Henceforth, this blog will be formatted like a blog, not a disjointed, intermittent hodge-podge of random writings. I've decided that (after beginning and abandoning four or five potential next entries) this format of more frequent, informal updates will hold my attention (and your attention) more readily.
Last night's AFL-CIO Democratic debate and Sunday's "This Week with George Stephanopolis" Republican debate had me wondering. What if instead of separating debates by party lines, we had debates split up by the alphabet?
The A-H Debate: Democrats Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, John Edwards and Mike Gravel. Republicans Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter.
The K-Z Debate: Republicans John McCain, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, Fred Thompson, Tommy Thompson and Ron Paul. Democrats Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson.
How cool would that be? I vote very cool. This way, when Democrats hate on Republicans (or vice versa), they'd be there. Candidates would be forced to defend what they say, and bolster claims with logic or fact-based argument, not by making partisan snipes across the aisle. Such a debate would have to be moderated quite closely to keep things from getting too unruly, but the overall result would be worth the trouble: a wider range of expressed opinions within each debate and a more revealing look at candidates and their policy views.
However, it is unlikely something like this would ever happen, as candidates have to agree to the format of debates. Kucinich would debate in a Rotary Club in Kansas at 3am, but as far as the top-tier candidates - Clinton, Giuliani, Obama, Romney - go, I doubt they would subject themselves to something so unorthodox and potentially damaging.
It would be cool though.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment