Sunday, January 24, 2010

Monotheism and Its Discontents

So let's see if we have this straight. Last week's upset victory by the new Senatorfold from Massachusetts marks the end of the brief era of wonderment that Hopenchange had brought unto our heretofore benighted land. A vitally needed health-care reform bill would now be brought to its bony, spavined knees because, according to the new-new math, 41 > 59, especially when you have no balls. Worse yet, the fearsome claque of jabbering teabaggers has now been empowered to reclaim what Obammy stole from them. And so forth.

I mean, hell, do these people ever listen to themselves? Not everything is a sea change, folks, nor do things necessarily possess the semiotic heft you ascribe to them in your political fever dreams. Maybe Martha Coakley was simply a phenomenally dreadful candidate, running on fumes and entitlement, a hack who couldn't even make sure the name of the state she was running for was spelled correctly on her own campaign ads, who thought a two-week vacation in the Caribbean during a close race was a good idea.

Regardless, now we are apparently on the verge of national catastrophe because this supposedly-better-than-nothing industry-written monkeyfuck might get filibustered to death, because the Democrats simply don't have the stones to actually force the minority party to make good on their threats. A party with some imagination and courage would make sure to heavily promote such proceedings; the spectacle of borderline retards like Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn expounding at length of the post-apocalyptic moonscape of Obamacare would be worth its weight in comedy gold. Only a party shit-scared of its own shadow, preoccupied with its incessant cat-herding, would fail to see this.

Not to mention that even had Coakley somehow figured out a way to retain a seat that a slow ten-year-old could have held for the Democrats, her role in the "reform" bill would simply have been that of caretaker -- that is, ensuring along with the rest of the people's delegates that nothing untoward would affect the health and pharma industries' revenue-gathering capabilities.

The hand-wringing is really pretty embarrassing, and I'm sure Scott Brown will turn out to be every bit the mediocrity he appears to be, but that was never going to redound to Coakley's advantage. If there is any lesson to be drawn from this, it is that sometimes people lose because they deserve to, because they fail to make a case for why they are even in the room, and are inept and tone-deaf to boot. The fear that it is also a party failure is justified, and on an even simpler basis -- it's not that they failed to do what they said they were going to do, it's that they didn't even try.

1 comment:

Marius said...

It was already true that, under conditions of (1) absence of balls and (2) Lieberputziness, 41>60. It follows trivially that, when (1) and (2) still obtain, 41>59.