Taft
Sep 20, 2004, 11:13 AM
In an effort to start a well-informed debate over the two presidential candidates, I've been looking for a couple of well-written assesments of both candidates and their platforms. Everyone who wanted to contribute to the discussion would read both stories, then discuss the points therein. The idea is to let an external (and informed source) frame the debate and give us important topics to talk over, keeping the debate more focused and the signal to noise ratio higher.
Well, I found a couple of good articles from a source which (I think) we can all agree is relatively free of obvious bias. The source I chose was The Economist. Now, not everyone on the left can be convinced that The Economist is bias-free, but I do think they are a very informed and rational source of analysis and opinion. Hopefully we can all accept that these articles are a good-faith effort on the part of The Economist to accurately critique each campaign.
The rules: we will discuss the points made in the article's and the strengths and weaknesses of those points. These articles tend to contain arguments with are highly nuanced and in-depth. If you have a problem following such arguments, I suggest avoiding this thread. Also, PLEASE READ THE ARTICLES BEFORE POSTING AND STAY ON THE TOPICS OF THOSE ARTICLES. The point is to control the debate somewhat by sticking to issues from an external source. Please post in that spirit.
So here they are:
For Bush: The contradictory conservative. Parts 1, (http://www.spursreport.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-15930.html) 2, (http://www.spursreport.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-15931.html) and 3. (http://www.spursreport.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-15932.html)
For Kerry: Who is John Kerry? (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/newsevents/cite_who's_kerry.cfm)
Taft
PS. It is a shame, but the article on Kerry is a bit on the short side. If anyone can find a more in-depth article (which is relatively free of bias) on the subject, post it and we'll discuss. Thanks.
Well, I found a couple of good articles from a source which (I think) we can all agree is relatively free of obvious bias. The source I chose was The Economist. Now, not everyone on the left can be convinced that The Economist is bias-free, but I do think they are a very informed and rational source of analysis and opinion. Hopefully we can all accept that these articles are a good-faith effort on the part of The Economist to accurately critique each campaign.
The rules: we will discuss the points made in the article's and the strengths and weaknesses of those points. These articles tend to contain arguments with are highly nuanced and in-depth. If you have a problem following such arguments, I suggest avoiding this thread. Also, PLEASE READ THE ARTICLES BEFORE POSTING AND STAY ON THE TOPICS OF THOSE ARTICLES. The point is to control the debate somewhat by sticking to issues from an external source. Please post in that spirit.
So here they are:
For Bush: The contradictory conservative. Parts 1, (http://www.spursreport.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-15930.html) 2, (http://www.spursreport.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-15931.html) and 3. (http://www.spursreport.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-15932.html)
For Kerry: Who is John Kerry? (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/newsevents/cite_who's_kerry.cfm)
Taft
PS. It is a shame, but the article on Kerry is a bit on the short side. If anyone can find a more in-depth article (which is relatively free of bias) on the subject, post it and we'll discuss. Thanks.
