civics lesson for the misguided

1)
Common Cause is not a media outlet or news agency.  This is a political organisation.  We have political opinions.  Given the state of the current media, you might be forgiven for you ignorance of the difference between the two.

By definition, Common Cause is biased.  We have specific goals for reforming the American political process.  We are biased in favor of "open, honest, and accountable government."  

News organisations are not supposed to have any opinions.  That is rarely true today.  You are probably very familiar with this phenomenon from watching your favorite news channel "Fox - fair and balanced," especially the "No Spin Zone" of Bill O'Reilly, and from reading the Drudge Report and FreeRepublic every 20 minutes.  You may want to sample a broader spectrum of sources.  A plurality of perspectives has a tendency to elevate one's view of political questions (see Federalist Papers, Madison 10).

If you came here expecting to find "unbiased" news I suggest you try looking on a website that does not include links on "ways to give" or "take action."  That should tip you off that We are an advocacy group.  

2)
Your post suggests a strange definition of what it means to be "unbiased" or "independent."  You suggest that if an article "makes the Bush administration look bad and is anti-Republican" it must be biased.  Is it possible for the Bush administration to be wrong?  Your own post seems to agree that paying for journalism is not good policy.  Why then criticise Dawn for expressing a view you agree with?  Do you hold your partisan affiliation above the importance of a free press?

You also suggest Dawn's article would have been more legitimate if you knew it was written by a registered Republican.  To me, this is evidence that the country has completely lost its mind.  Are you incapable of evaluating the merits of an opinion without regard to partisan politics?  Does the value of a free press depend on whether a Democrat or a Republican is advocating for it?

3)
With regard to the Mike's post "Ethics v. Rules," I ask you to point out which of the following quotes gave you the idea that Common Cause is a wholely owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party run by Howard Dean clones?

a) "The reforms they propose are good because they would make it harder for the Democrats to do the same things when they ultimately return to power, since they were guilty of similar abuses in the past, though probably not to the same extent as Hastert, DeLay, Drier."

Here, Mike is hoping that the Democrats won't be able to hijack the Congress the same way the Republicans have this session - and that Democrats have in the past.  That doesn't sound much like a Democratic talking point to me.  Mabye I'm biased too.  Would it make you feel better if I told you I'm a registered Republican?

b) "They do throw in some stuff about congressional travel, which members of both parties have pretty much turned into mini political junkets."

Here, Mike points out that BOTH parties have abused travel offered by lobbyists.  Once again, this is not something the Democrats will be "running on" this year.

3)
Being "Nonpartisan" is not the same thing as being "bipartisan."  There is a long forgotten concept known as "the public interest."  There are many issues where any elected politician's interest is opposed to the "public interest."  Re districting reform, campaign finance, ethical oversight, voting machines, lobbyist regulations, etc.  

When one party controls all three branches of government it is impossible to lobby for reforms on these fronts without talking about Republicans more than Democrats.  Right now Republicans are the ones controlling the committees and receiving the most lobbying attention and therefore committing more violations.  They are also the ones who will pass any reforms.  If the Democrats were in charge, Common Cause would be criticising them just as much as Republicans.  If you Don't believe me, look up Common Cause's work during the 80s and early 90s.

Re: Civic lesson for the misguided Blagfly

My civics lesson was addressed to Adan.  Thats why the post begins with his name and is nested under his post.  This may explain much of your confusion about my comments.

You may want to follow your own advice about getting the posts straight.

I can assure you we do not agree about the meaning of "nonpartisan" and "bipartisan."  I will also go ahead and point out that your Dec 13 post reframes your definition of nonpartisan.  I give you credit for any possibility that you may have discovered the weakness of your original definition through this dialogue.  At the same time I discredit your inability to be intellectually honest with yourself.

This is how you defined nonpartisan on Dec. 9: "In order for CC to truly be Nonpartisan they should have about an equal amount of Democrats and Republicans."

Now on Dec. 13 you say Nonpartisan and Bipartisan are different.  "Nonpartisan means:  not in favor  of one party or another. Bipartisan means: including or done by both parties."

Maybe I really am misguided but for the life of me I am unable to conceive of the difference in meaning between "an equal amount of Democrats and Republicans" and "including or done by both parties."

You and I definitely disagree about what it means to be nonpartisan.  The world is more complicated than Republicans or Democrats.  The two major parties do not encompass the entire spectrum of possible political opinions.  

A nonpartisan idea is one developed without concern for partisan outcomes.  A diehard Conservative, registered Republican, who has always voted the ticket is capable of having such an idea.  It is possible for a person to be registered with a party and think independently.

Common Cause is nonpartisan in this sense;  CC does not consider the partisan outcomes of the reforms it pursues.  Will an effective Ethics Committee help the Rs or Ds?  Will trustworthy voting machines, nonpartisan redistricting, campaign finance reform, media diversity, etc?  Maybe.  What Common Cause is concerned with is the process of democracy.  These SHOULD be bipartisan issues if we are doing our job right.  But the pursuit of these goals is for the ideal of open, honest and accountable government itself.  There is no regard for the partisan results of these reforms.  These reforms are all pursued as part of CC's view of what democratic reforms are in the public interest.

Whether CC is capable of developing nonpartisan goals is not dependent on the partisan makeup of the organisation.  A person's personal political opinions can't be defined by their partisan affiliations or voting patterns.  A much better indicator of Common Cause's perspectives is provided to you each day by the ongoing commentary of its staff through this blog.