Partisan bias refers to bias towards one particular political party. One unfortunate result of partisan bias is that some people become so strongly attached to a political party that they begin to adopt a “my party, right or wrong” type attitude. Another unfortunate result of partisan bias is that because partisans will often put party first and principles second, such partisans will often become unmoored from any set of coherent, consistent political beliefs and instead adopt whatever platform the party offers at that time.

Ideological bias refers to bias towards a particular set of political beliefs. It can be progressive, conservative, libertarian, or even communitarian. The point is that a person with a strong ideological bias will often adhere to a set of particular beliefs even when others abandons such political beliefs when it becomes politically inconvenient. One unfortunate result of ideological bias is that some people will believe in a particular political philosophy so strongly that they will adhere to that political philosophy even after facts have discredited the utilitarian aspects of such a philosophy.

In general, I have much more tolerance for ideological bias than for partisan bias. Ideological bias is inherent in anyone who is able to engage in abstract thinking. People with a strong ideological bias might be wrong (and in some cases, very wrong), but at least they think for themselves and are willing to stand up for their political beliefs.

Partisan bias, on the other hand, is not inherent; it is merely herd mentality and can be avoided if people simply avoid forming strong attachments to a single political party. I have a very difficult time respecting people who place party above principles. Moreover, it is very difficult to engage in political dialogue with someone whose principles are inconsistent and incoherent and fluctuate with according to the prevailing political winds of fortune, as is common among partisans.

Everyone here at TMV, myself included, has an ideological bias, however weak or strong. It cannot be helped, nor should we be ashamed of it. It is the diversity of thought here at TMV that I feel is one of TMV's strengths.

As far as partisan bias goes, I certainly do not think that TMV maintains an even balance between the two major political parties at all times. However, there are a handful of people at TMV who do have a strong record of avoiding partisan bias and offer a set of political opinions not to be found in either of the two major political parties.

One dislikes TMV so much that he's made 8461 comments [sigh]… the other 2249. You must be doing something wrong Joe giving these unhappy, badmouthing, woe-is-me righties a voice here on your super-liberal left-wing blog. /snark

The “TMV is biased” game is just silly boys, if TMV were biased and slanted, like say RedState or PoliGazette, you'd have been dealt with a long time ago in the traditional, time honored wingnut manner… BLAM!

This is what a typical person, or a moderate, would do. Joe, and this Web site, are not moderate.

My prediction: there will be no apology and the fact that there is no apology will never be reported.

Are you implying that TMV is as unbiased, unslanted, and as fair towards Republicans as say the NYT or the LA Times?

But, if there is no apology, who will report that Cantor didn't apologize, and how long would he/she/they wait to report it? My prediction: there will be no apology and the fact that there is no apology will never be reported.

I thought it might titillate old Pus…lol.. still though, put me in for an apology in four days.

Wouldn't it be a better use of time to praise him for saying this and get behind him so that maybe he will be less inclined to apologize? No, I guess that would kill one of the best talking points the Democrats have going for them.

Does this mean there is a pool? I'm in for a buck.

I give Cantor four days until he's planting the dirty kiss on Rush's behind.

There she goes again… It seems like Sil just can't get beyond telling gay jokes!

Put me in for $10

Gee, sorry I wasn't clear enough. I am not sure how I can make you understand, frankly, what I meant.

I mean, I said 'Republican leadership'. You ask 'the republican “leadership”'. Does that mean you only understand words in quotations? I did now put it in quotations, so perhaps that will help clear this up for you.

As for the midterms, it's common for the pendulum to swing, even when levels of partisanship are low, so you could be right.

So… when you refer to high levels of republican party leadership, who are you talking about? The media standard-bearers or politicians? I only ask because it's hard to tell anymore who is running the GOP.

I say Republican party leadership at the highest levels see a real opportunity developing for the mid-term elections to be better than they could have hoped for even 6 months ago, and are starting a new, long-term plan of attack for the 2010 mid-terms. When you are the out-of-power party, regaining control always means tacking to the center.