GUILFORD-As is common with Nancy Gassett's published articles, it is necessary to correct and address several of the points made.
1. Gassett betrays an apparent need to lecture other candidates (as well as voters) concerning candidates' "constitutional duties" when running for public office in Vermont.
We can set aside the obvious fact that all serious contenders for these offices are intelligent, diligent candidates who have done their homework and who understand the responsibilities and duties they would be taking on, and who respect and take seriously the associated oaths. Equally important, it is safe to say that none of these candidates need any of this explained to them in this condescending manner.
But yet this is the same Nancy Gassett who has repeatedly expressed her "pride" in supporting the violent, seditious events of the attempted insurrection that occurred at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 and who has repeatedly and consistently participated in the spreading of the baseless Big Lies concerning voter fraud, and of the invalid nature of the 2020 presidential election.
Of course, it goes without saying that any citizen has the right to believe - or to spout - whatever fantasies they choose, no matter how absurd or plainly false. (Moreover, they are even free to base a political campaign on such nonsense.)
However, given that Gassett continues in her unrelenting support for the most serious attack on American democracy and the Constitution in our lifetimes, the idea that she dares to lecture anyone else (whether voter or candidate) on their responsibility to "respect and uphold the Constitution," or that she questions the "courage" (and, more unbelievably, the integrity or "character") of others would be ridiculous if it were not so obscene.
2. Furthermore, Gassett would do well to recall that the voters she is apparently attempting to persuade are neither lazy nor stupid.
Voters do not, as she repeatedly implies, decide who to vote for merely on the basis of simply "liking" candidates, or of having good vibes about them, or by appreciating their "niceties." Voters take elections seriously and fully understand that those elections are not mere popularity contests.
In short, they make their decisions as to who to vote for based on careful, deliberate examination of the candidates, of those candidates' stated policies, of their perceived principles, and of their histories.
(Perhaps Gassett might find it helpful to keep this fact in mind the next time she finds it necessary to examine the history of the rather disastrous results of her own campaigns for various public offices, rather than attempting to explain away those outcomes as being the result of misunderstanding by ignorant, lazy voters, or blaming those outcomes on the lack of integrity of other candidates.)
3. Finally, Gassett once again alludes briefly to a claim that she has made many times over the years: specifically, that "America is not a democracy!" Rather, it is, quote-unquote, a "Constitutional Republic," demonstrating, once again, how little understanding she has of the meaning of, or respect for, the basis and role of any of these fundamental concepts of the American government.
Gassett is, of course, free to be unhappy with these basic principles of how the American government actually functions. However, she might consider if it would be easiest to simply choose to step to one side and leave the responsibilities of maintaining and supporting democratic government to those who take them seriously.
Nichael Cramer
Guilford
This letter to the editor was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at [email protected].