by Noah
When it comes to conservative columnist Bret Stephens, let's just say I am not a fan. I mean, how could I be? The man wants us all to be living in some sort of 1947 Alabama of the mind. That said, even a rusty old, seagull guano-covered broken clock lying in a dump in the rain is right twice a day. So, when I saw he had something to say about Rafael "Ted" Cruz in a New York Times piece with fellow writer Gail Collins, well, I just had to see what it was. Here's an excerpt below:
...you know that whenever you mention the name of the junior senator from Texas, I think: Eddie Haskell wasn’t that unctuous. Veruca Salt wasn’t that obnoxious. Sherman McCoy wasn’t that full of himself. Uriah Heep wasn’t that sycophantic. Heathcliff wasn’t that twisted. Dorian Gray wasn’t that self-absorbed. Elmer Gantry wasn’t that hypocritical. Willie Stark wasn’t that corrosively ambitious. Faust wasn’t that morally compromised. Lady Macbeth wasn’t that sinister. Iago wasn’t that conniving. Richard III wasn’t that malicious. Mr. Wickham wasn’t that dishonorable. Gollum wasn’t that oleaginous. Norman Bates wasn’t that disturbing. Inspector Clouseau wasn’t that ridiculous.
So, thank you Bret. Today, your apt descriptions of Toxic Ted the Traitor put a smile (of sorts) on my face, and, it's nice to see that, unlike the rest of the troglodytes in your party, you may have at least read a book or two in your hateful life. Now please go back to fucking yourself.
the problem with this is that all those comparisons are fictitious.
in america, a person worse than anyone could imagine to write about is real... and has been elected to a leadershit position iteratively. And, it seems, that no matter what idiotic and purely evil thing he does or says, he is guaranteed re-election.
how long before americans just elect that pos as the fuhrer for life and get it over with? it seems inevitable.