With his singular style, Tom Toles tackles the complex issues of the day. This Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist skillfully targets political, economic and social concerns — in particular complicated environmental issues — with a clear-eyed precision that hits the mark every time.
© The Washington Post - All Rights Reserved.
Mike Thompson by Mike Thompson
Gary Varvel by Gary Varvel
Comments (58) (Please sign in to comment)
dtroutma
said, 8 months ago
Two more debates, and accurate revelations about just how much Mitt’s been lying and changing positions; turtle soup, anyone?
Clark Kent said, 8 months ago
mittney is a dinosaur, not a turtle. The president has more important things to do than bother with mittney.
Radish
said, 8 months ago
Obama better pick up his game or he is lost, doesn’t matter how much Mitt lies if he doesn’t get called out on it.
Michael wme said, 8 months ago
I saw Mitt in the debate, and he reminded me of the salesman who convinced me to sign a fat contract even though I knew I would lose all my money. He was so persuasive I just couldn’t resist.
Even if Mitt’s numbers don’t add up, President Obama was so charmed he accepted them and it looked like he was ready to vote for Mitt.
When someone is that charming and persuasive, facts are irrelevant, you have to vote for him. Sure, you know his promise of tax cuts is wrong, and it’s really going to be a $3,000 increase, but you can’t help voting for someone with that much charisma.
If Mitt will just go on TV regularly and exude as much charm as he did during the debate, none of us commoners will mind when our taxes go up and our benefits get slashed to help our betters pay for their topiary and other necessities: Mitt will be able to convince us all that our taxes were slashed and our benefits increased.
saywhatwhat said, 8 months ago
Obama wasn’t in top form. It must be hard playing “vote for me, I’m wonderful” when you have a day job.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/world/middleeast/syria.html?ref=world&_r=0
Doughfoot said, 8 months ago
The thing is, the economy is going to improve in the next four years no matter who is in the white house. History, and all the data suggest that. If it is “our guy” then we will give him credit, if it is “the other guy” we will assume it would have been even better with “our guy”; if we don’t have a guy, and don’t pay much attention, we will assume that whoever it is, he must be doing something right. And that third group will help keep the winner or his party in office.
Meanwhile, the things of lasting impact like Supreme Court nominations, legal and human rights policies, foreign policy, environmental policies, etc., will go forward for good or ill.
I was just looking at the unemployment figures for Ronald Reagan’s FIRST term: they start and end at 7.3%, remained flat for six months, them soared for 18 months to a peak of 10.8%, and had 27 consecutive months above 8%.
Obama inherited an economy in freefall, but unemployment topped out at 10% only nine months in, hovered for a year a little below that, and has been falling since then. (Economists predicted a long slow slow recovery no matter what the government did: Obama and McCain both made overly optimistic predictions, of course; but does anybody seriously think this situation would have been better with McCain?)
Both Reagan’s and Obama’s first term employment figures are pretty bad, but neither Reagan nor Obama deserve to be blamed for them. The president does not control the economy, as much as we would like to give him credit or blame. Reagan greatly increased the deficit and the debt, too, and the size of government grew under his administration. Inflation rates were rather higher under Reagan, too.
Better times came in Reagan’s second term. Better times will come in Obama’s second term, or Romney’s first: that’s the reality of it. If people generally vote on the performance of economy, they’re following a red herring.
Tue Elung-Jensen said, 8 months ago
I’m surprised. Actual sensible comments for once :)
Gypsy8 said, 8 months ago
It is completely irrelevant what Mitt says. He’ll say what he has to say to get elected. Once elected, it will be his big-money donors and ideologues who will run the show.
Ms. Ima said, 8 months ago
@dtroutma
And the winner is……
Mitt!!!!!!!
Omnius said, 8 months ago
Even half asleep Obama can run circles around turtle boy R’money. R’money’s lies will be rejected by the moral majority.
Ms. Ima said, 8 months ago
@Clark Kent
Turtles are from the dinosaur era so you might be correct.
The president is missing important golf games, why the bother of debates when he clearly believes that his ‘more of the same hope’n’change’ is good enough for fools.
Ms. Ima said, 8 months ago
@Radish
O doesn’t want the job of prez anymore. Michelle is whipping him so she can be first lady. She likes the free flights and ‘home schooling’ her kids at the taxpayers expense. She isn’t going to let him stop collecting that government welfare check and working that part time job between golf games.
Ms. Ima said, 8 months ago
@Michael wme
And O is the dealer on the corner. You know you shouldn’t be buying and smoking crack but it ‘feels so good’ at the time and you don’t think that there are any long term costs.
Ms. Ima said, 8 months ago
@Gypsy8
Just like O paid back his big money donors and gave GM to the unions who run his show, just like that????
Rx71Wm29 said, 8 months ago
Well, Radish, you’ve certainly lived up to you title: “the self marginalized”.