Reason Takes On The "Great" Debate

Reason magazine's Nick Gillespie took a look at last night's debate. He cuts through mainstream thought and points out little, if anything, was learned about the candidates by viewers:

"let's simply focus on the brutal reality that after 90 minutes of back and forth, nobody knows anything more about either candidate than he or she knew going in".

That's more the sort of thing I was hoping to see from libertarian pundits, although Stephen Cox's piece in Liberty wasn't bad.

Gillespie spends most of his time criticizing the format of the debate and makes a good point:

" It would be far better if the two candidates were forced to interrogate one another on whatever issues or topics they want to. That way, we'd not only get a sense of what they stand for from their answers but also from the questions they felt compelled to ask of one another."

Had they done it that way I might have even tuned in.