Just like the Non-Denial Denial, and the Un-Apologetic Apology: this is at or near the summit of Bullshit Mountain (Richmond style, and with a hat tip to Jon Stewart).
The Richmond Times-Dispatch ran an Op-Ed today in which they decided to go with (literally) None Of The Above.
Virginia gets whipsawed a lot because of seemingly competing influences - our proximity to DC and the overarching presence of the federal government in Northern Va and The Tidewater, "balanced" against the rural areas of the South Side and the Shenandoah Valley; and then there's Richmond (where all the sharky lawyers, the politically ambitious, and the local Gubmint Grifters hang out together).
RTD has a bit of a rivalry going with The Virginian-Pilot and to a lesser extent with The Roanoke Times, but it really is
the newspaper in this joint when it comes to state politics. And here's the thing: ever since the Dixiecrat migration to the GOP, they practically never ever fail to figure out some twisted convoluted way to come up with a rationalization for endorsing The Republican candidate for Governor. So y'know it's bad when RTD thinks you're just too cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, and that's what we've got in Ken (Kenny the Kooch) Cuccinelli.
The words that follow should not come as a surprise. During recent months, numerous editorials in The Times-Dispatch have lamented the gubernatorial campaign.
The major-party candidates have earned the citizenry’s derision. The third-party alternative has run a more exemplary race yet does not qualify as a suitable option. We cannot in good conscience endorse a candidate for governor.
This does not gladden us. Circumstance has brought us to this pass. This marks, we believe, the first time in modern Virginia that The Times-Dispatch has not endorsed a gubernatorial nominee.
So are we looking at nothing more than a backhanded endorsement for McAuliffe? Or are we seeing a sly and slippery way to keep people away from the polls by feeding their apathy - which of course helps the Repubs without coming out and saying so? Or is it just straight-up cowardly?
I think "having to choose between the lesser of two evils" is a political cliche in desperate need of being crushed into the dust.
I think if you walk away you're leaving the decision to somebody who's more than happy to make your decisions for you, and who is likely to choose the one you think is the greater of the two evils.
I think if you want better choices, you get off your dead brown ass and you work to find better choices.
And I think "deciding not to decide" is fine for a pot-fueled discussion at 3AM on a random Thursday when you're a sophomore in college, but not once you've grown some hair and you begin to understand any-godamned-thing about democratic self-government.
I think you make a fuckin' decision.