Live Q&As

This is the kind of perceptive comment we need more of! (If my mother were still alive, I'd know where it had come from.) No. Seriously. Thanks--and I know we will hear from others who disagree.

Good question. One thing that makes the looming fiscal cliff so tricky is that we all have to keep two things in our heads at the same time--right now the economy is fragile, unemployment is too high, Congress shouldn't do things to make that worse. But the long-term accumulation of debt is going to bury us--and Congress has to show that it has a plan for taking that on too.

Another good question. Ultimately climate change solutions will have to be global, partly for the reason you cite. But in the meantime, the US could do things that benefit this country regardless--for example, some kind of carbon tax would help with the deficit and the environment, and could be structured in a way that didn't do big harm to trade or international competitiveness.

Good to get this one early. We have endorsed lots of Republicans at state and local levels, but never for president. Four years ago we were big admirers of John McCain, but we thought his vice presidential choice was pretty close to disqualifying.

Not a coin toss, and (despite previous answer) far from automatic, though I know some will be skeptical about that. Our board does a lot of reporting, a lot of reading, and then a lot of discussing, arguing, writing and rewriting.

Thanks. And--maybe. Historians will be fighting for a long time over whether he could have done more, apportioning blame between him and Republicans for things that didn't get done, etc. We obviously thought there were times he could have pushed harder.

I think his ideas on redistribution and equality of opportunity--not outcome, in my opinion--are well within the mainstream of American politics going back decades--embracing our progressive income tax, Social Security and other well accepted programs.

He obviously did not do as much as we hoped he would during his first term on entitlement reform. But the growth of the deficit these past few years is mostly due to the recession, which lowers revenue and necessitates more government spending, as well as past policies (the Bush tax cuts). Even if he had hugged Simpson-Bowles, the deficit at this moment would not be very different.

I don't think there really was ever a time when masses of voters took instructions from newspaper endorsements. But I agree that these days more than ever voters have a huge range of sources. At best an endorsement can be one useful point of reference--if we produce something that is well-reported and well-reasoned. It's a good goal for us to strive for, and I think we will keep writing endorsements and striving to make them credible.

Thank you!

I just don't think there's anything surprising, or nefarious, when a historically oppressed minority takes pride in achievements of one of its own. We had two and a quarter centuries of nothing but white men as presidents. After the record begins to even out, I'm sure voting patterns will too.

I think the Obama administration has had good relations with South Korea, including on defense ties. I also think that's a pretty bipartisan impulse, and Romney's policy would be about the same in your neck of the woods.

It's hard to quantify, but I think as long as the Republicans insist that revenues can't be part of the equation, they aren't going to be part of a responsible solution. Given the aging of our society, we're not going to be able to run a government on 18 per cent of GDP. We need new revenue AND entitlement reform.

Absolutely. I was picked for my job by Donald Graham, who's now CEO of the company, and I'm sure he picked me in part because he was comfortable with my world view. I think publishers are entitled to do that--the good thing is we have enough newspapers, TV companies, etc., that readers/viewers/users have a range of viewpoints to choose from. What management doesn't do, by the way, is interfere with news coverage--but I have nothing to do with that either.

So I run the editorial and oped page, and we are completely separate from the news-gathering operation. I have no input and no knowledge of what they are up to, and they have no input into my operation.

It's a really good question. What I know is that this is a closely divided nation, and no solutions are going to last unless they take some input from both sides. And in the case of the deficit, it just happens that the math doesn't add up without pain on both sides--tax hikes and some scaling back of promised entitlement benefits.

I think our editorial gives our answer, but this is a good statement of the other side. I think Obama was dealt a very tough hand, and did a good job in righting a frighteningly listing economy.

I don't know. I've thought all along Obama would win if enough people believed the economy was getting better, and not if not. If a challenger has to persuade voters that they're worse off than they feel, he loses. But if they feel they're worse off, he wins.

I think he gets that a balanced solution will be needed. I hope he will be willing to compromise. I also hope House Republicans will be willing to compromise, in ways they weren't over the past couple of years. I can't promise either will come true.

In this instance, even though we had disappointments with Obama, we didn't have ambivalence about who is the better choice. As a general matter-- the Post once did 'none of the above'--in 1988, I believe--and I wouldn't say never again. But I think we're faced with the same choice as voters are faced with, and we have an obligation to deal with it as we expect voters to--deal with the real world, and not wait for your ideal candidate to come along.

Over the long run, there are things that could help the partisan split in Washington--starting with redistricting reform in the states. In the short run, I would hope that leaders on both sides would look at the risks facing this country and agree to stop vilifying each other and try to get something done. I think a surprising number of people in Congress--not to mention in the country--would welcome that.

Yes. Four years ago people said that Obama's brilliant campaign showed he would be a good White House manager. Some of the good qualities did persist--the steadiness, unflappable in a crisis, etc. But pretty clearly the skill set isn't identical. Problem is, it's very hard to know ahead of time what kind of president someone will be.

First of all, premise is completely wrong. Anyone who's been reading Jen over the past months knows she has strong views but is no one's mouthpiece. Second, our bloggers and columnists--Jen, Greg Sargent on the other side, Will, Dionne, etc.--don't have any role in our endorsement. That's done by our board--editorial writers, mostly.

I agree. (Though I can't help adding the Dem decision-making isn't always entirely science-based, either. Take Yucca Mountain, for example.)

Thanks. Yes.

Well, some people have argued we shouldn't do endorsements, because of the perception. But it is only perception. The difference is the sports writers are covering what they would be voting on. Whereas our political reporters have nothing to do with our editorials.

One of the factors in our endorsement was, we just don't know--we really don't know what he believes. I hope, if he's elected, he will prove to be a president who wants to get things done in a bipartisan way. He'd have to move a fair distance from his current tax plan, but it is certainly conceivable. He's obviously an able man.

I think vice presidents have only as much influence as presidents want them to have. Historically that hasn't been much, though there have been exceptions (first-term Cheney comes to mind).

If you're going to cite Moran, I have to point out that we also endorsed his Republican colleague, Frank Wolf. We still miss having Republican Tom Davis in the House. Etc.

Here's one reason I resist your proposal. I feel as though for four years, we editorial pages can spout off on what policy makers should do. Once every four years we're faced with binary choices, just like voters. We ought to have to say, given what we've been writing the past four years, which of these candidates is closer--not perfect, but closer to our ideal. And why.

I think the media will always follow the polls/horse race story. But I think we're doing both. The Post news side--and, repeating, I have nothing to do with that--had a great full week of coverage of how the candidates differ on the issues. (I'll look for link while we're chatting.)

Thanks very much.

I'd say I'm worried about this, about both candidates, in fact: they both like to talk about America being the "indispensable nation" (Obama) or the global leader (Romney, in last debate) but they haven't leveled with voters about the hard things that sometimes requires. It's difficult to be the indispensable nation and also tell voters they can concentrate on "nation-building at home." Unfortunately or fortunately, US has to do both--nation-build at home, and remain engaged overseas.

We didn't say he's done nothing on immigration--we pointed out his Justice Dept. has opposed the more draconian state laws. But he didn't push for the comprehensive immigration reform we need--with enforcement, a mechanism for continuing legal flow and a path out of the shadows for the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants here now.

Not this year in the presidential.

No. Reagan cut taxes and the deficit went up.

Tax cuts can stimulate growth, but generally not by enough to make up for the lost revenue.

No, we were critical of the administration's interpretation of the War Powers Act in that case. But it has to be said--Congress didn't try to assert its authority, either. I think they were glad for the onus to be on the president.

I think that's a good one to end on!

Thank you everyone for reading and commenting. And though I joke about loving the approving questions like this, I really do appreciate hearing from many of you who disagree and are willing to engage in a civil way.

Have a good weekend!