Tom Toles for November 09, 2012

yup

Grover Norquist is the organ grinder. Boehner is only the monkey.

Back to normal.

I just KNEW ‘he’ was a girl in drag.

When you have to put a name tag on your drawing so people know to whom you’re referring it’s time to spring for some art classes.

It’s that little Boehn-headed kid!

What negotiation? The democrats’ idea of compromise is for everyone else to give up what they want and do things exactly as they are told by the democrats.

Before Charlie Brown decided to trust Lucy, he always thought it out. He usually thought that this time, Lucy was bound to let him kick it, tho on occasions, he thought he could kick it before she pulled it away. While readers sometimes shook their heads sadly at Charlie Browns naivete, readers rarely had a positive opinion of Lucy after her betrayals.I hope Obama tries to kick the ball. But I hope he lambastes Boehnor in the media if he jerks the ball at the last minute.I also hope he is ready to do the same to Dems who fail to work in good faith with the Republicans. Our nation needs legislators who will work together, and a president who is ready to raise hell if they don’t.Respectfully,C.

This time around, Obama will have to learn the art of negotiation from Bill Clinton… Clinton always went straight to the public with an “Aw, shucks… Here’s what I offered; can you believe they wouldn’t take it?” kind of sad, passive-aggressive disappointment. Put the details out there.Letting Boehner and McConnell make vague statements about how the President won’t meet with them, and letting them have the public eye was a big mistake.

What? No crocodile tears?

Is it your contention that elections do not (or should not) have consequences? Or that Obama’s team did not win? Dick Armey, who said bipartisanship is “date rape” was a leader of which party?

I would like to take seriously Conservatives commenting here. They say that the GOP is willing to negotiate a deal in good faith, and that the Democrats refuse. That the DP will not meet them in the middle when it comes to raising revenue or cutting spending. Romney said that he wanted to cut tax rates and make up the difference by eliminating deductions, subsidies, etc. So here’s my question to everybody on this discussion: What government programs, deductions, subsidies, or spending are you willing to give up for the good of your country and its fiscal future — that directly benefit you? Another example might be a government job that you hold, or a government benefit that you receive that you would be happy to see eliminated. Things that hurt you, and not just somebody else. For example, I would be perfectly willing to give up the subsidy I receive for purchasing my house from taxpayers who rent, which is call the “mortgage interest deduction.” I would be perfectly willing to give up the subsidy I receive for my church giving from non-religious taxpayers that is the “charitable gifts” deduction. Simple question, people. What are you willing to give up for the good of the country?

Ansonia, you are right. At the first meeting in 2009, he did tell that to Republicans. It was not helpful or wise, but, it was after a hard fought election and 8 years of what the newly sworn in president considered bad faith governing. It was still, not helpful, or wise.That was then. This is now.He has had four years to plan this next four. He actually did accomplish many things for many people. But the most important things need Republican input. The healthcare bill was a lifeboat thrown into the water to save people in immediate need. It needs to be turned into a full fledged “hospital ship”. We need to build from what we have to what we should have and what we can afford. If you keep fighting the last war, you’ll never make it to a place of peace.Be here now. Write your republican leaders and tell them in respectful words to which they can listen, what you want from your government.I know Obama is not the devil you fear him to be, but I don’t know how to prove it to you. Getting some replies back from your elected officials might help.Respectfully,C.

All he’d have to say is, “Oops! I always miss that darn ball.”

Mitch McConnell just announced that this term their number one goal is to make sure Obama isn’t elected to a third term.

Have you forgotten the “Party of No” already??? Or are you desperately trying revisionist history already?Richard Mourdock: “‘Compromise’ Means Democrats Agree with Republicans” http://tinyurl.com/bcwv83c

Lugar’s tea party opponent: ‘Compromise’ means Democrats join Republicans http://tinyurl.com/amblgp4

Perhaps this will also refresh your memory a bit: http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers

O wants Pelosi holding the ball for him and Reid as the referee. He still hasn’t accepted the fact that half the country does not agree with his far-Left policies. There’s a reason the Republicans hold the house and 30 of the states governors.

They were “quoted” saying that?Where?-I believe TTM was referring to this:

”I certainly think bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view. If we [win the House, Senate, and White House], bipartisanship means they have to come our way, and if we’re successful in getting the numbers, we’ll work towards that.”

“OUr sole job is to deny President Obama a second term”. Now that they lost that “battle”, their mantra hasn’t really changed, and with the majority they still hold, won’t.

With the Election over can we now ignore the bluster coming from people like Grover Norquist ? Pure & simple taxes must be raised on those earning over 250K & in return Democrats have agreed to spending cuts. Without these compromises we’re playing a huge game of chicken with the fiscal cliff that’s quickly approaching.

You’re welcome, Ansonia. (In case I missed you thanking me for providing your requested quotes of Republicans proudly saying that compromise means the Democrats do what the Republicans want.)

By “history”, I assume you’re referring to Richard Mourdock not winning his race. While this is true, I think his quote is held up as the epitome of the current crop of Republican attitude to governance. The fact that he said the very thing that many see as tea-partier’s approach, means that it will be referrenced weather Mr. Mourdock is in office or not.

The right will push us off the fiscal cliff. That will show us.

Boehner’s gonna sure be surprised when Obama runs up and kicks him in the @ss instead! ;-)

89% want the 1% to pay more tax, equal to what we pay. But NO, they won’t change!

Someone tell Ima that Obama won.

As a Canadian watching the US gridlock, safely over the border, I can easily say that it’s the Reps who have tried to block the President since day one; you might recall how the first GOP reaction to his election was that they were going to make sure he was a 1 term President by refusing to work with him, secondly, Obama practically bent over backwards to compromise with the Reps on his health care bill (It eventually became more of a Rep bill than OB’s), but they STILL wanted to scrap it, don’t tell me it’s the Dems who were obstructionist; the rest of the World knows the truth! (Fortunately, we aren’t bombarded by the lies of Fox “news”, here!)

Most of Obama’s health care plan was Romney’s, Dole’s, etc. But when faced with a Democrat who wanted to implement it, they stonewalled. They also voted against an immigration plan they had co-sponsored. Obama did not trash trash the welfare-to-work law. He gave governors the ability to show they could do a better job, which is what they said they wanted until they got it. And he blocked a PORTION of the pipeline because the REPUBLICAN legislature and governor in Nebraska had major concerns about the route through the aquifer. It don’t matter how much oil you have if you can’t water your crops or your stock, or drink it if it’s polluted!