I was able to catch the CNN (Paula Zahn) segment with Michael O’Brien and John Granger. Although as noted below I disagree with O’Brien on this particular question, I thought he acquitted himself very well. It was not, however, an effective TV performance–which is why I’m mentioning it. Of course nobody in his right mind expects a lot of depth from one of these TV "debates." But Granger seemed to be better suited or perhaps just better prepared to make the best of it.
That’s not particularly a compliment to Granger. He came across as a typical TV hawker of talking points: somewhat hyper, loud, seemingly intent on hammering on a few basic points. O’Brien was calm and seemed to be trying to speak carefully and coherently. You had the feeling that O’Brien’s mind was on the subject, not on his performance. And you could see Zahn was getting impatient with him. Which one would I have wanted to sit down and discuss the matter with? O’Brien. Who probably would be considered the "winner" in the face-off? Granger.
No wonder people can’t think straight anymore (or could they ever?). I am thinking of a couple of vulgar verbs with "TV" as the subject. In the interests of preserving a higher tone for this blog, I will forebear actually writing out the phrases here.