Cal Thomas: Presidential ‘debates’ need to be updated

08/22/2012 5:00 AM

08/22/2012 5:54 AM

Dictionary.com defines a “debate” as: “A formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.”

That is not what will take place during three exchanges between President Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, or the one vice-presidential exchange between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan.

The selection of liberal “moderators” for these sessions by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates is, as Joe Biden might say, a 20th-century model for the 20th century.

Has anyone come up with a statement of purpose for these sessions? It seems less about getting information useful to the public and more about showcasing TV anchors and reporters who mostly ask questions through the liberal prism of their own biases, hoping to produce “gaffes” by at least the Republican candidate.

“Diversity” is the stated reason for the selection of two female moderators. One of them, Candy Crowley of CNN, said that Romney’s vice-presidential pick “looks a little bit like some sort of ticket death wish.”

Question: What is the difference between a male liberal and a female liberal? Answer: There is none. That would also be true for any minority the commission might have selected as moderator, if that person were also a liberal. Debates should not be about gender or racial diversity; they should be about ideological diversity.

During the Republican primaries, Newt Gingrich proposed a series of Lincoln-Douglas-style debates with no moderator – just the two candidates having a conversation about how they would lead the country. But because we live in a television age, which has conditioned us to brief sound bites, that kind of lengthy conversation might cause most eyes to glaze over.

Here are some better alternatives:

•  Let the country vote on moderators and any panel members, as baseball fans do for the annual All-Star game.
•  Allow each candidate to pick one panelist to question the other candidate. Obama might pick Rachel Maddow or someone else from liberal land to question Romney. Romney might select Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin or someone from Fox News to ask questions of Obama. Any of these would generate serious interest and boost ratings.
•  Have the candidates question each other. This has been tried on occasion in various races for other offices, but never consistently in presidential debates.
•  Put a former president on the panel. Since these men have had the rare experience of being president and know the challenges and unexpected events that often arise during a presidency, have Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush or Bill Clinton question Romney and Obama. (Dick Cheney, Walter Mondale or Dan Quayle might question Ryan and Biden.)
•  Put a “loser” on the panel. Let Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum ask questions. Losers in previous Democratic primaries might be selected, too. Hillary Clinton would be fun.

As for questions a moderator never asks, he (or she) might try these: What should government do less and we the people do more? What do you see as the constitutional limitations of government?

The tired “debate” format devised in 1960 for the televised Nixon-Kennedy meeting and made worse in the 1970s needs serious updating. Everything else has advanced. So should these political face-offs.

Editor's Choice Videos

Join the Discussion

The Wichita Eagle is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Terms of Service