Advertisement

Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for July 26, 2010

42 Comments

Hide All Comments
  1. ksoskins  over 10 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.

     •  Reply
  2. hawgowar  over 10 years ago

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

     •  Reply
  3. inkgag  over 10 years ago

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

     •  Reply
  4. Sandfan  over 10 years ago

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

     •  Reply
  5. Yukoneric  over 10 years ago

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

     •  Reply
  6. ButchInWaukegan  over 10 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

     •  Reply
  7. dfowensby  over 10 years ago

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

     •  Reply
  8. BrianCrook  over 10 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)?

     •  Reply
  9. JosephBidenJr99  over 10 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.

     •  Reply
  10. Nemesys  over 10 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!

     •  Reply
  11. lewisbower  over 10 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?

     •  Reply
  12. puddleglum1066  over 10 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.

     •  Reply
  13. Potrzebie  over 10 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.

     •  Reply
  14. jhouck99  over 10 years ago

    ^She’s the half-term governor of ill-refute…

     •  Reply
  15. heeyuk  over 10 years ago

    …snatching defeat from the jaws of victory…

     •  Reply
  16. Nemesys  over 10 years ago

    Lewreader, the reasons for going after Palin are:

    Rule 13 (Pick a target and personify it)

    Rule 5 (Use ridicule as a weapon)

    Rule 2 (Ridicule is just within their competencies)

    Rule 6 (They enjoy it).

    The problem is that they’re particularly frustrated at the moment. Opposition to the “changes” initiated by the administration and the Congress and all their wonderful accomplishments continues to grow (11% approval rating for Congress last week), but since it’s mostly grass-roots, there’s very few individal people to vilify. Slamming the Tea Partiers just backfires and increases their numbers and influence.

    Palin symbolizes the right, so in despiration she’s drawing the poison, even though she doesn’t hold office and isn’t running for anything. If her role continues to hold, and she draws their fire away from the real targets, it’s going to be a sweep this November. Whether that’s going to be a good thing is another topic.

     •  Reply
  17. thirdguy  over 10 years ago

    Puddleglum, I am impressed! And you said all of it without a single pun!!!!!

     •  Reply
  18. Ravenswing  over 10 years ago

    Are people kidding? “Terrified” of Palin? Oh, boy, bring Sarah on. I want the knuckledraggers as energized behind her as they can possibly be. The more they glorify unqualified buffoons like Palin, the less they bother with sentient candidates, the better I like it.

     •  Reply
  19. billdi Premium Member over 10 years ago

    the spinmeisters are in heaven: If the Dems (or anyone) have the temerity to criticize Palin’s serial idiocies they are terrified of her; if they ignore her they are gutless and let her get away with her claptrap.

     •  Reply
  20. dbhaley  over 10 years ago

    BrianCrook’s list of incompetent presidents grows out of a selective reading of history. It’s typical of neolibs who boast themselves superior to “America’s tendency to elect stupid” presidents. When a neolib finds a smart president who waged a war, such as Nixon (or Johnson or Lincoln), s/he calls him “tacky.”

    The neolibs’ arrogant defensiveness is not shared by traditional liberals. Even Thomas Jefferson could record, with no trace of animus, that George Washington was “a rather simple [i.e. stupid] man.”

    Neolibs of this stamp haven’t gotten over being rejected, in 2004, by the voice of the republic. That’s why they continue insisting—-and maybe even hoping—-that the Iraq war will turn out to have been an utter failure in the new century’s struggle against terrorism.

     •  Reply
  21. montessoriteacher  over 10 years ago

    SP provides great material and therefore can’t be ignored by anyone. W had the advantage of incumbency during a war and still barely won in 2004. Dems should be afraid that another fake conservative ala Reagan could surface again. Reagan never served in the military outside of Hollywood and yet had the reputation of someone who was a big military guy. He was unable to get through an interview without loads of index cards and something in his ear to answer the questions. He was not a regular churchgoer at all and yet was supposed to be a big Christian. This is not recalled by FOX which has complained about our current prez not attending church. Reagan/Bush era did not bring down the iron curtain, they just watched as it collapsed. Sometimes you can just keep your mouth shut and let it happen. This is what the wise old Poppy Bush knew.

     •  Reply
  22. montessoriteacher  over 10 years ago

    Oh and don’t be get me started on the huge deficits which were run up by our GOP friends who now are looking around and wondering where these huge deficits came from?

     •  Reply
  23. bobeaux  over 10 years ago

    I want SP in the White House, I wanna see wheels on all 4 corners of the White House and see trailer skirts all ‘round (make SP comfortable). I wanna see a “no child educated” policy, I want all them there “smarties” to go back to where they came from they belong in skools not guvermint. First action after election: Pardon Todd’s Sister (burglery), and maybe Levi’s Mom (meth sales).

     •  Reply
  24. bobeaux  over 10 years ago

    I think Todd’s the hunkiest mime ever!

     •  Reply
  25. cdhaley  over 10 years ago

    Nemesys and billdog are right: GT is creating a PalinBush (see “palin” in my avatar’s bio). But at least GT has stripped SP of her cheap glamor by focusing on those hateful eyes.

    Brian: You might have added Zachary Taylor, the Mexican War hero, to your list of stupid presidents. Described by his opponent as “victor in many a hard-fought BOTTLE,” Taylor commissioned Nathaniel Hawthorne to write his campaign biography (roughly like SP hiring Roland Hedley). Predictably, the biography was dismissed as “the fictions of a romance-writer.”

     •  Reply
  26. saw4fire  over 10 years ago

    The liberals are terrified of Sarah Palin. Perspective is everything. Contrast it with this: http://www.investors.com/image/RAMclr800-072610-protection.jpg.cms

     •  Reply
  27. cdhaley  over 10 years ago

    That’s an excellent cartoon, saw4fire, but it doesn’t represent the liberals’—-much less Obama’s—-fear of SP. Rather, it expresses the frustration of an elitist media who hate being two steps behind Obama when it comes to policy. The only thing this media has in common with SP is their ignorant impatience with real, historically effective policies. No wonder they cling to the mindless, fluctuating polls.

    It’s sad, given his intelligence, that GT shares the media’s limitations. His cartoon format is even less suitable than other media for discussing Obama’s actual policies and their likely consequences. The most he can do is satirize the other media as he does with this Wasilla arc.

     •  Reply
  28. Nemesys  over 10 years ago

    Yes, Radish, that must be it. Thanks for enlightening us.

     •  Reply
  29. Nemesys  over 10 years ago

    These cartoons probably represent SPPS (Sarah Palin Psychosis Syndrome) better.

    http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/sarah-palin-cartoon-collection-t2325.html

    The “Cube” is probably the funniest site on the ‘net today.

     •  Reply
  30. cdhaley  over 10 years ago

    Good SP cartoons, Nemesys. I notice that most of those depicting SP glamorize her for the reader, though, except for Wat Handelsman’s; he picks up on the frightening eyes.

    Can you think of any intelligent commentator besides William Kristol who tries to prove that SP has acquired wisdom as she ages?

    Ps. @ RSR: It’s a POLITICAL comic strip! GT goes for the potent political humor. Always has: SP this week, Duke the next. Any reader who wants to enjoy GT has to allow him to confuse political fact with political fiction. (I suspect GT annoys those who don’t like seeing him make light of their serious political views. Perhaps stebon/nobets will comment.)

     •  Reply
  31. jpozenel  over 10 years ago

    Sarah scoffed when it was suggested that she use a thesaurus because she knew they were extinct!

     •  Reply
  32. jaws2049 Premium Member over 10 years ago

    Go for it Roland…and now on to refudiate another perfectly admirable African American…why bother to check sources…

     •  Reply
  33. Justice22  over 10 years ago

    So,,,,, the “meth lab” explosion turned out to be Hedley’s rental exploding?

     •  Reply
  34. BrianCrook  over 10 years ago

    Wow, the regressives are really upset that DOONESBURY is making fun of Sarah Palin as it made fun of Bush-Dick, by using their own words. As I wrote above, when politicians supply such juicy material, you cannot fault a cartoonist from using it.

    Nemesys, I’m afraid that you have forgotten the lessons of 2004: When you have a right-leaning media plus electoral chicanery (remember Ohio?) plus an unexciting Democratic candidate plus widespread paranoia about terrorism plus hateful rhetoric driving homophobes to the polls, then a weak, unelected, president can sneak into what appears to be a victory.

    What will happen in 2010, no one yet knows. As I am sure you will agree, predictions are crap. You judged Shirley Sherrod too quickly; I would advise not doing so about an election that has not yet happened.

     •  Reply
  35. dbhaley  over 10 years ago

    “Sneak into what appears to be a victory”?

    The history-denying neolib who wrote this has evidently decided to join SP in her parallel universe. Probably he failed to heed his own advice on predictions six years ago and now wants to make his disappointment a “lesson” to others.

    When history contradicts a neolib’s take on events, he always obscures or misrepresents the event to make his false prophecies look prescient. He’s determined never to admit that he was wrong—-a goal that he shares with other false prophets and fantasists like SP.

     •  Reply
  36. SuperGriz  over 10 years ago

    Neo-libs? Again?

    NEO-LIBERALISM DEFINED:

    http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html

    http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

    http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism

     •  Reply
  37. SuperGriz  over 10 years ago

    Oh yeah, about today’s ‘toon.

    Toy Story IV?

     •  Reply
  38. lewisbower  over 10 years ago

    BRIAN “Predictions are crap.” Sure bet the politicians and their paid campaign advisers. don’t listen to polls. Nope they vote with their heart and mind.Oh look, a unicorn.Yup, I’d be betting the farm on the universal reelection of our beloved congressmen come Nov no matter what the polls say. What’s plus or minus 2% of an 11% approval rating? Can’t trust them polls. Can’t trust those letters to the editor. Can’t trust the GNP, can’t trust the S&P, can’t trust the recruitment level, bankruptcy levels, or the anger of the people

    The people are a little angry they elected a Senator with four years experience in Government (anything). But that man doesn’t pass laws that make an insatiable growing monster bigger. Congress makes these laws they don’t want. No president has passed a law. Congress passes laws regardless of what the people want. The people are yelling “Throw the bums out!”

    The sad part is these lame duck idiots are not going to have any reason not to pass the socialistic junk they been to scared to pass before the election. The Republicans have to unite Nov-Jan.

     •  Reply
  39. dbhaley  over 10 years ago

    In re: neoliberalism

    The links provided by SuperG are to articles that define the economic “neoliberalism” of twenty-five years ago—-pretty much the fiscal policies of Reagan, G.H. Bush, and Clinton. Here’s one of these definitions:

    “Conservative politicians who say they hate ‘liberals’ – meaning the political type – have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neoliberalism.”

    The neolibs I’m chastising sprang up with the new millennium. Their politics comprises very little of the economics OR the history discussed by traditional liberals, whom I don’t “hate” any more than I hate conservatives.

    Neolibs, as I said earlier, live in a “parallel universe” of political fantasy that is no closer to real policy than are the political ideas of SP.

     •  Reply
  40. SuperGriz  over 10 years ago

    Neocon,

    So, neo-lib is a made up word that doesn’t mean anything?

     •  Reply
  41. BrianCrook  over 10 years ago

    Griz, that’s my understanding of Neocon’s remarks. I have stopped bothering to read them. They sound like what he mutters while he wanks, and I would rather not be a part of THAT.

     •  Reply
  42. natureboyfig4 Premium Member over 10 years ago

    I dunno, Sarah. I always called them the “yellow-stream” media.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment
Advertisement

More From Doonesbury

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement