Friday, July 10, 2009

Commentarama Non-Endorsement Policy

We’ve gotten several e-mails recently asking us what we thought about Sarah Palin. Do we support her for President, do we want her running the RNC, is she finished, etc. So we thought this would be a good opportunity to explain our policy regarding political candidates.

We don’t intend to endorse individual candidates or to speculate about their chances of success. Why? Because our focus is on ideas, not politicians.

Our political parties need to regain their intellectual vigor. We need to break through all of the myths and falsehoods that lead people wrong and confuse the debate. Our goal is to bring intellectual clarity.

Were we to endorse individual candidates, we would lay ourselves open to the charge that we might shade the truth to help those candidates. And that would be a disservice to you. We don’t want you ever to feel that we are being less than open and honest. When someone is right (even Obama), we will give them credit; when they are wrong, we will call them on it.

Moreover, we know that many of you support different candidates and we don’t want anyone to feel that they are not welcome here. We welcome anyone who has an open mind.

So while we may discuss individual candidates (and we will certainly profile them all -- left, right and center -- as we get closer to the elections), we will leave the decision of who you should support to you.


freedom21 said...

All this honesty and openness is freaking me out...

Thanks guys!!

CrispyRice said...

I applaud that stance, Andrew. I'll back any candidate who has the correct ideas and beliefs and who is willing to stand up for them. It's more important to have a discussion about those ideas and where we (as a people) should stand.

AndrewPrice said...

Freedom21, LOL! How about we promise to lie at least once a week?

CrispyRice, thanks. I think that's a good way to look at it -- we need lots of good people in politics, not just one or two. So we should back anyone who stands up for the right things.

BevfromNYC said...

See, I knew I'd come to the right place. i have always felt this way and I am honored to know I am am in such good company. Thanks Andrew.

My resolution:
"We, the free Peoples of the Red Pill, do hereby swear (or affirm) to see seek out the truth even if we do not agree with the findings and to discuss honestly and civilly (and with humor when necessary) the same." Of thee I sing. [to be amended as needed]

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Bev, great resolution! :-)

Unknown said...

Andrew and I kicked this around for awhile. We (like almost everyone) have our early favorites and "best guesses." But we decided that open discussion and thoughtful discussion were things basic to conservative values. The lack of this careful approach to choosing candidates led to disasters in 2006 and 2008. We are hoping to promote a more reasoned approach toward the next nomination, as well as the return of the Republican Party to conservative principles. Open discussion of the candidates, including those who have not yet appeared on the national radar, will be part of what we will be doing in the upcoming months and years. We hope our readers will actively involve themselves in the discussions.

patti said...

bev: wait, you left out the part about the pony. there's a pony, right?!

BevfromNYC said...

patti - that's why I added the "to be amended" clause. In hopes that one day, I would would one day get the pony of my just needs to be a little pony. I am not even sure I can have a little pony now. Can ponies climb stairs? Anyway, I stand by my resolution. Truth, justice, and the American way. (stand by for an update from NYC on this very topic...)

Post a Comment