Please don't make local option taxes your litmus test.... Your editorials have played that game for three years now, and it's getting old.

Kevin,
Remeber back in May I requested the Board to disclose their full political ideology and you wrote you would consider it for the primary elections?

I haven't seen anything like that yet.

For example"

Education
The board believes in ___ for state and local politicians and ____ for national politicians. Our position is based on the following reasons:

1.
2.
3.

Local Option Taxes
The board believes in____

and so on.

So for each topic you inquire of candidates in your interviews, you could paint the picture of your ideal candidate and the REASONS for the board position.

That way, your readers can get the big picture without a candidates name attached.

Please please please please

separate the political candidate endorsements from the Letters to the Editors.

An endorsement is NOT worthy of the Letters to the Editors section.

Please step outside of traditional box and separate the LAME candidate endorsements. Print them, yes if you must, but not under the title of Letters to the Editor.

I respectfully disagree with udapimp - no need to establish all of those benchmarks, etc. Editorial board members are posted on the page, and if you are even somewhat politically observant you know where most stand on major issues.

Just give the candidates a fair shake to say their piece, then make your pick and tell us why. It is work for you but it should be a simple process for the reader.

Any voter who would cast a vote based only on your endorsement would not delve into benchmarks or other information made available to them.

But what would be fun would be for you to post early a list of all candidates you will consider and let us have a pool on who we think you'll pick. High stakes and big money! Now there's "change" we can believe in....