It's endorsement time again

In a few weeks, we'll tell you which candidates to vote for. We'll also have agents at every polling place making sure you comply.

Of the semi annual objections I receive about our endorsements for public office, there is one I find particularly baffling. It goes something like this: Stop telling people how to vote,

As much as I would like that power (as well as the power to control the outcome of the World Series and the temperature), recent history proves that I don't have it. Neither, of course, does anyone else.

What the six members of The Pilot's editorial board do have is the time to study the issues, the opportunity to interview candidates at length, a durable set of values and the responsibility to provide our opinion on the issues of the day.

In other words, making endorsements is what we do, at least at this time of year.

Starting two weeks ago and lasting for at least a few more, we'll conduct something on the order of 60 interviews, mostly in person, some by phone, of candidates from one end of the ballot to the other. We'll ask hundreds of questions, some binary but many more designed to elicit substantive answers to difficult issues. We'll challenge assumptions, push back hard against cant and slogan.

We'll go to candidate forums, and we'll talk to people whose judgment we know is trustworthy. We'll explore candidates' pasts and what they say about the future. We'll look at who else has endorsed them.

Then we'll sit down and discuss. And discuss. And discuss some more.

We'll decide whom to endorse and how to do it. We'll decide whether that person's promise warrants a full-throated cheer or polite applause. Occasionally, because we're unmoved, we'll decide to endorse nobody or suggest a write-in. Rarely, we'll choose to remain silent.

Regardless of whom we choose, or how we decide to write an endorsement, a goodly portion of you will be unhappy. Some will be surprised. Others will be downright angry.

So, then, why do we do it?

Because providing an opinion on the critical subjects of the day is what we do. And because few subjects are more important than who will represent us at City Hall, on the School Board, in Richmond and in Washington.

If you read the editorial page regularly - and I hope you do - you probably have a good idea what the editorial board thinks is important: Good roads, effective schools, safe streets, a clean environment, an adequate social safety net. Taxes should be only high enough for government to do what only it can do: Building roads, for example.

From politicians, we like integrity, both in governance and promises. We want leaders, not followers. We prefer problem-solvers to flame-throwers. We want government to be small both in its spending and in its intrusion. We favor folks who get stuff done. We like smart people.

Incumbency is important - deep understanding of the issues typically tilts in that direction - but experience is not a clincher. It can be if a challenger's knowledge deficit will take years to overcome. Seniority matters, at least where it provides power used for Hampton Roads' benefit. Again, not a clincher.

Those are our criteria, as plain and as complete as I can make them. If your assumption about our process isn't in the preceding three paragraphs, I can assure you it isn't a factor. Not that I can convince you of that. Any more than I can tell you how to vote.

Donald Luzzatto is The Virginian-Pilot's editorial page editor. E-mail: donald.luzzatto@pilotonline.com.