Project Wonderful Banner

Thursday, June 11, 2009

That damned Center

What's Mallard raving about today?

Republicans.

Mallard Fillmore thinks the Republican Party's woes are because they are too centrist.

No, I'm serious. That's what he thinks.

18 comments:

Factinista said...

So the GOP wants Mallard to move to the "center," which it plainly considers to be a path to destruction. This can only mean one thing: Rush Limbaugh wants Mallard to fail!

systsel said...

What the fuck is going on with that trunk? Did he give that trunk lips? Jesus Christ, Tinsley.

NLC said...

Oh please, oh PLEASE, OH PLEASE!, PLEASE!!, PLEASE!!!, PLEASE!!!! let the tattered remnants of the neocon fringe convince the leader of the Republicans that they really need to continue the wingnut ideology that has all but wrecked their party.

Pretty, pretty please?


[WV: "troph": What Tinsley has awarded himself. Not quite a real trophy, but the best he can do.]

Squid Vicious said...

On a serious note, I actually find it worrisome that a significant minority (say 20ish%) of the nation feels that the Republican party, which is already batshit insane, just doesn't bring the crazy like they want it to. Honestly, what degree of reactionary lunacy would make them happy? While all these people clearly aren't murderous bastards, their potential for radicalism certainly does not yet seem to have reached its outer bounds. This makes me wonder whether they will ultimately be able to establish a productive role in our pluralist democracy and, if not, what the result will be.

WV: tards - that 20ish percent?

dlauthor said...

Squid: "This makes me wonder whether they will ultimately be able to establish a productive role in our pluralist democracy and, if not, what the result will be."


Sadly, I think we've been seeing the result lately in places like Wichita and DC. Can't wait for Tinshley's ravings about that stuff two weeks from now: maybe he'll do a strip with von Brunn congratulating Mallard on a wonderful 15 years of echoing his worldview!

Rootbeer said...

I think the accidental joke here is that "Doonesbury" is funny, which has inspired the GOP to become a laughingstock.

wavydavy said...

I cannot decide which statement is the more divorced from reality: (a) that Republicans are in some way, shape, or form like Doonesbury, or (b) that Doonsebury is somehow in the "center".

On a more serious note, just how long is Tinkley going to stretch out this already overlong theme that there are important political figures -- of any persuasion -- who actually give a rat's ass about Mallard Fillmore?

Anonymous said...

Wow. I'd have thought by this point all the masturbating Tinny's been doing for the last TEN DAYS would've worn him out. But lo and behold, he still has the strength to do the same shitty non-jokes he always does but tack on some variation of "Dear Mallard, congrats on 15 years" at the start. To quote The Joker, "it'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic."

rewinn said...

Doonesbury *is* centrist.

It makes fun of politicos of all political stripes; if at times it seems liberal, that's because reality appears to have a liberal bias in a culture dominated by various combinations of corporatist hacks.

The corporate hackery got the GOP where it is today; I have every confidence that they will try to do the same to the Democrats. It's up to We The People to do something about that, regardless of our politics on other matters; sane rightwingers *could* make common cause with the rest of us.

But Mallard Fillmore doesn't even recognize there's a problem. On the plus side, that made today's "comic" actually pretty funny ... just in a different way than Tinshley in tended.

NLC said...

rewinn:
Doonesbury *is* centrist.

Exactly so.

One of the silliest features of
of the neocon noise-machine is its
practice of casting the debate in these ridiculous terms.

Its needs for doing so are obvious, but to pick two recent examples, MF's recent attempt to paint David Letterman as left-wing mouth-puppet, or all that blather about Obama as "marxist", for Pete's sake.

(Or, rather, it would be "silly" if so much of the popular media didn't parrot this all up as a given fact.)

Elizabeth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kyle said...

Heaven forbid this hack be ANYTHING like Doonesbury -- that would require intelligence and some level of drawing ability.

I also think it's fantastic that the echo chamber dwellers seem to believe the GOP's downfall came from moving center. Please do move right, then you can become the Dixiecrats, GOP.

Also, I think it's worth noting that Tinsley's object of obsession Ronald Reagan was one of the least economically conservative presidents ever, eclipsed only by W. who took the same principles of spending non-existant revenue at the expense of the middle class. Furthermore, Reagan is credited (correctly or not) as the man who widened the GOP's tent by allegedly moving center.

Therefore I can't decide which is more agitating: Tinsley's self-aggrandizing or Tinsley's complete cognitive dissonance.

exanonymous said...

You really can't blame Tinsley for pimping himself here.

Carrie Prejean's been fired for not following her contract and acting like the spoiled brat she is, domestic terrorism from right-wing extremists is on the rise, the GOP can't keep stories straight, and Obama is STILL liked by the majority of Americans.

GeoX said...

Remember: Like communism, conservatism can never fail; it can only BE failed. Ergo, if conservatives are out of power, it can't have anything to do with their malignant, incoherent political "philosophy" itself--it must be because they weren't propitiating it with sufficient fervor. It has nothing to do with any actual, concrete policy; had they won in 2006 and 2008, we'd be hearing none of this. Nor will we if/when they start winning again. All events must be molded so as to conform with the premise: conservatism is The Way.

Jazzbumpa said...

rewinn -

(And at the same time, shorter GeoX)

There are no sane right wingers.

MartyRotten said...

The interesting thing is that this strip illustrates the fundamental difference between Doonesbury and MF, and also the difference between satire and propaganda.

Doonesbury has a leftist slant, but Trudeau's strip attacks anyone who acts hypocritically or foolishly, left or right, they were every bit as hard on Clinton as they were on Bush and have often poked fun at liberals as well as conservatives. This is satire. Although a satirist may have a point of view, what he or she does not have are sacred cows.
Mallard Fillmore spent years lambasting Clinton but had little or nothing to say about the abuses of Bush and Co. In fact he's often championed the Republican cause in his strip almost exclusively. This is propaganda. He favors one point of view and ignores the other and only points out the foolishness of his enemies.
So there is really no comparison between Doonesbury and Mallard Fillmore since they are not really the same kind of strip.

Michael said...

At least now we know what the penis chins have sex with.

Frank Stone said...

Another difference between Doonesbury and MF:

Doonesbury is populated by characters; MF is populated by caricatures.