Reaffirmation of CCO Political Endorsement Policy


eagle flag

Since we posted our endorsement for a candidate for County Council in the May 6 Republican primary, we have been inundated with phone calls, emails and texts. We have also been analyzing the comments sent to us by our independent-thinking and loyal readers concerning this endorsement.

It is obvious, after analyzing all the feedback received, that the City County Observer management made a major error in judgment in deciding to endorse a political candidate.  What our readers told us it that they want us to stay unbiased by not endorsing any political candidate.

We apologize for our  error in judgment and accept your honest, candid and open criticism of us.  Therefore, today we shall reaffirm our past political endorsement policy of being neutral and politically unbiased.

Also, in all honesty, we were positioned tomorrow, to endorse a candidate for the Vanderburgh County Commissioner’s race, and have decided not to do so because WE GET IT.  In its place, we have decided to let you our readers tell us who you want to endorse in the contested May 6th Republican primary County Council, County Commissioner and the 8th District for United States House of Representative races.

We just implement a new Readers’ Poll:  you will be able to vote your endorsement of who you want to win in the upcoming contested primary races.  This poll shall end this evening at 11:00 pm tonight. The next Readers Poll will be the Vanderburgh County Commission race.  The final Readers Poll will be the 8th District for United States House of Representative race.

Also, starting tomorrow (May 1st), we will allow any person who would like to send us a “Letter to the Editor” asking our readers to vote for your favorite candidate.  We will put the “Letters to the Editor” in this section and post them without opinion, editing or bias.


  1. Excellent. Thank you soo much CCO. I appreciate the way you are handling this and I very much appreciate the guts to make this decision. I don’t have a problem with endorsements but I do not support a candidate who handled the ball fields in such a manner that it was handled. The cco is better than that and you have my full support and efforts moving forward. Thanks!

  2. It’s fraudulent to call this web site unbiased. On national issues it’s extremely right wing. I just happen to like the local rabble rousing.

    • If your looking for or expecting a total absence of bias in the CCO or anywhere else, then keep on expecting because that will never happen. It is impossible for some kind of bias on some level not to exist no matter how hard one tries.

      At least here with this announcement the editor gets it, owns up to it and does something about it. Try expecting the C&P to put on their big boys pants and do the same.

    • No. You are wrong. (with respect)

      The CCO is not extremely right wing.

      Instead I think the CCO is fiscally responsible/conservative

      …and otherwise, I perceive the CCO’s position to be “let’s all respect the individual and leave a person’s home, private life and morals to himself” political view…e.g., a more libertarian view that respects the personal rights of men, women and same-sex couples to live free and make their own choices w/out interference from the government in their lives.

      The Tea Party Rancher types and the extreme christian evangelists fail in these areas. They try to legislate morality, especially “THEIR version” of morality and no-one else’s. I don’t believe the CCO condones legislating Christian morality.

    • What is the Ghost smoking? I think the editors are on the liberal side. However, I do applaud and kudos to the CCO for being like Switzerland. Neutral and good public policy. Viva el CCO!

    • National issues: We support same sex marriage, we support a woman’s right to choose, and we support the legalization of MJ. In whose world is that a right wing agenda? We do stand on the conservative side of fiscal policy and do not believe that one’s rights end where another’s begins so we do not support taking one guys property for the benefit of another. Of course common infrastructure benefits all and the cost should be paid by all through taxation. We support policies that are consistent with liberal social policies and conservative fiscal policy. That make us difficult to put into either a blue box or a red box.

      • +1

        Nothing about that is liberal, it’s all focused on pro-business free market policies, efficient and transparent government and protecting the rights of the individual from government interference.

      • Fiscally conservative and socially liberal is what most people define as Libertarian. The idea that individuals are intelligent enough to make our own decisions, not have to rely on others to tell us how to live our lives.

    • Ghost, if you could park your bias you would see far less bias in others. You have good things to offer, but it’s to often lost in your own bias approach.

  3. Smart retraction,we didn’t place a comment on the other thing,figured that was just some quick thought due the situations there. You guys do need change badly, however from following this for awhile in concern to friends and relatives there. Geez, they’res just not enough to chose from in primary candidates. Looking at our data and trending that contest is a stretch either way one looks at it. One things for sure the difference in connection to the ECVB would have cast our support afoul,as we completely agree with @Rails&Roberts on the assessment as to where the Baseball fields should be. Clearly Mr.Baer is correct in that usage forecast being more relevant to the cities core issues. Best case is why the councils anywhere should be more diverse in connections to the actual population as served.
    The other ball field location is [clearly not], when one actually assesses the Metros 21st century carbon footprint forward. Why the leadership chose the outlaying site doesn’t bode well for accountability when you should be striving to improve the metros sustainable footprint as seen from outside,and while grow the responsibly for balance equities for the whole metro units social economic footprint,as well.
    We would have planned that to grow the metro with balance equity due the project locations viability to purposeful uses blending in other words true community design focus.

    This present focus in projects leaves a foreboding thumbed nose that flies in the face of the Executive Office of the Presidents Clean Water actions plan, and the offices of the Environmental Protection Agency.

    Thinking what ever happens there with your elections the ones who must swallow that under cooked wad of meat,ought to be the ones who bit it off,not,the people left holding the empty plates. So.

  4. Nice.

    Wayne’s World endorsed candidates and was only backed up by the Phoenix.

    You are backed up by your readers if you don’t.


    • You’re so bad…..

      IIT that some of the pinky shake Dems are near apoplectic about the state of Marsha’s campaign?

      IIT that some of these Democrates may risk their precinct committeeships by crossing over to vote for Marsha in the primary to try and rescue a loyal member of the Weinzapfel/Winnecke alliance?

      IIT that those who might engage in this kind of activity are not truly liberal/progressive/democratic but just interested in money, power and patronage?

      • Any Precinct Committeeman who “crosses over” should be removed from office immediately by Chairman Faulkner.
        I’m sure the story will be that there’s no real Democratic primary and she would be the weaker candidate and easier to beat in the fall. I believe that is true, but I don’t believe that is the motivation for the cross-over. The truth is that there may well not even be a Democrat to run if Marsha wins the primary. And yes, I think it is very possible that she will win.
        My prediction is that the Abel – Ungetheim race will be closer than most think, with Mr. U winning by about 1.5 percentage points. I expect Pete Swaim will take his race against John Montrastelle by a similar margin.
        You absolutely hit the nail on the head about the Dems who cross to vote for Marsha, BB.

  5. Interesting move on CCO part. I’m really impressed that CCO realized a public relations mistake, admitted to it and quickly corrected it. I’m impressed.

  6. Can’t wait to see if the CCO “Readers Poll” pick who shall be the winners in the upcoming Republican party primary elections. My guess that the CCO readers shall be spot on.

  7. CCO, I commend you for this well grounded decision, I truly believe you made the correct one. Bravo! Sincerely, Crash

  8. Excellent choice CCO. I am also encouraged by the responses of my fellow posters. By in large, if I agree with them or not, they thinking people.

  9. I hear so many people talking about how disgusted they are with our current representatives, and the presidential administration, but we will put these same people, whether it is a D or an R back into the same seat they have held for way too long, and then act shocked when they continue down this road to destruction!!
    People, please think about it….for way too long, it has gone back and forth between Republican and Democrat, and look where we are! If you think either one of those two parties is gonna fix this, you are mistaken, they are so enmeshed in this, it is unfathomable!
    I realize Libertarians are not on the ballot in the primaries, which if you look at the constitution is unlawful, but we do have an option, please look at Libertarian candidates! They want smaller government, constitutional laws that pertain to everyone, not just some of us, and more freedoms for all. We have a terrific guy running for 8th district Congress named Andrew Horning. I believe he will uphold the constitution no matter what anyone in Washington says, and will not be bought! He is willing to debate and answer any and all questions put to him! Please look him up at

Comments are closed.