EZRALARK LEMON. For those who haven't seen it, you can watch Ezra delivering a first-class ass-whupping to Larry Kudlow and some anti-Michael Moore dude on TVEyes. But watching it, I couldn't help but question my own reaction. It seemed apparent that you have here a debate between 1) A blowhard wedded to his religious views about free markets, blissfully unmoored from evidence or consideration of counter-arguments; 2) An amateur plainly out of his depth, who knows virtually nothing about the topic being discussed; and 3) An appealing young man who -- and get a load of this -- actually knows what he's talking about. Every time Kudlow made an argument, Ezra told him why he was wrong in devastating fashion, marshaling facts and evidence that made clear why Kudlow was utterly deluded. He also displayed an admirable understanding of the medium in which he was operating, using concise summaries of his arguments and some clever debating tactics, as when he questioned the host (they never expect this) to trap him with his own stupidity. I could barely have been more impressed. But that's me. Not only was I favorably disposed to Ezra's argument, I also know him to be a fine young man in every way. But what if I were someone who thinks the American health care system is exemplary and in need of no reform, and that the kind of pinko who writes for a magazine like The American Prospect couldn't possibly be right? How would I have reacted to this same program? Would I still think Ezra ran circles around them like the Globetrotters toying with the Washington Generals? I know there are some conservatives who read TAPPED, so please relate your reaction in the comments.
-- Paul Waldman
