Sounds good on paper, but unfortunately more people would tune in to watch the debate if Pam Anderson were moderating.
Perhaps the understatement of the year. If debates were a baseball game where 95 mph fast balls are the norm, moderators are lobbing fluff balls at 20 mph in the middle of the strike zone. We need moderators who would ask candidates the same questions the public would ask, most of which--if I read the public's sentiment--would have the impact of a direct kick in the sprouts. When's the last time you heard as question like: "Mr. Democrat, you voted against extending the Bush tax cuts, while you Ms. GOP voted to extend them. Defend your position." Instead, we get questions like: "Do you like puppies?"
There’s a simpler way, and one which Republicans already have the power to enforce.
Stop agreeing to debates where the moderator is some leftist MSM talking head. If they don’t have say on the moderator, demand that both sides agree, or both sides get to pick one, and don’t pretend that some news anchor is unbiased.
Also, allow each side to submit questions. Or have the questions provided in advance, and object to biased questions.
There’s nothing stopping Republicans from demanding terms like this now, except a lack of balls.
Having watched the Delaware debate last night, I instinctively was to agree, but here is a different idea which I prefer. Train the candidates to give ‘put down’ responses that do not create negative reactions in the audiences. Wolf Blitzer was an utter disgrace; perhaps he should have been asked why he was being so aggressive - not a complaint, just a question.