On Wednesday evening, Glenn Beck took the set of the Oval Office at his Dallas studio to deliver some thought-provoking remarks concerning presidential debates. Likening these debates to simply a series of mini-speeches, Beck noted that presidential candidates rarely deviate from their respective talking points, instead trying at all cost to avoid offending the public in any way, shape or form.
The people who put on the debates, meanwhile (a.k.a. the media), "don't care about the issues or honesty," Beck noted. The media is only in it for the "brawl," which in turn drives ratings. While a brawl may be good television, it "sucks for the country," he quipped.
"The reason we have elections is because we have to hold our political leaders accountable."
Beck suggested that presidential debates function more like traditional debates, where each debater is forced to debate both sides of a given issue. "Can't debates do more than just reinforce what we already know about the candidates?" an incredulous Beck asked.
Treating the affair like a traditional debate, in which both sides have to argue both sides, "would be good." He added that the method would also reveal how knowledgeable the candidates are (or aren't).
"The Federal Government is too big," Beck threw out to viewers as an example of a debate issue to be argued. He wondered how President Obama would fare if he were forced to argue that the Fed is too big.
Food for thought, indeed. Watch the clip below via TheBlazeTV: