA party members, Republicans, or Conservatives or did he simply ASSUME they were? Well you know what they say about people who ASSUME. And if they stated they were members a red flag should go up. Just like that man who showed up at a TEA party rally with racist signs who was actually a DEMOCRAT. His goal was to discredit them.

Lars Faltskog

Response to carlosrponce posted at 12:07 pm on Fri, Feb 14, 2014:

Sounds like every republican (and now newfangled TeaPartier) I've met. Ask anyone other than "their own", and a non-Republican or non-Tea Partier will say that, for the most part, republicans are invaders of private lives and suspicious of diverse populace.

By the way, of course, at first, Ronnie Reagan and the executive office was in its infancy in response to the up-and-coming AIDs epidemic. Point is that, initially, for his first term in particular, Reagan made no moves to address the problem and was blatently in refusal to finance investigative means to try to figure out the crisis. Political scholars of most every background admit to that sobering reality.

Carlos Ponce

sverige, you can claim anything you want. As for me, the character depicted in the cartoon represents No Republican, No TEA Party member , NO Conservative, No Libertarian I've ever met, and I know thousands. I still think it is someone trying to discredit the Conservative movement if they claim they are.

Lars Faltskog

And to add to my latest post, Reagan's own advisors urged him to address the AIDs crisis. He did not do so until the last year of his 2nd term.

Carlos Ponce

Let's see. AIDS did not get named until September 24, 1982 by the CDC. Reagan took office in January 1981. Reagan signed the Bill passed by Congress authorizing $12,000,000 for research and treatment in May 1983. . This occurred during his SECOND year of his FIRST term, not the last year of his 2nd term. Check your sources sverige!
Source. AIDS.GOV

Kevin Lang

Technicality: May 1993 would have been during the 3rd year of Reagan's first term. His second year ended in January 1983.

Carlos Ponce

You made a slight error, 1993 for 1983 and I made a slight error, second for third but either way it occurred during his first term. My faux pas happened because I was thinking of the year the term AIDS came into existence. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Kevin Lang

Yeah, May 1993 would have been his 13th year, and 5th in violation of the Constitution. Many would have willingly forgiven Reagan for that transgression, but, alas, he participated in the orderly transition to his duly-elected successor at the end of his 8th year in office.

Your error was forgiven the moment I read it. I just had to call it out anyway. I have a reputation to uphold :-) I hope you forgive my keyboard for failing to type in the right character [beam]

Carlos Ponce

AIDS funding continued during President Reagan's Administration, almost doubling each year from 1983 from $44 million to $103 million in 1984, $205 million in 1985, $508 million in 1986, $922 million in 1987, and then $1.6 billion in 1988. Reagan’s secretary of Health and Human Services in1983, Margaret Heckler, declared AIDS her department’s "number one priority."
So sverige, your statement:"Reagan made no moves to address the problem and was blatently (sic) in refusal to finance investigative means to try to figure out the crisis." is false.


Kevin Lang

I think Reagan bucked not only his own fundamental beliefs, but even more bucked the Fundamentalist Christian philosophy that AIDS was less a public health issue and more a morality issue. In those early years, perhaps more concentrated in the conservative wings, but rampant throughout the spectrum, was the belief that AIDS was a gay man's disease. Even as it became known to also be growing amongst the intravenous drug users, it remained more, in many people's minds, to be a morality crisis than a health crisis. Politically, it became much easier to gain funding acceptance as it began to be seen as a public health issue (not crisis).

I think that today, only the staunchest of Fundamentalists see AIDS as a morality disease. But, during the 80s, everyone was unsure of how contagious it is, how hazardous it was outside the Gay and Drug communities, and just how much time, money, and effort should be spent on figuring it out.

Lars Faltskog

Response to carlosrponce posted at 12:54 pm on Fri, Feb 14, 2014:

From -

"We take a look at the Reagan administration blatant refusal to deal with the issue of AIDS while thousands of Americans were dying from the disease. We speak with Andy Humm of Gay USA who confronted Reagan in 1987 when he first addressed the issue near the end of his second term..." Link -

The article, in short, says Reagan finally addressed the AIDs issue in May 1987, which was near the end of his 2nd term. Even back then (and beginning with Nixon in the 70s), the Republicans have had the reputation of being the party of uncaring and misphilanthropy (which is the opposite of true philanthropy).

Carlos Ponce

Really? as your resource to this debate? Do you HONESTLY expect an unbiased, truthful response from them?
Don't you trust for an unbiased representation of the facts without bias?
FACTS: AIDS named on September 24, 1982.
1983 Health and Human Resources Director Margaret Heckler in the Reagan administration declared AIDS her department’s "number one priority."
1983: $44, 000, 000.00
1984: $103, 000, 000.00
1985: $205, 000, 000.00
1986: $508, 000, 000.00
1987: $922, 000, 000.00
1988: $1, 600, 000, 000.00
I hate to repeat myself but these are the facts, sverige. With the exception of the last two entries all were before May 1987.
You FAIL to prove your point that the Reagan administration refused to deal with AIDS. If the BILLIONS spent on research and treatment don't convince you, I don't know what will.

Lars Faltskog

Response to carlosrponce posted at 6:25 pm on Fri, Feb 14, 2014:

Reagan was forced by his advisors to include those moneys within general health research fund monies. What was more disturbing was that there exist recorded conversations between he and some of his advisors who downplayed the disease.

Funds allocated or not, he personally did not address the issue in public until 1987.

Carlos Ponce

Gee, if he were President BO, Reagan would have called a news conference, patted himself on the back, announced the "End of Aids". Instead he followed Mathew 6: “Watch out! Don’t do your good deeds publicly, to be admired by others, for you will lose the reward from your Father in heaven."
Yes I remember when he was " forced by his advisors to include those moneys within general health research fund monies". They hogtied him and threatened to send him to his room with out supper if he did not sign the legislation. [wink] Reagan used to play a game people call "Devil's Advocate" to get his advisors' real thoughts, unlike some Presidents who like to be surrounded by "Yes " men. I'm sure the recorded conversations show plenty of this and when taken out of context look bad.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.