Comments (45) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   Sheik Yerbouti said, almost 3 years ago

   And so Roland misses out on a Pulitzer prize. And in a parallel universe, SP’s just as wacky as she is here.
2. 

   hawgowar said, almost 3 years ago

   Roland is like a cross between a teddy bear, a scapegoat and a whipping boy.
3. 

   gmartin997 said, almost 3 years ago

   Did I miss something on Saturday?
4. 

   Inkgag said, almost 3 years ago

   I love that parallel universe bit. Now that’s what I’m talking about!
5. 

   Sandfan said, almost 3 years ago

   Trudeau seems to be suffering from a small case of artistic constipation. This is a pretty lame arc.
6. 

   Yukoneric said, almost 3 years ago

   Palin gets in the oval office and some of us are moving to Haiti.
7. 

   ButchInWaukegan said, almost 3 years ago

   “I know you’ve been through a lot, Ma’am. But we need you to stand in front of the burning house and say ‘Channel Six is Hot Hot Hot!’”

   — Kent Brockman
8. 

   dfowensby said, almost 3 years ago

   when is he gonna dump roland AND the palin? this is getting to be a snoozer of a strip.
9. 

   BrianCrook said, almost 3 years ago

   That is a great quote, Butchin. Where is it from?

   I am a bit surprised in the turn DOONESBURY took. I expected a week on Wasilla, an Alaskan meth center. I wonder whether the refudiatress was too good to pass up. It is a story much more recent than Sarah Palin’s tall fence.

   I understand that Sarah Palin is merely an ignorant woman on FOX, which makes her utterly common (as if she wasn’t before), but DOONESBURY is a comic strip, so when any politician provides such easy material, you can hardly blame G.B. Trudeau from using it. As he has said, people who get their political information solely from comic strips deserve what they get.

   Palin is merely the latest in a contemporary line of incredibly stupid & ignorant politicians: Dan Quayle, G.W. Bush, Palin. Thousands of books have been written about our great presidents (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, F.D. Roosevelt). Has anyone done a comprehensive analysis of America’s tendency to elect stupid &/or tacky presidents (Fillmore, Arthur, Harding, Nixon [very tacky, not really stupid], Reagan [stupid, not tacky], G.W. Bush)?
10. 

    JosephBidenJr99 said, almost 3 years ago

    Observation of a life-long Democrat: Judging from the huge amount of time, money, and resources the DNC and libs such as GT spend trashing Sarah Palin, they are apparently terrified of her. Not as the Republican presidential candidate (she won’t be) but for her ability to energize the conservative base.
11. 

    Nemesys said, almost 3 years ago

    Two weeks in a row of Sarah! It’s Christmas in July! Thanks, Garry!

    Mr. Biden, if they really felt the way they pretend to about Palin, they’d simply shut up and ignore her, and she’d fall by the wayside as yesterdays pop ex-politician.

    However, although they did indeed remember them in 2008, the left has again forgotten the lessons of 2004. Had Bush been as horribly evil and incompetent as they proclaimed, with the media’s help a Democrat should have been a shoe-in for 2004, and it was close. What turned the tide back to Bush was all the hateful rhetoric spewed against him from the far left as voting day got closer. When the undecided/independents got a good look at who the Democrat/liberal base really was, they realized they wanted no part of that toxic crowd, held their noses, and voted Bush in again.

    History is repeating. In their attempt to personify and denigrate the conservative viewpoint during the run up to mid-term elections, they can’t keep their hands off Palin. They can’t help it. This cost them votes in 2004, 2008, and will do so again in 2010. Thanks!
12. 

    Lewreader said, almost 3 years ago

    Why does the DNC waste any ammo on Sarah? She has as much chance of being nominated as Alfred E Newman.Are they test firing for range? Romney may be a contender. No shots fired at him. And who else is waiting in the wings? I see a few possible faces and I hear a few cheap shots. Keeps firing Dems, got any job offers for January?
13. 

    puddleglum1066 said, almost 3 years ago

    I kinda feel sorry for Palin, Romney, etc. (though not much), because there’s a strong historical precedent that whoever the R’s nominate in ‘12, that person will lose. History shows that the American electorate is unwilling to turn out a sitting president during wartime, even when the war is unpopular. Consider Lincoln in 1864, Roosevelt in 1944 (though WWII was going pretty much in our favor by then), Nixon in 1972 (four years after he’d been elected as a “peace” candidate), and Dubya in 2004. Since the Afghan war will still be going on in 2012, it’s very unlikely the electorate will turn out Obama. OTOH, this loyalty doesn’t extend to the president’s party when the sitting president can’t/won’t stand for re-election during wartime; then we’re more prone to switch parties. Consider Eisenhower in 1952 (when Truman chose not to run), Nixon in 1968 (when Johnson chose not to run), and Obama in 2008 (when Dubya couldn’t run). All of this points to Obama being re-elected in 2012 and a likely R victory in 2016… by which time David Petraeus (who has shown presidential ambitions) should be able to claim responsibility for a “successful” resolution of Afghanistan.

    Bottom line is, Sarah, Mitt, Mike Huckabee, etc., are all just a sideshow. The smart R’s are already working on plans for 2016.
14. 

    Potrzebie said, almost 3 years ago

    Puddlegum. Good comments. One such smart R is Mitch Daniels (all you R’s scratch your head in unison and say: “huh?”). I don’t think that the t-baggers will split any votes, they were R’s before and they shall always be R’s.
15. 

    jhouck99 said, almost 3 years ago

    ^She’s the half-term governor of ill-refute…
16. Load the rest of the comments (30).