I want to run a debate. I want to lay down the ground rules and ask the questions. And my only rule would be this (cursing, spitting, biting, and folding chairs are all fair game): NO NUMBERS. Foolishness, you say. How can a candidate possibly back up a claim on jobs created or money spent or field a question on the budget? Well, you have to put it in terms relevant to, oh, anyone in the entire country who is not a politician (or, the political equivalent of a roadie -- a pundit, or worse, a wannabe pundit. Guilty as charged). 1.3 million jobs. $200 billion spent. Increase from $10 billion to $30 billion. These numbers are entirely meaningless to me. They could be speaking Hebrew (a language I'm not familiar with) and it would make about as much sense. And the real problem is that you must rely on an opinion of the candidate or his opponent to understand what these numbers mean in context, which is the only real way to understand them. Or you could figure it out yourself, but, really, how many people are gonna do that, assuming that half the people in this great land of ours can't muster the energy to vote? This leaves you with two opinions of a figure that are entirely opposite, not to mention the fact that the context used by both sides to explain things is not entirely (or, often, even partially) accurate.
So that's the debate I wanna see. But I must admit it was kinda fun watching the vice-President and Edwards play "Password". Maybe have a whole debate like that, where there are buzzwords you can't say.
-Matt 13:58 EST |
|
