But... Obama talks to slow!
Grade on a curve!
Non affirmative action is a return to good old fashioned racism
No need to find a center ground when there already is one.. Next!
I want Mark Levin as moderator.
Something is missing... While time keeping is an issue, and interruptions certainly are a pain, the big deal in my mind is the formulation of the questions. If Obama only gets, “What are your best accomplishments?” and Romney gets, “How are you not like George W. Bush?” there is a problem that time keeping alone can’t solve.
Think Lincoln-Douglas
Here's what one of the skid marks on Journalism's shorts has for us this Monday, folks.
Tuesday 23 Oct. 2012 - Asked why he did not have any questions about Benghazi for President Obama at Monday's debate Schieffer exclaimed, "Benghazi? I Just Didn't Know About It. If I had known about it I would not have stopped Gov. Romney from asking about it. I've been on vacation and I just missed it."
Especially “moderators” like Raddatz and Crowley. As soon as the debate got going, they morphed into teleprompternoids for Barry. It was really weird.
Beep at 10 seconds. If they don’t stop, taze ‘em. That’d up ratings too.
After reading the amount of time allowed to both candidates during all three debates...Leher did the best job with the least interference.
But he was hammered the most...go figure.
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.
but how will the liberal media be able to help the democrat candidate, then?
So you weren’t referring to FR 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.
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.
I bet the Mods would dissagree...
just sayin
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 ...