I've been beating up Gordon all along, and for the same reasons in my recent piece. "Sour grapes" comes from the Aesop fable where the protagonist changes his mind and claims the intended goal was probably not desirable after all. Sour grapes in this case would be if I said I didn't think Jim would make a good alderman, which I haven't said and don't think is true.
Thanks for the clarification. Sour grapes was the wrong metaphor. Perhaps:sourpuss, sore loser. Someone who should have gone into a closed room, and practiced free kicks on a waste basket while yelling ***K!!! All the while staying away from the keyboard. Welcome to electoral politics.
Hmm, I can accept the sourpuss appelation. It's true that I think both choices are dismally bad, and my post reflected that. I do have a tendency toward the grey and dismal. (That doesn't prove that the choices are good, though, either.)
Sore loser his more complex to parse, but I don't think it hits the nail on the head. I'm not grumbling that we somehow "should" have won. I understand why we didn't, and if the campaign were simply about winning, perhaps I'd tend toward being a sore loser. I'd prefer to think not. I actually feel pretty good about the Ginderske campaign. True, we didn't get the result we wanted, but we ran the campaign we wanted to, and there are a lot of good things that have come from it. In that regard, I'm choosing to focus on the positive when thinking about our campaign.
Just remember what worked and what didn't. Good luck with the next campaign. That may be the last thing you want to think about, right now, but in a few years....
5 comments:
I've been beating up Gordon all along, and for the same reasons in my recent piece. "Sour grapes" comes from the Aesop fable where the protagonist changes his mind and claims the intended goal was probably not desirable after all. Sour grapes in this case would be if I said I didn't think Jim would make a good alderman, which I haven't said and don't think is true.
That said, welcome back to the blogosphere.
Thanks for the clarification.
Sour grapes was the wrong metaphor. Perhaps:sourpuss, sore loser. Someone who should have gone into a closed room, and practiced free kicks on a waste basket while yelling ***K!!! All the while staying away from the keyboard.
Welcome to electoral politics.
Hmm, I can accept the sourpuss appelation. It's true that I think both choices are dismally bad, and my post reflected that. I do have a tendency toward the grey and dismal. (That doesn't prove that the choices are good, though, either.)
Sore loser his more complex to parse, but I don't think it hits the nail on the head. I'm not grumbling that we somehow "should" have won. I understand why we didn't, and if the campaign were simply about winning, perhaps I'd tend toward being a sore loser. I'd prefer to think not. I actually feel pretty good about the Ginderske campaign. True, we didn't get the result we wanted, but we ran the campaign we wanted to, and there are a lot of good things that have come from it. In that regard, I'm choosing to focus on the positive when thinking about our campaign.
As for the runoff, I think the proper metaphor is "dissatisfied diner." I feel as though I've sat down to a meal of rat kidneys and squirrel tripe. I may have to eat to survive, but I'm not going to pretend I like either one of the entrées available.
Just remember what worked and what didn't. Good luck with the next campaign. That may be the last thing you want to think about, right now, but in a few years....
Post a Comment