Skip to content
Subscriber Only

Candidates should have online omsbudsmen

Your candidate says something. The other candidate says its untrue. There’s plenty of vetting in the blogs. The original statement looks fishy. Next debate, your candidate repeats it. What does this do for his or credibility? Nothing good.

Since all the candidates have blogs, they should launch non-partisan, or at least less-partisan, fact-checking operations. These would host discussions about the dubious things that the candidate himself/herself is saying. And if they turn out to be untrue, they ask the question: OK, is there a way for the candidate make the same point accurately and fairly?