For a number of reasons I won’t go into here, I watched last night’s debate, though I would have preferred to skip it. To a certain extent I’m not good at judging winners and losers, because I actually judge debates based on who makes more sense and who tells fewer lies, which is a criteria used by very few.
One of the reasons I wanted to avoid watching was because Chris Wallace had, inexplicably, been chosen to “moderate” the debate, and I knew he would skew Trump-ward, which he did, though it didn’t help the Donald all that much. I largely agree with this post at Daily Kos, which highlights some of the more egregious offenses, though it doesn’t mention the use of the term “partial birth abortions”, which is nothing more than a right wing creation. Basically, almost every question had a right wing slant.
The ones that particularly got me were the economics questions, one on the budget and one on Social Security. Each question was premised not on fact, but on right wing talking points. Each was prefaced by reference to “studies” created by results oriented organizations; i.e., they got the results that fit their agenda, in large part because they refuse to consider policy positions that they don’t like. If the debt were the overwhelmingly important problem Wallace claims, how is it that the United States government is still able to borrow at close to 0%? And how is it that Wallace can ask a question which takes as a given that we must either reduce Social Security benefits or let the program die? Gosh, Chris, aren’t there any other alternatives, such as taking a bigger slice of your bloated paycheck? To her credit, Hillary would have none of it, and, -is this surprising?-, Donald didn’t answer the question.
The Social Security question is one that has always amazed me, because it’s been asked for years, in one form or another. The basic premise is that Social Security will go broke in 20, 30, 40 years (take your pick), so it is absolutely critical that we do something now! Now! NOW! This from the same people that will tell you there’s no hurry about taking action to combat climate change, because after all, it it’s happening at all it won’t be really bad for 20, 30, or 40 years.
Well, the Presidential Debate Commission wanted to be fair and balanced, so they had to pick someone from Fox to prove that they were. It mattered not that the result would be an unfair and unbalanced moderator. Thankfully, it didn’t matter whatsoever. Donald swung and missed at all the softballs, and Hillary usually reached base, even if she had to bunt.
Update: See Krugman & Baker on the Social Security issue
