Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for July 05, 2009

I know folks were thinking Sarah Palin would be running in 2012 - but after her announcement, well maybe not. But who knows?

Watched her on Anderson Cooper’s show - he ran the full announcement. She used a sports analogy to explain why she was leaving now & how much $$$$ she was in debt.

Wonder what job is “on deck” for her? My guess is Radio Talk Show Host. I read/heard her described as “Rush Limbaugh in a skirt.” She’d make more $$$$ being part of that scene than she would being Gov’ner. Also less trouble regarding accepting $$$ contributions & ethics violations. And she’s “easier on the eyes” (something else I heard during the last campaign).

So we get to have more Newt - I shudder at the thought.

GEE1A, you must hate your parents. The were pro-life.

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. It’s too bad that I’m the only sane voice in the wilderness.

I just find it hard to believe how hateful people are to those that think for themselves and believe you not only should, but need to earn your own way. I really have trouble believing the amount of liberal HATE displayed on a COMICS site. Get a life and voice your condemnations of your bogeymen in another forum, please.

P.S.- Think about taking some english / grammar lessons so you appear to care enough to write properly.

(jimpow: I agree with you. It just irks me that no matter what type of site I’m on, everything denigrates to the vitriol displayed as by GEE1A above. ‘Nuff said. Hope all of you had a great Independence Day!)

Good catch NoBrandName. That’s what happens when you hurry!

CogentModality - Just because one’s parents CHOSE to have the baby does not make them pro-life. I think that’s kinda the point of the pro-choice side of the argument.

rhutch436 - There is a lot of hate and vitriol displayed by both sides, which is very unfortunate as it makes us focus on our differences instead of what we have in common. Liberals could read your post and see a lot of hate there as well. As a side note, you may wish to edit your post to correct the spelling of the word “grammar” unless you were referring to Kelsey Grammer.

Sarah is not a public figure anymore. I dare the media to slander her now.

NoBrandName - Good catch on the “grammer” comment. Sometimes I’m tempted to make a correction, but then I realized some folks use it as a sorta “flavor” to spice up the language posting. Other folks should try setting up their computer’s auto-spell check function. I didn’t catch that one - good eye, good eye (baseball chant from the bench)!

INTENT is sometimes hard to get on some levels - reading words on a screen. The Bush II’s economic policies have left some folks “IN Tents” - which is not funny at all.

No, jimpow, you are entitled to your opinion, but I’m the only sane voice in the wilderness…

NoBrandName

Your logic escapes me. It only becomes a CHOICE when it’s “for” abortion. I think that that is the point of the pro-life side. Birth control, in one form or another, has been around for how many years? Personal accountability is negated by the abortion clinic.

BUSTARDBOY- Sarah might not be in the public eye for the next fifteen minutes or so, but she is and ALWAYS will be a public person.

As for “slander”, I guess that must be the right wing definition of TRUTH!!!!!

since i (ordinarily) refuse to comment on religion or politics, does that make me a “sane voice?” or just someone who refuses to try to impose their point of view on others? i submit that the definitions might be equivalent to one another.

Logically, the word “choice” implies that there are at least two options, maybe more. If there is only one option, that cannot be called a choice.

Being pro-choice implies that a person should have the right to pick one of the available options. Pro-choice in this case seems to favour either (1) giving birth to the baby and keeping it, OR (2) having an abortion. And I suppose you could include a third option: giving birth to the baby and putting it up for adoption.

Incidentally, what does all this have to do with Newt Gingrich? Can anyone explain to me how the second set of words in the cartoon is more “robust”, more “base-friendly”? Or is it just supposed to be taken on faith as being funny?

I don’t live in the U.S., so I often miss a lot of what Garry Trudeau is talking about. Often, in fact, I find myself thinking, “Oh, he’s really gone too far here, just for the sake of making a point.” And then I read something in the paper that makes me realize he’s not exaggerating, not making anything up at all…

Rina: In this context, more “base-friendly” refers to the wingnut Republican base - the tea-baggers. The ‘new’ set of Gingrich slurs on Democrats is marginally more vulgar than the ‘old’ set, ergo they will appeal more to Gingrich’s base.

RinaFarina Re: Newt’s use of language - My guess is today’s Doonesbury refers to a list of words Newt came up with back in the 90’s.

Here’s a link that gives “Contrasting Words” & “Optimistic Positive Governing Words”. In today’s strip - “Suggested Slurs on Democrats …” may be a takeoff of that list.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1276

A sentence from the article sums it up:

“But the clearest expression of Gingrich’s philosophy of media came in a GOPAC memo entitled “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control”.

Logically the choice is weather to have unprotected sex or not. If the later, then accept the consequences. Intended or not. The innocent had no say so in the matter and should not be deemed worthy of capitol punishment.That is an obligation, not a choice. (Let’s not devolve into a discussion on when a fetus becomes viable, incest, rape, physical or mental deformity, please.)

Gregory Benford has written a short story, “We Could Do Worse,” about an alternative history in which Joe McCarthy won the presidency. It’s included in “Alternate Empires: What Might Have Been (vol. 1).” Read it, and then think about how close we might have already come under the Cheney-Bush administration.

NoBrandName said, about 22 hours ago

CogentModality - Just because one’s parents CHOSE to have the baby does not make them pro-life. I think that’s kinda the point of the pro-choice side of the argument.

rhutch436 - There is a lot of hate and vitriol displayed by both sides, which is very unfortunate as it makes us focus on our differences instead of what we have in common. Liberals could read your post and see a lot of hate there as well. As a side note, you may wish to edit your post to correct the spelling of the word “grammar” unless you were referring to Kelsey Grammer.

Good catch! Duly noted and corrected. It seems that many liberals see a lot of hate everywhere. Perhaps they’re looking in the mirror and projecting what they see onto others? It must be horrible to walk around being miserable all the time…

All I can do is say WOW!

Nailed it Rick!