TOM THE DANCING BUG: Senator Portman Experiences Hunger; Now Opposes Spending Cuts

Tom the Dancing Bug, IN WHICH Senator Portman (R, Oh.) experiences hunger for the first time, and reverses his position on social welfare spending. BE THE FIRST ON YOUR BLOCK to see Tom the Dancing Bug, by @RubenBolling, every week! Members of the elite and prestigious INNER HIVE get the comic emailed to their inboxes at least a day before publication -- and much, much MORE!

Please click HERE for information. Thank you.



    1. Like what?  It’s humor piece about domestic policy – which is also something Rachel Maddow brought up regarding hunger on Bill Maher’s show last week after Portman suddenly became sympathetic to gays.  “Now only if a senator would know someone in their family that is hungry”, she said – paraphrasing.
      And the fact of the matter is that we just about fixed hunger issues in this country in the early 70’s with programs that FUCKING WORKED.  And then Reagan started pushing to get rid of them all, and they were cut into oblivion. Surprise, surprise, now more people are going hungry in the USA.  People can say whatever the fuck they want, those are the facts.  The end.  Anyone that says otherwise is wrong.

        1. Yeah, it’s possible that guy was just *pretending* to be a complete idiot and then finding it amusing when people thought he actually *was* a complete idiot.  Joke’s on us, right?

    2. Um, I for one am okay actually without that kind of “enlightenment.” We of the 99% have suffered through quite enough of that rot already.

    3. Agreed. Ruben Bolling did a great job of exposing economic ignorance.  Glad you’re on board.

  1. Needed to be done. The obvious jokes going around after the Senator’s transformation were that the president needed to discover a poor, struggling member of his family etc. since he’s only sympathetic to something that impacts him personally.

  2. Maybe someone should put a device in the Statue of Liberty’s torch that will somehow make a nearby assembly of visiting senators suddenly feel somewhat peckish.

  3. Mark Sanford has developed a new sympathy for politicians caught in sex scandals since his own hike in the woods.

  4. Maybe we shouldn’t criticize.  Perhaps you DON’T want senators who are willing to change their point of view when something in their life brings to their attention the fact they may be wrong? 

    Why would anyone want that? 

    1. His behavior is the hallmark of a person who doesn’t have empathy. He can’t understand the suffering of others until it directly affects him. That’s a problem, particularly in someone who gets to make laws that affect everybody.

    2. Perhaps people want senators who aren’t forced to change their opinion when the obvious is thrust in their face because they were already aware of the obvious.

  5. In the summer after my first year of law school, I worked for an outfit that received federal grants to represent developmentally disabled people. It was the mid 1980’s, but there was strong bipartisan support for those grants, and other programs for developmentally disabled people. 

    I was kind of surprised by the bipartisan support, and I asked the head of the organization about it. His answer: “Rich, white, native-born couples don’t have poor, black, or immigrant children. But they have disabled children at the same rate everyone else does.”

  6. I agree with Zach Weinersmith’s thoughts on this: “For people knocking Portman for being pro-LGBT rights only after a personal experience – we are *all* the product of personal experience.”  Do we really need to hate on people for moving towards the position we agree with just because they didn’t move fast enough or for what we think are the right reasons?

    1. Do we really need to hate on people for moving towards the position we agree with just because they didn’t move fast enough or for what we think are the right reasons?

      Character matters.  Particularly in people who have the ability to make war or create police powers.

Comments are closed.