I do not mind the metaphor in political discourse. It certainly outshines the embarrassing spectacle of pompous politicians swelling their chests in testeronic displays of moral outrage. But alas, in this country, there is such dearth of wit; that we should even qualify Mr. Ignatieff's 'sulfuric' reference as beyond schoolyard literacy.
Oh, how I yearn for the rhetoric of the likes of Churchill who could mutate a commonly known aphorism to reduce his political opponent to 'a sheep in sheep's clothing.' Even the neighbours to the south have their operators of pith. Regardless of one's perspective on the illegal immigration issue in Arizona, one has to adore the conscription of Dora the Explorer for the liberal cause.
I do not know why Canadian politicians are so devoid of repartee. Do our universities and law schools abort keenness of mind upon its first exhibition in the intellectual womb? Is the apt use of the witticism so dangerous in this age of political timidity? Are our citizenry so opaque, that those who would dare to violate the image of gravity and dullness suffer severe ostracism?
A man without wit is a man without wits. And we ought not to elect politicians without wits. For, how can the witless protect our interests from the wits of our adversaries? Therefore, let us give a cheer for the judicious use of wit.