mwadf sagw bvqetokpm edtpafi tdvwn jtnvz jxurcq

mwadf sagw bvqetokpm edtpafi tdvwn jtnvz jxurcq

mwadf sagw bvqetokpm edtpafi tdvwn jtnvz jxurcq

mwadf sagw bvqetokpm edtpafi tdvwn jtnvz jxurcq

The idea that I should only trust a political reporter who doesn't vote is stupid and anti-democratic. The only reason not to vote is if you are unable to decide which candidate is best-qualified to fulfil the duties of the job in the best interests of the country.

Where I would draw the line is if you would place bets on the outcome of an election you are reporting on. It would be wrong of you to bet $1000 on X winning the nomination and then write about X's strengths as a candidate.

I am 81 years old, a retired paralegal. I have voted in every election in which I could cast a vote from school board elections, local elections, state elections and national elections. I am also a first generation American, meaning that both of my parents were immigrants. You can register to vote as NON ALIGNED (or whatever other descriptive term a Board of Elections has) but Voting is an absolute right that should be exercised. Shame on you for not voting! Your choices are private and personal and they are VERY important. The world has too many countries where what you think or how you would like to vote is irrelevant. This country, fortunately, is not one of them

Chris, I think you should vote.

1) I learned in high school journalism that no human can be expected to be totally without bias. Often, as with teachers and professors, as well as authors and analysts, I find it more useful to know what their biases are so I can handicap what they say, rather than pretending they're 100% bias-free. National Journal and the Almanac of American Politics have a little bit of a conservative or Republican bias. The authors have admitted this, as one did at a bookstore event I attended. I'd always picked up on this bias anyway from being familiar with their work, which is excellent, but I found it validating and helpful to know that this bias really did exist, subtle though it is. I thus calibrate my interpretations of their work with that in mind.

2) The conspiracy theorists are always going to accuse you of bias no matter what you do. We all know conspiracy theories perpetuate themselves by assimilating every new piece of evidence as one in favor of the theory. It's a game of illogic you can't win and shouldn't bother trying. If anything, my response would be to pit them against each other. The sort of thing I do on my blog is to say: Ok, you guys think I'm biased to the left, you other guys think I'm biased to the right; why don't you get together and work out what my bias really is, then come back to me with that.

3) Voting is a civic duty. In Australia it's a legal duty--what about Australian reporters? Does that law undermine their journalistic objectivity or integrity? Should they break it and pay the $100 fine every election? Moreover, how many people are more informed about the candidates and races, what's at stake and who's most likely to do what, than those who cover them most closely? We know that every vote counts, and given how many people cast irrational, uninformed votes, or none at all, it seems an almost unjustifiable waste for reporters not to vote.

4) I've long believed that the media focuses on itself too much in the media (Newseum??). To an extent, this is to be expected as a natural product of human nature and a competitive free market, and some of the pressures and reactions journalists get make it necessary to a degree. I've been following politics for pushing 20 years now, and I've never thought or bothered to ask or look up whether or how a journalist voted. Democracy is unlike, and dare I say more important than, Hoyas basketball; the umpires have to participate too.

I think it is decision each reporter has to make for themselves. I did not vote on Super Tuesday because I would have had to chose which party to caucus for, and as a journalism student and journalist, I did not want that on the record. However, I vote every November because it is my duty as a citizen to be involved in the government. I can also choose to be registered as belonging to neither party.

The more people that vote, the more our government truly represents the people. I can understand not voting in a primary or caucus where you must identify your party of choice or parties may have different locations to voice your opinion. But in a general election (of any kind) everyone votes in the same place regardless of party. I say change your mind and vote. You certainly know the candidates well enough. I read your blog because this is one place where I can find unbiased analysis - and that wouldn't change if I knew your party affiliation.

I might be naive, but I don't know how anyone could find out how a reporter voted. It is supposed to be a secret ballot. Vote, but stay objective in reporting.

The idea that ANY one in America should not vote is ridiculous. Like it or note, everyone is a rolemodel to someone. Given your rather public position, I'd wager you are a rolemodel to quite a few people. So what kind of example are you setting by saying "It's ok for me not to vote"?

I support a kids voting project, which places polling booths for kids in their parents polling places. Their vote might not determine an office, but at least the kids learn about participating in democracy. Journalists writing about their "duty" not to vote could delete my work in just a few paragraphs.

You don't have to vote for a candidate. Vote present. Vote uncommitted. Vote none of the above. Write in a name. Write in YOUR name, if you like. But at least set an example and

Vote for change. Hope for the future.

I believe that this debate is one the general public would scoff at if they knew it existed. Reporters dig and dig and expect everyone else to be transparent and forthcoming, but they will hide their political leanings in the furthest shadows possible under some mistaken notion that revealing them will hurt their credibility.

This is one of many examples of how the media simply does not understand or does not want to acknowledge the vast and often legitimate cries of bias. It can't be us; it must be the silly public who looks up our voting record and then reads our stuff and then accuses us of a bias we certainly don't have! It misses the point entirely ... and I guarantee you the public isn't going around looking up reporters' records before judging their work.

Be transparent, as you expect others to be. Be accountable. If you get complaints of bias, consider whether they're valid. If not, throw them out. Reporters not voting or registering a party affiliation isn't fooling anyone. It's just downright silly and, to use a politicized word that I think applies here, potentially un-American--especially if you're an editor or publisher who admonishes your reporters not to vote. On this latter point, I think the public would be even more aghast if they knew of this practice.

I had to go to a meeting. Just got back. So, I scolled up to see what I missed...

WOW.

*yawn*

"You've confirmed my suspicions that you not only have a very limited vocaublary, but that you are also illiterate. Because you obviously haven't read this thread.

You feminazis are all the same. Stick together, hate men, and pull the victim woman card every time you've lost an argument."

Moron, I'm not arguing with you, I'm having fun at your expense. Big difference.

Stick together? If only you knew how stupid you look? Hint: REALLY stupid. One day maybe you'll learn not to follow the lead of a slug like mibrooks.

"picking on a girl"? Ha ha ha.

You've confirmed my suspicions that you not only have a very limited vocaublary, but that you are also illiterate. Because you obviously haven't read this thread.

You feminazis are all the same. Stick together, hate men, and pull the victim woman card every time you've lost an argument.

Some mature, intelligent people you all are.

CC,

I'd think you could vote and still be 'fair and balanced'. Just think of all the foreign media members who lean hard left--the ability to vote (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with being fair. Unless you are trying to achieve some sort of academic distance from the process, I'd say go ahead and vote...

Some marine you are, picking on a girl (drindl).

Pathetic.

Some feminazi you are. Pathetic.

That's right Claudia

Play the victimized woman role. "I've just stopped talking to him".

Ok

After all the sh** you talk.

Hillary must be your girl. Cry me a river.

"As for gays, I have several freinds who are and they would be very surprised to find that I am somehow inherently afraid of homosexuals ("homophobe")."

Idiot, did you really just say that some of your best friends are gay? LOLOL

spectator. that guy is totally nuts. i'd just give up talking to him. the mikes are both violent and paranoid--serious anger management issues, to say the least, and we are both wasting our time replying to them.

You are a citizen first and a reporter second. I think the "don't vote" position smacks of elitism (i.e. "I'm above all this") and cowardice. Certainly voting and reporting posses certain dilemmas. But is that your duty as a reporter to deal with rather than flee them?

"The sort of gay and feminist activists who engage in cultural warfare for the sake of disrupting civil society are the sort of rabid dogs that engage in school shootings."

Wow. Another classic from the sickest poster on the board, mibrooks.

USMC_Mike: You're not sick, just stupid.

Spectator is a woman?

That makes sense!

It explains why she immediately, and rabidly, rushed to defend her fellow feminazi drindle.

Spectator2 - I loathe radical feminists...like YOU...but that isn't the same thing as hating women. Most people detest the NOW crowd. As for gays, I have several freinds who are and they would be very surprised to find that I am somehow inherently afraid of homosexuals ("homophobe"). The sort of gay and feminist activists who engage in cultural warfare for the sake of disrupting civil society are the sort of rabid dogs that engage in school shootings. Now, please go away unless you have something intelligent to contribute.

WOW.

BamBam is up 6 points in a new Texas poll. I don't trust these polls at all, but I confess a lingering weakness for them.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

"I am a self identified moderate liberal."

Please, you embarrass yourself with such remarks. You're a gay-basher and a woman-hater. So you can call yourself whatever you want, but you just look silly when you use such inappropriate terms.

"wpost: These droolers don't seem understand that the Framers were able to separate their private beliefs from their job of creating a system of government.

Some of them probably enjoyed wearing ladies' undergarments, but there's no protection for cross-dressers in the Constitution."

Well, Spec, I don't consider anyone here a drooler (save any precocious 2 year-olds that might be tapping away). Just folks who care about their country, their lives and their future and who are trying to figure it out best they can. Assume the best of others, even when they rant, and you never know if what you say may influence them one day in the future...even against their own expectations. I believe the human mind usually responds to what's reasonable...however fast or slow.
After all, almost all violence comes from fear and fear from ignorance.

Enlighten. Yourself and others.

As for cross-dressing, I believe the Constitution supports that fully...in the private sphere. The difficulty comes in the public sphere. Or in the private/public work-a-day world.

I am as opposed to the the right imposing their religious beliefs on me as I'm opposed to the left imposing their social guilts.

We've got King George and his court jesters, Pelosi and Reid, doling out cash like Roman emperors doled out bread at the Colisseum.

We are off track...left and right wheels. Hillary and McCain are only spare tires and won't get us out of the rut and onto the road to the future.

We need someone smart, true, steady.

An American original. His name is Obama.

"PS, you and drindle have called me a gunworshiper.

I don't own one."

Please, devildog, the two are not mutually exclusive. How silly of you to be discussing such important topics when your logical thinking appears to be at a first-grade level.

I would trust that the Fix's vote, even if it's different than mine, was based on sound reasoning rather than what passes for judgment among many of my other fellow citizens.

I was a reporter for 20 years and wrestled with this dilemma. I was often surprised by just how overtly partisan some of my colleagues were, some of them being registered members of political parties and making campaign contributions.

I voted because it would be painful to abdicate my small say in the process, but I registered as a Whig. Since we haven't had a candidate since 1856, the county clerk classified my party affiliation as "Miscellaneous."

It's laudable that you hold yourself to such a high standard that you would give up a chance to personally participate in the process, but I agree with John Harris on this, everyone has opinions, it's up to you to temper your writing so as to remain objective, but disenfranchising yourself doesn't accomplish that goal.

AdrickHenry: Gotcha. We're on the same page.

Spectator2, seriously, you need help. Your daily hysterical rants are getting tiresome, but the amount of genuine hatred and willful ignorance you demonstrate makes you dangerous to yourself and others. USMC_Mike is, I believe, a self identified conservative. I am a self identified moderate liberal. We post post our opinions and use and cite facts to back them up. When you disagree with them, instead of reason and agrument, you resort to immature name calling, rabid hatred, dishonest attributions, and juvinile rants. I have yet to see anything of worth contributed by you on this forum, or elsewhere. Please, just go away. Find a good psychologist and work to make your life have some sort of meaning.

Of COURSE reporters should vote. If the ideal voter is an informed citizen, then reporters are exactly the people we want to vote. Educated and informed opinions are based on of a weighing of the facts. If we trust the American public to vote based on the information they were given, we should definitely trust journalists--who gathered and delivered the information in the first place.

wpost4112, I think we are in agreement.

What I was trying to convey about Islam being hard to beat as theocracy was not that I think this is a good thing, but rather, that in states like Iran or Saudi Arabia, Islam IS the government.

right on, wpost4112...

...although not Thomas Hobbes as he was for an authoritarian form of government as evidenced by his major work "Leviathan" published in 1651.

But DEFINITELY John Locke. His "Two Treatises on Government", published in 1690, was taken literally by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

Great discussion.

I'd rather know where a reporter stands. Life experience tells me that hidden agendas are more powerful, and people can be more easily manipulated by them, than with open agendas. If a journalist has a point of view, own it, then maintain your standards for impartiality.

"Two droolers of the highest order.

are gun worshippers. A couple of pervert freaks."

Your anger is only out-done by your profound lack of vocabulary necessary to express it.

PS, you and drindle have called me a gunworshiper.

I don't own one.

I borrow one or two highly lethal weapons systems from Uncle Sam on occation, but that's only for making sure underdeveloped vocabularies such as your own have the freedom to continue your ignorance.

Hard to beat Islam as Theocracy? Hard to support that with the facts, given that "infidels" haven't a chance, nor do women.

Theocracy of any sort is hardly defensible as a human legal or governing institution since it relies upon reading the mind of God...history proves we're not good at that.

Religion is personal and belongs in the home.

Rule of law based on precedent and human reason is all we need to govern ourselves publicly.

As Benjamin Franklin noted, if all so-called Christians (and no doubt he would include all religions) paid more attention to the 10 commandments in their personal lives than to religious holidays in the public realm, we'd all be a lot better off.

When I was referring to the Founding Fathers I was not singling out Jefferson -- just speaking generally.

The Constitution is an Enlightenment document. The ideas of the Enlightenement are what powered the thinking of the Founding Fathers, particularly, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his work entitled "Social Contract".

The Enlightenement thinkers called themselves Philosophes and were generally opposed to organized religion. They were very tolerant; quite unlike many of the far-right religious fundamentalists of today.

I am speaking in general terms here, so no need to get upset.

wpost: These droolers don't seem to understand that the Framers were able to separate their private beliefs from their job of creating a system of government.

Some of them probably enjoyed wearing ladies' undergarments, but there's no protection for cross-dressers in the Constitution.

Actually, if you do the research, the founding father were more imbued with the secular philosophy of Locke and Hobbes than Judeo-Christianity.

They were well aware that religiosity had no place in modern government. Historically, it only led to non-rational societies driven by feart and superstition.

It does however have a place in society...in the home.

Now how will mibrooks vote for someone like Obama? This should be interesting.

Ironically, Islam is also Judeo-Christian at its core. The Muslims just added a 3rd Book: the Koran.

For real theocracy, it is hard to beat Islam.

"This is hilarious

Milbrooks points out a verifiable fact.

Spectator calls him "a misogynist and homophobe" in retaliation.

How dare you disagree with your facts!

Stupid lib."

What is hilarious is how moronic you and mibrooks are. Two droolers of the highest order.

Drindl may or not be a state worshipper, but you sickos are gun worshippers. A couple of pervert freaks.

New Texas poll.

Statewide: Hill 49/ Barack 41
Dallas: Hill 42/ Barack 41

Very bad news for Billary. But, in fairness, there's still the debate.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2008/02/11/daily34.html

Vote with your heart.

Vote for a cause.

Vote for hope.

Obama

drindl, more ignorance? Thomas Jefferson was very much a Christian, with a capital "C"! He was, in fact, an Episcopalian, and made provisions in his will for the constructiuon of more than a dozen churches. People keep pointing to Jefferson's belief's as if they were fixed and never evolved. This isn't true of anyone, but some zealots apparently think it ought to be so. He was raised an Episcopalian; in mid-life became something of a deist and returned to protestant Christianity late in life. Jefferson came to be distrustful of organized churches and believed in a "primative" version of the church, unfettered of politics. He liked the early Unitarian chruch. In a letter to James Smith, 12/08/1822, he wrote: "...express my gratification with your efforts for the revival of primitive Christianity in your quarter. No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the ancients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government..."

This is hilarious

Milbrooks points out a verifiable fact.

Spectator calls him "a misogynist and homophobe" in retaliation.

How dare you disagree with your facts!

Stupid lib.

Former President George H.W. Bush will endorse John McCain in Texas on Monday, Republican officials said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23183204

Read my lips, No new taxes. Unless you vote for a Dem.

The personal religious beliefs of the "Founders" is not important.

The fact is, the ideas, the concepts, that are at the core of our society, our civilization, are Judeo-Christian in nature.

They're certainly not Muslim.

Why is that important? In a way, I suppose it's not. But the liberal secularists want to re-write history and push all mention of God out of public.

Did you know one of the first congresses advocated a national day of prayer? I doubt that would happen today, because religion has been so iscolated by the left.

I don't think we should call ourselves the Christian States of America. I'm not defending that idea. If you have to force me to defend it in order to argue, it shows you haven't really got much on your side.

The idea that rights come from our Creator, rather than our government, is unique to the world, and something we should be proud of and acknowledge, not some relic of our history we should shamefully cram to the pages of forgotten or re-written history.

And in November, we shall overthrow our own self-appointed, self-delusional ersatz "King" George and his dark Prince, Dick.

Hopefully it will be a return to a citizen leader, Barack Obama, who will unite a divided and depressed nation yearning to make something better of itself and return vigor, courage and decency to these united states.

And once again, we have self-proclaimed liberal and Democrat mibrooks jumping in on the side of the far-right conservative Republican.

Not surprising, since brooks is also a misogynist and homophobe.

This is a pretty well-read board and I'll bet most of you already know that most of the Founding Fathers were "Deists". They believed in GOD, but did not think that He was active in our daily affairs.

When they wrote the Constitution, they abhorred the idea of a strong executive with a standing army.

They thought a powerful executive with a standing army would take the nation into needless wars...

This is why they fought, and many died, to overthrow a King.

FINALLY.

The SIEU endorsement came through.

Huge help for Barack...yes, even in spite of what happened in Nevada.

Will now be difficult for Edwards to back Hillary...not that it will stop him if he really wants the AG spot under her administration.

If he does endorse Hillary, he will reveal the hypocrisy of his campaign platform against the status quo.

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest one of all??

A synopsis of the day, and lessons learned arguing with a lib:

JD: based on drindle's comments, she is probably not a gun-owner

drindle: Government doesn't grant us the 'right' to own guns, but the 'privilege', reserved for a select few.

Mike: The 2nd Amendment is not a 'privilege', it is a 'right'. Liberals believe rights come from government; conservatives believe them to be innate.

drindle: Mike is...

a gun-worshipping radical rightwing nut

a wingnut crank

selfish

delusional

buddyboy (no, I am not, and never will be, your 'buddy')

a dittohead

inhumane

a knuckledragger

a caveman

...because he doesn't agree with me!

___________________________________________________

Once again, employ your standard liberal argument technique:

*Don't refute an argument or an idea, but attack your opponent.
*Dress him down and dehumanize him.
*Show him as dumb, unadvanced, and delusional.
*Present yourself as enlightened, evolved, and sophisticated.
*Ignore all history, facts, or truth
*Re-state, with conviction, your assertions. Evidence is unnecessary.

Ignorance runs amuck! drindl and other leftists never cease in their attempt to rewrite history and law. A National Guard and a citizen militia are not the same thing. A National Guard is equippeed by public funds, they serve under professional leadership for a fixed period of time (an enlistment). A citizen militia is a volunteer group with popularly elected leaders, privately supplied weapons and equipment. This has long been defined under U.S. law and it is unbelievable that people publicly parade their ignorance around. Please see U.S. Code: Title 10,311, "Militia: composition and classes", section b:
"(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia".

Christian nation? Huh? Not so.

We are a nation of laws.

The notion of a Christian nation is itself balsphemous and non-religious.

The basis of religion is belief..belief which is freely given..not coerced by law.

Render unto to Caesar, etc.

wpost4112 -- well said

claudia, attacking Jefferson doesn't mean he didn't write what he wrote. Go look it up. I'd like to see you occupied for the next 36 days.

NO dittohead, we are not a Christian nation. Just because you wish it don't make it so.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a version of the Bible where Christ had no supernatural powers, he was just a good and decent man, so I wouldn't refer to him when talking up a christian nation idea. Go back and read the Constitution, if you can read.

Our "rights" neither come from nor are gauranteed by the Constitution.

Our basic rights are inalienable and come from our very existence (or, if you must, from our "creator").

It is to protect those rights and allow for a "more perfect union" that we, all of us, surrender complete freedom of action and agree to a contract of behavior and laws: our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

And should the governance we have imposed upon ourselves ever egregiously fail the both the spirit and particulars of that contract, we are morally obliged to rip that contract asunder and form a new one.

WE are the power. WE. And that power resides in one thing alone: our VOTE.

The Constitution is not divine. It is a human contract written for a particular purpose...to serve our needs...the need for a civil society which helps us to protect our lives, our liberties and our pursuits of happiness.

It's US!

'You are obviously an intellectual giant.'

coming from you, that's the funniest thing I've heard all day, caveman.

"Is it important to you that the nation express the religious beliefs that you have?"

I think you and I agree.

I think we are a Christian nation, founded on Christian values.

But that doesn't require us to mix Church and state, nor to proclaim our Christianity as a nation.

It does guarantee that I can worship as I wish. In public, no less.

Thomas Jefferson's "Wall of separation between Church and State", in its original context, was a guarantee of protection *FOR* the Church, *FROM* the State.

Today, people believe it to be the other way around. Thanks to the 1947 Everson Supreme Court Case, prior to which, the Supreme Court had actually declared "WE ARE A CHRISTIAN NATION".

You still don't get it.

Our rights don't "COME FROM" the constitution.

Or the government.

They are "GUARANTEED BY" it.

That's the purpose of the consitution. And government.

You are obviously an intellectual giant.

Anyone and any organization claiming nonpartisanship, whether reporting or working for a cause, is deluding only themselves. I would rather see institutions just claim to be intellectually and factually honest.

True objectivity is only possible among the ignorant. and people ignorant of a subject have little of value to report.

Making political preference public where it exists might help reestablish credibility within the news industry.

I reject the idea that honest reporters can't report honestly and fairly, regardless of political outlook. Party affiliations could be part of "full disclosure" statements kept aside but always available for readers to see, if desired. This solves more problems regarding credibility than it creates. And obviously full disclosure is absolutely necessary when opinions are employed in a story.

And with broad news and communications from scores of sources available to nearly everyone who wants it, this is where we're headed anyway, like it or not.

Now- all that said, luckily I don't have to make any money in this business.

:^)

Standard liberal elitism:

"there are enough rabid gun nuts out there that I will never have to worry about guarding that privilige myself."

I don't have to bother with such a lowly task as protecting our rights. That's what the other people are for. The common folks. The grungy, sweaty, blue-collars.

Us liberal elites have bigger fish to fry. We have to save the planet from this wasteful, consumer-driven, polluting, imperialist nation of ours that never lifted a finger for the rest of the world.

mike, your standard issue gun-worshipping radical rightwing nut--

'To a liberal, there is no higher power than the State.'

to a wingnut crank, there is no higher power than his own selfishness and delusion. frankly yes, i am quite grateful for the constitution, and for my freedoms which are guarantted by the constitution. go live in China buddyboy and tell me how God gives you your freedom.

--you left out some, dittohead:

'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

your 'right' to own a gun is not inherent to you by the nature of your humanity, [or lack of it in your case] nor is it gifted to you by God.

instead, you have to fight for it. and you have laws to enforce it. and God doesn't belong in the public square in a pluralistic society either. whose god? we are guaranteed freedom from religion as well as freedom to worship.

knuckledragger mike apparently doesn't love his country. without government and laws and courts and the constitution, buddboy, you would not have a country nor would you have freedom. you'd be lving in a dictatorship like much of the world does.

by the way, i guess since you hate the government so much, you must really hate the way they spy on your phone calls and emails, right?

******
That must explain why a state-worshiping liberal like drooling drindle so fanatically pushes God out of society -- push God out of our money, out of our pledge, and out of our public square. After all, who is God compared to the state, which has given us our freedom, our protection, and our rights?
******

Mike, I believe in God, but I don't feel a need for my belief in God to be proclaimed by the nation I live in. I expect that the nation I live in will not infringe on my right to have and express those beliefs, though.

Is it important to you that the nation express the religious beliefs that you have?

OF COURSE, ANY OF YOU SHOULD VOTE IF YOU SO DESIRE. YOUR OCCUPATION DOES NOT TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS. AS I READ THROUGH THE COMMENTS, I SEE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE MEDIA HAS PUT OBAMA ON A PEDISTAL AND SINCERELY ENJOYS RUNNING THE CLINTONS DOWN AND PORTRAYING THEM AS THE WORST CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY. I TOTALLY AGREE THAT THE REPORTERS AND PUNDITS HAVE FAVORED OBAMA BY SOMMENTS LIKE HE IS SOME SORT OF SAINT, NEXT TO THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST. WHAT AN INSULT TO PEOPLE WHO CANNOT FIGURE OUT HIS STAND ON ISSUES FACING THIS COUNTRYI.

I believe you owe more to your country than you do to your readers, and that your obligation as an American transcends any journalistic responsibility.

Nobody gave their life, Chris, so that you could trade your vote for your voice.

And, regarding Harris' quote about exercising self-discipline...might want to step up those exercises John. I hope Froomkin at least got a chuckle out of that...I know I did.

Reporters can vote whenever and for whomever as long as they stick to the straight-and-narrow in their stories.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Voting does not create preferences one way or another. It is simply an expression of preferences. The preference still exists whether you actualize it or not. I think it is impossible to actually be objective, everything we do intellectually is predicated on certain premises and beliefs we already have. Even ideas of what is true from a journalistic perspective is colored by our initial beliefs. I think reporters have a greater obligation to explore their own preference sets and share those with their readers. Then we might have a clearer picture of how they create and engage the stories they are sharing with us.

More thoughts on this issue: http://airingofthegrievances.blogspot.com/2008/02/should-reporters-voteis-there-such.html

drindle, your standard state-worshiping liberal:

"I do not worry about losing my 'precious' [2nd Amendment] right. Which, by the way, I don't consider a right... but rather a privilege..."

Nevermind that the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution reads "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

To a liberal, there is no higher power than the State.

Our rights (or "privaleges") are not inherent to us by the nature of our humanity, nor are they gifted to us by God.

Our rights are merely indulgences of the State - and we should be thankful that our benevolent State has so graciously given them to us.

Perhaps, as a token of my gratitude to the State which has given me so much, I ought to pay higher taxes, as a sort of sacrafice to a higher power. After all, the State has given me so much, why shouldn't I willingly return the favor?

That must explain why a state-worshiping liberal like drooling drindle so fanatically pushes God out of society -- push God out of our money, out of our pledge, and out of our public square. After all, who is God compared to the state, which has given us our freedom, our protection, and our rights?

Ha Mike, funny, I was just going to comment about that. No gun owner that I know (including myself), and I know a ton of them, would *ever* make a joke about that.

Come on, claudia, you have to appreciate the use of the word "stoked" on a website for coal. That's actually funny!

"The candidates are not pretending to be nuetral.

Exactly. They pretend to be biased.

"If the candidates themselves can vote, then why not the journalists?"

This is incredibly poor logic.

The candidates are not pretending to be nuetral.

I believe it's everyone's civic duty to vote. Including reporters -- especially one who is well informed about the candidates and the issues. Voting in an election does not mean you don't handle your job appropriately and be objective. But it sets a bad example and a poor precedent for others. Vote!

If the candidates themselves can vote, then why not the journalists? Of course they should be able to vote. If you are citizen and you are eligible to vote, then you should vote.

If you believe change can't happen if we do nothing,

Vote Obama

Best news of the day:

the band BOSTON endorses Obama.

Just makes me smile.

Cause Barack is MORE THAN A FEELING!

claudia -- it's very nice of your government to afford you that privalege.

I'm sure you're quite thankful. Tell me, does your privalege to post on the Fix, go where you please, and even live, come from your benevolent government as well?

There are many good reasons for not voting, but I believe not voting because you cover politics is not one of them. The human mind is an incredibly flawed instrument. You have a bias. Sometimes you're work will be neutral, sometimes biased and sometimes you may overcompensate against your bias. Your bias will also change with time. All you can do is your best to remain neutral. Voting or not voting doesn't affect that.

Obviously registering with a party, working for a candidate and/or showing up on an election financing report would taint your work.

claudia: look no further than mibrooks for an example of what happens when a mentally deranged individual goes off his meds.

claudialong - Early reports are that the shooter was a non-citizen Russian immigrant and was mentally ill. He had been taking medication and stopped taking it "a few" weeks ago **becasue he had no job, no insurance, and couldn't afford it**! Two points here. First, non-citizens have no right to own firearms and should be prevented from possessing them. The person or store who sold him those guns, or from whom they were stolen becasue they weren't securely locked up, needs to be prosecuted. Second, lack of health care for everyone in this country is insane and dangerous for all of us. One way or another we all pay when anyone goes without health care.

it's hard to imagine anything that's more hilarious and pathetic at the same time... oh yeah, so many kids want to find out more--and get 'stoked' about --coal:

"Americans For Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC) -- the coal industry front group that has sponsored multiple presidential debates and whose members paid for an advertisement comparing the governor of Kansas to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- has sunk to new lows.

On a website, LearnAboutCoal.org, ABEC uses cute young children to make the case for coal. Upon loading the site, viewers may encounter a cheerful "Daniella" who says, "I may be a kid, but we're a lot alike. We both want affordable, reliable energy and a clean environment! Well, luckily, we can have our cake -- and eat it too."

Or viewers may encounter "Adam," who says: "I'm pretty stoked about the future of energy in this country. One reason for that is that I've taken the time to learn more about American coal." The site includes four "commercials" of kids marketing coal. ABEC's scripts for the children ensure that Daniella and Adam's "friends" who pepper the site are just as enthusiastic about coal as they are:"

luckily we can have our coal, and eat it too...

http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Radical+Right

please do, mike. it would be great to add more material to my file. it's so fat already, what with all the communist party meetings, witch covens, and PETA events I go to.

JD, I do not worry about losing my 'precious' right. Which, by the way, I don't consider a right [because I am not part of an organized militia, like the national guard] but rather a privilege, which should be granted only to those who undergo stringent background checks. But there are enough rabid gun nuts out there that I will never have to worry about guarding that privilige myself.

"We are the hope of the future," sayeth Obama. We can "remake this world as it should be." Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country - nay, we can become "a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest."

LOL...Krauthammer is really shameless in his envy is he not??

Do you see how he slides in that "Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country" as if Barack said it himself?? Charles may not have a silver-tongue, but he does have a forked one, putting words into Barack's mouth that were never there.

Barack doesn't claim anything for himself. He never asks the voters to believe in him...only in themselves.

The thing I admire most about Barack is that he doesn't make this about himself...he always makes it about us, the voters. He is quite clear that we will have to work for our future.

Talk to those who work for his campaign...couldn't have a better or more humane boss. Now, talk to those who work and have worked for Clintons. Yikes! Even one of McCain's top strategic guys will quit rather than go on the attack against Barack. Because he is decent, good, gifted.

The Republicans are terrified of Barack, not because he presents himself as some ersatz messiah, but because he is all too human and damned good at what he does: lead...both by example and word. That's why people respond to him...that and the last 8 years of darkness.

Redemption indeed.

"I am an American first, a journalist second. END OF STORY."

And a taxpayer in between. How can journalists pass on the one civic duty they usually espouse to readers as necessary to keep the republic going? And why pass on what is usually a profound financial decision which will affect your pocketbook well beyond the eight years an officeholder may serve? Non-voting does not add up as an ethical strength. It is a remarkably disingenuous move to hide possible biases, as said above by someone more eloquent than me.

rpy: Chuck Norris isn't running.

But Obama is.

Vote for hope.

halspencer, you are completely wrong. I have been an unbiased reporter for 30 years and I vote in every election. I am free to be a citizen first and keep my personal opinions out of print.

"it happens, I love to shoot. Luckily you will never meet me."

THAT IS NOT FUNNY CLAUDIA.

DEATH THREATS ARE NOT A JOKE.

I'M CALLING THE FBI.

claudia, I also wanted to second the comment you sent out about the silly sort of comments that people are posting about Clinton and Obama these days. There are reasonable arguments to be had, but on the whole I'd agree that a lot of supporters on these boards are not helping the discussion.

Of course, I also think that's part of the nature of internet discussions. It's the price of not filtering the discussion...

And now, in the most amazing trick of all, a silver-tongued freshman senator has found a way to sell hope. To get it, you need only give him your vote. Barack Obama is getting millions.

This kind of sale is hardly new. Organized religion has been offering a similar commodity - salvation - for millennia. Which is why the Obama campaign has the feel of a religious revival.

"We are the hope of the future," sayeth Obama. We can "remake this world as it should be." Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country - nay, we can become "a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest."

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1742

.

Does anyone know if it would be possible for Barack to break off and create a third party if things go awry at the convention?

Could he still get on the ballot?

Or would this be completely impractical (or illegal)?

If reporters are US citizens, they should be encouraged to vote in general elections. After all, if they claim to be knowledgable, unbiased professionals, they should be able to demonstrate the equivalent of judicial temperament.

On the other hand, they should never be registered with a party preference, nor vote to select partisan candidates in primary elections, unless said primary is completely "open," meaning ALL voters may vote for their preferences in ALL parties. To my knowledge, no state has a completely open primary of this description, yet taxpayers, even non-partisans in states which prohibit them from voting at all, are still required to fund them. And the Supreme Court recently decided for the umpteenth time that political parties are PRIVATE organizations!!!

What readers and sources should be assured is that my reporting will be fair to all sides (and I go to exhausting lengths, particularly in election stories). What they should not be assured is that I'm going to sacrifice my private vote, particularly in races where it could impact the best interests of my family. My guess is that journalists who sacrifice their vote just haven't had the right motivation yet.

I've always thought the WSJ was dark and depressing.

The fact is we don't know what sort of President Obama will be. But if he is anything like the leader he has been running his campaign, he may exceed all expectations.

Based on the other campaigns, we of course know what sort of leader Hillary would be ...divisive, secretive, Bill-centered, workman-like...as well as McCain...shoot-from-the-hip, spiteful, small-minded, lamely humorous, isolated.

To me, the gamble is well worth it.
You can play it safe with Hilary or McCain and have more of the same gridlock and corporate-owned politics, or take a gamble and perhaps a better future for ourselves and our kids.

In any case, vote!

Claudia, wonderful to hear that you are such a strident supporter of the Second Amendment. It appears I misjudged you.

Here, let me help you preserve your precious rights

https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?CampaignID=default

claudialong, I have no response to the WSJ comment. I mean, I guess it will be interesting to see both the message about how Obama's hope is just a big joke and a message that he's the depressing one.

It's hard for me to offer more than an eye roll for that sort of statement. If you'd like a real response, I'll do my best, but that's my first reaction.

As humans it's hard for us to disassociate ourselves from what is naturally our propensity to be bias in whatever shade it may be. The most destructive happened was the media bias on John Edwards, and you have been part of that machinery. Now, look what we got a selection? Edwards was much better of the two. But yes, do vote.

I am a libertarian-conservative reporter. One time, a graduate instructor asked me when I returned to my alma mater, "Do they know what you are yet?" No, they didn't, because I keeps it clean. I am not biased, and I realize a campaign is one to two years of grueling sweat -- so be careful when you aim your pencil at a candidate. Make sure the truth is on your side. The best criticism I have heard of the non-voting reporter came from an editor of a 22K-circulation newspaper: How can we urge people to participate in a basic civic function (which upholds this nation) if we do not? I say, Avoid the caucuses and functions, but vote in general elections and, if you want to, statewide primary elections. Beyond that, stay out of politics.

CC, Since you are a Virginian, I urge you to remember that your vote is arguably the most effective tool you have to live by the state motto Sic Semper Tyrannis!

Granted your pen (or computer, as the case may be) is also a mighty tool, but one can argue that your vote has a much greater impact since you strive for neutrality in your professional life.

By all means, vote.
But don't let your preferences cross over that fine,not so invisible line between a story,and a piece that sometimes can't be differentiated from a paid (free in that case) political advertisement, as so much "news" does today.

I understand what you are saying, or more accurately what Makjovsky was saying. There are superficial similarities, but if anything, McCain is Churchill in a minor key.
Regardless of Churchill's school record, his native intelligence far surpasses McCain's and that is crucial, as we have learned with George W., a cheerleader masquerading as a quarterback.

We are not in the need of someone who is very pale resemblance of Churchill in his declining years. We need a full-blooded American original.

We need someone like Obama.

This WSJ comment is just otherwordly. They claim Obama is dark and depressing. Any comments, supporters?

"Unease about the economy is real, but Sen. Obama is selling more than that. He is selling deep grievance over the structure of American society. That's the same message as John Edwards, or Dennis Kucinich for that matter. Hillary Clinton's mistake may have been to think this is 2008, not 1938, with the solution lying in leveraging votes in a Democratic Congress. Instead of Hillary's wonkish geniuses, Barack is selling the revolution -- change "from the bottom up."

Right after the Wisconsin speech, TV broadcast another -- by victorious John McCain. The contrast with Sen. Obama's is stark. The arc of the McCain speech is upward, positive. Pointedly, he says we are not history's "victims." Barack relentlessly pushes victimology.

For Sen. Obama the military and national security is a world of catastrophe welded to Iraq and filled with maimed soldiers. Mr. McCain locates these same difficult subjects inside the whole of American military achievement. It nets out as a more positive message. Recall that Ronald Reagan's signature optimism, when it first appeared, was laughed at by political pros. Optimism won elections."

Here's a related question:

Would a journalist who covers issues relating to religion be expected to refrain from all religious practice, even in private?

That would be absurd.

I didn't say he wasn't brilliant, just that he wasn't much of a student. I had forgotten that he did well at Sandhurst after failing the entrance exam twice. He had a rather poor record at Harrow. Churchill was rather gleeful in discussing his academic shortcomings in his writings.

Incidentally, I have read a number of his works including his WWII memoirs, History of the English Speaking Peoples, My Early Life, and am currently reading his WWI memoirs.

Of course, Churchill was eloquent and no one has ever accused McCain of eloquence.

'The White House has confirmed that President Bush plans to veto legislation prohibiting the CIA from using waterboarding and bringing the agency's interrogation methods in line with the Army Field Manual.

In today's White House press briefing, spokeswoman Dana Perino defended the veto decision by citing the age of CIA interrogators. She said that they are well-trained "professionals" with "an average age of 40." U.S. soldiers, on the other hand, are too immature to be trusted, argued Perino. That's why they need the Army Field Manual:

This is done at the CIA, and it is done by professionals who are given hundreds of hours of training, who are -- I think General Hayden said an average age of 40; who are being asked to do very hard work in order to protect Americans.

The Army Field Manual is a perfectly appropriate document that is important for young GIs, some so young that they're not even able to legally get a drink in the states where they're from.'

'They're too young to be trusted' yet you give them an attack weapon and drop them into a foreign country?

Chris, I really respect you, but I am very disappointed. This is insanity! Why wouldn't you take advantage of the gift of liberty and exercise your civic duty to vote? Too many people suffered much in this country, and many continue to suffer all around the world, for the right to elect their representatives. Please think of the countless individuals who have been beaten, harassed, and murdered fighting to make sure all Americans can vote the next time you skip an election so that you can be purely objective. You don't have to tell your readers who you vote for, but please vote!

'Think of crazy Claudia; she has the right to own guns (assuming she hasn't been judged mentally deficient, a felon, etc). My guess is she chooses not to exercise that right, based on her politics.'

Wrong, and a big Good Morning FU to you, JD. As it happens, I love to shoot. Luckily you will never meet me.

A comment I found on a board today that I thought worth passing along:

"Feh. I'm really tired of all this mean-spirited intra-party jousting in the comments and reader blogs. It's totally senseless and unfounded, on both sides. And it's not reflective of how the party feels - exit polls have consistently shown that most Dems would be happy with either Obama or Clinton. Yet somehow the anti-candidate flaming has become the predominant form of communication on virtually all Dem blogsites, and it makes me wince.

If I had a dime for every comment I've seen from Hillary supporters about how Obama voters are "drinking the Kool-Aid" or from Obama supporters about how Hillary voters are "just old and dumb" I'd be starting the Harrison and Melinda Gates Foundation. Could you please all dial it back a notch?"

Churchill graduated 8th in his class of 150 from the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst.

He wrote extensively, including the Nobel prize winning six-volume history on The Second World War.

McCain doesn't even compare. At all.

Blarg, think of it this way.

Once Chris (or anyone) has made the decision to vote, he/she has now taken a significant step that can only be interpreted to mean that he/she wants that person to win. Psychologically, people want to be on the winning team, and they want to have others validate their choices (this is sometimes called 'recruitment').

I think Chris does a bangup job reporting here, and IMHO, he comes across as even handed and doesn't play favorites. However, it's hardly a stretch to think that, once someone publicly (if secretly) has taken steps to help ensure victory for someone, that they then might (subconsciously) alter their behaviors in order for their decision to be validated.

Latest poll (taken Feb 14, Rasmussen)
Clinton: 54
Obama: 38

Totally overdrawn. Churchill was brilliant. McCain was third to the last in his graduating class. We've had enough of those who operate "from the gut."

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 15, 2008 11:23 AM

Churchill was a terrible student, he didn't do well enough in public school to go to Oxford or Cambridge so he was sent to Sandhurst the British West Pont. He didn't do very well there either.

You should vote. Objectivity is a guise. I think its an interesting argument, but there is no way to "report" an event without, in some form or fashion, making subjective choices.

JD,
I think your are correct on the right vs duty line of thinking. I used the phrase "civic duty" in my response and while that is how i actually think of it, i think that it is probably a "right", technically speaking. I don't, however, see how the act of voting would introduce any more bias than the person already had. Blarg is right - preferences exists separately from the act of voting. So while CC (as well as everybody) can exercise their right to vote or not, I find his reasoning (and most reasons) for not doing so lacking. I think that deep down, everyone has a preference or preferences. They just may not want to admit to it and voting would confirm that they do. Recognition of this by the reporter might actually produce less biased reporting.

Totally overdrawn. Churchill was brilliant. McCain was third to the last in his graduating class. We've had enough of those who operate "from the gut."

Here is an interesting article comparing McCain to the 20th century statesman I admire the most. The parallels are interesting, if a bit overdrawn.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/739qqkcd.asp

USMC_Mike,

Of course, Chuck Norris is a policy heavyweight.

Right?

Voting is not only a right, it IS a moral duty.

Sovereign power used to reside in kings or Czars or whatever totalitarian label you like.

In a democratic republic, sovereign power resides in the citizenry and that power is expressed through one's vote.

To not vote is to abdicate that sovereign power...to renounce one's responsibility towards protecting a government of, by and for the people.

So, while it is not a legal duty, it tremains a moral duty, and a moral duty of the highest order. And for a political reporter to shirk that duty would, it seems to me, make him or her a traitor to the more perfect union we strive to achieve and maintain.

If you *believe* that Obama *believes* what you *believe*...

Vote Obama.

Reporters are very well-informed citizens. As such they have a civic duty to vote. Stick to the high road, please.

Again, I don't want to hear, "what if everyone had that attitude". Everyone doesn't, and I'm not trying to give them that. I'm merely trying to devolve the emotions down to an economic equation: does the benefit justify the cost?

JD - You often remind me of Oscar Wilde's bon mot - "a cynic knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing."

Simply have to laugh at the notion of "electoral purity" being seen as a virtue in anyone's eyes. Like sexual chastity or any of the other fetishisms of self-denial, it seems to want to suggest that control of an act equals the non-existence of the impulse to that act. Does the fact of remaining physically chaste implies freedom from "lewd" thought or corporal desire? Obviously not. Nor does a politically-aware person's refusdal to vote imply utter neutrality among the candidates on the ballot. And who on earth would expect it to? It seems to be you are denying yourself your right to vote to no end whatsoever. It is not neutrality but simple fairness that the public needs or even wants from the press.

Try it, Chris, vote! You'll like it!

No one should have to surrender their most basic right to participate in their democracy -- no more based on occupation than gender, age, race or any other set of demographics. As a past journalist, I have found that people accuse you of being partisan regardless of voting or making known your personal views. Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder, and few vigorous supporters of any candidate believe anyone in the media is truly "objective" when it comes to their candidate. That holds true regardless of whether a journalist actually votes. Why give up your right to vote merely to satisfy a small number of people who won't be satisfied regardless?

If you *believe* the *future* is not now,

and not in the past,

vote Obama.

Vote for *hope*, vote for *change*, vote for the *future*.

Vote Obama.

I think wrestling with the issue is probably the most important thing. Being aware of your biases whether or not you vote is the key.

If you're a public figure and folks who recognize you see you advocating publicly for a particular candidate, I think that hurts you a bit as a reporter, if you want to maintain an air of neutrality. If you're a FOXNEWS reporter then it doesn't matter.

Whether or not to vote to some extent is a legalism. You can avoid voting and still be biased in your reporting.

Continuing to ask the question though helps keep your biases (which you have, just like the rest of us) on the table to yourself so you can keep them in check.

Don't think that because you don't vote, you're somehow not biased.

Hi -

I do not want to beat this to death, but it is clearly your right to vote. While voting is a civic obligation, it is also a matter of conscience. You know that it is a civic obligation, but if your conscience tells you, for a reason related to your profession, that you must withhold your vote, then you must.

File this post under "Acute Insight Into The Obvious", Chris.

Reporters should vote.

Reporters are human beings, and shouldn't pretend to be mindless. As you note, people will think you're a hack for one candidate or another regardless. Just accept that, and fulfill your duty as a citizen -- a very informed citizen.

Harris is right, but let me couch his argument differently: you are conflating impartiality with objectivity. The two are different. Impartiality means you don't take a side; objectivity means you speak fairly and without bias. The question is whether you can be objective for your readers while privately being partial to a candidate. Not only to I think you CAN accomplish this, but I think the vast majority of reporters already DO accomplish this. Because Allen's tenet that you should be "agnostic...in private" is utterly unrealistic.

you know who else doesn't vote? the French

yeah take that Cilizza

JD, your reason not to vote was: "to keep any subconscious bias from creeping into his reportage; after all, there's a strong psychological urge to be on the winning team, and conceivably, one's reporting might be ever-so-subtly slanted towards one's vote."

Replace that last word with "preference", and I think you've got a point. When a reporter has a bias, that bias is likely to make it into his reporting in some subtle way. But the existence of a preference is not the same as voting. It's possible to have a preference and not vote. If a reporter does have a preference (as many do; they're only human), is there any reason why they shouldn't vote?

Hi, Chris Greetings from one of your favorite cities: Cincinnati.

Vote. It's secret and it's your right as a citizen. I used to cover politics as a reporter in Indiana and Missouri--got to know people like John Danforth, Kit Bond, and John Ashcroft. I voted. If you are a good reporter, you are able to argue both sides of an issue. For instance, I am ardently pro-life, but I can argue the "pro-choice" side. As an objective reporter, you pass along the argument, the facts, and leave it to the reader or listener to decide.

I often ate the food provided by the poltical parties at picnics. If a free hot dog and soft drink is going to affect my coverage, then I am cheaply bought.

Don't give up your right to vote--especially in school elections, which can be awfully close. Here in Ohio, decisions to raise property taxes to support schools are made by razor-thin margins--that will affect your wallet.

You should have a say on that and other issues because it affects your life and your family's life.

Come by for some Skyline Chili next time you're in town. Senator Clinton is having some now as I write this.

Howard

Let me explain further: it comes down to this. Do yo feel voting is a right, or a duty?

If it's a right, then it's something you can choose not exercise. Think of crazy Claudia; she has the right to own guns (assuming she hasn't been judged mentally deficient, a felon, etc). My guess is she chooses not to exercise that right, based on her politics. Similarly, you have countless rights that you choose not to exercise, because it doesn't make sense for you given your circumstances.

If it's a duty, say like serving in the military during a time of conscription, well, then you need to pay the price and fulfill your duty.

I guess I feel it's a right, not necessarily a duty. I would also note that most posters used the word 'right' in this context, in this blog entry.

AndyR, I think it's great that you feel it's worth it. Again, I have nothing against those who want to show their patriotism, or feel it's their duty, etc. All things being equal, sure, why not vote.

But all things aren't equal. #1, there's a possible reason why CC shouldn't vote, as I mentioned in my last post. #2, if we're only talking about *one vote*... what is the difference?

Again, I don't want to hear, "what if everyone had that attitude". Everyone doesn't, and I'm not trying to give them that. I'm merely trying to devolve the emotions down to an economic equation: does the benefit justify the cost?

If you have any sense of logic or objectivity about the discussion, the answer, of course is, 'probably not'.

This of course ignores 'soft benefits', like the good feelings you get from participating in the process, etc.

I agree with Harris: Not voting cannot keep reporters from having opinions, and voting does not make for biased journalism. A good journalist reports fairly, regardless of political views. Furthermore, journalists are in a position of informed access -- as part of their profession. While I have always appreciated the symbolic gesture of not voting, I think the journalist has a civic duty to vote.

While there is a serious risk that reporters who vote may show their bias in their work, I think there is a greater risk that those who don't vote delude themselves into believing they are nuetral.

With all due respect, get over yourself. This isn't an issue that the general public gives a hoot about. Why would anyone care if you vote or not?

JD, I found thost on a site that list elections determined by one vote. They had another that said Woodrow Wilson was elected by less then one vote per preceint in California. They have a whole list, just google one vote elections.

But the idea that ONE vote, as part of the whole, is very important still holds. Strictly speaking from a mathamatical veiwpoint if you take .000000001 (your influnce in a national election) and divide 0 by that number you get infinity, which is how much more influence I have over the presidential election then someone who doesn't vote.

Also Politicians pay attention to voting numbers. If for example a Governor is voted in by a 20% majority then he/she will have a huge political mandate to move his/her policies forward. In that sense your vote helps to strengthen (or weaken) the relative strength of a politician.

For example, JD you live in VA where Mark Warner is going to win the senate election. But if you don't think he will be a good senator then you should vote for Gilmore and maybe that one vote will show Warner that he needs to remember that there are conservatives in the Commonwealth who given a better candidate could beat him. Then he may legislate from a more centrist position to avoid opening the door for a strong republican challenge. Now this influence will be very very small but IMO it is worth the gas/time/energy etc. And this is even more true in local elections.

Much more useful would be (1) comprehensive "exit-poll" type disclosure of reporter's background and policy and political preferences and (2) subsequent analysis by "objective" third parties as to whether it appears that they let, or don't let, their background and preferences interfere with good reporting. That would give us something real to work with. E.g., if Reporter X (or most of the Reporters at Paper Y) is almost always "fair and balanced" we will begin to trust his/their reports more. And vice versa.

forgive my prounouns, for they disagree.

i have to mention this --this is where all the second admendment posturing has gotten us -- we have now officially become the Land of Gunnuttia.

'It was the fifth school shooting in a week in the U.S.'

what a waste. what a pathetic statement about our country. this doesn't happen anyplace else in the world--except maybe Iraq.

I think it is okay for reporters to vote, if they feel they can keep a separation between their neutral observer role and their personal political judgments. I tend to think that reporters are in a position to be excellent judges and necessarily open-minded about candidates from all corners, meaning that they are among the most well-informed and objective members of the electorate. In other words, I wish that more reporters would vote, as their choices may be as well-informed and non-politically-motivated as any other constituency.

Why are there no Texas polls?

Why is no one noticing the similarity between Bush's management of the Iraq "war" and Hillary's management of her campaign?

This is going to be harsh, but you asked the question so I'm going to answer it honestly.

For you not to vote is, in my opinion, cowardice.

I'm thinking back on the things I've seen this government do over the last 7 years. Arresting people for protesting. Kidnapping civilians and sending them overseas to be tortured. Abu Ghraib. Deliberately targeting buildings full of reporters during the invasion of Iraq. Committing fraud against the American people in order to invade a foreign country. Open talk of rounding up Muslims and putting them in concentration camps.

This has been a pretty damned dark and ugly decade thus far in American government. And the most dispiriting part of it in the darkest of those times was the fact that people like you in the media went with the flow. You were almost to a man a lot of cowards who never had the spine to stand up and say "I know the truth, I know what you're doing, I know you're lying and this is wrong!"

How far could it have gone? How close could America have gotten to a fascist state? How many people had to be rounded up in the middle of the night without warrants or due process and beaten in dark rooms before you would have had the moral backbone to stand up and say 'STOP'? 10,000? 100,000? 10,000,000? Where were you guys going to draw a line?

I think that most reporters would have maintained your cool acceptance of what was going on right up until they came for you.

And you don't even vote. Despicable. Reporters should be the most educated voters in America. You should be in the best position to make judgments about what is happening. But most of your colleagues laid down and did nothing when this country needed you the most.

Your failure to vote and your failure to form judgments about what happens in politics and in government is a moral failure.

Michael Gerson writes in the WPost:

"Those clanking, sputtering and grinding sounds you hear are coming from the Clinton political machine.

Our fundraising, it argues, has never been stronger -- though it is about half of Barack Obama's. Our strategy has assumed these minor setbacks all along -- though senior campaign leadership must be shown the door. Our successes will come in "Ohio and Texas because we know that those are states where they represent the broad electorate in this country" (Hillary Clinton's words) -- which is hardly a valentine to Missouri, Virginia, Minnesota, Colorado and other parts of the nation Clinton must view as flyover territory."

The little people are not amused.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/14/AR2008021403102.html

Interesting bit of navel-gazing, CC. Just joking. But you guys - especially DC reporters- do get so caught up in their own importance. And they get so caught up in a herd mentality, as someone has mentioned. I think the internet has made this worse. Every morning a narrative, which becomes CW, is established, and that becomes the reality whether it's true or not. Get out of DC and talk to non-reporter people more.

I also have to agree with one of above poster that sloppiness is too common [unattributed quotes--especially 'a senior administration official said'!!! these people have names--don't let them get away with this] and don't take stenography from the WH. And this...

" But of course, we can't expect reporters to ask real questions, because that would bring accusations that they are LIBERALS (spoken in the snarling tone otherwise reserved for references to child molesters)--and that would completely trash their image as paragons of objectivity and impartiality."

Reporters have also got to stop being bullied by rightwingers and terrified of being called liberals.

"(and honestly, what difference does one vote make...)."

shame on you, JD. all the difference in the world. you should vote, CC. Realize that you are biased, everyone is, and you will be more objective by understanding it.

"Three of the top four presidential candidates will campaign across Wisconsin today, all hitting Milwaukee at some point, ahead of the state's Tuesday primary.

Who's missing? That'd be Hillary Rodham Clinton, who's meeting voters in Ohio, which holds its primary March 4. Mrs. Clinton, speaking at Ohio State University in Columbus on Thursday, said "the people of Ohio get me and get what I'm about," reports the Columbus Dispatch."

I read this in "The Caucus" blog at NYTimes. My guess is that a lot more people are reading it and thinking deep thoughts.

This, my friends, is the beginning of the end. You cannot write off voters and expect to get away with it. She is toast.

Hi AndyR. I kind of figured that bomb I dropped would inspire some replies.

I appreciate that blocks of votes do in fact move elections. However, the issue at hand is not a block of votes; it's one reporter's vote. From a purely economic return perspective, you could hardly say that the benefit of one vote is worth the cost in time, gas, etc.

Now, before you human torches decide to flame on, realize that most people think of voting as a duty, not a right, and that's great. More power to them. And please don't say, "what if everyone said that". We're not talking about everyone, we're talking about one person who has what might be a very good reason *not* to vote (to keep any subconscious bias from creeping into h