Project Wonderful Banner

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

That damned...oh for God's Sake Shut Up Already!

What's Mallard raving about today?

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama.

OK, we get it.

Anything anyone says about Black people is interpreted by Black people as racism. So says Mallard Fillmore, spokesperson for all Black people.

Can we please move along?


factinista said...

No, we can't move on. Mallard's going to go on about this until November, and if Obama wins, he'll continue whining until he leaves office.

Don't you see? He's realized his readership is nothing but a bunch of jaded liberals. It's all a brilliant ploy to get us to vote Republican! (Well, it's brilliant except for the fact that he hates McCain too.)

luke said...

On the positive side, Tinsley has pulled himself together just long enough to frame his schizophrenic ramblings within an actual narrative! WHAT IS HAPPENING!? Normally Wright would just be standing alone in a void, but it's actually given CONTEXT! He'll be speaking on Mr. Noseworthy's program, where we'll hear him say these things! Wait, has he actually said them yet, or is Mallard just predicting this is what he'll say? We are seeing Mallard's imagination? Is this some kind of double straw man??

Um, time for bed.

Michael said...

luke, maybe we'll even see a "story arc" that lasts more than 2 days! One can only hope.

Not the kind of hope normally reserved for Mallard Fillmore being replaced in my local paper by Get Fuzzy or Tom the Dancing Bug, but still.

12xuser said...

It's Noseworthy's program, but Tinsley draws Mallard, telling us what we'll see on Noseworthy's program. He couldn't show the actual interview, because it would require him to draw two non-Mallard characters in one strip. Not only that, they would be two LIBERAL characters, who might join together and wrestle the strip away from Mallard.

And worst of all, he ends it all with continued . . . .

Kaitlyn said...

Dave, I'm sure he's beat things into the ground longer than this. I think it's because the coverage just(?) stopped on the teevee, and now here's this moron who IS USING THE SAME DAMN SO-CALLED "JOKE" HE USES WITH AL SHARPTON!

Lazy, lazy.

As to why he's doing this - to shut you down! It's a conspiracy of frustration.

And us. What more can be said when he reuses jokes and media figures?

Of course, this theme is hilarious, considering his "the media lurvs Obama" bit was in the middle. Oh, the laughter.

Raynfala said...

Dead horse, meet whip...

rewinn said...

Once again, the strip needs an editor. The 2nd balloon (".... whom we'll hear say ....") is completely useless.

Extra points to Tinsley for using foofy, elitistic "whom" in a situation where no-one but George Will would use "who".

GeoX said...

You know, I would actually be impressed in a perverse sort of way if he could keep beating this particular dead horse every day for the next seven months. Yeah, we all know he's an asshole. But can he take the limit???

Celia said...

I would be impressed (in vaguely the same way one is morbidly impressed by those saints that stand on posts in the desert for forty years) if Mallard and Bruce could keep this tiresome mocking of discussions on racism up for the next seven months - with no breaks or anything. But I imagine something'll crop up before the election result to distract him. Some Republican will get caught in a ménage a trois with a nineteen year old of indeterminate gender and a pig, and Mallard'll be all "Remember when [Democrat] did this and nobody in the Liberal Media said a word?" At the very least, Hillary Clinton will do something, and you know he likes to (badly) draw her.

Matt Ramone said...

Ha! +1 for Celia. I remember all the Bill Clinton jokes during the Mark Foley scandal, and I just kept thinking "yup, cause NO ONE remembers this - the media at the time barely covered it." I also thought the comparison was absurd. As scummy as adultery is, a consensual act between two adults is a whole lot less creepy than drunkenly sexual harassing underage pages.

I would have a whole lot more respect for the GOP if they were willing to turn a critical eye on itself from time to time. Like, when tough-on-crime Rush Limbaugh got busted for drugs, perhaps they could have boycotted his show off the air instead of saying he had a problem and embracing him back wholly. Or when Folely was caught chasing twinks while voting against pro-gay legislation, if they had loudly denounced him as a hypocrite and drummed him out of the party instead of smuggling him into rehab. Just sayin'.

rewinn said...

>when tough-on-crime Rush Limbaugh got busted for drugs

Funny but true, I'm having exactly the same discussion today on another forum; the Rush fans say it's o.k. because:

1. It was legal drugs and,

2. He got addicted by accident and,

3. He wasn't trying to have a good time.

So of course I asked if they felt that EVERYONE who got addicted by accident should get medical treatment instead of mandatory jail time (...I've never heard of anyone who got addicted on purpose...).

So far: silence. How long should I wait?