The point of having a ‘non-partisan’ commission for Presidential debates was to take the partisanship out of a free & honest debate. They’ve jumped the shark.

1. Start with this.... @1catherinesiena @E__Strobel @justpipertoo @1776Stonewall @phillyrich1 @tucker @da_food_guru @fuzzychimpcom https://twitter.com/simonpeter1a/status/1314186069823365120

2. And when did the current commission get it’s start? Before it’s formation, the ‘debates’ were sponsored by the League of Women Voters.

3. The League got upset when President Reagan & Michael Dukakis bypassed their ‘rules’ & made an agreement on how their debate would be structured.

4. This hissy fit led to the current commission.

5. However, the League had already been castigated for having political views with a progressive tint. Even today, their agenda is essentially the DNC platform.

6. The commission was supposed to bypass all of that. However, it’s leadership has notably drifted to progressive/left.

7. If the commission was truly bipartisan, it would allow alternative selection of moderators. It doesn’t. Was Candy Crowley bipartisan? Was Chris Wallace? The reality is the pool of moderators the commission selects from is overwhelmingly liberal/progressive.

9. Can you name a single moderator over the last 4 presidential cycles that was stridently conservative? I can’t.

10. Seems like it would be simple to screen a moderator. All you have to do is a few simple questions.

11. One: Have you ever been a candidate for a political party?
Two: Have you ever worked for an administration as a political appointee?
Three: Have you donated to a particular party more than the other party?

13. Pretty simple. And then allow each candidate the ability to strike potential moderators, like you can with a jury.

14. The next thing would be to set the formats &
not allow any changes at all to them. No changes the week before. No unilateral edicts proclaiming how it is done. If changes are to be entertained, both parties must agree.

15. Pretty simple again. Who’s with me?