...and that's a good thing.
As long as the primaries continue, we can delay the full-blown onset of Compulsive Centrist Disorder. It also means that the candidates will have to spend their time talking at (yes, at, not to) voters instead of the pundits and media dahlings, which can only be for the better.
Unrelated silly thought of the day: Have Fox News host ScienceDebate 2008. Kidding.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I've been relatively undecided about whom to vote for in Feb. 5 primary--and for the first time EVAH! I actually get to decide who the Democratic nominee will be. I was leaning towards Edwards. Since 2004, he was the most liberal candidate on most issues, even though his political record before…
Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney have been promising something for a week, teasing us with tantalizing hints about something big. We were told to read Chris' article Dr.President, and then this morning another article, Science and the Candidates by Lawrence Krauss.
Finally, today a little…
Because that's what it seems they're claiming. I'll get to that in a bit. Rolling Stone invited Matt Taibbi, David Gergen, and Gary Hart to discuss political events of the day. The subject of the Tea Party came up, at which point Taibbi said:
To me, the main thing about the Tea Party is that…
Radley Balko links to, and rightly lampoons, this silly article by Fortune writer Marc Gunther. Gunther claims that we have too many choices now, with 300 TV channels focused on particular niches. It's reduced the power of the 3 networks to present the news to a bulk of the population, it's reduced…
Have Fox News host ScienceDebate 2008.
Well, maybe not host, as such, but couldn't we pick one or two talking heads from their stable and eviscerate them on stage as a sacrifice to Athena, the Goddess of wisdom? It would set an appropriate tone for a debate aimed at a serious discussion of life and death issues for our civilization.
Just kidding.
Ethan: I think that organized debates between bloggers and tv talking heads could be potentially quite interesting. For example a moderated debate between one of the Orcinus authors and Lou Dobbs could be very interesting.
The talking heads would have an inherent advantage, of course, as they're more used to the medium of oratory before a physical crowd, but on the other hand they might be at a disadvantage when suddenly denied their usual ability to interrupt and cut people's mikes...
If you force me to be serious.....
I think it would depend entirely on the rule of debate, but it might be possible to lure one of them into a reasoned debate. Lou Dobbs (and most of his kin) overestimate their ability to reason. On the other hand, someone like Rush Limbaugh knows perfectly well where his talents lie.