Project Wonderful Banner

Thursday, June 02, 2011

That damned Guy

What's Mallard raving about today?


First off, Mallard...turn off the TV. We have no idea what you are talking about.

Second, why do you hate the Free Market?

Third, you've been a lick spittle for the Insurance industry since President Obama took your corporate masters know you're criticizing them now?


Tog said...

Already? Batshit's already dipping back into Mallard's Big Bag o' Bullshit, which like Mallard himself only exists in Batshit's otherwise-unoccupied skull cavity? And Batshit's blowing it on something besides HURR HURR LIBRULZ AM STOOPIT? This isn't like you, Batshit. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed.

Neo Tuxedo said...

We have no idea what you are talking about.

For my sins, I do know what he's talking about: the World's Greatest Spokesperson in the World. The campaign does indeed rise to new depths of Dumb. I have to leave the room when it comes on because brain cells are a non-renewable resource. Tinshley may actually be right about it being the real most annoying creature on the planet.

But that's just annoying. Mallard is actively offensive.

Kip W said...

I'd feel like that too, if I spent all day stuporously lounging in front of a TV set blaring infomercials.

Not only do I not, but I also can't bring myself to raise the duck to the level of "most annoying." He's just one more GOP insect on a beach that's crawling with them.

digger said...

Today's strip can only be described as "lame". If Doonesbury (or any other comic strip) started printing strips with this level of feeble humor, they would soon be dropped. Are newspapers so desperate for a strip with a conservative bias that they have to resort to printing Mallard? BTW, I assume most people who respond to this blog read Mallard in a newspaper. Is this so? Or are most people viewing the strip online. Just curious.

Toots McGee said...

What's the deal with commercials? Aren't they lame?

Just the other day I read something (I think it was in a comment on the Comics may have been about Pluggers) about a "grievance based ideology". I think this is the first time I've seen the phrase, but it immediately made me think of Mallard. I guess it's another way of expressing "plenty plaint", the term coined by Thomas Frank in What’s the Matter with Kansas?

digger, to answer your informal survey, I read Mallard Fillmore online and do not have ready access to a printed source for this strip.

I was in Pittsburgh for a week and the hotel provided complimentary copies of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review which printed Mallard on the editorial page. I would characterize that paper as being desperate to promote a conservative point of view in everything they printed.

Rootbeer said...


The guy's a former The Daily Show correspondent, which automatically makes anything he does funnier than anything Bruce Tinsley has done.

rewinn said...

"grievance based ideology" is a really good way to describe modern "conservativism.

Whatever's going on, they're unhappy and it's the fault of liberals. This makes them putty in the hands of corporatists.

The CEOs shipped their jobs overseas and the banksters gambled with their pensions, and do you know whose fault it is? those dang hippies with their smarty pants iPods and tofu waffles!!!

deepbeep said...

I get the feeling this would still be a crappy comic even if I knew what Mallard was talking about.

Anonymous said...

The CEOs are doing more than just shipping jobs overseas. They, and their senior people, are more or less stealing their salaries and "bonuses" from their common shareholders. This includes everybody with an IRA invested in mutual funds.

Tog said...

I get my daily duckfart from the Houston Chronicle (

(If you use their "Build Your Own Comics Page" function, change "&cpp=x" in the bookmark so that "x" equals the number of strips you've selected. Then they'll all come up in one page.)

Newt-alternative Mitt Romney kicked off his campaign today with condescension, high-pitched whining AND bald-faced lying:

"A few years ago, Americans did something that was, actually, very much the sort of thing Americans like to do. We gave someone new a chance to lead; someone we hadn't known for very long, who didn't have much of a record but promised to lead us to a better place. At the time, we didn't know what sort of a President he would make. It was a moment of crisis for our economy, and when Barack Obama came to office, we wished him well and hoped for the best."

The fussy tantrum-throwing Party of NO!! is still fighting everything Obama says or does (Goodwin Liu's nomination had bipartisan support and they still filibustered it for no clear reason, beyond of course ZOMG BLACK MAN IN OUR WHITE WHITE HOUSE) and Rush still prays publicly for his failure every day, consequences to the nation be damned--and that little prick still had the nerve to say that.

Yo, Bruce--there's your next man-crush. Start lickin' and suckin'.

Randy said...

Well, Godwin will have his due: "grievance based ideology" also seems like a pretty good description of Nazism, especially towards their favourite scapegoat, the Jews.

Kip W said...

...we wished him well and hoped for the best.

For values of "we" that didn't include Mitt or anybody in his party! Good thing I wasn't trying to ingest anything when I read that.

digger, I read 'em online, mostly at the Chronicle.

rewinn said...

Anon is right that CEOs are "...more or less stealing their salaries and "bonuses" from their common shareholders. This includes everybody with an IRA invested in mutual funds"

But ask Mallard whose fault it is and you'll see ... it's those dang hippies and Che-Guevara-wearing liberals!!!!