Rank the debate moderators.

[Direckshun]

Feel free to explain why you prefer who you preferred.

Jim Lehrer (1st debate)
Martha Raddatz (VPOTUS)
Candy Crowley (2nd debate)
Bob Scheiffer (3rd debate)

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by Messier

Crowley didn't butt in, she was asked to check the transcript. Romney made a mistake, he got bogged down on one phrase, and it turned out he was wrong. Obama asked for a ruling and got one. She wasn't trying to help him. Obama asked did I say that? The answer was yes.

How did Crowley know that Obama would ask for a ruling? How was he to know that she knew what he said, sort of ?

Was this all staged by the media because of the incident ?

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by Messier

mnchiefsguy, did Obama use the phrase, "Acts of terror" the next day in the rose garden?

On 9-11, did then POTUS Buch call the twin towers and pentagon " acts of terror " ?

Obama used the term loosely and never wanted to call it a terrorist attack until weeks later.

[FishingRod]

Just curious about the “yes he did” part of the 2nd debate. How many people think the POTUS statement in the Rose Garden was

1.Just what he says it was. Calling this specific instance an act of Terror
2.A generic statement about acts of terror but not directed at this specific instance
or
3.A statement that was intentionally vague so that he could at a later date claim that it was either #1 or #2 depending on which would be the correct political response with 20/20 hindsight.

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

And candidates have a responsibility to be honest, accurate, and specific.

If they are not, it is in the best interests of our democracy that it is pointed out.

I see no reason why a moderator can't do that in a debate.

So you want the moderator to put their ( personal ) spin on the comments of the candidates?

Even if it were conservative moderators ?

[Taco John]

I don't think any of them did that great a job. I thought Crowley was horrible. At least the others didn't come in swinging a bat for Obama. Crowley might as well been Wasserman-Schultz in there.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

And candidates have a responsibility to be honest, accurate, and specific.

If they are not, it is in the best interests of our democracy that it is pointed out.

I see no reason why a moderator can't do that in a debate.

A competent moderator, sure. That's not what Crowley did. It's one thing to correct a candidate with the truth - it's another to come in and muddy the waters so the candidate that you're pulling for looks better.

[LVNHACK]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

And candidates have a responsibility to be honest, accurate, and specific.

If they are not, it is in the best interests of our democracy that it is pointed out.

I see no reason why a moderator can't do that in a debate.

Ok I'm stuck on this.....What do you mean by the interests of our democracy ?

You do realize the US is a Republic and not a Democracy....right ?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by LVNHACK

Ok I'm stuck on this.....What do you mean by the interests of our democracy ?

You do realize the US is a Republic and not a Democracy....right ?

Haven't heard from BEP in a while.

[AndChiefs]

Originally Posted by LVNHACK

Ok I'm stuck on this.....What do you mean by the interests of our democracy ?

You do realize the US is a Republic and not a Democracy....right ?

Democrats don't like it when you point out it's a Republic. Might give a positive connotation to the word Republican.

[LVNHACK]

Originally Posted by AndChiefs

Democrats don't like it when you point out it's a Republic. Might give a positive connotation to the word Republican.

Like I give a fat rats ass if they like it or not....I'm wondering if he knows....

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

For one thing, it's because they'd be unreliable if not completely biased in that role.

Not necessarily.

I love how everybody except the candidates have these moral obligations in democracy.

Debate moderators have a moral obligation to not intervene when dishonesty is spoken.

Citizens have an obligation to found out for themselves when dishonesty is spoken.

How about politicians conform to an obligation to not pump the airwaves full of bullshit, wrong information, or vague platitudes?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

Just curious about the “yes he did” part of the 2nd debate. How many people think the POTUS statement in the Rose Garden was

1.Just what he says it was. Calling this specific instance an act of Terror
2.A generic statement about acts of terror but not directed at this specific instance
or
3.A statement that was intentionally vague so that he could at a later date claim that it was either #1 or #2 depending on which would be the correct political response with 20/20 hindsight.

I would say it's a combination of 1 and 3.

CIA documents were quick in determining terrorism as the likely cause, but at the time the President spoke, likely was all we had to go with.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Not necessarily.

I love how everybody except the candidates have these moral obligations in democracy.

Debate moderators have a moral obligation to not intervene when dishonesty is spoken.

Citizens have an obligation to found out for themselves when dishonesty is spoken.

How about politicians conform to an obligation to not pump the airwaves full of bullshit, wrong information, or vague platitudes?

But then Obama would have nothing to say.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Taco John

A competent moderator, sure. That's not what Crowley did. It's one thing to correct a candidate with the truth - it's another to come in and muddy the waters so the candidate that you're pulling for looks better.

And TJ and I reach consensus.

Dogs and cats, people. Dogs and cats.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Not necessarily.

I love how everybody except the candidates have these moral obligations in democracy.

Debate moderators have a moral obligation to not intervene when dishonesty is spoken.

Citizens have an obligation to found out for themselves when dishonesty is spoken.

How about politicians conform to an obligation to not pump the airwaves full of bullshit, wrong information, or vague platitudes?

We have an adversarial system in our courts because we think it's a better path to truth than having, for example, a judge who decides what witnesses to call and what questions to ask before ruling on the matter at hand. I think the same concept is the best approach for these debates. Let the candidates hold each other accountable for the truth and let the audience be the judge without a middleman imposing their biases on the process.

Edit: BTW, yes necessarily. Unless they are all reliably unbiased, they are unreliable. The truth is that most of them will be biased even if they try not to be.