Except the audiences of those events are screened and the audiences are packed with Democrat staffers and liberal activists (not just people who have concerns about those issues but who are actively employed pushing a position).
They should at least disclose their credentials (like when someone at a press conference IDs his paper).
Remember the Democrats who flooded the questions at the GOP primary debates? They weren’t “undecided” Republicans at all.
A rigged debate is a rigged election.
You’re right. But to allow the press to ask the questions is like giving Obama 90 minutes of free ad time. I think the best way is to hold the debated in a town hall setting. Or at a sporting event, say a couple of hours before a NASCAR event or an NFL game. Then you’ll be sure to get an audiance of everyday Americans.
Excellent point, weegee.
Your idea is good in principle, mainer, and I wish we lived in a world where such a thing could happen. The problem is that the left would use guerilla tactics to game the audience selection process. If the audience wasn’t screened, you’d get an audience full of trained professional DNC operatives, essentially actors, who would turn the thing (with the MSM broadcasting the debate, which would cooperate with the DNC in every possible respect) into a total show, an absolute farce. Obama would come out smelling like a rose, and McCain would be made to look like an absolute fool.
Any attempt to screen out the shills, provocateurs, and professional trouble-makers would result in protests and lawsuits. The whole process would end up stalled in litigation, and the networks would refuse to cover it because they “question the audience screening process.”
I wish it were otherwise.