My endorsement for president: None of the above

My endorsement for president: None of the above

The candidates have dwindled down to a not-so-precious few. I’ve been avoiding writing about politics because I see so much other writing about it, but I keep thinking that I should get into the ring on one side or the other.

But should I endorse a poor former Secretary of State and senator whose only value seems to be “What’s in it for me?”

Should I endorse a present-day senator who’s calling for revolution?

Or should I endorse a bullying business tycoon who doesn’t seem to have learned debating style at a level about playground taunts?

My endorsement, dear readers, is None of the above.

Here’s why:

None of the above has a coherent plan for what to do when he becomes president.

None of the above admits that plans will need to change, and that the hardest sentence to pronounce in English is “I don’t know.”

None of the above can hold a news conference without either screaming, belittling the questioners, or sounding dangerously hoarse.

None of the above is the voice of reason.

None of the above has been elected to executive office (such as a governorship).

Yes, None of the above is “boring.” But while that doesn’t seem great in a candidate, it’s marvelous in a president… a calm, respected, and, well, Serious president.

(Candidate None of the above, where are you?)


Margaret Serious has a page on Facebook.

Cast your vote with me — subscribe! Just click the button above. I never send spam, and you may unsubscribe at any time.


Filed under: Uncategorized


Leave a comment
  • "None of the above" isn't on the ballot, but they way the Electoral College is set up, Illinois voters don't matter. So, c'est la vie.

    But if you rank "previous executive office" as a qualification, that brought us GWB and the 2008 crash. That would also qualify Chris "Capon" Christie.

    I also note you used "he" as a pronoun.

  • In reply to jack:

    Thanks for stopping in, Jack. I don't agree with those who believe that the president has tremendous influence on the economy, so I stand by my executive office qualification.
    Also, "he" is correct in standard English for an uncertain gender.

  • In reply to Margaret H. Laing:

    If the President doesn't have tremendous influence on the economy, it sure isn't worth voting. From the lackadaisical regulation of the Bush years to the resultant bailouts in both the Bush and Obama years, there sure seems to be an effect.

    You can ask Hillary and Elizabeth Warren about the latter. In the Queen's English, the singular indefinite pronoun is "they," such as in numerous books on the subject to be discussed anon, "ask your s e x partner what they best prefer."

    Legal writing is supposed to be gender neutral, although repeated "he or she" is now discouraged.

  • In reply to jack:

    Thank you, Jack. In the Queen's English, there are different rules than we ex-colonials use, such as collective plurals ("the family are" for one family). I stand by the standard I was taught for singular indefinite pronouns, "he."

  • Lincoln was never elected to an executive office.

    My good friend, I respectfully disagree with you on several points. But I'm glad you're not voting for the candidate who is on trial for fraud and who continues to attack the integrity of the federal judge hearing his case because he is of Hispanic descent.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Thank you, my good friend. I'd have been wrong about Lincoln... although perhaps he was the 19th century's version of None of the above.
    I'm glad we can disagree respectfully.

  • Man, did you get spammed.

  • In reply to jack:

    Yes, I did. Fame at last. I'm removing the spam while replying to reasoned comments.

  • Thank you for expressing the mood of many people. Yes, the election process is being turned into a media show. We need an FDR, not a bigot and a bully who has been compared to Hitler. Bernie Sanders makes so much sense to me-at least the issues of income inequality and climate reality have been raised. The future is at stake.

  • In reply to Weather Girl:

    You're welcome. You're correct, as well -- the future is at stake.

  • In reply to Margaret H. Laing:

    But in your responses to me, it appears you want to sit that out. Not that I expect someone to state a preference on a blog, but at least I expect a vote to cancel out that of the perceptually impaired.

  • In reply to jack:

    Oh, Jack, I have no intention of sitting out the future by not voting. I am stating here that I have no intention of voting for either of the "presumptive" nominees. I wonder whether they presume too much?

  • In reply to Margaret H. Laing:

    The only thing not presumed is a third party candidate, but I haven't heard that John Anderson or Ross Perot is in the 2016 race.

Leave a comment