« ... that which you can put off entirely. | Main | So much humor, so little space ... »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"And, of course, the talking point "They both do it" began, despite the clear fact that this hadn't happened at this level in the past and that they weren't both doing it."

Au contraire, mon frere.

I seem to recall a recent moment of hyper-partisanship when the Democrats decided against patience and informed evaluation and instead rammed the ACA through Congress and down our throats.

IMO, when it comes to rank partisanship, the Democrats have done it first and done it worst in _almost_ every category.


Mike Peterson

Dan, with all due respect, you either aren't paying attention or you don't know what you are talking about. Voting with the majority is democracy. That's how it works.

Partisanship is something entirely different.



The ACA that was "rammed through Congress" even included many parts that were brought in during discussions with Republicans. You don't have to like it but passing the ACA wasn't "first" or "worst" any way that you look at it.

I don't think there's any reason to wait and seem shocked if Republicans are obstructionists again. Congress doesn't operate in a complete bubble (although it is close). It's only because of do-nothing, obstructionist storylines that Republicans actually started releasing their ideas like Paul Ryan's Budget Plan. That's probably the only thing that kept Dems in office was being able to see what would replace them.

For how little the seats have changed from last Congress, I think there isn't any reason to express or expect differently until they do something to earn it.


Hi guys,

I'll skip the longer response. Y'all can thank me later. 8*)

My larger point is that elections do have consequences. And the majority in the U.S. House is held by the GOP. They were elected in large part because they promised fiscal responsibility and spending restraint.

As it was in the late 1990s, a divided government means that both sides have to give.

We've seen US$600billion in tax hikes; $74 in taxes for every $1 of spending cuts. Mr. Obama has said that he wants a 1:1 ratio taxes:cuts. That looks to me like GOP cooperation with the President's agenda. Yet all I see in the MSM are complaints about the GOP being the source of gridlock. IMO, an equally valid argument can be made that the problem is an uncooperative and intransigent President and Democrat-led Senate.

From my perspective, the Democrats have committed acts of partisanship that make the GOP look like rookies. Then the GOP tries to match them, which justifies the next step in partisanship. And the cycle continues.


Mike Peterson

Again, Dann, and not to drag this out, but you clearly don't understand the concept of "partisan."

Your instincts are good, and you're a nice person, but your strong instinct for group loyalty, which served you well in the Corps, is blinding you to the conversation ongoing around you.

Among rigid thinkers, there are ideologues and partisans, and they are two different things except when a party is constructed on strictly ideological lines.

So an ideologue who is blindly committed to the First Amendment sees no difference between leaking a report that a Senator is selling military secrets to the Chinese while the CIA does nothing, publishing a map showing the homes of people with concealed carry permits or posting photographs of naked 10 year olds on a porn site.

If his political party offered legislation outlawing kiddie porn, he would break ranks and vote his beliefs rather than his party's position.

By contrast, a partisan who feels that there should be reasonable constraints on the press, faced with a bill to make kiddie porn legal, would swallow his disgust and his moral questions and vote in favor of it, out of loyalty to his party.

For someone to be elected on the promise of a health care program to promote such a program is neither rigid ideology nor rigid partisanship. It's simply democracy.

If he can get the votes to pass it, that's democracy.

And if he is willing to modify certain provisions in order to secure the votes of those who could not support the original text, that's compromise.

And if some people cross party lines to vote for or against it, that's also democracy.

Even in parliamentary democracies, which rely on partisan loyalty, there are free votes in which members are permitted to vote their consciences or the local interests of their ridings.

But we have reached a state of partisanship in which outright, blatant lies are used to justify party loyalties -- such as the "death panels" nonsense, and in which a man can propose and pass legislation as governor, brag about what a great accomplishment it is, and then, as a candidate for president, denounce it because, on the national stage, it has emerged as an accomplishment of the other party.

That's not ideology, because it shows no particular moral position. The only "idea" is "We want to win." A three-year old grabbing a teddy bear from another understands that level of "ideology:" Mine!!!

In a parliamentary democracy, the ruling party often gets its own way. England had that system in place at the time of our Constitutional Convention and we specifically set up a system that did not require lockstep party loyalty.

You should respect it, or call a Constitutional Convention to change it.

Meanwhile, the idea that the president did not compromise on fiscal matters is evidence of a partisanship so deep that you are blind to some very simple facts and very basic news reports. Clearly, obviously, plainly, he gave a lot of ground -- in fact, he's getting a lot of flak over how much he was willing to give up.

To believe otherwise is not a difference of opinion. It is blind partisanship that extends to the point of nonsense.

And there can be no arguing or reasoning when one position in the conversation is nonsensical, for whatever reason.

(And if you weren't basically a good guy at heart, I wouldn't bother with all this. But your loyalty is obstructing your vision, my brother.)


Partisan obstruction would be siding against legislature you supported earlier simply because the other side supported it. See: RomneyCare & McConnel's Debt Ceiling Bill.


"For someone to be elected on the promise of a health care program to promote such a program is neither rigid ideology nor rigid partisanship. It's simply democracy."

And the current GOP in the House were elected in large part based on promoting fiscal restraint. Their opposition to tax increases isn't partisan. It's democracy.

Also, "We want to win" perfectly describes many Democrat politicians, IMO. In particular, passing the ACA was not partisan. The manner of passage, ramming it through with so few GOP votes and lots of folks asking for more time to analyze it, was highly partisan.

"Partisanship" swings both ways, gentlemen. And IMO, the Democrats consistently do far worse, far more often. That isn't intended absolve the GOP for the things they do. Simply an observation that commentary on the subject in the MSM is a little lopsided relative to reality.

Thanks to you both for your patience and kindness.



Erg...sorry....too much time to think during my workout.

Why does the issue of misreporting matter now?

Our nation is running deficits in excess of $1trillion per year. That is clearly unsustainable.

We have the GOP in Congress that have agreed to roughly $90billion in tax increases that they don't want.

We have a President and Democrats in the Senate that have agreed to roughly $1.5billion in spending cuts that they don't want.

Neither of them is solving the problem. And by focusing on the theoretic partisanship of the GOP, the media is short circuiting the necessary public debate over what steps need to be taken to resolve the deficit issue.

Some sort of fund raising graph like the United Way uses with crying babies complaining about their "sacrifices" would probably make a real good political cartoon as it would keep the problem in focus, it would demonstrate what has been done thus far, and who is unwilling to compromise. I'm not holding my breath.


The comments to this entry are closed.

What's so funny?

  • I read some 175 or more comics a day. Each day, I post a strip or two here that made me laugh, made me think or impressed me with its artistry. It's my hope that you'll see some new strips here and decide to follow that artist's work, and perhaps even to support that work by purchasing a collection of strips. But, mostly, I hope you'll find this a place to get a laugh or share a thought each day. After all, comic strips are a very demanding art form, but the ultimate point of all that work and all those deadlines is to give readers a little pleasure each day. If you find a comic hard to read, clicking on it will open a slightly larger version. (You may find that right-clicking and opening in a new tab produces a better result.) All comics here are copyrighted by their creators. -- Mike Peterson

The Prime Directive

  • The Prime Directive is that we don't single out comics for snark and abuse. This may change once I've won a couple of Pulitzers and a Reuben or two.


  • Want a daily reminder and link? My Twitter handle is @ComicStripOTD and I promise that you will never hear about what I had for lunch or the cute thing the dog said.

Independent publishers

  • Independent comic collections
    Not all cartoonists market their collections through Amazon. Here's where cartoonists can list their independently published, and marketed, collections and where fans can find, and buy, them.

Blog Roll

  • Comics Worth Reading
    Independent Opinions by Johanna Draper Carlson and friends News and reviews of graphic novels, manga, comic books, and related subjects
  • Comic Riffs
    Michael Cavna's Washington Post column on comics and related media news.
  • Mike Lynch Cartoons
    Cartoonist Mike Lynch's blog: Fascinating archival stuff he's found and scanned, tips on how cartooning really works and progress reports on his garden (in season).
  • The Comics Reporter
    Tom Spurgeon's Web site of comics news, reviews, interviews and commentary
  • Cartoon Movement
    An international site with sociopolitical cartoons from around the world, curated by Dutch cartoonist Tjeerd Royaards. A real mix of impressionistic panels and short-form graphic journalism.
  • Africartoons
    Cartoons from across Africa, which has an extremely lively cartooning culture. Most of the material requires you to be on top of African current events and political personalities, but even when you're not sure of the specifics, there's some creative stuff to envy in the lively nature of the art form as practiced there.


  • GoComics.com
    Universal Press Syndicate's page. You can click on each strip and read for free, but for $11.88 a year, you can create your own page of strips and also avoid pop-ups. It's worth it.

Comics Kingdom

  • Comics Kingdom
    King Features' site, with free comics if you don't mind a truncated service, or a very good paid site for $20 a year. Some of the benefits, including Vintage strips, require that paid subscription. It's worth it.