Slate and the debates, pt 2
John Dickerson's follow-up article(5.14) regarding his call to Slate's readers on how to improve the debates is here.
Dickerson writes:"No one likes the idea of a stage with six or eight or 10 candidates. Some readers wanted to bounce the likes of Mike Gravel and Ron Paul by limiting the debates to only the front-runners."
Two thoughts:
1. Having 6 or 8 or 10 candidates on stage doesn't bother me, and I doubt I'm the only person who feels that way. (And I note that Ron Paul has been the no. 1 search item on technorati for most of the past week.)
2. Front runners? FRONT-RUNNERS? Nobody has cast a single vote yet. If these readers who only want the "front runners" to have a chance to speak really exist, they fully deserve the crappy government that all of us have(and are likely to continue to get).
see "part one", here.
Dickerson writes:"No one likes the idea of a stage with six or eight or 10 candidates. Some readers wanted to bounce the likes of Mike Gravel and Ron Paul by limiting the debates to only the front-runners."
Two thoughts:
1. Having 6 or 8 or 10 candidates on stage doesn't bother me, and I doubt I'm the only person who feels that way. (And I note that Ron Paul has been the no. 1 search item on technorati for most of the past week.)
2. Front runners? FRONT-RUNNERS? Nobody has cast a single vote yet. If these readers who only want the "front runners" to have a chance to speak really exist, they fully deserve the crappy government that all of us have(and are likely to continue to get).
see "part one", here.
Labels: blogging, politics, polling, so-called-liberal-media
posted by Jonathan Versen at 10:18 AM
<< Home