I thought this analysis posted by Rageneau on a thread at Democratic Underground was not only perceptive, but an excellent opportunity to state what the cartoon has evolved into during the course of the past few years-
Rageneau: Here's my take on all four of these (commenting upon four cartoons).
Panel one: Passer-by Christian (named FaithMouse) sees Dem and Rep arguing the Bible, but sees both are wrong (note Bible is upside down), Panel two. In a spirit of brotherhood, FaithMouse shows them how to read the book and teaches that the whole point is to love each other. Panel three. Persuaded she has brought peace and truth and hope and light to the two political partisans, FaithMouse goes on her way, happy and fulfilled. Panel four: But it turns out the political partisans don't want to hear the REAL message of the Bible; they want to use it as a weapon -- which they do, against their common enemy: someone who puts brotherly love above partisan politics.
Panel One :FaithMouse checks in on her old rightwing pal, Mallard the Duck, who is drinking heavilly because the Democrats have just taken over. FaithMouse tries to stop Mallard from doing something foolish -- like roaring off full of booze and rage. Panel two. But off Mallard goes anyway, a menace to himself and others, blind with furor from losing the election. (Note that his vehicle makes the annoying rightwing noise "Freep" as it roars along.) Panel three: Like a typical wingnut, Mallard would rather that everyone die rather than not get his own way, so he takes aim at a vehicle full of the people he most hates (a bunch of lefties in a V-W bus) and crashes into them, killing himself, them, and any chance for peaceful, harmonious political change.
Panel One. Rank-and-file fatcat Republicans can't believe that the idiot evangelicals in their party are supporting a backwards fundamentalist preacher (Huckabee). They are telling the evangelicals, in no uncertain terms, what a headache they are causing the Party. Panel two: The evangelicals are gone, but before leaving, have responded by shoving their Bible right up the Party's big fat Republican nose.(IOW, they may sit out the election).
In Panel One, FaithMouse has reminded a fellow 'believer' that Jesus taught we should remove the plank in our own eye before we point out the speck in another person's. (i.e., Our own faults are usually worse than those we criticize in others.) But the angry partisan will have none of that. He arrogantly insists that Jesus's words do not apply in this particular case, and that FaithMouse is trying to protect someone who doesn't deserve protecting. Panel two. This angry partisan now becomes angry with FaithMouse for suggesting that he not criticize his enemy, presumptuously insisting that even Jesus himself would agree that, in this case, his criticisms of his opponent are well-deserved. Panel three. Now the angry partisan -- threatened by the suggestion he might be in the wrong, accuses FaithMouse of KNOWING that he is right and that even Jesus KNOWS he is right. And since everybody including Jesus KNOWS that angry partisan is right, then maybe the "plank'" is in FaithMouse's eye and not his own. Panel four: Whereupon Jesus demonstrates to him that the 'plank' in question is unquestionably in his OWN eye, because Jesus himself sticks it there.
followed by my comments.