NanceGreggs, "Why I Cannot Vote in 2008"
Democratic Underground  Post  Oct 6, 2007

Thanks to  "WilliamPitt" on Democratic Underground for stirring up the animals for a second round. We liked this post the first time we saw it, thought it was good satire, poking fun at some of the more superficial wrangling over fingernail length and such in debating - no, wrong word - quarrelling over which potential candidate is the more fatally flawed. But we let it go at that, just chuckling at the indignant responses from those who either did not understand satire or wanted to defend their 10-second-sound-bite cognitive abilities, so successfully nurtured in the crucible of Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason." Some just missed the point entirely, wading in to defend their support of someone over a legitimately valid and critical issue, but the implication was that they know they have been making superficial attacks on everyone else, and feel righteous in so doing. If they have not, then they weren't the target of the post, so why are they so irate? Or is it just that they are so caught up in a religious fervor over "their" candidate that any mention of the existance of another religion triggers a Pavlovian urge to recite their rosary?

Anyway, when WilliamPitt also got slammed for having the audacity to give Nance a shout out, well, we just had to admit that Nance had really hit a nerve with a lot of people, and in the process demonstrated a rather depressing fact: The "left" is as well-populated with "knuckle-draggers" as is the "right" - people with no sense of humor, ready to fly off the handle, spittle flying, whenever their hairtrigger buttons are pushed.  We've long observed that the 2nd Amendment has zealots on the far right and the far left.  We know we have both Muslim extremists and Christian extremists, as well as various fringe cult extremists like the ones who flew to the comet by committing mass suicide. What Nance highlighted was yet another category of extremists. I guess they are - what? "individual rights extremists"?  People who are so pissed off at the world over gay rights (and lack thereof) or lack of funding of stem cell research or animal rights, or the ongoing travesty in Iraq, that they lose all ability to have any actual discourse on any topic. They are as quick to name-call as are the right wing radio jerks; they are so intolerant of any suggestion that there is any nuance, any alternative to their view, however little it differs, that they have become irrational. They differ in personality not an iota from the abortion-clinic-bombers.  There is no truth but theirs. Even if you agree with them on their primary point, they would stone you if they could if you suggested for a second that maybe there might be some wiggleroom in special cases.

These are the people Nance mocked. While her intent was, we are sure, lighthearted, she inadvertently exposed an important truth. The left needs to be as wary of its own as it does of theirs. These zealots will feed raw meat to the Limbaughs of the world. The rap on the current democratic front-runner is that she may be "polarizing" - may "mobilize the opposition."  Well, these zealots are equally as dangerous.  Thanks Nance, and Will. Not sure what good it does, but you did combine in an interesting social experiment.  And you dramatize how the chicken-and-egg demise of the once great Fourth Estate has been accelerated by the creation of such undiscriminating consumers of news and information.  It is unclear whether the takeover of the media by corporate special interests, or the  readiness of an ever-growing portion of "We the People"  to drink swill is the root cause.  Suffice it to say that well written insightful articles on facts and issues, while they have an audience, rarely get the level of response that a debate over lapel pins does.

Here are the links to Nance's original post, and Will's followup. The responses are entertaining.

The text of Nance's rant:

After looking over the candidates and weighing my options and my principles, I realize that I cannot, in good conscience, vote for any of the current crop seeking election in 2008.

I don’t think it necessary to even comment on the GOP contenders. Given the events of the past six-plus years, I think it goes without saying that anyone with an (R) after their name is not worthy of consideration – despite the fact that Giuliani single-handedly saved NYC from the terrorists (albeit after-the-fact), the fact that Freddie Thompson has been established as the Great White Hope (sans applause), the fact that McCain will whup everybody’s asses (as soon as he scrounges up the bus fare to get to where those asses reside), the fact that Tancredo’s idea of threatening to bomb Islamic holy sites can’t help but convince the Middle East that our only hope is peace and understanding.

That being said, let me address the real contenders, the Democrats, and my reasons for not being able to vote for a single one of them.

In keeping with my personal principles, I cannot vote for anyone who does not agree one-hundred percent with my own views on every issue, from education to the War in Iraq, from the economy to the separation of Church and State, from mint-chip being the best flavor of ice-cream Baskin Robbins has to offer to taupe travertine tile being the only reasonable option for a front-entrance foyer. (Who doesn’t know that a neutral color is the best choice in today’s volatile resale market, I ask you?)

My vote can only be cast for the candidate who lives in a home of reasonable square-footage, who spends exactly the right amount of money on a haircut, who displays exactly the right amount of religious fervor that is not too hot, not too cold, but is just right.

My perfect candidate wears an American flag lapel pin which is positioned in exactly the right place on his/her suit jacket, which is made of politically-correct fiber and was purchased at a price that I deem to be not only acceptable, but worthy of applause.

Not only must my candidate be beyond reproach in both their public and private lives (not only currently, but from the day they were born), every person employed by their campaign, every family member, every friend they have ever had, every acquaintance they have ever known, every person on earth they have ever seen or spoken to MUST be equally free of scandal, real or imagined, and MUST be ready, willing and able to prove their innocence of any wrongdoing – whether such wrongdoing ever occurred or not.

My candidate meets my expectations in every regard, and never wavers one iota from my personal beliefs on any topic, including immigration, international diplomacy, white meat versus dark meat as the best part of the turkey, baseball versus football as the most exciting sport, or bridesmaids’ having a choice of dresses versus the bride having the final say, like it or not.

My candidate must have the right last name, the right spouse, the right number of children, the right campaign slogan, the right website, and must never have verbalized anything positive about a movie I dislike, their fondness for a vegetable I loathe, or offer anything less than a total condemnation of songs I hate, TV shows I think are dumb, or books I found totally boring and over-rated by the so-called critics.

My candidate for sainthood must be able to prove their direct involvement in at least three miracles before I can consider their beatification in furtherance of – oh, we’re not choosing candidates for sainthood? We’re discussing candidates for the presidency – among people who are flawed, less-than-perfect human beings who are capable of mistakes? People who aren’t all-knowing, all-seeing, all-everything I ever desired in a president?

Oh, I see now.

Okay.

Nevermind. 

Award to NanceGreggs for "Why I Cannot Vote in 2008" with an honorable mention to WilliamPitt for picking at the sore.