What do you expect from the ministry of propoganda? Why do the republicans allow the media to continuously try to bait the candidates with irrelevance, or start a fight between them? Every debate conducted by the mainstream ministry of lying propogand has gone this way, and the idiots go back for more. With the prevalence of the internet, I would wager a proper series of debates could be done without the idiots of the left injecting their opinions and irrelevant questions, and informed voters could get down to the facts of candidates differences and not the Bovine Excrement presented by the "journalists".

Unless the debate is between the incumbent and the other party's nominee, I would forego them. During the primaries the candidates can make their views known through the many outlets provided by modern media. Detailed position papers are a good idea (unfortunately most Americans are too ignorant or lazy to read them). I also think that the same questions should be asked of each candidate and that they be given enough time to answer. Less questions, more time. Comparisons between candidates should be made by the public based upon the given answers, not the moderators. There is also no need for a panel of moderators. One will do.

And so it starts.

We're about to witness the most derisive, dirty campaign in our history.

Obama can't run on his disasterous record, nor can he use the empty message of "hope and change".

It will be interesting to see how much hate and discontent a billion dollars of stimulis money can buy.

Sadly, the MSM will obviously work pro bono.

Why do Republicans continue to agree to debates with moderators who despise them?

When these debates first started, perhaps they were useful in providing voters with information to help make choices in the voting booths. Nowadays, they are a complete waste of time & money and should be done away with in the future, or, at the very least, let John Q Public ask the questions.

Most of the moderators behave as if it were a pissing contest to see who can ask the most thought-provoking question. They're trying to outdo each other rather than ask real questions of substance.

It's a game for them and another perfect example of how far away from reality we've gotten.

I suggest future debates be streamed live on the internet, moderated by a suitable non-candidate, such as Haley Barbour or Judge Roy Moore. Unsponsored expenses should be shared equally between participating candidates. Invite the MSM to attend and bring their cameras, but let it be known that they will be there as professional journalists and will be expected to conduct themselves accordingly. Anyone who attempts to skew the coverage or disrupt the proceedings will not be invited to another debate.

By agreeing to these moderators, the republicans live up to being called the God Owful Party.

I have hated George Huff-and-Puff-alot since the first time I laid eyes on his weaselly little face. At least his beady eyes look large when compared to his proton-sized brain. He has not got an unbiased bone anywhere in his body.

The GOP contenders should know that when you wallow with the pigs, you're gonna end up stinky. They should eschew further "debates" sponsored/moderated by democrat filth. How many Marine snipers would show up in Hanoi for a debate moderated my Ho Chi Minh?

Why - oh why - do any of these candidates appear on debates moderated by people who hate them? And over and over until we are all sick of the debates and stop paying attention.

I like MNice's suggestion. Have 3 more debates, live on streaming internet and whatever national media wants them, moderated by people who are not shy about their bias, but are conservative, and with a balanced approach:

1. Mark Levin (Not Romney or Paul) and Ann Coulter (Romney)

2. Rush Limbaugh (Not Romney or Paul) and some nationally recognized conservative Paul supporter

3. Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin (Not Romney) and Condolezza Rice (Romney supporter)

Thoughts?

The only way to stop the silliness that Georgie epitomizes is for the candidate to reply "George (or whoever) that was a stupid question. Why aren't you asking about how we would return the energy sector to the economy after Obama has wrecked it" or "our economy is in the tank, millions are unemployed, our military is being gutted, oil shipments are being held hostage by a group of Iranians in speedboats in the Gulf of Hormuz and that's the best question you can come up with"? After a few replies like that the MSM lamebrains will tire of being embarrassed and ask relevent questions.

yo tdrag-awesome post and I'd like 5 minutes alone with george-just me and him-simply to explain reality to the little p.r.i.c.k.

trag is on the right track - but, a little too harsh for the sensitive viewers in the audience. How about: "George, the Supreme Court ruled on that question nearly 40 years ago in Griswold v. Connecticut.Let's talk about deal a more contemporary issue - like how we avoid the federal government spending us into national bankruptcy. Let's talk about how we balance the budget after four years of Democrats spending like a drunken sailor."

Old Prof, while I agree with your point, did you have to insult drunken sailors everywhere? At least they only spend their own money, and when it's gone they stop.

If I were God I would not allow a liberal moderator, especially one from the liberal MSM. I would only allow conservative moderators. Liberals try to dominate the moderatorship, that they may influence the viewing audience with their slight of hand liberal bias questioning.

Nobama 2012, vote republican. Thankyou.

I am surprised the candidates are not schooled in this obviouse tactic. Why on earth do they even submit for interviews knowing the outcome in advance? I am disgusted with the whole process, except that the American people need to get to know and understand the candidates positions. I agree, one billion dollars will buy a lot of mud!