In response to:

Say No to Feisty Liberal Moderators

sahlberg Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 7:12 PM
Allow the moderator to only enforce time limits. Let the vice-presidential candidates take turns asking questions of the presidential candidates.
Jay Wye Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 8:48 PM
enforce the time limit by cutting off their microphone via timer. no human action,no bias.
Or have a noisy,grating buzzer drown them out,and the buzzer can also be applied by the moderator when a debater goes off track or becomes snide or abusive. But have a panel of judges with a button that applies an electric shock to the moderator if they're judged being biased with their buzzer use. (if a majority of judges hit their individual buttons,the moderator gets the shock)
None of this garbage of a moderator getting away with bias,without consequence.
and the moderator getting shocked would be very entertaining. more people would watch,just for that.
Jay Wye Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 8:49 PM
Oh,and the buzzer gets applied for obvious lies. the judge panel also votes on that too.
Martin145 Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 10:04 PM
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah..., I want to see that!
Martin145 Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 10:04 PM
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah..., I want to see that!
In the final debate, liberal CBS anchorman Bob Schieffer did it right. He moderated without asserting his own political opinions. Indeed, if this was all you had as a compass, you'd never know where he leaned. It was a welcome change from the Raddatz and Crowley libfests.

On the morning after the debate, CBS invited Fox's Bill O'Reilly to discuss the debate performances. Interestingly enough, he faulted them all, while CBS's Charlie Rose defended them all.

Rose tried to suggest these debates reveal something more than policy differences, they reveal demeanor and temperament. "Well, then let's have Dr. Phil interview...