There are all kinds of bad writing; there's academic writing (especially), there's bureaucratic writing, there's technical writing (that of those sadistic bastards who mal-explain in something only approximating English how to plug your DVD player in, which I've yet to [understand] do), and there's always bad poetry (though even the worst poets are "sincere," as Oscar Wilde, I believe it was, observed), and so on. But none of it can hold a shtick (I meant to do that) to the badness of "professional political" writing, as evidenced by the professionally political Craig Robinson, former political director of Iowa's GOP:
I’ve come to prefer expressing my opinions via written commentary because it allows me to massage the message I’m trying to get across.
Got a tip for you, Craig: Stick to verbal extemporaneity, such as your recent keeper, "I hate to say this, but if Ryan wants to run for national office again, he’ll probably have to wash the stench of Romney off of him." Actually pondering such an immense truth is a bitch, isn't it, Craig? I mean, before committing it to paper you start wondering if you might offend someone if you say what's really on your unbowdlerized mind and so then you begin watering it down and heaven forfend "massaging" it and before long you've got mush, Craig. Nothing but inoffensive, uninteresting, mostly unread mush.
Live, adorably reckless talk radio, Craig, not massaged opinions. That's where your future lies. What's more, such a career move on your part will diminish the sum total of the hideously bad political writing that's out there.