Too little by far, IMHO is made by conservatives of the intrusive nature of the moderator in presidential candidate debates.There is no reason that the participants - all presumably grownups - should need a reporter to define the issues for the candidates. That is - that certainly should be - the job of the candidates themselves. There is no reason for the debates to be moderated in any other way than by a chess timer to equalize microphone time.
And there is no necessary reason why the debates have to be on (scarce, expensive) TV instead of radio and/or the Internet/Youtube. IMHO production values seem nice to have but actually are the tail wagging the dog - it's a huge logistical deal for candidates in a national general election to even get together at the same place at the same time. When you make them a big deal like that, they don't have the potential for informing the public that less formal settings would have.
If Rush set out to do it, he could have a debate a week between each pair of candidates in the Republican primary. Two hours, divided equally between the candidates, all on one day's program. In a month or two, you could do most of the interesting pairings and probably would be able to narrow the field down. And definitely define the issues of the campaign.
Come to think of it, probably the reason the MSM doesn't do that now is that it might take all the suspense out of the primary season, and so would be bad for business.
BTTT
Moderators could be replaced by lie detector devices. Hook 'em up, Scotty.
Local TV Creates First Open Electronic Trading System
...
And political spending has been showing up much earlier than its customary even-year election cycle -- especially now, during what is expected to be a hotly contested primary season in '08.