Pat Oliphant by Pat Oliphant

Pat Oliphant


Comments (20) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. db

    db said, 6 months ago

    Yeah, led by El Presidente Obama.

  2. Enoki

    Enoki said, 6 months ago

    Right beside the Democrat train wreck train tracks too!

  3. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, 6 months ago

    Bananarepublicans are the bane of the country.

  4. Ruff, release Dr. C and Ahab.

    Ruff, release Dr. C and Ahab. GoComics PRO Member said, 6 months ago

    Oh my, what beautiful artwork…

  5. chayasnana

    chayasnana said, 6 months ago


    wasradar, I wish you would read your comments over before posting them. You don’t make any sense at all. First you say that Obama is only 1/3 of the government, them you blame the whole mess on him. And the last sentence is completely incoherent.

  6. spyderred

    spyderred GoComics PRO Member said, 6 months ago

    Right on. For anyone not getting the allusion, look at

  7. fritzoid

    fritzoid GoComics PRO Member said, 6 months ago

    @Ruff, release Dr. C and Ahab.

    Some contrast in tone would have been nice, I’m thinking (and Oliphant’s certainly capable of using contrast to great effect, when he chooses).

  8. Sharuniboy

    Sharuniboy GoComics PRO Member said, 6 months ago

    The Teabaghead predictions of disaster certainly do remind one of that TV entertainer – who appears to be some kind of Jackass-in-the-Pulpit – who keeps on asserting all the terrors, horrors, and disasters he “heard about from God, if everyone doesn’t do exactly what they’re told to do by me” – on what one is supposed to believe is a private phone line between them. Might they have a “shared party line”?

  9. emptc12

    emptc12 said, 6 months ago

    I hate to butcher one of my favorite songs, but this might serve as a theme for the present situation —
    “It’s All in the Game”
    Many a tear has to fall
    But it’s all in the game,
    All in the wonderful shame
    That we know as Guv.
    John has tough words with Barack
    And our future’s looking very dark.
    But these things they must rise above.
    Once in a while there’s a verbal brawl
    But it’s all in the game.
    Soon they’re on TV side by side
    With a Rose Garden word bouquet,
    Phony smiles on stiffened lips,
    And brush each other’s fingertips
    And this mess will fly away.
    (until another day!)
    Irrelevant note: I sometimes consider “It’s All in the Game” as the Cliff’s Notes version of “Liebestod” in Wagner’s TRISTAN UND ISOLDE. It says everything that needs to be said in a much shorter time, and as an added bonus nobody dies in the end.

  10. emptc12

    emptc12 said, 6 months ago


    Thanks, but I thought that had unfortunate connotations.
    I respect your opinions in everything you write, although I don’t always agree with them. You have earnest heat that reminds me of Thomas Paine. We are probably alike in many ways. Like you, I wish I had more time to reconsider and edit.
    So please take my following comment with the good spirit it was intended. I find it increasingly difficult to make my motives clear and do not want to offend anyone. So many times I am shocked that people take things the wrong way. I really believe knowledge is the sunshine of the mind and we should communicate our ideas for continual review with others.

  11. decimuscaelius

    decimuscaelius said, 6 months ago


  12. emptc12

    emptc12 said, 6 months ago


    I appreciate your latest flow of consciousness, and know what you mean about typing fingers going off on their own. I am very bad for that. Please realize that you pose overall an interesting question and my comment will be mostly for my own benefit, to discover what I think (at least for now). I will probably fail to have you agree with me. I am in no way trying to make fun of you or your ideals. (Already I am sounding pompous.) As my grandfather liked to say in his idiomatic broken English, I tell you true.
    I’m trying to imagine who your ideal person for president would be, out of those now in public view. Every person I see has some lack or flaw that disqualifies him according to your list. I don’t think a human yet exists that would meet all your specifications, especially if it’s a lawyer or a big businessman (my admitted prejudice). Would a divorced person be ineligible? How about sexual matters – how would compliance to “ideals” be verified? Is there any person ever elected president who was so perfect? Maybe the Ten Commandments are a big stumbling block here – are they absolute, or subject to modification according to circumstance?
    Even the so-called Founding Fathers had personal flaws that might make them un-electable today, mostly to do with their class distinctions and wealth, I suppose – they were aristocrats, after all. I think you inevitably infer a Saint or the Savior Himself to be the best choice (but I don’t think they’d want the job!). Such unrealistic expectations are rhetorically impressive but don’t serve a useful purpose, in fact are damaging for adults functioning in a real world. As an analogy, if people waited thus to find the perfect mate, hardly anyone would marry. So why do we over-think this presidential selection thing? I think it appeals to our tribal instincts.
    And in general, I respectfully suggest you beg the question very often with Obama. You exhaustively list all the things you personally think he is not and think the matter is settled. Has he no good points at all? Even if many people agree with you, many other people would strongly disagree in certain regards, or at least quibble with many of your interpretations and judgments. .
    You must grant that an imperfect being will get the job. I think that candidates, instead of listing inflated, questionable qualifications, trying to convince people how perfect they are, should instead candidly admit their personal flaws and tell with whom they will work – from whatever party — to make up for their deficiencies. Even kings have advisers and secretaries – even the Pope has earthly guidance.
    That has become the false mystique about the American presidency, I think – that he or she can be all things to all people: It’s impossible, especially in this era when people have artificially high expectations. Consumerism has tainted everything. Tricky psychological advertising techniques have slopped over into politics, and are irresistibly misused. I think our founders would be appalled and humiliated to see things as they are. We have by small increments veered gradually far off track. (Even analogies such as that are very dated, and are they suitable, anymore?) The job of President might be too big for one person, and maybe it’s time to re-define it to the present reality.
    Personally, I don’t think at this point we would accept an ordinary person in the role of president. Everything about a person is investigated, displayed publicly, and subject to imperfect interpretation. I think people secretly yearn for a Monarchy, or many monarchs according to regional interests so they can stop having to think and make decisions so often. We might be seeing that right now, as a matter of fact. Our squabbles, it seems to me, are slick political calculations and posturing that purport to show democracy in action. Should it be THIS messy, with no yield to compromise?
    Often I despair. Maybe the U.S. is too big, and should be divided up officially as it seems to be heading now, anyway. I realize now I secretly have the elegant hope that one person or group of people would benignly stop that from happening.
    Thanks for your time.

  13. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, 6 months ago

    ypoons: nice to know you don’t want Ted Cruz getting anywhere near the White House, even for lunch, with that list you came up with. BTW, might look at Ted’s dad and his little group that wants a theocracy in America. I think the Constitution in Article Six, and in the First Amendment, has a slight problem with that view!

  14. Sharuniboy

    Sharuniboy GoComics PRO Member said, 6 months ago

    So long as it is – or becomes – a Theocracy with THEIR kind of “leader” in charge, never mind the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. As is the position of several of the Cardinal Princes – as they call themselves – in the U.S.A, the Constitution is “nothing more than a piece of paper, anyway”. And since THEIR religion is headed by a minor “godling” – i.e., someone “infallible”, incapable of ever making a mistake in any area of what HE HIMSELF proclaims to be "Faith & Morals – what is there about a “piece of paper” to bother with?

    Of course, those who follow any of the Jackass-in-the-Pulpit cults are a bit hampered; since no one of them will ever agree on which other might possibly be “righteous” enough to be a “leader” over himself. (A wonderful book on the subject is Sinclair Lewis’s, ELMER GANTRY. The best, most accurate, most comprehensive, and most realistic portrayal of any and all Protestant Preachers ever written. The movie had to be bowdlerized, to get a “rating”; so read the original.)

    I believe it was old Winston Churchill who said something about Parliamentary/Representative Democracy being the “worst form of government possible, UNTIL you’ve tried any of the others” – or words along those lines. He got that RIGHT!

  15. jnik23260

    jnik23260 said, 6 months ago

    @Debt Free

    Excuse me? Obama did nothing BUT compromise in his first term. He wasted it trying to mollify those people and getting nothing for it. Now, he finally found a backbone, and the GOP can’t deal with it!
    BTW, Boner isn’t recognisable without a teardrop or two!

  16. Load the rest of the comments (5).