Congressional Quarterly has a thoroughly mystifying take on the Tester-Burns debate, headlined by the opinion of “Craig Harris”, Montana State University political science professor. (What are the odds that both the Washington Post and CQ would misidentify the same person, in the same way?)
Wilson (known in the article as Harris) suggested the debate was a draw, but this passage was hard to understand:
Harris (sic) said Tester did a “respectable job” addressing the issues, although he needed some more time getting up to speed on the national security issues that featured prominently in the debate.
Hmm. I guess the guy who thinks imaginary ‘starin’ is a chemical weapon, who flip-flopped twice on his own position on port security in the course of 10 minutes, and who fundamentally misunderstands Sudan (the more I think about it the more convinced I am that he thought Sudan was Somalia) is the one who needs to work on his understanding of national security.
Harris, Wilson…can someone explain this to me?