CHANGE FORMAT, LET CANDIDATES MATCH WITS

Press & Sun-Bulletin

Editorial
Thursday, July 22, 2004

Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has agreed to the Commission on Presidential Debates schedule of three debates with President Bush. Presumably, Bush also will accept the dates -- Sept. 30 at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla. (covering domestic policy); Oct. 8 at Washington University in St. Louis ("town-hall" type format); and Oct. 13 at Arizona State University in Tempe (foreign affairs).

The independent commission also has scheduled a vice presidential "debate" on Oct. 5 at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

The schedules and locales and even the "themes" are all fine, but it would be nice if this year the "debates" would be less formatted and more informative.

Instead of "expert panels," why not just have the two candidates sit in comfortable chairs and talk to one another? No campaign advisers backstage; no hearing devices in the candidates' ears so helpers can whisper scripted responses to them; no cue cards or note cards; not even a moderator. Perhaps a timekeeper simply to prevent filibustering.

Think of it: The two main candidates for the job of leader of the free world on their own, free to question each other and respond. One hour to discuss domestic issues; another to discuss foreign affairs.

The third meeting would have the candidates face questions from an audience of citizens -- screened carefully to eliminate all the party activists, lobbyists and other "plants" who tend to fill up the current "town hall" meetings. There would be only one requirement for citizens -- proof of voter registration in the community where the event is held.

The problem with the current system is that it's far too structured -- and as a result it's far too easy for candidates to dodge questions and simply recycle stump speech rhetoric. There's no spontaneity, and even the rare memorable line is usually scripted in advance (usually as a "comeback").

Democracy isn't supposed to be so neat. It's supposed to provide competition, not mutual condescension toward the citizens. As in 2000, all we'll probably hear from the Bush camp is how poorly he fares in these things -- and then, having lowered expectations to the utmost, the Bush camp will then "spin" the facts that the president stood straight for 60 minutes and didn't step on his tongue into a "stunning victory" in the debate. It doesn't much matter what anyone says -- it's how he or she looks or acts.

Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill called the commission debates "an important tradition in presidential campaigns" and said "voters depend on them to help inform their choice."

There's a sobering thought. Presidential debates are important -- and they should be much better and far more informative than they are.