The Final US Election Thread

[ICantSpellDawg]

Another instance where you and I will agree, Tuff.

I for one like the bare-bones idea of a moderate liberal and a genuine conservative analyzing the day's news events, and discussing issues. I'd be more pleased with actual debates, moderated of course.

But what Hannity and Colmes does is it pits a rather toothless liberal against a pundit who will overtalk, interrupt, get loud, and doesn't debate with any kind of fairness or objectivity. It's a shame, because like Crossfire, it had potential.

I don't mind the enthusiasm, I don't mind the commitment to one point of view. I just mind the unprofessionalism in the program from Hannity and the overall Fox slant. Colmes is often silent on that program, and lobs decent but hardly inspired questions at conservatives, and tends to drop things when they get heated.

I think there's room for a real debate between intellectuals who are either conservative leaning or liberal leaning, maybe even wingers. But the debate has to be more than shouting, opining, and cherry-picked news articles which always favor one side of an argument. However, to be fair, it often degraded into that with the previous US election thread, so we've learned from the masters.

I believe that partisans can do an excellent job of really hashing ideas out. Moderates rely on the fringe for their identity. Without something to moderate they wouldn't be "moderates", would they? The factor that makes the show unbearable is the lack of respect between the two men - caused primarily by Hannity.

Either way, I am a believer in fringe options. I consider myself a moderate, however, because I realize that it is usually more practical to just make a deal with the opposition since we have to share the planet. Not on everything, mind you.