2 dumb Slate staffers split with wiser colleagues on Obama vote

One writer has broken ranks with Slate's slate of writers and intends to vote for John McCain! The Republican senator from Arizona.

No, really. We're serious here.

And one other Slate writer intends to vote for Bob Barr. The Libertarian former Republican representative from Georgia.

Not just because Bob has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. But because the editor-at-large, Jack Shafer, explains he has chosen the Libertarian candidate ever since he started voting in 1972.

Jack admits that there have been "a long line of chowderheads" atop the Libertarian ticket. But he feels that party comes closest to his ideal of limited government, free markets and noninterventionist foreign policy.

The rebel Republican over at Slate is Rachael Larimore, the deputy managing editor and copy chief, who's a lifelong moderate GOP voter who admires McCain, is incapable of generating a ton of hate for that known Satan George W. Bush and hopes that a Democratic victory will help recharge the GOP in the long run for the benefit of our two-party system.

That leaves only 55 other Slate staffers who chose to announce their fealty to the Illinois fellow for a variety of reasons you can read for yourself here.

Editor David Plotz describes the political announcements as a sign of openness and because he, like his predecessors, says he does not believe that how writers write politically is affected by how writers think politically.

So rest assured the online vote at Slate has absolutely nothing to do with all this late-race, trumped-up, empty chatter over media bias in favor of the handsome, eloquent Democrat with the darling family running against the grumpy old pilot who can't use a BlackBerry or play tennis because his arms were allegedly broken so often and then shocked the media by picking as his running mate a Washington outsider, a non-Democrat female no less, who's so opposed to abortion she didn't get one herself.

That's just widespread biased hooey. Forget about it because we say to.

--Andrew Malcolm

You can arrange for free alerts of all new Ticket items sent straight to your cellphone by registering here.

Photo credits: BarackObama.com and Associated Press. Place cursor on photos for captions.

Comments

[Ernest Adams]

Doesn't the LA Times have better things to do with its bandwidth (and Andrew Malcolm better things to do with his time) than report how the staff of some other media outlet are planning to vote?

One or two other and substantially more important things happened in the last 24 hours, such as the BBC's discovery that Georgia may have committed war crimes, or the earthquake in Pakistan, but no, the LA Times is breathlessly commenting on the voting plans of a small number of pseudo-journalists.

[ainnj]

Spot on as usual Mr. Malcolm but sadly many of your readers will completely miss the sarcasm.

I do want to thank you for your honesty, candor and courage during this campaign season when so many of your fellow journalists have seemingly morphed into just more surrogates for the Obama campaign.

[Freedem]

A writer has as much control over what a Media publishes as an engineer has over the look of what they are designing, which I can tell you is not much. Management tells you what it has to look like and your job is to try and make it work.

How the reporter votes is immaterial. Who the management supports is everything. In a newspaper that would be the Editors and the Publisher.

[Hilary Smith]

I think it is funny that in this article you show Barack and his family looking very happy and loving. On the other hand you have John McCain looking scowl. Why are you painting such a lovely picture of Barack. I always thought newspapers wrote facts and kept only objective views in their articles. Many articles I am reading here seem to favor Obama. I don't see any middle ground here!

[Karen Moore]

Nice picture of Mccain. I bet that is the only one you could find of him. I am sure there is no media bias.

[kbl]

Andrew Malcom, you really are a treasure. Thanks for keeping me laughing during this loooong campaign season.

[Alessandro Machi]

From what I have read on newspaper style forums, you ARE NOT supposed to actually distort images. The aspect ratio of the John McCain photo has been altered for comic affect, but unless you are willing to put up a goofy altered one of Barack, you're really taking sides.

I go the extra mile on my blog to avoid posting photos that make people look goofy, and that can be quite the challenge when it comes to the MSNBC night time anchors.

http://www.HILLARY-WINS.com
http://www.CAUCUSCHEATING.com
http://www.FAIR-REFLECTION.com

[OSweet]

Respect to Slate for being honest about being in the tank.

[tarbubble]

Andrew! thank you for the laughs. the photo titles are priceless. (i know you're not bothered by the knee-jerkers who apparently can't be bothered to read the post or comprehend humour, but rest assured many of us get it.)

[bonnie]

Boy. I wish Fox was not airing BO’s infomercial. I will be watching a movie tonight. He does not have anything to say, that I want to hear.

BO should have bought time on Disney, he would be right at home with all the other Cartoon Characters, and we would not have to put up with him!!!!!!!!!! I guess he has not figured out that we can just turn him off. Lets all do it and make it a waste of his time and his money.

Sorry Greta won’t be here tonight. I have better things to do than listen to BO. Will stop by after the commercial is long over.

That photo is not funny!!!!!!!!!!!!