I'll use this space to answer some common questions about our endorsements process:
• How do you decide who you're going to endorse? It's simple, really: Our editorial staffers (primarily Jim Nintzel, Mari Herreras and me, although Irene Messina and Adam Borowitz are also welcome to participate) get together and discuss the races. If we have questions, we do some research; if we have disagreements, we debate. It's that simple. (In most cases, we come to a consensus rather quickly.) Finally, we run the decisions by our publisher, Tom Lee ... and then we write 'em up.
• Why doesn't the Weekly have an editorial board that meets with all the campaigns and then makes decisions, like the dailies do? Two reasons: 1) time and 2) resources. At many dailies, most of the people who sit on the editorial boards do just that--sit on the editorial boards--as their full-time jobs. At the Weekly, Mari, Jim, Irene, Adam and I have many, many, many other things to do. Besides, it's not like, say, Tim Bee would be able to say much to persuade us to endorse him rather than Gabrielle Giffords. I'd argue that the knowledge behind our decisions is just as deep as the knowledge behind the dailies' editorial-board decisions.
• Why don't you make endorsements in all of the races? Two reasons: 1) time and 2) resources. We only give recommendations in races we feel qualified to make decisions about, and races that will be seriously contested and/or that we have strong opinions about.
• I disagree with your decision(s). What should I do? Feel free to write us a letter, and we'll run as many as we can between now and the election, so your voice can be heard. Debate and discussion is good. All we ask is that you attempt to be factual, fair ... and not too full of shit.