Tom Toles by Tom Toles

Tom Toles

Comments (34) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    Two more debates, and accurate revelations about just how much Mitt’s been lying and changing positions; turtle soup, anyone?

  2. Clark  Kent

    Clark Kent said, about 2 years ago

    mittney is a dinosaur, not a turtle. The president has more important things to do than bother with mittney.

  3. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years 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.

  4. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, about 2 years 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.

  5. saywhatwhat

    saywhatwhat said, about 2 years 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

  6. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, about 2 years 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.

  7. Tue Elung-Jensen

    Tue Elung-Jensen said, about 2 years ago

    I’m surprised. Actual sensible comments for once :)

  8. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, about 2 years 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.

  9. Rx71Wm29

    Rx71Wm29 GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    Well, Radish, you’ve certainly lived up to you title: “the self marginalized”.

  10. Liz Dexic

    Liz Dexic GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    I’m just hoping that Obama was doing his version of the “rope-a-dope.”

  11. Justice22

    Justice22 said, about 2 years ago

    @Doughfoot

    Something that is often overlooked is the action of the Federal Reserve who kept increasing interest rates. Time magazine reprted that the best investment for 1982 was the short term government loan which paid an accumulative 50+% for a year. These bonds are what the government operated on day to day and were only available in amounts of $500,000 or more. The money handlers made millions.

  12. Godfreydaniel

    Godfreydaniel said, about 2 years ago

    Another brilliant concept brilliantly executed! With this one and his recent “Munsters” parody, Toles is really on a roll.

  13. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, about 2 years ago

    Why did both candidates avoid Climate Change? Gun access? The threat of Too Big To Fail banks are now LARGER and still threaten us with another 2008?

  14. Jeddidyah

    Jeddidyah said, about 2 years ago

    @Michael wme

    “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.”
    .
    I love Mittens, I really do. But he is so fired.

  15. Jeddidyah

    Jeddidyah said, about 2 years ago

    @Doughfoot

    “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 willard gets elected and has his way we will be in a nasty recession within 18 months, just like Reagan in his first term. Unemployment reached 10.8% but dropped to 7.2% by election time (unemployment benefits were for only 6 months with no extensions and when your benefits ran out, according to Reagan, you were no longer unemployed)
    .
    Reagan had a recession in each of his terms. The worst stock market crash since 1929 was in 1988, the second worst in 208 and the third worst in 2001. Bush Sr and shrub had a recession in each of their terms and we are still in recovery from the last one. Trickle down economics ? More like fell on our face economics.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (19).