How should a presidential debate be moderated?

The RWM (Right Wing Media) went into a collective rage over Candy Crowley's moderation of the second presidential debate.

The ideal they put forth is a moderator who stays out of the way--who introduces the combatants and then shuts up for 90 minutes.

What the RWM never says--not once--is that this kind of moderating favors the bully.

"Bully" meaning the guy who talks over both his opponent and the moderator, interrupts both repeatedly, and treats the President of the United States with the same level of respect as a prosecutor would in the trial of a perp accused of human trafficking.

The RWM totted up all the times Candy Crowley "interrupted" Boss Romney. They forgot to mention the fact that what she was doing was trying to keep BR from trying to keep the POTUS from finishing a sentence--over & over & over.

And of course her fact check of BR's triumphant declaration that the POTUS didn't call the Benghazi assault an "act of terror" for two weeks was correct, as the transcript showed, even though that statement was followed by two weeks of waffling--even though that has nothing to do with which person would be better overall in foreign policy.

The RWM said that CNN had apologized for Crowley's fact check. I looked up CNN's official statement on the CNN website and they did just the opposite.

Again showing that the RWM's statements of fact are generally unreliable.