John Schwenkler on why we need to have more than two candidates debating

John, in the comment box of his post-debate post:

[I]t seems to me that the major party candidates would be able to get away with a lot less of their B.S. if they had to share space with candidates who were offering something different. Obama would never have pressed McCain about, e.g., how his supposed “constructionism” squares with the free speech restrictions in McCain-Feingold or how his claim to want to shrink the size of government is empty in the face of the fact that he wants to, well, grow it, nor would McCain ever have pressed Obama on how the right to privacy permits abortion but doesn’t disallow domestic spying, etc. – but if they’d been up against a candidate who didn’t feel bound by those same rules, then the rules would have begun to change, and they’d have been pressed to be much more transparent and articulate then they need to be when both they and their MSM questions are coming at things squarely from the mushy middle. Doesn’t that seem reasonable?

          [My emphasis. – NPO]

Post-script: My humblest, sincerest apologies for the ultra-light (read: non-existent) web-logging lately; the workload has picked up, but in class and my assistantship, and the newspaper, which I hope to God on high we finish tonight, has occupied more time than I had ever expected. This weekend is me-weekend, though; well, me-plus-many, many-hours-in-the-studio weekend. 


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: