In an opinion piece from today’s New York Times, which can be found here, Maureen Dowd said, among other things:
“In one of the most gratifying moments of an unhinged campaign, former Speaker John Boehner told Stanford students that Cruz was “Lucifer in the flesh.” Satanists immediately objected, saying it was unfair to their deity.”
What a great line.
Wish I’d thought of that…
Of course, picking on the guy who isn’t going to be the nominee, barring some seriously egregious back-room maneuvering, is rather like sailing for the orient by going back to bed.
Why attack the one, when it’s the other you’re going to have to deal with?
Eyes on the target, people…
Eyes on the target.
I kind of wish I were something of an artist.
Cruz with horns is easy enough. Add some eternal flames and Boehner would be laughing all the way to his next speaking engagement.
But a drawing of Satan with a seriously ridiculous comb-over is what’s called for here.
I just can’t seem to find one.
Has no one thought of this yet?
Or are there other considerations at work here?
Well, if the above image, found here, is any indication, I’d have to say “the jury’s still out”.
I mean, portraying the Rug with his own demons is one thing.
But drawing him as the demon might be an entirely different equation… politically, ethically and religiously…
Getting sued by the Rug is one thing…
Getting sued by Satan…?
So many obvious lines…
So little time, or the inclination to follow through on them.
Maybe that’s part of the reason we’re in the mess we find ourselves in.
A failure to say the things that occur to us, but that seem to be so obvious we don’t wish to belabor the point.
A lack of energy to stand up for what we believe…
The whole process is exhausting to me, personally.
I know others find election seasons invigorating.
But the level of nonsense – this being a rather PG blog, after all, we’ll just call it “nonsense” – I say, the sheer ridiculousness of these people is quite detrimental to any level of positive energy.
Either the candidates can’t hear themselves when they speak…
In which case they really shouldn’t be allowed to hold office.
Or they don’t care that they’re so obviously lying to the American public.
Which makes the “Satan” metaphor all the more appropriate.
I think G. K. Chesterton perhaps said it best:
“The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all.”
And yet, it seems we never have any poor candidates for office…
Now why is that, do you suppose…?
I think that fact alone tells us all we’ll ever really need to know about the exercise.