Debate moderators will spell the difference

In one of the GOP Presidential Candidate debates, the moderator took the train off track, and Newt called him on it instantly.

John Harris of Politico attempted to create infighting amongst the GOP candidates and turn the evening from one of honest debate and position presentation to one of squabble and distraction. In short, to turn the debate into a firework display for liberals to sit back on their picnic blankets and enjoy.  Newt stopped him cold.  It was so refreshing.  (Video)

Who moderates and how they moderate is tantamount to how the debates will play out.

And now for the big show. The Romney-Obama debates beginning October 3rd will be moderated by what might be, probably will be, a "journalist" with an agenda.  It will be subtle and clever but the predetermined directional forces will be there.

The issues of the economy and the facts of the budget deficit will likely be tamped down.  Perhaps the facts of the condition of the country will be allowed a cursory acknowledgement.  Unemployment and economic stagnation will be mentioned but given the "too boring" treatment. In all likelihood the direction of discussion will evolve down to social issues and grand visions for the country.  Emotions will be stirred and previous administrations demonized.

Pro choice, abortion, contraceptives and all the other fuzzy topics that evoke emotion will wiggle their way, via the moderator's direction, into the discussion.  Immigration will be discussed but the necessary contrast between legal and illegal will be poorly defined or acknowledged.

Factual discussion and hard numbers will bounce off the audience and be avoided.  Too difficult to comprehend, for this is show business.  Be certain to maintain the audience's attention even if it means to deviate from the importance of the thought to be mundane issues.

In sincere declaration that I hope sincere and fruitful debate rife with lucid and substantive presentation will fill the air waves, I expect quite the opposite.  Here's to hoping I'm wrong.  For if indeed I am in correct, it will be a pleasure to watch ideologies  honestly clash, the soundest of principles survive, and the sought after independent voters will inextricably be drawn to the logic and proper voting conclusion.










In one of the GOP Presidential Candidate debates, the moderator took the train off track, and Newt called him on it instantly.

John Harris of Politico attempted to create infighting amongst the GOP candidates and turn the evening from one of honest debate and position presentation to one of squabble and distraction. In short, to turn the debate into a firework display for liberals to sit back on their picnic blankets and enjoy.  Newt stopped him cold.  It was so refreshing.  (Video)

Who moderates and how they moderate is tantamount to how the debates will play out.

And now for the big show. The Romney-Obama debates beginning October 3rd will be moderated by what might be, probably will be, a "journalist" with an agenda.  It will be subtle and clever but the predetermined directional forces will be there.

The issues of the economy and the facts of the budget deficit will likely be tamped down.  Perhaps the facts of the condition of the country will be allowed a cursory acknowledgement.  Unemployment and economic stagnation will be mentioned but given the "too boring" treatment. In all likelihood the direction of discussion will evolve down to social issues and grand visions for the country.  Emotions will be stirred and previous administrations demonized.

Pro choice, abortion, contraceptives and all the other fuzzy topics that evoke emotion will wiggle their way, via the moderator's direction, into the discussion.  Immigration will be discussed but the necessary contrast between legal and illegal will be poorly defined or acknowledged.

Factual discussion and hard numbers will bounce off the audience and be avoided.  Too difficult to comprehend, for this is show business.  Be certain to maintain the audience's attention even if it means to deviate from the importance of the thought to be mundane issues.

In sincere declaration that I hope sincere and fruitful debate rife with lucid and substantive presentation will fill the air waves, I expect quite the opposite.  Here's to hoping I'm wrong.  For if indeed I am in correct, it will be a pleasure to watch ideologies  honestly clash, the soundest of principles survive, and the sought after independent voters will inextricably be drawn to the logic and proper voting conclusion.










RECENT VIDEOS