That makes sense. Besides, those evil republicans are just shrewd and crafty enough that they can probably keep the identity of Romney's Veep pick a secret until even long after Nov. 6th.

Meanwhile, ask the typical Obama supporter on the street who our current vice president is, and they will most often either stammer around a bit before admitting that they don't know, or they'll finally blurt out a wild guess such as Don Rumsfeld or whoever.

Don Joy,
Obama's vice president is Joe Biden.

I don't understand that reasoning. The buildup to the VP pick was huge in the media and Romney's campaign. Heck, the campaign built a mobile app people could install so they could get notified on who was chosen immediately. Not matter what time it was announced it was going to be a huge story, as proven by the fact it's the top headline on most news sites today (and has been all weekend).

Some dim bulbs on this thread.

I don't think you can really say that about Saturdays anymore for news - with the 24 hour news cycle, and so many people getting their news online through a variety of sources, you're just as likely to find people checking the news as any other day. And as someone else mentioned, it managed to headline for three days this way. Unlikely that would have happened with a Monday release.

Patch is run by democrats, of course.

I agree.

I am not sure how you can jump to the conclusion that The Patch is slanted toward Democrats. As I understand it the survey was sent to Democrats who responded and also sent to Repulicans, who refused to respond,so how does that make The Patch "Democrat Leaning?

I agree with BSD right up to the part about voting for Republicans. I'm not sure taking a stronger dose of poison than the one I'm already taking will help me (or America).

...but he's right: The elected Democrats in this area at every level of government make most used car salesmen look like saints. (I exclude CarMax, of course, where the sales staff are saints!)

Your first mistake is in thinking that any of those programs are sustainable at current rates of increase even if we confiscated every single penny from every single person across the land. Your second mistake is thinking that tax cuts result in less revenue--in fact, every time capital gains rates have been cut, the result has been MORE revenues tumbling in, not less. Your third mistake is thinking that Romney and/or Ryan are proposing cuts in anything--they aren't. Reducing the rate of increase in a program is not a cut! That's all they are proposing--reducing the galloping rates of increase of these runaway entitlement disasters.

Don Joy has hit the nail on the head in all posts. And I was totally laughing at the "dim bulbs" comment. Finally, much as I love Whitney, her political ties are obvious. Just looking at the photos from the 4th of July parade, which showed only democrats, made the political leanings of the FFX City Patch evident.

Thanks, Fairfax Resident. Every single Patch editor I've encountered on these boards is a female democrat, according to their profiles. These are the same people who are always insisting there be 'diversity' everywhere...

You mean proposes to SAVE.

...from certain insolvency unless his recommendations are followed.

Social Security is already in deep, deep trouble! It can't get any worse. I'll take an idea, plan, or even a thought from the current administration - but so far, I haven't heard one. Time for some new leadership. I don't have a political alliance and vote on issues and ideas - so far, it's been radio silence and rampant spending from the current "leaders" in Capital and White House. Oh – and I’m sure given the choice, Paul Ryan would rather that his dad still be alive. I know I would….

Well said...it sounded almost as infantile as most of the discourse in these threads.

This is the most even head response I have seen. To bad most people will just vote blind on campaign slogans that aren't true.

Saying that PolitiFact is "nonpartisan" is like saying that Rosie O'Donnell is svelte.

Don Joy
What fact checker sites do you feel are non-partisan?

Cathryn, I don't believe there are any that aren't biased to some extent. RealClearPolitics.com, while not a "fact checking" site, is a fairly good mainstream clearinghouse because it presents input from all sides. But the so-called "fact checker" sites are dubious if only because they purport to be free of bias, which honest people should acknowledge is virtually impossible when it comes to human beings.

For those wanting unbiased fact checking how about this - http://www.youtube.com/v/erYpXzE9Pxs%26

Watch it and laugh!

If it wasn't true it wouldn't be so humorous!

November cometh....

I will be happier when communists are defeated and removed from power in my country!

Hey Locally Involved,

Does GOP stand for Great Opportunity Party or what? LOL!

I for one am full of joy and happiness and well informed as I can see that Don is also, despite whatt you'd like to think or believe!

The comparisons of the planks and overall platfroms of the RNC and DNC will be iteresting. Take a look at the past and you'll know what to expect in the future!

That's why I'm voting for R&R, Allen, and the Eminent Domain Amendement in Virginia!

I think that's quite unfair. Patch poses questions, citizens on both sides answer them. Seems to me that the conservatives do quit a bit of beating up as well. It's a shame we can't present and discuss our views without name calling.

Patch editors are all democrats, as far as I can tell. That is the norm in 85% of the media. *sigh*

...the same people, ironically, that are always croaking homilies about how "diversity" is so beneficial and necessary, etc. I will pay $50 to anyone who can find me a Patch editor who is a heterosexual male republican.

Don Joy - I can find you several "heterosexual male Republicans" working here as we have people of all types and Patch is not a politically biased organization. Do I get 50 bucks for each one? If so, thanks!

Don, it doesn't matter what the political persuasions of the editors are. They present a story or pose a question and we answer, and the answers reflect the views of the citizenry, not the editors. You seem to "live" on Patch solely for the sake of hurling epithets at those who don't agree with you. Karen's right, stick to the topic and do so without such vitriol.

Karen, show me one who is an editor and I will gladly hand over the $50.

Carol, I post mainly facts, with colorful commentary. I have a job that involves a lot of waiting. Seems to me like you are just irritated that someone successfully rebuts the prevailing leftist viewpoint on this forum. It's forum, I suggest you tolerate different viewpoints.

Don, I think you're right that most people who work in media are Democrats. As a journalist, I hear the media referred to as liberal every day—but in order for that to change more republicans (or independents for that matter) would need to become journalists. It doesn't seem to be a career that attracts many, and that could be because they believe it's not the place for them and it's a place for liberals. It almost seems (and I know I'm not explaining it all that well here) like a self fulfilling prophecy.

I also don't think it's possible to have a completely unbiased media, though I try my best to be unbiased. Earlier this week I posted a video on Herndon Patch's Facebook page from the Mitt Romney campaign because it features a prominent Herndon businessman. My thought process was, "Hey, it's Danny Vargas! He's featured in a presidential campaign. This is news to locals! I'm posting it." Then I got flak from Dems for posting the video. I didn't post it because of political motivations. I posted it simply because it's newsworthy that it featured someone local. Bottom line: as a journalist you really can't win. My job is to deliver information and that's what I try to do. (As a side note, I consider myself moderate.)

Anyway—back to the discussion. Onward with the colorful commentary!

I enjoy the discussion too, James. I also took a lot of media/journalism courses in college, as well as have briefly been a member of small-scale media organizations at various times earlier in my life. Still waiting to see if anyone can show me a Patch editor (you're not a Patch editor) who is a white male heterosexual republican. I pretty much agree with everything you said, but it doesn't negate what I have said. Patch does do a pretty good job of not being a blatantly leftist site, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is basically a democrat-run and detectably democrat-flavored operation.

I work at a company that is in the patch "family." While I work in IT, I took many media studies classes in college, so I am pretty adept at spotting bias and irresponsible reporting. Patch is locally focused and decentralized compared to other news organizations, but I do understand the additional stories on politics since we reside in a swing state and it is an election year.

Overall, I just don't see a bias coming from patch, as I would from other websites out there. I am a male who is a center-right leaning independent, who is voting for R&R in November (stating that for Don's info request). If patch was as biased as some of the claims here, I would not frequent it. But reality is I am on it a lot because I find the information meaningful and well presented.

James and Leslie, I appreciate your comments. My attitude regarding the orientation of Patch probably started when it became apparent that an editor was coming onto a thread and admonishing participants to "behave" really only when those on the right were pushing back against the leftist trend of the comments. Then, over time, I noticed that the editors of the various Patch editions/localities were overwhelmingly female liberal democrats, as indicated in their profiles. So I felt it appropriate to make certain observations.

As far as the extreme over-representation (stranglehold is a better characterization) maintained by democrats over the major media industry overall, it's more than just a self-fulfilling manifestation of attitudes, beliefs, and propensities involved in the pursuit of a journalism career; it is actually a deliberate and calculated result of those who do the recruiting, hiring, and promotion. I see that Jayson Blair seems to be enjoying an apparently brisk and successful career now as a "life coach" here in the D.C. area...I do wonder how many of his clients even know why he should be a household name among those reading this text.

Don, you don't know me and you've never successfully rebutted my opinions. You are the last person on patch that I would say is tolerant of other views. I don't find your commentary colorful; I find it insulting and nasty. And BTW, there are homosexual white republican males. Have a nice day.

Carol, you seem to have missed the point about the absurdity of "diversity" agendas, but have a nice day anyway.

Don, I didn't miss your point, I just don't agree with it. I happen to believe diversity is a good thing, but often difficult for some (not all!) white straight Christian males to understand, having rarely experiences discrimination.

Carol, you completely missed my point...not to mention that you have not a single clue what it's like to be a member of the demographic which is targeted specifically for deliberate and systematic discrimination in virtually all environments of society--especially here in the federal dystopia of Washington, D.C(while simultaneously the absurdly Orwellian official policy purports that discrimination of any kind is forbidden).

Don, you confuse disagreement with missing your point. I understand what you're saying and I don't think it is true. White males have had a good ole boy network in society and in the workplace for years. Again, I get your point and I've heard it all before and I don't agree.

Carol, the fact that you thought it relevant to bring up that there are homosexual white male republicans shows that you didn't even get what I was saying. You missed the point completely. You still don't get it.

Valid points have been made further up the thread about how the poll was presented. The discussion of the editorial makeup and bias of Patch is directly relevant.

One Patch editor even changed her profile information to omit where she had previously included that she is a democrat, after I pointed it out to others on another article discussion thread a couple of months ago.

To support my rationale for the way I've particpated here, I'm re-posting Mike's remarks from further up:

'"More than 10 Democrats responded, but only three Republicans responded to Patch's survey."

'Even if it was "More than 10 Republicans responded, but only three Democrats responded to Patch's survey," I would not use these results in any sort of write up indicating poll results, especially using "Snap Poll" in the title.

'I find the whole thing misleading and a prematurely published story.'

Oh snap! ...Nice one Karen :)