True enough. I’m being a bit hypertechnical- but if you read the L-D debates, there really wasn’t that much direct questioning between the two. What they did was more like interwoven speeches with some interruption and direct questioning, what you propose (and I agree) is just ask each other questions. It would be great fun.
Does anyone really think that the general public **wants **these types of debates? I do, as a political junkie. But I can’t see the general public, even those who whine about too much mudslinging and too little discussion of the issues, really wanted to sit through 90 minutes of serious issue-oriented debate.
Imagine the ratings for Jack Kemp vs Al Gore in such a format.
This blew my mind. The logical assumption was that cooly articulate Gore would have Bush looking like a Tourette’s patient. That didn’t even come close to happening. And Gore did come across as a blowhard, but the main reason he couldn’t really make mincemeat out of George had more to do with the weasly limitations of today’s debates.
A town-hall arrangement would be startlingly illuminating with such an incompetent man as Bush in the crosshairs. It’s no coincidence he’s held less press conferences than any president in recent history.
Well, I doubt anyone back then had the attention span to watch them either. But then watching them wasnt important, reading them was.
How about a debate that isnt televised, only printed? Televised debates can be won/lost by things that have nothing to do with the words spoken (Gores childish eye rolling as one of many examples).