I vote for choice #3: Avoid pitched Slate

Last night, Commentrician Nobdy shared an article from Slate. Since Nobdy warned everyone about the content and the origin of the article, I really ought to have known better. But as they say, seeing is WTFing?

Republicans have faced an excruciating choice in 2016: Get behind their own party’s mortifying nominee or cede the White House to a deeply despised rival.

It’s an easy call from the left side of the fence. Democrats are baffled when seemingly sane conservatives like Paul Ryan and John McCain promise to vote for the GOP’s loony new standard-bearer. We tut-tut. We roll our eyes. We s our gdhs.

These would be Democrats whose knowledge of conservatives like McCain and Ryan is based solely on press releases from the offices of conservatives like McCain and Ryan, I assume. Or morons.

But confronted with the same dilemma, I wonder how the left would respond. If a dopey populist surge somehow contrived to foist a wackadoo lefty nominee on the American electorate, how many of my fellow Democrats would feel obliged, for the sheer safety of the nation, to vote for an especially hated but well-qualified right-wing opponent? And how many would swallow hard and climb on board with the wackadoo?

Stevenson posits Sean Penn as the Democratic nominee created by a racist and xenophobic dopey populist surge.

It quickly becomes clear that a certain Bernie-ish swath of primary voters can’t get enough of Penn. He rants about social justice issues with a raw ferocity that packaged liberal politicians never quite muster.

Ranting against social justice or ranting for social justice? No, just about social buzzphrase the details are not important!

He rips into right-wing enemies with salty language and palpable anger. He’s a loose cannon on Twitter and seems nigh incorruptible.

HaLOL. At what point during this decade could anyone think the phrase nigh incorruptible belonged in the same ZIP code with Trump?

However, that’s what I get for reading past the point where he didn’t specifically name the Republican opponent, but he did cite a Tweet by Ross Douthat:

I’m saying: Imagine a race where the choices were an unfit, paranoid, unstable Democratic nominee and Rick Santorum.

This is just one woman’s opinion, but the opposite of unfit, paranoid and unstable is not now, and will never be Rick “Santorum” Santorum.

Furthermore, I am utterly failing to grasp what sort of safety I would gain by voting for (and I assume helping to elect) a homophobe and misogynist who has the Blacks Hooked on Food Stamps chicken surgically attached to his pecker and once signed a pledge that included a less than accurate passage about slavery:

“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

So: No. And to be clear, my opinion doesn’t change if the candidate is Cruz or Romney or McCain or an imaginary Republican named Kate who is really my ideal of a liberal president and who somehow tricks the GOP into nominating her via a cunning plan that involves cutting her hair, putting on boy’s clothes and saying her name is Bob.

No also to Sean Penn the wackadem (or Jill Stein or Harambe), should this irritating philosophy student-type thought experiment ever become a reality.

And no to Slatepitching as well.