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.
How about a debate where they ask each other questions?
And think how much fun it would be to hold a debate at a NASCAR setting, John McCain standing alone at a podium asking where’s Obama, where’s the Choosen one? He’s certainly not up to answering you questions but I am.
It isn’t a matter of the press asking the questions. It is a matter of WHICH members of the press and editorial pages are permitted to ask the questions.
Each party should be permitted to empanel the debate, just as lawyers get to select the jury.
With both parties getting some approval on the talking heads, it would probably eliminate the Rush Limbaughs and Michael Moores from the debate (but would they have dared to block a Buckley?). The public would be as interested in hearing who the campaign/party blocked as who they selected.
But as it stands, with the media in the tank for Obama and clearly lobbing different questions at different candidates, it is fixed.
Ask BOTH candidates the same questions (or all candidates in a 5 candidate primary). Put them in a “sound proof booth (or remote studio)” so that they first give their OWN answers to the questions and THEN permit them to respond to the other candidate’s answer.
Our current debate and primary process is bunk and junk and needs to change. The public has little influence and the media has a lot. The media is not impartial in who is selected. This puts the power of the selection of next president in the hands of a select few who have an agenda.