I couldn't agree more. Alexis is smart with excellent points, though he didn't make some of the more damnable points against this proposed regulation. The problem that he faced, ne, that anyone of us would face is the transition to making the same arguments using a medium you are not experienced with. Add to that the fact that Chris Hayes, unlike hundreds of cable news shows, is not a forgiving environment for people who don't reinforce their arguments with rhetorical points of proof or intellectual logic.
This is by no means an indictment of Alexis' intellect or his understanding and ability to present evidence of his hypothesis (which we've seen he and other opponents can do effectively in writing), rather the fast-paced, time-limited format of live televised debate, particularly on UP!, is a brutal gauntlet with no exits.
Richard Cotten seemed to sort of be given a bit of a pass on his interuptions. Interuptions, I might add, that are seldom as long or loud on previous episodes of UP!.
For good or ill, these shows are important terrain of political conflict. I think they are more useful than many people think, but that's beside the point.
If you want to win in politics, you must be able to win on these shows, or win by a much greater margins elsewhere.
This is by no means an indictment of Alexis' intellect or his understanding and ability to present evidence of his hypothesis (which we've seen he and other opponents can do effectively in writing), rather the fast-paced, time-limited format of live televised debate, particularly on UP!, is a brutal gauntlet with no exits.
Richard Cotten seemed to sort of be given a bit of a pass on his interuptions. Interuptions, I might add, that are seldom as long or loud on previous episodes of UP!.