Almost Seems Not To Suck That Bad By Comparison
Is there a word or phrase that means, basically, almost seems not to suck that bad by comparison?
It seems like it would be handy to have such a term. There must be one that I'm forgetting. How could we have gotten this far without one?
The obvious instance is: Bush is so godawful that, to much of the world, anyway, he makes OBL almost seem not to suck that bad by comparison. And Republicans could only recognize that fact, this would probably immediately become a slightly better world.
I raise this question, however, not as an occasion for Bush-bashing--because, really, what sport is to be had at the expense of such a slow-moving target?--but, rather, because the Democrats--of whom, remember, I only ask that they suck less than the Bush administration--are, I have to admit, starting to rather disappoint me.
The point being, of course, that the Democrats are so lame that the Bushies almost seem not to suck that bad by comparison.
I'm not writing them off, I'm just trying to shut up about them. Bush is dangerous, and this administration has been a virtually unmitigated disaster. Consquently, I'm not really interested in harping about the fact that the Democrats merely suck.
By the prevailing standards, merely sucking is pretty good.
But I must admit that I'd hoped for better than that.
Stupid me.
Is there a word or phrase that means, basically, almost seems not to suck that bad by comparison?
It seems like it would be handy to have such a term. There must be one that I'm forgetting. How could we have gotten this far without one?
The obvious instance is: Bush is so godawful that, to much of the world, anyway, he makes OBL almost seem not to suck that bad by comparison. And Republicans could only recognize that fact, this would probably immediately become a slightly better world.
I raise this question, however, not as an occasion for Bush-bashing--because, really, what sport is to be had at the expense of such a slow-moving target?--but, rather, because the Democrats--of whom, remember, I only ask that they suck less than the Bush administration--are, I have to admit, starting to rather disappoint me.
The point being, of course, that the Democrats are so lame that the Bushies almost seem not to suck that bad by comparison.
I'm not writing them off, I'm just trying to shut up about them. Bush is dangerous, and this administration has been a virtually unmitigated disaster. Consquently, I'm not really interested in harping about the fact that the Democrats merely suck.
By the prevailing standards, merely sucking is pretty good.
But I must admit that I'd hoped for better than that.
Stupid me.
posted by Winston Smith at
6:40 PM
13 Comments:
OK, I'll bite.
What particular thing have the Democrats done that brought out this post?
Are we talking about normal everyday suckage, or "we're too busy to meet with Gen. Petraeus" suckage, which goes above and beyond the call of suckage?
TVD, are you talking about Pelosi's meeting yesterday with Petraeus, or McCain's failure to meet with him today (despite McCain being the ranking minority member of the Armed Services Committee) so he could campaign in New Hampshire?
Or both?
Spare us both the disingenuousness, Mr. Funk. We both know she was embarrassed into it after first blowing it off. Sucky. (They ended up having a phone call, not a meeting, BTW.)
As for McCain, considering his support for Petraeus to the point of putting up with Jon Stewart's nonsense and hooting crowd of jackals last night, it is not honest to attach a similar suckiness to missing the briefing.
I was trying to remain vague about the suckage, in order see whether anybody else was just uneasy with the Dems thus far. I've got some specific complaints, but that's for an upcoming screed.
As you know, my working thesis is that suckage is an equal-opportunity thing, and membership in a church or a community (no matter how reality-based) is no prophyaxis.
Who is more vulnerable to corruption, the rich man or the poor one? I say neither, altho the former admittedly may be better at it.
I am disappointed as well, WS. But I don't know if it's possible not to be disappointed by politics and politicians. My main unease with the Dems is that the leaders do not seem very articulate. I am actually somewhat impressed by the performance of the new Congress in terms of passing legislation and holding hearings and investigations. I just don't find Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or the majority of the Democratic candidates for President to be very good at communicating their critique of Republican policies or their advocacy of different policies.
TVD, thanks for the Republican talking points about Pelosi missing the Petraeus meeting. I'd almost missed that one. Ah, I just can't get enough of snide partisanship...It's not hard to see why most Americans think politics is "sucky" and not worth a bit of their time.
I agree, Jared, about investigations and hearing. In general, they've been more vertebrate-like than I might have expected.
And their wince-inducing inarticulateness IS, in fact, one of the things that's, well, inducing winces in me.
But I have to say I'm mostly disappointed about how partisan they seem to be when discussing Iraq. But that's a whole big can of worms.
That would be a counterattack, not a defense, Jared. It's a Republican talking point because it so egregiously sucked. Me, I think it was because she couldn't look Petraeus in the eye, and I don't blame her.
The Democrats are preparing to sit in political and moral judgment of Bush, and that's fair, I suppose. But the more pressing issue, right here, right now is their own moral choice. Michael Yon, writing of our troops, from Iraq:
People talk of an Army breaking under the strain, but while there remains a sliver of hope that Iraq might avoid conflagration into full-scale genocide, out here, where bones splinter and flesh really does burn, there is a kind of clarity. And on these empty streets, a practiced eye regards the slivers of hope that are strewn among all the chards of broken glass.
Yes, I wish it weren't all so partisan, too: the center seems to have collapsed. There's not a single figure out there among liberals or the Democratic Party (except the exiled Joe Lieberman) who dares to state the obvious, that to prevent our American heroes from saving innocent Iraqis (under the euphemism of "redeployment") bears its own responsibility.
There is no moral free lunch.
For the leadership of this country to hide behind the skirts of Gen. Petraeus is shameful. He is there because he was willing to endorse the surge. A mindless escalation that was big middle finger to anyone and everyone who has worked and continues to work to try to extricate us from this mess. He is there to carry out the plans of Bush, no matter how ill-informed or ungrounded in reason and reality.
The idea that the elected civilian leaders of this nation should be unnerved at looking the military brass in the eye is silly. The question here is how the military figure-head of our elected president, who serves at his command, should have any standing to challenge or command his civilian superiors such as Pelosi to listen to his talking points.
I have no beef with Petraeus, he has decided to be the man who tries to implement Bush's chosen policies. Fine. I disagree with the policies, and no one, so far as I know without the last name of Kaplan endorses the current "plan." That is fine too. But to think that everyone else needs to look the military commander in the eye or even listen to him try to explain why his idiot boss's plan is really working not only turns the constitutional relationship between congress and the executive on its head, it also fosters the false idea that the military is in charge of war decisions.
Not true. Congress, when it decides to do its job, decides with the executive where and who we fight. The military decides how. The idea that congress should be briefed on its decision-making from the military is screwed up. Instead, the military needs to be hearing from the congress about what exactly its objectives are. It is only because of the stubborness and aversion to factual reality of this president that such a situation does not exist. Bush is running this war without any factual basis or strategic plan. He is killing our troops to save face. I believe Petraeus actually has an idea of what might constitute improvement, but let's not kid ourselves that he is there for any other reason than he was willing to undertake this bullshit surge proposal in the absence of any evidence that it would accomplish squat.
Call bullshit all you want. It's epistemological nihilism, with which adults cannot engage; however, the moral gauntlet remains thrown, try as you (and Ms. Pelosi, it seems) might to pretend it's not there.
In the end, you'll have to look somebody in the eye, even if it's only in the mirror.
My turn to go meta: TVD, this whole look me in the eye theme you've been on about lately is hot air, nothing more. You think Pelosi couldn't look Petraeus in the eye, but you have no evidence.
Hey, you, look me in the eye! Nope, you're too busy practicing your tough look in front of the mirror.
I think it's funny to talk about looking someone in the eye..as you post..
on the internet...
with a pseudonym.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home