I think I can do him one better, though: the various riffs on "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." For example, here's a story with the ingenious headline, "Mr. Stewart comes to D.C."
You get that? It's like that movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," only they made it "Mr. Stewart," because it's about Jon Stewart instead of Mr. Smith, and they made it "comes" instead of "goes," because the headline-writer actually lives in D.C., and Jon Stewart was coming to D.C., and, well, anyway, you get it, right? Super-clever and funny and original, don't you think?
Uh, sure, aside from the fact that it's already been done 48.6 billion times. Plus infinity.
Why, though, do I say that it's worse than "shocked...shocked"? Well, for one thing, it's been around longer. "Mr. Smith" came out in 1939, a few years before Casablanca. So I'm sure that the first usage was right after the 1940 elections.
Beyond that, though, you're really only permitted one syllable after "Mr." and before "goes." Why? Because "Smith" has only one syllable in it. If you try to send a polysyllabic guy to Washington, you totally screw up the rhythm.
For example, I'm sure somebody must have written the following at some point: "Mr. Eisenhower goes to Washington." But come on! "Eisenhower" has four syllables. You can't do that. It's nails on a chalkboard on top of being hacky, which makes it TWICE as hacky, because it indicates extreme laziness on the part of the writer.
The obvious solution here is for me to issue a binding edict prohibiting further use of the "Mr. So and So..." construction. And so it is done.
Footnote: Speaking of Eisenhower, in 1957 my grandfather cold-cocked a guy in a Detroit nightclub for saying "Eisenhowernomics." I asked him about this many years later, and I'll never forget his response: "Everybody knew you didn't say such an ugly word out loud, particularly in mixed company. You said 'Ike-uh-nomics,' or you kept your mouth shut."