NO MORE MODERATORS, solves all problems..

Cooking With Chef Carlo ^ | Carlo3b, Dad, Chef, Author

[carlo3b]

With all of the problems with finding moderators that can or will moderate the debates without obvious bias, the only option available is to structure the format without the need of a moderator..

The only requirement for a true debate is timing, requiring the participants to adhere to and agreed upon time limit for discussion of the chosen topics..

All that is required is an announcer, and a time clock, and an automatic switch that terminates the camera, and microphones, and move on to the next topic.. Each participant has an allotted time period.. Fin

[carlo3b]

That is funny, and I think I know what is funny, and that is really funny!

[carlo3b]

You and I know, Men are never allowed to criticize any woman, especially a BIG woman.. It may start a WAR ON WOMEN!

[Casie]

All big mouth Candy had to do was watch a digital clock and call on the next person to read a question. A high school student could have done it better! In fact, we dare Obama or Romney to speak over a 17 year old cheerleader and class president from General High, Anywhere, USA. Our alternate suggestion would be to have Chrissy Mathews ask a question to our guy and then Levin or Steyn or Hannity ask their guy one.

[willyd]

Put them each on a treadmill... when the time is up they can keep talking, but the treadmill gets faster and faster until they eventually run out of breath or they fall and are shot through the wall.

[Secret Agent Man]

but how will the liberal media be able to help the democrat candidate, then?

[cableguymn]

“Think Lincoln-Douglas”

“Sure easy for you to say, you are too young to remember, it took so long as they talked all day, and the bathrooms had long lines..”

---

You where there too huh? ;)

[CapnJack]

"Think Lincoln-Douglas"

[lowbridge]

So you weren’t referring to FR moderators.....

[niteowl77]

NO MORE MODERATORS

My thought was that each debater should have his choice of one of two moderators so that everyone is nominally "playing by the rules" on a "level playing field,"* but perhaps no moderator at all might be more likely to succeed.

Mr. niteowl77

*Favorite memes delivered to "folks" by a certain Barack Hussein Obama, who always makes sure that he, personally, NEVER has to play by any rules... and who has a track record of making sure opponents get kicked off the field before the game.

[aruanan]

NO MORE MODERATORS, solves all problems..

Wow, for a second I thought folks were talking about FR and the religion threads and finally coming to their senses. After that would be an end to the religious ghetto threads and people wanting an echo chamber free from any sort of challenge where they could maintain the illusion that their particular thing is the only thing.

[annalex]

Someone picked by Google News (Atlantic? CSM?) made a suggestion that I like.

The right format is one chosen by Rick Warren 4 years ago. An intelligent person — not therefore Candy Something — talks to one candidate at a time in a conversation lasting about one hour. The candidates do not get a preview of the questions or topics. When one candidate is interviewed, the other listens in the green room.

Each candidate picks one interviewer from a list and so there are four interviews: Candidate R with the interviewer of R’s choice, Candidate D with the interviewer of R’s choice, Candidate R with the interviewer of D’s choice, Candidate D with the interviewer of D’s choice.

Such format will allow for a serious conversation and discourage gotchas, soundbites, stupid questions, and generally professional wrestler behavior on the part of the candidates.

[carlo3b]

“Think Lincoln-Douglas”

“Sure easy for you to say, you are too young to remember, it took so long as they talked all day, and the bathrooms had long lines..”

You where there too huh? ;)

I know what you are inferring, so lets get this straight.. I was MUCH too young to vote in that election.. OK?

[Rightly Biased]

I bet the Mods would dissagree...

just sayin

[carlo3b]

That format could work, and there are perhaps dozens of others that should be considered, but one thing is certain, this should be the LAST time we get rolled in this current BS method.. It seems every time we end up saying the same thing, WE GOT SCREWED AGAIN!

[ArrogantBustard]

Hang a big tub of pig feces over each candidate’s head ... if he goes over time, dump the tub on him.

[carlo3b]

So you weren’t referring to FR moderators.....

Of course it NEVER entered my mind.. EVERYONE knows that OUR monitors are the epitome of fairness.. How could you have made that even a question..?? Now I know why your monicker isn't Highbridge.. smirk.. Ha!

[carlo3b]

but how will the liberal media be able to help the democrat candidate, then?

Isn't that the truth.. We always know in advance that all of our candidates start any interview on an alphabet network, knowing that the panel will outweigh our side by 2-3 to 1.. Sheeeze

[GOPJ]

My solution would allow for Dems to be able to ask about abortion and birth control but we'll be able to ask about why our State Department listened to our men being murdered in real time in Benghazi and did NOTHING to help them...

The corruption's beyond knee-pad liberals... old ones, rude ones, fat ones or respectable ones... it's also the 'questions asked'. Jim Lehrer - the first moderator was honest enough to admit he 'chose from lists of questions'. The rub? Where are those 'questions' coming from? My guess is liberal war rooms run by Carville types.

If we want these debates to be honest we need to dump the so-called journalists - the corrupt ones - AND dump the system of deciding what will be asked.

A fairer system would be to ask a dem think tank to come up with half the questions and a conservative think tank to come up with the other half.

Dems can still ask about abortion and birth control but we'll also be able to ask about why our State Department listened to our men being murdered in real time in Benghazi ...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!