How is it that we can't have our Republican primary debates moderated by conservatives and our Democratic debates moderated by liberals? Doesn't it seem like a panel of progressives might have a better sense of what Democratic primary voters want to hear about? The Republican Presidential Debate with Rich Lowry and Bill Kristol, the Democratic Presidential Debate with Harold Meyerson and Katrina vanden Heuvel -- something along those lines.
« Against Earmarks, Except for the Popular Ones | Main | The School of Thousands Dead »
Debate!
17 Apr 2008 10:27 am
Comments (63)
It could have been so if the party and the campaigns had insisted on it. They failed to do so (or in Hillary's case, actually wanted to run as a Republican and pile on Obama along with the moderators- a shortsightedness typical of her campaign.) Heads should roll in the Obama campaign for agreeing to this travesty. It's the typical Democratic incompetence at playing the media game at which the Republicans are so masterful.
you've got it backwards: liberal moderators for republicans; conservative moderators for liberals. Why? less likelihood of a moderator being already "in the tank" for one of the candidates AND the moderator is likely to bring up issues that will move the center/independents that will decide a general election. I am using the primary as prelude to actually winning the general election as opposed to merely winning the party nomination.
Well, the parties are still sort of coalition parties. So the Democratic debate would need to be moderated by Katrina vanden Heuvel, Gene Sperling, and Will Marshall, while the Republican debate would have to be moderated by Bill Kristol and David Brooks.
a Republican debate moderated by me and a giant bag of rocks is something i could've gotten behind.
Didn't Jesus say something about a camel would pass through the eye of a needle before a millionaire TV news anchor would become a liberal?
KVH!
a Republican debate moderated by me and a giant bag of rocks is something i could've gotten behind.
Just the bag of rocks would have been an improvement over George & Gibson.
"How is it that we can't have our Republican primary debates moderated by conservatives and our Democratic debates moderated by liberals?"
What? You want even more stupid softball questions than we already get?
What's stopping the Democratic Party and/or the netroots from hosting their own debate?
Wow.
In the current liberal blogosphere, a former advisor to President Bill Clinton is not liberal enough to qualify as a 'liberal' and thus friendly enough to moderate a democratic debate which includes President Bill Clinton's wife.
just, wow.
Its shaping up to be 1968 all over again. Congratulations, President McCain!
Sk
All debates must be moderated by multi-millionaires. It's the only way to make sure people know that any liberal plan on the economy will result in a market meltdown and the imposition of socialism.
Yeah, that's what we want . . . more pressure to make vocal moves to the left just before a general election.
A really dumb idea.
Not that last night wasn't a horror, mind you.
What Ron said. Why don't the Dems organize their own primary debates, and let the broadcast and cable networks televise, or not, as they see fit?
As far as moderators are concerned, I'd even be willing to settle for one liberal and one DLC type, just for intraparty balance. But there's no point in letting a jackass like Gibson moderate a Dem debate.
On the one hand SK's remarks are stupid - clearly the problem with Stephanopolous is not that "he doesn't qualify as a liberal." This is not '68 again - people are just sick of this image crap. I think Buckley and Milton Friedman, for example, would have made excellent moderators, but of course they're both dead. The real problem is that the entire pundit class -"left" or "right" is a joke. None of them have any interest in substantive issues, they're all cosseted overpaid divas interested only in short-term "controversies" that drive up ratings. I used to think of myself as a devout anti-Communist, but I certainly would consider sending the entire Fox, ABC, and NBC news staffs to work with the peasants for 5 years.
I think that's kind of backward. Assuming the moderators were 'moderate', as in respectful and not injecting themselves into the debate by debating the debators, I think it'd be better if the Dem debates were moderated by conservatives and the Rep debate were moderated by liberals, though I suppose a case could be made is that the Dem primary is about liberals arguing amongst themselves and the Rep debate is or should be about conservatives arguing amongst themselves. For the general election debate say Rush Limbaugh asking all the questions to the Democrat and maybe our host asked all the questions to the Reps. would definitely be optimal.
LIBERALS?! LIBERALS ON THE TELEVISION?!
April 16, 2008, 10:46 pm
No Whining About the Media
By David Brooks
"Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exactly WTF did Daddy Dubya expose regarding Dukakis? Did Dukakais lose the "World Flag Factory Touring Smackdown" matchup or something? Jaysuz Krikey my fricking head hurts. Brooks is the consummate turd.
Re " I used to think of myself as a devout anti-Communist, but I certainly would consider sending the entire Fox, ABC, and NBC news staffs to work with the peasants for 5 years."
-------------
I myself would favor a bullet in the back of the head and a mass grave.
And I worked for decades on national defense projects aimed against the Soviets.
They should have a real freeform debate. Give each candidate 5 minute turns to talk for an hour.
You wouldn't even need moderators for that kind of debate, just a computer that shut off their microphones on a timer.
Vanya, I think you've finally found a Farm Bill I could get behind.
As for the debates, the problem isn't that Stephanopolous is too right wing, it's that he (and his colleagues) are lazy and lowbrow.
Just because good reporting often makes politicians uncomfortale, doesn't mean that any question that makes a politician uncomfortable is good reporting. George and Co. seem to have forgotten this distinction. (Flag pins? Please.)
In the current liberal blogosphere, a former advisor to President Bill Clinton is not liberal enough to qualify as a 'liberal' and thus friendly enough to moderate a democratic debate
"Friendly" is not the point, you moron. "Invested in the success of Democrats" is the point. Stephanopolous clearly is not, and even if he were (in his secret heart of hearts), his current job as a journalist means presumptively he is not.
Far as I'm concerned, if a political party is choosing its candidate, any debates should be moderated by *representative of that party*. A panel of elders, or factional leaders, or whatever. Not a bunch of outsiders whose professional interests are at odds with those of the party (or indeed, officially anyway, of any party).
Genius, SK. And Ronald Reagan was a labor organizer and member of the democratic party. What's your point? That republicans worship a liberal as their Zombie God?
---
Just because good reporting often makes politicians uncomfortable, doesn't mean that any question that makes a politician uncomfortable is good reporting.
---
Quoted for truth - Thanks heedless
kafka says What? You want even more stupid softball questions than we already get?
Yes, MattY probably does. And, the approved questions will go something like, "President... er, I mean Senator Obama, tell us again how your Four Year Plan will lead to improved efficiency and progress towards the glorious future?"
Meanwhile, if anyone wants a real debate, the questions should be about one or two topics and should be asked by experts representing the full spectrum of opinion. And, they'll ask several questions about the candidates' plans, forcing them to defend their plans and acknowledge the weaknesses in their plans. To be fair the candidates can bring along their advisors.
That would be a public service and it would avoid finding out that downsides in their plans until after they're in office.
And, that's also the last kind of debate MattY and other partisan hacks would ever want to see.
"Doesn't it seem like a panel of progressives might have a better sense of what Democratic primary voters want to hear about?"
Matt-
Do you really believe that primary debates are designed to attract only viewers who are members of that party? Not only that, do you beleive that the opposing party typically ignores these debates? Especially with their own nomination locked up?
Some Canadian opinion here....
So some commentators dared to ask questions related to items in the news over the last week and you folks think its a conspiracy? What happens when you folks go up against the Reps in the general. If the above response is any measure you're going to not only lose the Presidency but possibly the Congress. This the best thing that could have happened to the Dems. Get prepared and stop whining!
Getting asked a taunting question about a childhood acquaintance is the best thing that could happen?
How our dreams have soured.
What happens when you folks go up against the Reps in the general.It shouldn't be acceptable at any time for the media to use right-wing talking points to destroy Democrats.
The reality should change in the primary AND in the general.
That would be a public service
Nominating a candidate is not about performing a public service. It is party business. Does the party get a bunch of MSM journalists to write its national platform? Compose its television ads? Write its fundraising letters? Of course not. That would be ludicrous. So is getting a bunch of MSM journalists to moderate its internal debates.
There's no reason beyond idiocy to assume that Democrats asking questions of Democrats would produce softball questions. Democrats have a vested interest in making sure their nominee can answer *hardball* questions -- it leads to a better nominee! They know that outside the confines of the party, they will *not* be asked softball questions. MSM journalists, by contrast, only have a vested interest in getting candidates to answer questions that make the journalist look clever (not that they achieve that goal very well).
Last night's spectacle was so truly bizarre -- and so howlingly obvious in its intent -- that it defies credulity.
"I have 6 beautiful young women standing before me, but only 5 photos in my hand ..."
Obama is looking better and better every day. Fierce.
I think that a "World Flag Factory Touring Smackdown"seems like an excellent way to choose a president. We're just talking American flag factories, right?
Well, successful leftish journalists might be a good start. But how about adding some regular people who are not in the upper 5% of the income distribution in this country?
Poor Matt, poor Kos, poor Josh, poor Keith. Those evil media people treated their candidate the way they've been treating HRC for the last 20 months.
But they were busy joining in on the fun back then, so now they can't stand on principle and bitch. Well, it serves you right.
If it's about sacrificing a banner issue like health care -- Trina Bachtel -- to advance the HRC credibility meme, so be it, right? If it's about silently approving patent misogyny from the media simply to advance the meme that HRC is too flawed and polarizing, so be it, right? If it's about resuscitating the Bill Clinton impeachment themes, thus validating years of right-wing talking points, just to advance the point that she has too much baggage (and who wants a dynasty anyway?), so be it, right?
You guys have no credibility here. And just for fun, go look up the historic definition of "dynasty" and tell me how it applies here.
So some commentators dared to ask questions related to items in the news over the last week and you folks think its a conspiracy?
---
It's not that they were asking about things in the news (the one-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings, for instance, was a great way to segue into a question about guns/gun control.) It's that the moderators spent half the debate on "controversies" that, outside of the campaigns and the media itself (including the pundit class,) very few people seem to care about.
Personally, I would rather see pundits/commentators host debates, but not just from the same ideological background as the party whose candidates are debating. Maybe a 2-1 split in favor of the left (in a Democratic debate,) but they're going to have to deal with the opposition's issues eventually if they get the nomination.
So some commentators dared to ask questions related to items in the news over the last week and you folks think its a conspiracy?
---
It's not that they were asking about things in the news (the one-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings, for instance, was a great way to segue into a question about guns/gun control.) It's that the moderators spent half the debate on "controversies" that, outside of the campaigns and the media itself (including the pundit class,) very few people seem to care about.
Personally, I would rather see pundits/commentators host debates, but not just from the same ideological background as the party whose candidates are debating. Maybe a 2-1 split in favor of the left (in a Democratic debate,) but they're going to have to deal with the opposition's issues eventually if they get the nomination.
Ryan writes: Nominating a candidate is not about performing a public service. It is party business.
You forgot to capitalize "Party". Also, you forgot to write your comment in Russian.
Jesus, I have to agree with the Lone Whackoff here, but Ryan, primaries aren't "party business" and they aren't "internal debates." They're publicly held, publicly financed elections by which we choose the 2 lead finalists for President of the United States. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, but I'm certainly interested in the primary debates, and I don't want to see them moderated by party hacks.
It only hurts the candidates to appear in this forum. If they think they, as a party, can govern the country, they should start by governing the debate format.
Any healthcare questions, for example, should start with the assumption that we can save about 5% of our GDP by going to universal coverage, this is something we're going to do, and the debate is about how we're going to do it.
Supposedly, before and after the campaign, these candidates work together for a Democratic agenda, or, as we quaintly used to call it, a "party platform". Well, prove it- get together before the campaign, set boundaries and limits, and make it work.
Every two years I'm called on, as a citizen, to validate the process by voting. This gets harder and harder with the passage of time. If Clinton becomes the 'inevitable' candidate, chosen a year ago by lobbyists who clink cocktail glasses with Penn, I'm supposed to validate this process by voting? Why would I do that?
The only way McCain wins this election is if the Dems let the media do exactly what the media did last night. If that happens, in spite of the hundreds of millions spent on campaigning, in spite of the participation of millions of citizens, in spite of the Democratic insistence that they will work together as a party to enact vital legislation- well, if that happens, I hardly see it as my fault. Our 'leaders' have to do something too.
I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, but I'm certainly interested in the primary debates, and I don't want to see them moderated by party hacks.
Well maybe if you were a party member, you would. And you say 'hacks', I say 'representatives' -- what the fuck do such word games get you? Tim Russert is a hack. Charlie Gibson is a hack. That makes it better?
And of course they're internal debates. It's Democrats running against other Democrats, vying for the votes of Democrats. What part of that is conmplicated? If you're not a Democrat, you shouldn't get a vote.
If they are publicly financed, they shouldn't be. Other countries don't do it this way. Political parties shouldn't be institutionally entwined with the state, although Lone Wackjob apparently disagrees. I should never have to tell the government what political party I'm a member of, but in this country I do if I want to vote in that party's primary. (Yeah, I know there's exceptions.) It's fucked up. But you ignorant American exceptionalists can't conceive of it any other way.
What else should the Democratic Party do to satisfy your sense of entitlement-without-commitment? Should it let you help write the platform, even though you're not a member? Should it let you help write the ad campaigns, even though you're not a member? What else?
I agree with mike c's early comment above. Conservative moderators for the Democrats and liberal moderators for the Republicans.
For example, what if George Will moderated last night's debate? Whatever you think of him, he's an intelligent man and would ask substantive questions. He wouldn't have asked those stupid questions based on "what people are saying" or "the Republicans are going to use this against you." He wouldn't have allowed a question about wearing a flag pin. He would have asked questions about the economy, Iraq, China, the proper role of government, the Supreme Court, etc. It would have been an excellent and informative debate.
And it would give the Democrats a chance to answer questions from an ideology they will have to confront in the general election (and as president).
Is it too late for Fox to host a Democratic debate? At least when they ask the right wing talking points questions, no one can have any illusions that they are not asking them because they are right wing tools. When NBC and ABC and CNN parrot right wing talking points, some of the less critically thinking voters (aka "independents") might get the impression that this is conventional wisdom they're hearing. It would be much harder for a Democrat to shake that off.
ABC is almost as much a Republican joint as Fox. Who can forget the way they edited their report about Hillary and Rose Law to make it look like HRC was lying? I can't. Creepy creeps.
The interesting thing about the suggestion is that the Republicans would also favor it - after the Iowa debates, they were bitching like heck that the questions were all geared at things that they felt were of interest only to liberals and were not focused on things that conservatives wanted to hear about. As said above, there is a danger of polarization, but when you're talking about a primary campaign, it ain't a bad idea to begin with.
I'll have to skip responding to Ryan's blather this time, but as far as George Will is concerned, compare this Obama statement with this George Will statement.
Oddly enough, both are saying the same thing, and both are being deceptive in offering a FalseChoice. So, even if George Will moderated a debate, he wouldn't press Obama on his deception relating to that issue because he too is deceptive.
The only way to change that is outlined at the "real debate" link in my first comment.
The problem off the bat is that these aren't really debates. I'd like to see the candidates really debate. Find three topics where the candidates agree that they disagree - give them each a few days to prepare then let them go at it. If instead of debates we're going to have beauty contests/dog & pony shows like we currently have, then we should take it to the logical conclusion and just have the candidates participate in feats of strength, solve puzzles, play Jeopardy, sing a hit song, do magic tricks etc.
"If you're not a Democrat, you shouldn't get a vote."
Now you sound like Petey. The fact is, many non-Democrats, myself included, do get to vote in Democratic primaries. In a lot of states, nonpartisan registration is the norm. Since I do get to vote in Democratic primaries, then my opinion about the debates matters as much as yours.
I'm not asking to write the platform or the ad campaigns. All I want is the right to vote for my choice for president without worrying about my party membership, or lack thereof.
The fact is that consistently, for the last few election cycles, the debates with the best questions have been the town-hall style (or YouTube) debates. When people are given the chance to ask their own questions, they almost always ask about things of substance, and usually ask open-ended questions rather than the "gotcha" constructions most journalists seem to use.
If you want to have candidates pressed on their disagreements or inaccuracies, just give them more time to respond to each other. Screw the moderators, I've never once seen a debate where they were as useful as no moderator.
I'll have to skip responding to Ryan
Then you should change your blog's name to Lone Coward. You have no answer and you know it. Shame that a guy who claims to be conservative and pro- privacy apparently wants government involved in the interal operations of political parties.
Now you sound like Petey. The fact is, many non-Democrats, myself included, do get to vote in Democratic primaries.
As I said, you shouldn't. What other kind of organization lets non-members choose its highest spokespersons? It's nonsensical. I don't know if Petey agrees but if he does, he's right. Matt has also called for closed primaries so it's not as if this is a fringe position (since Matt and Petey are sworn enemies otherwise).
All I want is the right to vote for my choice for president without worrying about my party membership
Uh, you can: IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. Until then, watch the primary debates on TV if you choose (nobody's proposing to take them off TV!), and try to swallow your visceral disgust at seeing George Mitchell or Katrina Vandenheuvel, "party hacks", asking the questions instead of your precious Tim fucking Russert. You might actually hear questions designed to produce a strong candidate, vetted on the issues as well as the inevitable trivialities, rather than questions just designed to let Tim Russert preen for the cameras.
I don't know how you can claim a right to tell a private organization how it should run its elections when you refuse to join it. Do you march in and demand a vote at meetings of your local Knights of Columbus? Your local VFW? The American Red Cross? (Question obviously moot if you actually belong to any of those.)
1) I wouldn't just stop with primaries within the Democratic Party.
Who the fuck gave Charlie Gibson and George Step our public airwaves anyway?
What has ABC ever done to just the huge profits they make off OUR public property? Charlie Gibson's a multi-millionaire from use of OUR public property -- did he show the SLIGHTEST sense of responsibility last night?
2) Like I said -- DESTROY the current News Media corporations. Replace them with something else that allows rational public debate oriented to solutions in the public interest.
3) EVERY national problem we have traces back to the SAME exact cause: Our news corporations exist solely to LIE to us.
To advance the agendas of wealthy men by conning the common herd -- than to inform us.
When the VFW or the Red Cross gets ballot access and a near-permanent structural role in choosing candidates for president, then maybe I'll care. Getting the Democratic or Republican nomination isn't like getting the endorsement of the Knights of Columbus -- it means you get to be on the general election ballot, one of two serious candidates for president. Even the smaller parties have, through their past efforts and electoral successes, won ballot access so that it makes it much easier for Nader, say, to run as a Green than as an independent. In exchange for that power, I want a vote in the primary of whichever party I choose to vote with in that particular election. At the very least, I want that matter to be left to the democratic process, so that if a state wants to have an open primary it can.
By the way, I also think last night's debate sucked, and I don't give two shits about Tim Russert. I just think the solution is to get better nonpartisan journalists, not partisan moderators. Partisan journalists would be fine, if they're good journalists (George Will would be a decent moderator, probably, Bill Kristol would not be).
Does anyone here think we would NOT have had a better discussion last night if we had simply taken the microphones away from Charlie Gibson and George Step -- and walked around the audience and asked random members of the audience to ask questions?
Why wasn't that done?
I wonder if Don Williams' outrage is confined to broadcasters who use our public property, or if he'd also like to see cable stations, newspapers, magazines, websites, etc seized and turned into People's Democratic News Outlets.
In exchange for that power, I want a vote in the primary of whichever party I choose to vote with in that particular election. At the very least, I want that matter to be left to the democratic process, so that if a state wants to have an open primary it can.
But that's not all you want. You also want a say in how the Democratic Party has its debates moderated. (Actually, I assume you want that say in the case of both parties -- i.e. I assume you're not just shooting down the idea of partisan moderators in the case of the Democrats.) My point is simply that it's presumptuous for you to 'want' something, i.e. a particular internal vetting procedure, from an organization you're not a member of, don't pay dues to, etc.
I'll grant you, though, that this:
near-permanent structural role in choosing candidates for president
is the root of the problem. The two major American parties are in bed with the State to a degree only surpassed in, frankly, one-party states of past and present. It's unhealthy. Given that that is the case presently, though, and that parties may choose (unwisely, in my view) to let you vote in its primaries, it would be silly to tell you that you shouldn't exercise that right. But I maintain you shouldn't have it. (Not you personally, of course, but non-Democrats.) It invites too many dirty tricks and pushes both parties toward the mushy middle. Just like this business of using MSM moderators.
better nonpartisan journalists
The problem is you can't know in advance who these are. A partisan moderator can do a bad job, but at least you know going in that s/he has a structural *interest* in doing a good job by the party. Journalists only have an interest in doing good by themselves. At least with a partisan moderator the incentives are right which is the best you can hope for.
I'm not saying I "should" have a say in how the Dems structure their debates, like Howard Dean should call me up and ask me or something. None of us really have a say in that sense. We're all just spouting our half-informed opinions here.
As to your last point, you can certainly know in advance who's a good journalist and who isn't. I think it's pretty easy to say that Ron Brownstein, for example, or Dana Milbank, are better journalists than Charlie Gibson.
Agreed. But how about we start having general election debates moderate by neutrals instead of Democratic party hacks turned journalists? Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, and George Stephanopolous did not cease to be partisan just because they became journalists yet they get to moderate a large number of the important debates. We also get people from PBS moderating debates as well as Democratic shills such as Keith Olbermann and Tavis Smiley. How would like you to have a debate moderated by Sean Hannity? I know you wouldn't since you were willing to boycott debates by Fox but somehow having a debate moderated by Olbermann is far. Doesn't make it sense.
Agreed. But how about we start having general election debates moderate by neutrals instead of Democratic party hacks turned journalists? Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, and George Stephanopolous did not cease to be partisan just because they became journalists yet they get to moderate a large number of the important debates. We also get people from PBS moderating debates as well as Democratic shills such as Keith Olbermann and Tavis Smiley. How would like you to have a debate moderated by Sean Hannity? I know you wouldn't since you were willing to boycott debates by Fox but somehow having a debate moderated by Olbermann is fair. Doesn't make much sense.
Re too many steve's comment "I wonder if Don Williams' outrage is confined to broadcasters who use our public property, or if he'd also like to see cable stations, newspapers, magazines, websites, etc seized and turned into People's Democratic News Outlets."
-------------
1) I think cable news should be regulated like broadcast TV because it is a direct competitor and uses public right of way.
2) I think the laws against monopolies should be used to breakup the New York Times Corporation and scatter it to the four winds. Although Punch's moronic management and corrupt editorial direction is already on its way to accomplishing that. Look at what New York Times stock has done since Judith Miller's stories were published.
I think the laws against monopolies should be used to breakup the New York Times Corporation and scatter it to the four winds.
How on Earth is the NYTimes a monopoly? As you say, they're getting destroyed by all sorts of competition.
Jesus, the NYT Corp isn't even one of the biggest newspaper chains. They don't even have a monopoly in New York -- I think the Post and the Daily News have higher circulation in the city.
1) The New York Times is the Microsoft of newspaper business. It is a right wing paper pretending to be a left wing paper.
Hence, it has to take control of and consume all of the left wing papers --e.g, Boston Globe --so that they don't mock it cruelly simply by their mere existence.
I want a real left paper --like the UK's Guardian -- not a shopworn old whore like the NY Times. Why do you think they call her the Gray Lady?
"If it's about silently approving patent misogyny from the media simply to advance the meme that HRC is too flawed and polarizing, so be it, right?"
You gotta laugh at this meme from the Clintonistas that poor Hillary was just TRASHED by the media and nobody complained.
Whereas I recall quite a few complaints here and discussions about how Chris Matthews was a POS for his behavior toward Clinton.
And it was the POLLS that said Clinton was too polarizing - and they still say that. It is the POLLS that say Clinton can't win against McCain, and that most Democrats believe that.
Meanwhile, it was the Clintonistas who seized on every single Obama slip, every single suggestion that he was involved with Rezko in some undefined way, every single racist suggestion from the Clinton camp that Obama was unelectable because of his race or his connections with Wright or whatever, without any actual evidence for any of this, neither polls, nor facts.
But let Hillary spin a wild story about being Rambo in Bosnia, which was mostly ignored by the MSM until the blogosphere made a big deal out of it, and that was very silently approved by the Clintonistas.
Stuff it, dummies. Your candidate is toast. She dosn't have the delegates, pledged or otherwise, she doesn't have the popular vote, and it's very unlikely the superdelegates are going to cut her way - especially after last night's shameful display of cutthroat corruption, and Gore and Carter are working to get her to drop out in the next few weeks.
It's over. Suck it up and start supporting Obama if you want a Democrat in the White House next year. And hope to hell the upcoming Iran war doesn't put McCain in while you sulk over Hillary and Obama fucks up his response.
I was rushing out the door and thus only had time to answer one comment, so I had to skip Ryan's screed. Now that I read his follow-up I won't bother. However, I will point out that he seems to have an incorrect impression of what I do and don't support. My goal is to have real debates that would force the candidates to stop lying, something that wouldn't involve the government, just some company that was brave and, yes, patriotic enough to put on real debates.
Comments closed May 01, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I completely agree. It would be better and more interesting.
Honestly though, this shouldn't have been this bad in the first place. Stephanopolous at least used to be a wonky left-of-center guy back in the day, which just goes to show it is the incentive structure that is the problem.
Posted by David | April 17, 2008 10:37 AM