Another election, another set of bogus endorsements.

.
We have a local paper; you've no doubt heard of it.

Off and on, throughout this Nation's history, the written word from professional journalists have served us well on many levels.

There is an alleged standard that these words are SUPPOSED to provide: factual, honest, without bias or pre-conceived notion, fair with reasonable efforts to provide all perspectives, unswayed by political or corporate influence.

Editorial policy of a newspaper is supposed to reflect that. It is, in fact, supposed to be the enshrinement of those ideals... along with a responsiveness to a public that reflects their will without superseding it.

For whatever the reason, our community is cursed with a paper that views these standards as if they didn't apply. They've become part of a media conglomerate whose legs still tingle over the thought of an Obama Administration of lies, deceit and economic destruction the likes of which this country has NEVER known.

Every filter that every word printed by our local paper has offers a distinct leftist tinge and the tint of superiority that enables an unjustifiable, non-responsive aura of superiority wholly undeserved.

The critical elements of this filter bear no resemblance to the average citizen's view in this community; it's a filter where political favoritism and corruption combine with an agenda-driven bias and slant that is the product of the fevered brow of one or two people, accountable to no one, who wrongly believe their view is superior to that of anyone else's.

It's a view that allows them to ignore these basic tenets, and to kick them out of the window in favor of agenda driven bias and political corruption, because, you see, "Friends of the Columbian" (Such as our Cowardman Brian Baird, or our bought and paid for fair and square county commissioner, Steve "unmarked bills" Stuart) are not held accountable for their lies, insults and corruption while those who do not support the paper's world view are criticized, lied about, and publicly flogged at every opportunity.

That brings us to the issue of endorsements.

To have any value in the community, the community must believe that the reasoning for this paper's support, the facts used to achieve the conclusions, are, in fact, free from bias, free from corruption and based on criteria uniformly applied.

That is, when candidate A is endorsed, the same reasoning is used to endorse candidates B, C, D and E.

So when, for example, the issue of "experience" is applied as a basis to endorse, the reader should believe that "experience" as a factor is ALWAYS applied when considering ANY endorsement.

Unfortunately, this paper finds itself incapable of using that tenet in any fair or reasonable way.

In the past, for example, this paper has twice endorsed Pam Brokaw for election, first, in 2004 for state representative and then again in 2008 for county commissioner.

The problem with those endorsements was the issue of "experience," somehow an important criteria in the endorsement of Jack Burkman over Bill Turlay, played absolutely no role and had precisely zero impact in either of the Brokaw endorsements.

Brokaw had never held elective office. Brokaw had zero executive or policy experience. But what Brokaw was, was a democrat.

Those she was running against had, in fact, been tested on the political field of combat and had been found to be meriting of election. As a result, they had legislative experience, policy experience, and a depth of understanding of the issues that far exceeded that of Ms. Brokaw.

Yet, in the Brokaw endorsements, the "extensive portfolio" of her opponents "public service" had no impact; and her opponents, who had served a term on a local city council and the other opponent, just elected County Commissioner Tom Mielke, had served 4 terms in the State House representing most of the same area of his commissioner district.

That type of disingenuous pap is what cheapens the value of Columbian endorsements.

Yet, because those handling endorsements at the paper find themselves incapable of avoiding their personal biases at the expense of this community, the issue of "experience" is a brush used not as an equally applied factor, but instead as a factor they pull out whenever they feel like it to support, or oppose, whoever comes closest to either toeing or opposing the paper's line.

That kind of mindset is, of course, their privilege. The First Amendment even applies to morons cranking out their agenda every day under the cloak of the tenets we have a right to expect, but that they, unfortunately given their responsibility to us as the public, have the right to, and frequently do, ignore.

In these endorsements, if you toed the Columbian's line, you were endorsed.

In the Burkman-Turley race, for example, the Columbian's endorsement of Burkman made no mention of the monumental and legendary debacle of 2006 where Burkman lost in the democrat primary for 17th District State Representative to now fellow city council member Pat Campbell where he, Burkman, had raised something on the order of $93,000 to Campbell's, well, $60 odd dollars.

Instead, it mentions Burkman's "portfolio as a public servant." Well, part of that portfolio was and is that unbelievably tin-eared performance... but did the paper mention it?

Nope.

Now, this paper hasn't hesitated to refer to other losses by those they oppose in their endorsements. They mentioned them every time the subject of Tom Mielke ever came up.

But oddly, there's no mention of them when they endorse Jeannie Harris; (a 3 time loser in other elections; twice for county commissioner and once for state representative) but as they endorse Mike Heywood's opponent, sure enough, there's mention of Heywood's abortive effort in 2003.

Even before any exploration of the motivations for these endorsements, one should ponder the multiple double standards and situational application of the criteria resulting in endorsements or opposition.

And one should conclude that if everyone were treated and considered the same, the endorsements in question would actually contain something approaching "valuable."

And what were the results of the Brokaw endorsements?

She lost.

You know, it's really a shame. If these endorsements were actually based on merit and not on an agenda, they could actually be worth something.

But they aren't.

And they're not.
.