Mitt Romney's "Garments"

Editorial cartoonists have a tradition of drawing politicians in their underwear.  President Clinton is often drawn with his pants around his ankles and boxer shorts with a pattern of little hearts.  The same treatment is due for serial adulterer politicians like Newt Gingrich, Arnold Schwarzenegger and too many members of congress to list. Even Batman and Superman wear their underwear on top of their tights.  As an editorial cartoonist, I cherish my right to draw anyone I want in their underwear.

Mitt Romney is a little different. He doesn’t seem to be an adulterer, and is certainly no superhero. As a devout Mormon, Romney is supposed to wear religious “garments” as his underwear, and I assume he does although he refuses to answer questions about his underwear. If Romney would talk about his underwear, I would be less motivated to draw him in his underwear; Romney’s “garment” silence interests me.  Here are a couple of sample of cartoons with Romney wearing his Mormon “garments.” I have gotten a bit of flack from readers about drawing the mysterious underwear on Romney, but not as much as I expected, and I’ll keep drawing him this way at least until he talks about his underwear. Poor Bill Clinton will continue to be drawn in his underwear whether he talks about it or not.

By Daryl Cagle

Daryl Cagle is the founder and owner of Cagle Cartoons, Inc. He is one of the most widely published editorial cartoonists and is also the editor of The Cagle Post.

11 replies on “Mitt Romney's "Garments"”

You said, “It’s taken on FAITH and BLIND OBEDIENCE, that this magical vestment conveys super human powers, which include a Divine-bullet-proof-protection-guarantee from Satanic HARM and EVIL.”

If you are willing to put forth such a lie and gross distortion, I have to wonder what else you are lying about?


Your argument that Romney’s covenants made with God in a Mormon Temple is somehow mutually exclusive of or otherwise in conflict with the oath of the POTUS to sustain and defend the Constitution is bizarrely twisted.  Let’s call it for what it really is–a gross distortion and an outright lie.

Makes me wonder what else you are willing to lie about.


The conflict is plain. “Building up the kingdom” will not always coincide with the best interests of the nation. It may be that most people don’t take their temple oaths seriously, or find that they have much relevance to their daily lives. The fact that current church leaders are little more than custodians of the institutional crystallization of Joseph Smith’s charisma may also bear on the issue. The improbability of the church leaders doing anything other than rail against porn and “the gays” notwithstanding, I’m not comfortable with a president whose allegiance is first and foremost to Thomas S Monson and the establishment of Mormon Zion.

Jesus said it best:

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

Truth is, daryl, this is a really South Parkesque move on your part, and makes you look like a newt.  Of course, you never could get over your fetish of smelling your sister’s used underwear.

Wrong.  Never proven.  We KNOW you are a child molester. . . . . just need to work harder on proving it.

I don’t feel the church has wronged me “because their beliefs are different from mine;” I feel the church has wronged me by lying to me for 40 years.

And your insult about my emotional balance shows your stupidity. I know this church from the inside-out, not from a spectator’s ignorant view like you do.

The CURRENT Mormon temple ceremony requires Romney to put aside anything other than the building up of the church.

Learn something before you post here like a complete fool, m’kay?

Why the heck would it matter that Mitt’s sons have never served? My father did, I did not and my children haven’t. If I were to run the actions of my father, having served, really do not reflect on me. The fact that I never served might reflect on me, this is my choice and no one else’s. Of course if I deliberately dodged a draft there would be a big issue. The fact that my children have never served is irrelevant, it might mean I taught them to not serve but this is not the case. Ultimately my children will have the right to make this choice themselves. As a father I would support and possibly even encourage there service (1 son and 1 daughter) especially for my son. Keep in mind that my son is only 13 at this point.

For anyone to judge a candidate based on the decisions of anyone else is just ludicrous. We all have the right to choose for ourselves, this must be respected.

Gadare you are right, the American public should investigate so they will know for themselves. Mind you that they should seek reputable sources for this information, not just the bigoted hatred that is published by the Mormon church’s detractors.

Cult is a label that was placed on the Mormon church by those who simply want to tear the Mormon church down. Yet there beliefs do not support that label.

What really makes me laugh is the fact that some make it a point to destroy this religion. Why put so much effort into it, why bother? Just seems to be a silly NON Christ Like activity.

But yes, the American should know this candidate. Sadly most will vote on emotion, based on a pre-selected party or simply because they remember the name. They should really be voting for the person that is most principled, who is most likely to do the best job, at least from the perspective of that individual.

TeesaUCLA, are you telling us that the Mormon religion labels itself as a Cult? I have never heard this before yet it seems that this is exactly what you are saying.

I was wondering the same thing, why are you not making fun of yourself? You also state “As an editorial cartoonist, I cherish my right to draw anyone I want in their underwear.” I know this right is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, or in US Code. You are simply inferring a right that you simply do not have. Ok, making editorial comments about someone that is clearly well known might be acceptable but you do not have the right to draw ANYONE.

Just because you have the right to make an editorial comment doesn’t make the comment right. You clearly have the right to choose what you write, or draw, and you also have the right to suffer whatever consequence might come of it. Likewise, Romney has the right to not disclose things he views as sacred. If he were to break this oath I would be more concerned for his ability to do the same with respect for the Presidency, should he be elected. This is a line that he will not cross, and he has no obligation to.
For those who say it is absolutely relevant, and essential, that he reveal this information I ask you to read my second paragraph above. It might be relevant to you, but the very act of betraying his oath would be a bigger issue from an integrity perspective.We all have the right to practice religion as we see fit. This is the basis of why this great nation exists. Allow Mitt the dignity and respect to hold sacred things as sacred. This is one of his rights, this is also one of our rights.

So by pointing out that no man can serve two masters are you saying that no christian can serve as President of the United States? Ok, some believe in God, some Mohamed, some Jesus (and there are others). Is it not possible to be a man of God, or whoever else, and Lead this nation? Do we not want someone who has religious values?

Of course you may not want a leader that believes in Jesus Christ, you may want a leader that promotes hatred and violence, etc. This is of course your right as it is the right of every citizen. I suspect, however, that most of us want a leader that is honest, has integrity and who has at least a fundamental belief in his Creator.

Comments are closed.