And a debate is a perfect place to spit out numbers and plan names without a moderator fact-checking you. -- Paul Ryan’s Word Salad, David Weigel, Slate, today
Indeed.
I was absolutely dumbfounded to read yesterday that the MSM is now buying Lehrer’s idea of what a debate should be. Do they not understand that these are not actually debates—that they are instead simply statements by each of the candidates? Yes, both candidates are on the stage. But they don’t get to talk to each other. They don’t get to question—to cross-examine—each other.
How, then, is it a good idea to have a format in which the moderator just says, “Your turn to talk about your plan on taxes, Mr. Romney,” and lets him spout off nonsense, unabated by questions from anyone about specifics and about how what he says could possibly add up?
Do tell, MSM pundits. Also tell, MSM pundits, why you are so stupefyingly gullible.
I mean … good grace.
In fact, Jim Lehrer did win the debate. The one last Wednesday. That doesn't seem to me like a recommendation for his method, though.
Read more posts on Angry Bear Blog »
Please follow Money Game on Twitter and Facebook.