>>A nominee should not have to surrender debate control to some weak-kneed commission!
If Romney had boycotted the debates, he would have been crucified in the media. As it was, it was the first time most Americans, especially lefties, got to hear him unfiltered, uncut, undistorted by the media.
True. But as Rumsfeld said “You go to war with the army you have-—not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”
Romney has done a great job with the situation he was handed. He has taken a major disadvantage and made it work in his favor. He was not my first choice in the primaries, but he has totally impressed me as the nominee.
I'm not suggesting that, not for a second. As you said, that would be a complete disaster.
But this is what I am saying: No way should Romney have just quietly accepted this situation. I know, the "commission" makes all the debate decisions. But Romney should have quietly, and publicly, registered his concerns when the lineups were announced.
After all, you can bet the Obama camp would have said something - and loudly - had the commission chosen Sean Hannity as debate moderator.