What I most want to see, desperately want to see, in the upcoming debates

[Rabrrrrrr]

Is a moderator/question-asker guy who will not allow the debate to go on until the one being questioned actually answers the fucking question. Especially McCain and Palin who will swim around every question with irrelevant soundbites and policy talking points.

I want a moderator who will say, after the minute and a half is up, "I'm sorry, but you totally shrugged off the question - this time, answer it." And continue to do that until the question is fucking answered.

the 2000 and 2004 election debates enraged me so much because Shrubby and Cheney both were allowed to totally sidestep the questions every goddamned time.

[TK421]

1. And they should be flogged every time they look at their watches

Like shrub#1 did in the debates with Clinton

[mainegreen]

2. I would also like to see car jumpers attached to their nipples

and have them zapped when they fail to answer.

"I'm sorry Mr McCain, you didn't answer the question. I hope you don't have a pacemaker installed! Heh, heh, heh, *ZAAAAAP*. Ok, let's try this again Mr McCain, how do you propose to increase health insurance coverage for uninsured americans?"

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. they need a "stay on topic" taser

bzzzzt!! :evilgrin:

zap them when they get off topic!

[DS1]

4. How about that game table in that shit Bond movie with Roger Moore

where the more you lost, the more amps went through your joysticks. Only instead of joysticks, make it the area they're standing on, and they get more amps then longer it takes to actually get to the point

[AlCzervik]

5. i wish The League of women voters still sponsored the debates.

i hate the sit down polite ones, i think they're useless and i hate when there is no follow up question because those are usually the killers.

[Fox Mulder]

6. Oh I completely agree.

That pisses me off when any politician (or anyone, for that matter) totally sidesteps a question.

[LynzM]

7. Abso-fucking-lutely.

I loathe the fact that the so-called moderators don't seem to do jack shit, most of the time.

[billyskank]

8. Zero chance.

Plus, the art of modern politics is to answer questions without actually answering anything.

[Midlodemocrat]

9. In what respect, Rabrrrrrr?

:hide:

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Rabrrrrrr]

11. In the respect of and such as and like

[hvn_nbr_2]

10. I never understand why the opponents never point out that someone evaded the question. nt

[billyskank]

12. Because they might want to evade another question themselves?

:shrug:

[Rabrrrrrr]

13. I think that's it. I hope Obama is comfortable enough to scream "You didn't answer!!"

Someone's gotta take a stand at some point in these debates. The 2000 and 2004 were mostly just ridiculous - I knew about as much after them as I knew going in.

[billyskank]

14. I guess that all depends on who's advising him.

If he really is a change from the past, then maybe he will. If he is being advised by the same types who ran Kerry's campaign in 2004 and Gore's in 2000, then you know what to expect.

So far he has shown promising signs that he gets this, and other worrying signs that he doesn't. It will doubtless become much clearer in the debates what kind of philosophy is prevailing in his campaign.