A Modest Proposal About Presidential Debates-A new rule

[No Elephants]

The Commission on Presidential Debates presents networks with all kinds of rules that are mostly designed to hide from viewers as much about the candidates as is humanly possible, without making it overly obvious that anything is being hidden.

At least two books have been written relatively recently about this.

Now, though, outright lying during the debate seems to have become a "thing." Ryan, for example, cited six studies that supposedly supported one of his claims.

Turns out one was the Heritage Foundation, one was the Wall Street Journal and one was--wait for it--a blog post. I don't recall the other three.

Would it be relevant to voters that the Heritage Foundation is a rightist think tank, not some independent organization or some government organization?

Would it be relevant to voters that the Wall Street Journal was the other "study?"

Dunno, but those things were sure relevant to me.

Moreover, if lying and massive overstatement have found their way into Presidential debates, with factcheckers being disparaged, too, will it be long before all candidates start using the same techniques?

IOW, I think it possible that Presidential debates will turn into total crapfests, to the further detriment of our country and the 99%.

One way to at try to put some brakes on this: a new rule


If you mention outside sources during a debate as authority for your statements, be it a book, a study, a government document or whatever, you must provide a copy to the moderator after the debate and the moderator must make the information public.

[Enthusiast]

1. Republicans, the WSJ and the Heritage Foundation lie.

So I'm with you.