Dave wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:09:24 -0700, "Capt. JG" said:

Marty, you have to remember that Dave believes it's impossible to ask
intelligent questions if one has a financial stake in the game.

Nothing to do with "intelligent" questions. But of course the choice of
questions, the manner of posing them, the demeanor of the questioner, etc.
have no effect, right, Jon?

He also
believes that it's much more important to attack the moderator before the
debate before actually hearing the questions and the answers than it is to
suspend judgement, skeptical though it may be.

I believe it's helpful to be aware of the moderator's self-interested bias
in evaluating the process, and yes, that it's better to know of the bias
before, rather than after, the debate.

He forgets, apparently, that
both candidates agreed to the conditions of the debate.

Perhaps I missed it, but where was that condition about its being ok if the
moderator stands to make a pile of money if one side wins, and not make that
money if the other side wins? And about the moderator's taking that job
without telling anyone about her conflicting financial interest? If you're
betting on a horse race, would you like to know before placing your bet that
the jockey riding the favorite has bet a bundle on the next ranked horse to
win?


Sounds a lot like you're making excuses for Palin's embarrassing
performance even before it happens.

Utter nonsense, Buckley couldn't have cared less who was moderating
whatever debate he was in. If the moderator is biased, are you
suggesting that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it
and adjust their evaluation accordingly. It certainly sounds to me like
you're saying that Palin is going to come off badly but that we should
understand that she really won and it's the fault of the moderator, but
we are to stupid to think for ourselves.

Let the debate unfold and then judge, don't tell me what to think before
hand.

Cheers
Marty