A reader writes:
I disagree about Baca. Angle has nuanced points that go beyond soundbytes. When she says she wants to transition out of social security to personal accounts, that's a valid position. The reporter doesn't seem to understand that; he just tries to "gotcha" her by saying she's trying to save social security "by transitioning out of it?" Yes he's persistent, but he's not after the full truth - only soundbytes. Yes, he's more persistent than the MSM is with Palin, but he seems more interested in causing a stir than allowing her to explain her positions.
As a Libertarian-leaning cat yourself, you know how difficult it can be to express paradoxical views to a credulous - and often blindly lefty - public, and this journalist seems to be squarely in that camp. I don't think he allowed her to give the full view any more than O'Reilly typically does with his lefty guests.
I take the point, but since she refuses to give a real interview that can allow for a nuanced discussion, you get this, which is better than nothing. There's a case to be made for privatizing social security, and you do that the way Reagan did on other controversial matters, by making arguments again and again in as many forums as possible, engaging the press to explain his positions, rather than ducking the press to evade accountability. It seems to me, for example, that Rand Paul's error was not going on Rachel Madow but in withdrawing from public debate ever since. If he has a case for his point of view, he should make it, and those should be the grounds on which you support him or not.