Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for May 21, 2012

Not gonna mention Obama’s bullying a young girl, huh? Nor his cocaine use. Nor his eating dog. Nor what he’s done to the economy. I wonder if we’ll go all 4 years with no budget at all – maybe ALL his budgets can get zero votes in Congress. I wonder how many more Solyndras we’ll have…Or Fast and Furious like operations…or…No, no, let’s all talk about Romney’s supposed bullying, even though the ‘victims’ family disagrees. Whatever.

Romney the Bully! BOO!

Orion

I predict a week of complaints (from republican sympathisers) that GBT never satirises democratic politicians, whilst ignoring the subject matter of this story arc.Mark is of course correct, you remember vividly those events in life you are most ashamed of…and regret them

That seems more like some of the other nutjobs that were running. I think Romney just bored everyone to the point where they figured if they made him the nominee maybe he’d stop…

I have got to start reading Doonesbury over at Arcamax. No one comments there. It’s so … peaceful …

As the fictional character says, it’s not about the mistakes made in youth, it’s about the denial now. Either he’s lying about the memory or it just wasn’t that remarkable of an event for him. I suspect it’s the former not the latter.

Mitt has no conscience.

Mitt is murder.

…fasten your seat belts.

Riverado made a comment that I totally agree with in this situation And this happen in 1965.

While I can see the argument about the character flaw of not apologising, from this side of the pond it is a touch worrying that y’all are obsessing about this rather than debating policy. You are our elecotral college for the leader of the free world, and we don’t even get to elect you, let alone him. We do rather depend on you to do your democratic duty with a bit of care about the issues that matter.

Having just come back from a vist there, might I suggest a serious policy for settling Israel/Palestine would be a good start – on either side of the political divide…?

By the way, it wasn’t just ‘someone’ claiming Obama was born in Kenya, it was Obama! If you don’t believe me, look it up! I think it was the WaPo that ran an article about how proud he was of being born in Kenya and now being a senator!

“real issues like questions about Obama’s citizenship” WTF? It was McCain who was born inside the US on a technicality (the Constitution says the President has to be born within the US but not “or on foreign soil declared to be American because it is for the time being a US military base”); Cheney was eligible to be VP through a loophole (the Constitution says the VP and President must be from different states but not that “owning property in a different state from the president will do, even if the VP has long been resident in the same state at the Pres”). If there were ANY credible evidence that … oh, never mind. But you are quite right. This sort of thing will not sway anyone on either side. But then, neither will anything else. Two thirds of the country (at least) have already made up their minds, and nothing could make those people change their votes. Two thirds of the country (at least) are prepared to excuse any fault in their guy and magnify any fault in the other guy. If a “real issue” is something that might actual get a conservative to vote for Obama, or a liberal to vote for Romney, then there aren’t any real issues in this election.

The election will turn on that portion of the voting populace who don’t like either candidate very much, don’t care, or aren’t paying attention, and may still be persuaded to make a choice on election day. And what sort of thing might accomplish that?

Is anyone but me ever bothered by the fact that such God-like powers are attributed to the President of the United States by partisans on both sides? Everything good that happens is the President’s doing, every bad, his fault. If the Congress does something or fails to do something, it is the P’s leadership or lack thereof. A good economy is attributed to the most recent president in office of one’s own party; a bad economy is blamed on the most recent president of the other party. What if most of the things that bother us are like climate change in the eyes of the skeptics: the result of complex forces way beyond the power of the Unites States government to control? The cumulative, unintended consequences of the ten billion decisions made each day by seven billion people on the planet?

Mitt doesn’t remember because it was no big deal to him – no more or less than some random game of monopoly that he played.

The entire premise is ridiculous. You remember what you remember. Thousands of events, good and bad pass from our memories and once gone are, to us, as if they never happened. To say that we remember every event we are ashamed of has no basis. How can anyone know they remember everything, since if they forgot anything it would be lost to them? It’s a statement that sounds good, and might ring true to many, but which is really without any substance.

What dip wad is Trudeau!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-UKYW-Wh-Q

Romney’s lack of recognition that this was a severe degradation to another person says a lot. If he did not recognize it as a degradation, then his level of empathy and compassion for others is at an intolerable low level. How then can he have compassion for anyone less fortunate than himself. Too many well off folks think they can step and stomp on the less fortunate with impunity.

We are learning more despicable details about Romney than anyone would care to know. We are now getting to Romney, the man we don’t want as President.

@corzakthere is nothing wrong with the loan program itself. it is the way the program was utilized under Obama’s watch that is at issue.

all this but Obama did this and Romney did that. lol

any wonder why the Country is a fascist right wing paradise? lol. power corrupts.

one Right wing President vs another Right wing President is all we have now adays. it does get so OLD!!

Somehow, every time I try to visualize this bullying incident, Romney comes out looking like Draco Malfoy…..

I must be out of touch. This is the first I’ve heard that the teen that Romney, and his gang, bullied was gay as well as having long hair – or maybe Mitt and his crowd considered long haired boys as automatically being gay. That would not surprise me as bullies find ways to justify humiliating their victims.

Well, you/we sure screwed up last time!

While a party can nominate a presidential and vice presidential candidate from the same state, it is not very smart, because the electors from that state can’t vote for both of the candidates.

“The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.”

You should read the Constitution, sergeant. You might be surprised what you find there.

I keep hearing about this alleged Supreme Court case (or opinion) that defined “natural born citizen,” but no one ever quotes the specific court case or date of the supposed opinion. I took a shot at researching it, but was awashed by numerous references to some unspecified ruling, but no specifics.`Nevermind birth certificates – the clincher for me was the routine birth announcements placed in each of the two Honolulu daily newspapers in early August 1961 notifying the public of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. This outside evidence should have settled the issue once and for all.

I’m glad I’m not running for president. I doubt if Bruce Springsteen could prove that he was born in the USA, at least not up to the birthers’ standards. I’m sure I couldn’t. I looked at the cruddy brown original birth certificate my parents received from the state of Michigan. Not very impressive. When it started to crumble years ago, I got a fresh copy from Michigan. Michigan spared every expense, and that one doesn’t look too good either.

Mitt needs to do a Sister Souljah style smackdown on one of the birthers. He should invite one of the worst of the lot to a campaign appearance and then tell him publically that he’s full of noxious gas. That would help Mitt with the moderate middle, and what would the birthers do? Vote for Obama? Yeah, right.

Much ado about nothing. Why is it that all the issues are things that do NOT matter? What are his plans to fix the economy? Are they secret? Are they afraid that the other guy will steal them?Then we can get the religious right involved and endorse a Muslim or a Morman – yeah, right! All of these “issues” have no solutions that will ever happen in the US – So let’s move on and talk about what they will change.

BTW – Marriage is done in a church. Allowing 2 people to legally hook their lives together is a civil ceremony – if you want your union blessed, find a church that will do it. A legal hook up is just that, the church feels the same about all of them.

“When I was in school, homosexuals knew better than to flaunt their sexuality.”

Wow. That sentence speaks volumes about you.

Those who revel in Gary’s left-wing preachings are rapidly moving outside what is happening in the real world.

@ Orion-13 – The point is that Romney claims no memory of the incident to say nothing of remorse. The point is that most of have our incidents of shameful behavior etched forever in our memories. Romney apparently doesn’t feel shame or didn’t consider the incident in question shameful. Obama on the other hand mentioned the incident with the little girl on his own and made it clear that his behavior at that time bothers him to this day. The dog eating incident took place as a child while he was in another land. Easting dog is common in other parts of the world. He didn’t get to choose his food at the time any more than any other child. At least Obama was honest which is more than I can say for Romney.

Obama didn’t bully a girl. He didn’t say anything when she was bullied, which was bad, though not the same. He also was a victim of bullying because he was of mixed race. He did say that he was extremely sorry that he didn’t speak up for the girl who was bullied.He didn’t say he could not recall the incident. Not the same at all. Sorry. Nice try, but no cigar. Obama recalled it in one of his books. Maybe you should try reading them. Obama was born in Hawaii which has been part of the US since 1959. He has provided his birth certificate. By the way, when are we going to find out what Romney’s preacher has to say? Never. We are not allowed in the Mormon temple. One thing we do know, blacks were not allowed into heaven, according to them, until 1978. Also, they referred to blacks as mud people. 1978 is not that long ago. We aren’t talking about Reconstruction.

You lose credibility when you deliberately make fun of this while denying the prez’s making maids cry, shoving a little black girl to the delight of whites, faking credentials,…. All funny stuff.

My greatest shame? I bought the con, and voted for Reagan, once. Then I saw what was happening, and looked into Rumsfeld, Cheney and the gang. Corporations/bullies, same-same.

“This will not sway Romney’s supporters, just as questions about Obama will not sway his. This is a nonissue.”

Is your comment supposed to be an example of balanced argument? You equate a past action (Romney’s confirmed violence) with doubt of Obama’s citizenship (something disputed only by those who deny the historical record)?

This mindless balancing of historical fact against historical fiction is worthy of Faux News, not Doonesbury.

“They can’t convict you if you say you don’t remember.”R.Nixon

It’s a legacy — being abused makes you into a future, new abuser.

“Guard SGT,” I have something working in my brain and maybe you can help: When someone is insane, as you clearly are, do you know you are insane? I mean, you’re laying on your couch enjoying yourself, holding up a copy of Guns and Ammo, covered in your own filth – do you ever stop and say to yourself, “It is amazing just how freaking crazy I am!”?`Seriously . . . do you guys do that?

There is nothing more stupid than the ? of Obama’s birth. Talk about a nonissue! The country and the world either laughs at you or shakes its collective head at your idiocy…

@Guard SGTI’m not sure where you are reading this information in the case you reference: Minor vs. Happersett (1874), but the opinion in that case clearly states, “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens.”The US Supreme Court has in fact never ruled on a definition of “Natural Born”, and the accepted legal definition says anyone born on US soil, regardless of parents, is a Natural Born citizen.

The Minor case was about rights to vote for women, and was nullified by the 19th amendment. The Court does take a brief swipe at defining an NBC, but never actually provide a complete definition.

“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts.For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

So we clearly see that there was no attempt to fully define NBC, as it was not relevant to the case.

When legal scholars do take a look at the eligibility rules, it comes out like this:

“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen wouldmean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born“in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being bornabroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S.citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen

The only citizens who are clearly not able to run are naturalized citizens not born in the U.S. Anything else is right-wing theory.

birther crap still going on?!In 1875, U.S. Attorney General Edwards; “Pierrepont: is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of 21, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States…..” U.S. Supreme Court in its 1939 decision in Perkins v. Elg quoted {Attorney General Edwards} approvingly

More desperate attempts by liberals to deflect the conversation away from the economy. Same thing conservatives did in 2008 with the birther controversy.

The bureaucraps who float to the top of the national committees for the major parties are a LOT like the bullies who run our major corporations and Goldman, etc…possibly not even human.

I have put myself on the line for other peoples’ freedom and welfare all my life, as a good American, so of course I’m a lib and a demo…BUT not because I see any virtue nor courage of conviction among the “leaders” of my party.

If our DOJ wasn’t bought and paid for, why have no thieves from Goldman gone to jail? And of course, Common Cause says it has the PROOF that Justa&& Thomas took money from ‘Citizens’ United’, and his wifie made beaucoup bucks from knowing that decision ’way beforehand…

I will vote demo, again, because the other party is either totally uncaring or so stupid they really, like Jesus said, “Don’t know what they are doing…”

And, just on the off-chance there IS a just and terrible God, I certainly DON’T ever want to vote Republican. And if HE comes back, I just want to WATCH.

Jump to: navigation, search Minor v. Happersett Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg Supreme Court of the United States Argued February 9, 1875 Decided March 29, 1875 Full case name Virginia Minor v. Reese Happersett Citations 88 U.S. 162 (more) 22 L. Ed. 627; 21 Wall. 162 Prior history Appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri; 53 Mo. 58 (1873) Holding The Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee women the right to vote. Court membership Chief Justice Morrison Waite Associate Justices Nathan Clifford · Noah H. Swayne Samuel F. Miller · David Davis Stephen J. Field · William Strong Joseph P. Bradley · Ward Hunt Case opinions Majority Waite, joined by unanimous Laws applied U.S. Const. amend. XIV Overruled by U.S. Const. amend. XIX (in part)Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. The Supreme Court upheld state court decisions in Missouri, which had refused to register a woman as a lawful voter because that state’s laws allowed only men to vote.The Minor v. Happersett ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court readily accepted that Minor was a citizen of the United States, but it held that the constitutionally protected privileges of citizenship did not include the right to vote.

Forget Obama’s supposed mistakes, would you ever hear them making fun of Ted Kennedy’s issues? And don’t use the “respect the dead” excuse, cuz that sure didn’t work for Ronald Reagan.

Well put. Unfortunately, it’s pearls before swine. You’ll never pierce the thick walls of ignorance and hate that these inadequate idiots have surrounded themselves with. Wrapping themselves ( or is it warping? ) up with a misconceived notion of the constitution and patriotism assuages their fears of possibly being wrong and fuels the paranoia and bigotry they profess not to have.

Reagan was a crappy prez who received far more credit than he deserved, both dead and alive. He oversaw a time that was great for the super rich and no one else. He sought to undermine the unions, beginning with airline pilots, who have impossible jobs with low pay. He oversaw the Iran Contra affair, one of the worst scandals in history and none of this stuck to him. Teflon prez Reagan.

What makes this so not funny is that the whole Romney story has been shown to be not true.

Guys, Guys, please realize the Guard SGT is black. Quit harassing the poor f__r. He can’t help being a paid shill.

I think Orion 13 overlooks Obama’s admitting the 3 incidents he leads with, which is the distinction addressed in this strip.

My question at the end: Was yours a “Section 8” Discharge?"

There’re trolls and then there’s …

I was wondering the same thing myself Sharuniboy, but have you noticed that Guard SGT has never shown any documented proof that he did serve? I’m skeptical about this “I swore an oath to the constitution” claim. Some veteran’s group put up a $10,000 reward to anyone who could confirm serving in the Guard with George Bush, when he said he was with the Alabama unit (no one’s collected). Do you think if collectively we all put up the same amount challenging Sarg’s claim, that any of our money would be at risk?

Ask yourself, “What would Duke believe”. I’m beginning to think the name on his birth certificate is, David Duke.

do wish people would stop using the phrase “natural born citizen” The phrase has nothing to do with how you are born or where you are born. Or whether or not you are a registered voter or if you are considered a resident or citizen of any particular country. .Please find another phrase that is more appropriate. I would say more, but such language would be most inappropriate for a site read by both adults and children.

Newt stepped on a crack and broke his mother’s back. Ike wasn’t born in Texas, but Krypton, and smuggled to earth in the womb of a wombat! JFK was actually IRISH and illegal! Herman Cain was smuggled in from Haiti in a pizza box!

our friend “guard” should have no problem with these simple truths. He can probably find some reference in the text for “University of Rush”, on line, Mars edition, in his back pocket.

Two points, “Guard SGT”:- – - – - – - – - – - 1. I read the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), to which you referred. It is an infamous decision which did much to delay Women’s Suffrage in the United States for almost another 50 years. In the case, the justices had two matters to settle:`A. Was the plaintiff, Virginia Minor, a full citizen of the United States although a woman. If Minor was not a full citizen, then the matter of being eligible to vote would be moot.B. Does being a citizen in itself automatically confer the right to vote, as Minor alleged. (The Court ruled “No” on this issue.)`The Court noted that Virginia Minor was undeniably born on U.S. soil to a mother and father who were themselves established as U.S. citizens; using the strictest interpretation of citizenship eligibility, the Court agreed that Minor was indeed a full citizen. Having settled that Minor was a citizen, the Court moved on. By no stretch of judgment could it be reasonably construed that the Court established any exclusive criteria on citizenship eligibility with regards to parentage. “Guard SGT,” I hold you would have extreme difficulty finding a reputable legal scholar, either conservative or liberal, who would agree with your interpretation.- – - – - – - – - – - 2. “Guard SGT,” you come across as someone who is more than willing to destroy the village in order to save it. So, yeah . . . I think you’re bat-guano crazy.

“He served dully”I love it! Yes, he learned to fly an airplane, but when it came time to recertify, for some reason, he wasn’t able to (cough, cocaine, cough). Then, when he headed to Mass to work on a political campaign, there was no record of him completing his service there as agreed. So, yes, Usurper Bush did everthing “dully”.

Bull.

You’re taking a case about women’s voting rights and trying to make a determination about presidential eligibility. The “key phrase” you so gleefully jump upon wasn’t key at all in this decision; it was a minor side note. The true determination of the case was that the rights of citizenship do not automatically include the right to vote. Presidential eligibility is not even discussed. Further on in the opinion you quoted, it clearly states that the court is not fully addressing the issues of citizenship, as it is not central to the case. I’ll requote, as it seems you missed it. “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

And no, I’m not confusing the two terms, though there is some doubt as to their precise meanings, as their definitions rely on an interpretation of English common law in the colonial period.

If court precedence is your thing, we should look at a case where the court more directly answered the NBC question by going back to the common law in question. From US v. Wong Kim Ark:

Children, born in England, of such aliens [those in amity – friendship], were therefore natural-born subjects.

“Subject’ and “citizen” are declared interchangeable in a subsequent passage. Thus, by British common law, children born to alien parents who lived under British rule were natural born citizens.

“Both documents, long and short have been challenged by experts as being forgeries.”But the real experts have shown that those who claimed a forgery were full of crap.

“Why withold it if it has already been made public?”Simple. Because it would violate Hawaii law to release the info.

“Isn’t is weird that only the records of the 1st week of Auguest, 1961 are missing?What proof do you have that records are missing? Any credible source? Of course not.

“That should set off alrm bells with you.”

The fact that Bill O’Reilly, John McCain, and virtually every other high-profile Republican has said this is a non-issue should ring some bells in your head, but the voices in there must be louder than the bells.

“Constitutional Experts have testified in Court to this point.”

But the majority hold the opposite opinion, based on the fact that British common law considered children born in England to resident aliens parents to be natural born, as referenced in my previous quote from US v. Wong Kim Ark

Dd anybody stop to think he might not remember it because it never happened? No: that would be logical.

@Guard SGT: no one said defending the Constitution made you crazy; it’s that you don’t seem to know or understand the contents of the Constitution, yet rabidly hold to misinterpretations and outright fallacies that convince most of us that, as another comment put it, you are bat-guano crazy. Holding to birther arguments, in spite of many US court rulings dismissing them, the original Hawaiian birth certificate having been produced (something no other US president has been demanded to do), the 1961 announcements of the birth in Honolulu newspapers, the fact the GOP and Dems audited Obama’s eligibility before the election, and on and on, none of that means anything to you, because you deny reality and everything that contradicts your bizarre worldview. That is craziness.

My wife has an uncle like that – read a book of bizarre conspiracy theories, and is convinced the British Royal family is part of a global cabal of human blood-drinking rulers controlling the world. He was a successful small-businessman who did his work well. He is also a raving racist, and prone to turning conversations to rants on his bizarre beliefs – not unlike yourself, who repeatedly talk about “Barry the usurper” and swearing to defend an United States Constitution that apparently reads differently from the one the rest of know or can readily look up.

Every day you make these comments regardless of the topic. Why don’t you make these comments over on Mallard Fillmore? I presume it is because you enjoy the trolling over here at lib-leaning Doonesbury, or maybe it’s because nobody much comments on Mallard Fillmore (maybe not many read it?), and you probably like to think you’re getting your ideas a wide audience – but really it’s just getting your ideas wide disparagement – but then I suspect you also thrive on the martyr-complex that you build around being a lonely defender of your version of “truth”.

Not being American, I did not know that. Thank you for the explanation.. Two different countries, two different points of views.

Wow – who would have thought so many queer bashers and queer basher apologists read Doonesbury! Beating up a kid is a non-issue because he doesn’t remember it!Too bad all of the others who participated and the man who was beaten remember it quite well.Frankly, if he really does not remember it, that is an indication of serious psychological disorder.Deal with it, Mr. Romney. It’s not a non-issue and the more you deny it, the less people will hear you when you talk about real issues.(I’m amused at how Mr. Romney’s history of violence is being dismissed with counter claims of non-violent drug use by Obama. Really? Name one politician who hasn’t used drugs in their youth! They are few.)