Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Miscellaneous Blogs -> Begging the Question

Miscellaneous

: Begging the Question

Agreeing with TAPPED - Episode 1

By "Milbarge" and "Fitz-Hume"

A while back I wrote a post arguing with something said on the TAPPED blog, one of my daily stops. I intended it to be a reoccurring feature. I've seen plenty over there to argue with since then, but time and laziness have prevented any actual posting. Well, a week ago I saw something I very much agreed with. So in the interest of fairness, I thought I should put that up as well.

Dana Goldstein takes on the issue of a Clinton staffer asking a question during the GOP CNN YouTube debate, and gets it exactly right. First, that CNN dropped the ball in not announcing the affiliation. And second, rather than trying to stamp this out, we should have more of it. I would love to see a debate where all the questions (and even the moderator, if they could refrain from interrupting) were from the opposing side. Or hell, even from the other sides campaign offices. That I might actually tune into over a year away from the election.

The debates as they are now are practically worthless. If I had my way, debates would be no more than 2 people on stage at a time. Instead of 2 minute answers with a 30 second rebuttal, the moderator provides the topic, and for the next 15 min, the candidates debate, argue and cross-examine examine each other. None of that pre-approved question crap. No getting away with generic platitudes designed to get audience applause. Two people matching intelligence and wits on important topics.

I'm not holding my breath.

Full post as published by Begging the Question on December 05, 2007 (boomark / email).