Jim Morin by Jim Morin
- September 02, 2009
- From Beginning
- Previous feature
- Show Calendar
- Next feature
- Current
Tags: Halloween costume, President Obama. Add Tags
Editorials A-Z Navigation
Glenn McCoy by Glenn McCoy
Jack Ohman by Jack OhmanAbout Jim Morin
Jim Morin’s drawings won the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning in 1996. He shared the Pulitzer in 1983 with other members of the Miami Herald editorial board, and was a Pulitzer finalist in 1977 and 1990. His work is syndicated internationally by the New York Times/CWS Syndicate.
© 2009 Cartoonists and Writers Syndicate - All Rights Reserved.
Comments (36) Jump to Comments Form
Kingoswald
said,
2 months ago
It hasn’t made contact yet. And you can’t see him, but Glenn Beck is sitting right behind Obama ….
believecommonsense
said,
2 months ago
Who needs facts when smears spread faster?
HOWGOZIT said, 2 months ago
Certainly not you BCS!
cjr53 said, 2 months ago
Are you sure that the muck wasn’t thrown by Glen Beck and a series of right-wing nay-sayers?
Looks like it was aimed at Barrack Obama.
HOWGOZIT said, 2 months ago
Olberman is passenger seat navigator.
motivemagus said, 2 months ago
Obama needs to get up and start explaining what he wants with some discipline. Maybe he is just waiting for the Republicans to demonstrate their utter unwillingness to have a discussion on this topic, but if so, he’s waited too long. They’re winning the smear wars. Time to move, dude.
deadheadzan
said,
2 months ago
Yes, it’s time Obama said full speed ahead to health care reform. This is one of the main reasons he was elected and it’s time for him to put all his effort into this.
Kingoswald
said,
2 months ago
Sadly, Obama wanted bi-partisanship. Unfortunately, to the rump of the Republican Party, that means rolling over and having your tummy tickled by the bozos who lost the last election and lost it big (and would have lost it even bigger if it wasn’t for your rather undemocratic electoral system) .
I respect the President for trying to be ecumenical but his duty now is to the vast majority of Americans who want greater choice of healthcare, not to the birthers, sociopaths and religious nuts who appear to have taken over and destroyed a once proud party.
d_legendary1 said, 2 months ago
I don’t understand why he needs the republican approval to make things happen. When the repos were in power they passed the energy bill which gave exxon/mobil and the like public funds to search for new oil wells without a single democratic vote. They also passed the “enviornmental act” that allowed polluters to police themselves, again without a democratic vote.
So enought with the bull feathers Big O! Just get it done!
cjr53 said, 2 months ago
Numbers.
For 6 years, the Republicans had both houses and the white house. They marched in lock-step making Democrats votes somewhat irrelevant.
The Democrats don’t have the numbers and some are “Blue Dogs.”
It always amazes me when someone asserts how hard W and Crew worked, when in fact they had virtually no opposition. Signing Statements, no other president used them to the extent as W & crew, especially to state the laws didn’t apply to them.
Also, check out what happened to Clinton. He had huge opposition via the Republicans. Accomplishments he made were hard earned. Same for Barrack Obama.
believecommonsense
said,
2 months ago
you are far better and more practiced at it, Howie
believecommonsense
said,
2 months ago
motive, I completely agree. It is time for the Obama administration to be more specific and take the lead. The Dems in Congress have not done healthcare any favors. The powerful factions of maintaining the status quo have taken control of the agenda and discussion, which should not be a surprise.
As far as bipartisanship, I think part of the reason for wanting some Rep votes is that some on the far-right have already indicated they will repeal any law if they have control of both houses in the future. For our country’s sake, I hope that is not in 2010.
Kingoswald
said,
2 months ago
The Repugs both hated and opposed Social Security and Medicare, yes? Did they repeal them when next in power? No.
The British Conservatives both hated and opposed the National Health Service. Did they abolish it when next in power? No.
Why? Because they were popular, not least with folks whose votes they needed.
Don’t worry. If Obama gets a healthcare bill through, it’s there for keeps.
Who Dares Wins.
believecommonsense
said,
2 months ago
Kingso, I hope you’re correct. It’s time for Obama to take charge and be bold.
jkshaw said, 2 months ago
Remember that speech of Obama’s in which he said, “There is no red America, or blue America. There is the United States of America.”
It was a good and natural sentiment, but then he got elected as the President of the United States of America, and almost everyone of the red America stripe suddenly turned into mules with an intolerable load – a Democratic president who was, of all things, a black man.
Give it up, President Obama. I know this hurts you, but you can’t get anything done with obstinate mules. You need to turn to the horses that got you elected and put the mules out to pasture where they can do as little harm as possible to the country and its people.
DrCanuck said, 2 months ago
Note that the Republicans have been screaming bloody murder now for a couple of months without even knowing what Obama has in mind for Health Care reform. Perhaps he has held off until the rage has burnt itself out and will now present his ideas to less resistance. We all know how short the attention span is for these folks.
Fairportfan said, 2 months ago
A seasoned poster or two have long since recognised Andy as an empty head.
foxglove16
said,
2 months ago
I was so naive. I thought Obama being a decent intelligent guy would inspire bipartisanship for the good of the country. But the GOP only wants to return to power by any lies possible. I thought the rightwing nut jobs and smear tactics would evaporate in light of the truth, but their paranoid schizophrenia remains untreated. I was so naive.
petergrt said, 2 months ago
ANady, unfortunately he is not an empty suit. He is a good old fashioned Marxist, together with a cult of personality.
Though it might be argued that anyone unloading them as ‘new ideas’, particularly in the west, after those moronic ideas have been so handily discredited in Europe, not to mention he USSR, is in fact a moron …
What does it make the believers of the ‘new ideas’?
motivemagus said, 2 months ago
Can I propose a moratorium on the term “Marxist” until someone LEARNS WHAT IT MEANS?!?!?
Excuse me. Obama is a business-friendly moderate. If he’s a Marxist, then Reagan is a Chinese Communist.
petergrt said, 2 months ago
“Obama is a business-friendly moderate.”
Late-night show joke?!?
Marxism probably does not describe him that well, though he has a Communist or two as czars. His philosophy is actually closer to that of Nietzsche, which is much more broad and therefore so much worse.
However, not too many people are familiar with Nietzsche and so Marxism, which is still in living memory of some, will have to do.
cdward said, 2 months ago
peter shows he knows nothing.
motivemagus said, 2 months ago
Just for those who think Obama’s been sitting on his hands:
According to The Obameter in Polifact.com, of the more than 500 promises Obama made during his campaign, he has:
Kept: 40
Compromised on: 11
Broken: 7
In the works: 86
(The rest are stalled [12] or have no action yet [360])
That means he has taken positive action (in the works, compromisedon, or kept completely) on greater than 95% of the 144 promises.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
d_legendary1 said, 2 months ago
If its good for the people its commie talk. Seriously, why do people go against their own best interest?
There were jews for hitler and that didn’t end well for them.
There were blacks for the south. If the south had won, they’d be chained and shackled right now.
There were Unions for Regan. Where are they now?
charlie555 said, 2 months ago
ONLY 33% OF POSSIBLE VOTERS CAST A BALLOT FOR OBAMA.
It is the height of arrogance to think the 66% of Americans who did not vote for him have no voice.
Obama does so at his own and his party’s risk.
motivemagus said, 2 months ago
charlie, you seem to assume that 100% of nonvoters would vote against Obama. This is a false assumption.
petergrt said, 2 months ago
“peter shows he knows nothing.”
Is that the best you can muster?
Surely you can come up with a better Ad Hominem rebuttal.
ReasonsVentriloquist said, 2 months ago
“I knew FDR”
“FDR was a friend of mine.”
“This guy is no FDR!”
d_legendary1 said, 2 months ago
To call Obama an atheist or marxist is just plain stupid.
If I’m interpreting the wiki page (since I put my philosophy books in storage) this Nietzsche guy believed in taking care of their fellow man at the expense of denying Gods will. He also believed in the “will to power”, meaning that every living thing will sacrifice its life to attain a higher hierarchy standing among its relevant species. That is why animals in the wild such as male lions will fight fiercely among each other in order to become the leader of the pack.
I find it hard to believe that Obama, running under the guise of Christianity, would renounce God in order to help us out, nor is he the type to take names and kick butt. Otherwise he would not be having these spats with his republican counterparts. He would just get his agenda done by any means necessary.
charlie555 said, 2 months ago
100% of nonvoters, 66% of Americans, gave Obama no mandate for massive social changes.
ReasonsVentriloquist said, 2 months ago
D-lege,
Nicely writ!
There was an op-ed piece yesterday in the Times… Don’t go I’ll be right back…. Here it is…
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/opinion/03smith.html?em
She says, essentially, FDR did it with a majority, he didn’t worry so much about the minority opinion. he didn’t call in the vested interests to find out how they’d make his plan “better.” It was his plan, he was elected, he carried it out!
charlie555 said, 2 months ago
From that op-ed piece:
“Roosevelt endeavored to ensure that more than half of the country was always on his side.”
Obama is guaranteed only 33% of the country, no matter the majority he has in Congress.
ReasonsVentriloquist said, 2 months ago
I’m not sure which poll you’re going by but he certainly got more than 33% of the vote in the only poll that matters.
ReasonsVentriloquist said, 2 months ago
“100% of nonvoters, 66% of Americans…”
Innumeracy rules!
Obama got essentially 67M votes
McCain got essentially 58M votes
That’s a total of 125M votes
There are a little less than 300M people living in the USA.
Of those there are approximately 25% of the population under the age of 18 (voting age) that’s 75M + 125M= 200M (66% of the population)
300M Population
-75M Population too young to vote!
225M
125M is 56% of 225M.
I can’t see where your 66% comes from. And if you didn’t vote you don’t get to complain about what happens. You didn’t vote, you got out voted!
charlie555 said, 2 months ago
Reasons
Sorry, that post needed to be read in context. The 66% includes non-voters and voters who voted for someone else, that is, everyone who did not give Obama a mandate.
If I use your numbers: Obama received 67M votes of a possible 225M. Looks like less than 33% now.
And your last comment is nonsense. I voted, but I respect “none of the above” as a valid protest vote.
Didn’t African Americans do this for years before Obama? Did they not count all those years?
ReasonsVentriloquist said, 2 months ago
Charlie,
The most telling item of your post is the one that tells me that you didn’t go through the number yourself but are only parroting something that you heard from somewhere.
That’s sad Charlie555. You’re an intelligent guy, but you have bad habits. Intellectual laziness is a bad habit, one that people who don’t share you self interests will utilize to get you to vote against yours.
In the case of the last election, the result was a foregone conclusion from about 2006, Anybody who didn’t vote did so because they were willing to accept the result. It’s much fairer to say that everyone who didn’t want Obama elected, voted.