Debates? Who Needs Them!

First of all what is being called a debate bears no resemblance to what a debate really is.  Secondly, both the political parties and the networks should have a say in who the moderators should be.

More so, however, at this point in time, they really have little value.  The Republicans have too many candidates trying to outdo one another rather than lay out their own vision of policy.  The Democrats are no more than a love fest for Hillary and an opportunity for her to excoriate the Republicans. Her policies make no sense either unless taxing the rich is the end all.

Since the candidates aren't lacking in opportunity to be heard why the debates at all?  State by state the candidates flood the populace with town halls, speeches and anything else they can think of to win them over. Do the national debates really add anything?  Considering the contentiousness and lack of substance I think not.

The debates should come into play once the nominees are decided.  Let them lay out their policies and argue their points.  Then voters can decide which approach is best for the country.

The last thing I want to see is Ben Carson's idea of holding them on Facebook.  There are those of us not wed to social media and the last place we want to go to listen to candidates duke it out.

If the debates are going to remain the same I have a dream team of moderators from FOX for the Republicans.  Britt Hume, Charles Krauthammer and Kirsten Powell for the Liberal point of view.  Their questions I believe would be relevant and lack snark.  They might even give the candidates time to speak.

Even better would be one moderator and a time keeper.  Each candidate has say 12 minutes to lay out his or her vision or anything else they'd like to say but after 12 minutes that's it.  Over.  Done. The moderator would keep everyone in line and the time keeper would just keep the time.

Then I might be interested in listening.  As of right now I can tune in anytime for at least a week after the last word has been spoken and see repeats ad nauseam.  Many times out of context to boot.  They've lost me.

Hopefully someone of ability and substance will rise to the top before next November. In the meantime there are so many things that need to be addressed personality clashes seem trivial.  The media should be covering it all.  Good luck with that.

Some Advice For The Media

I've got a hot flash for the political pundits who anchor debates.  They aren't about you!  They're about the candidates.  Now I know you all love the sound of your own voices.  That's apparent from watching your daily shows where you don't let guests have their say so you can pontificate. Especially when the guest has a different point of view.

But to take up a third of the allotted time so you can "frame" your questions is ridiculous.  Face it, those watching this first debate were there for one of two reasons.  One to see Donald Trump.  Two to hear what the candidates had to say, not you.  We viewers already know the issues.  You don't have to patronize us with your "depth of understanding" which is usually lacking at best anyway.

A note to the ladies, especially Ms. Kelly.  If you want to be taken seriously you might try dressing like a professional.  Many nights you look like you're on your way out to the streets after your broadcast.  C'mon.  If you want to be a model or something different, television "news" isn't the proper venue.

I know.  Professionalism isn't what it was when I was a young working woman. There are, however, those of us who will judge you on yours never-the-less.  All things being cyclical, professionalism will return.

If you need an example, it isn't the fashionably challenged Hillary Clinton nor Ms. Kelly.  Take a good look at Carly Fiorina.  She reeks class and professionalism. Take a lesson.