Competitive Press Conferences vs. Candidate Cage Matches
“Well, tonight’s the big night,” he said with a yawn…
No it’s not the opening line of a sarcastic screenplay about an unemotional theater owner the morning of the day a guaranteed flop is due to open on his stage, it’s what the majority of Americans are thinking as it relates to tonight’s second in the litany of what’s likely to prove many CPC’s (Competitive Press Conferences) of Democratic presidential candidates. Tonight’s CPC (and Tuesday’s with the Republicans) will be aired on CNN and originate in New Hampshire (as far as we know still the first “official” primary state). The only people who will be watching are the candidates’ families, supporters and political junkies who have nothing better to do (like me).
Which gave me an idea…
Seeing as nobody watches the cable news networks on Sunday nights (c’mon prove me wrong - heck the only reason you’re seeing these debates now is because the channels need some filler), why not offer substantive mano a mano (or in Hillary’s case mano a hermana) debates between a round robin of individual candidates ala the Cooper Union exchange that happened between Newt Gingrich and Mario Cuomo a few months back. This would provide quality discourse without the filter of multiple candidates and allow for what all of the candidates claim they want - the opportunity to express their views without being restricted into soundbyte morsels.
Here’s how I see the logistics if each of the three “major” cable news outlets would participate:
The 7-9pm time slot makes sense and would allow for six one hour conversations (3 channels x 2 conversations = 6 total) each Sunday.
With the current field of 8 Democrats and 11 Republicans (I’m including FRED Thompson in the field), you could mix and match candidates in a way that all of the Democrats could face each other at least once during the summer and the Republicans would be able to see each candidate head-to-head by the end of the fall.
The schedule is likely to be fluid as some candidates drop out and others join (are you listening Newt and Al), but no preferences would be given to the late comers to catch up.
Site logistics are fairly easily handled and could allow for the candidates to be in separate locations should travel itineraries not allow for a common site (hey they did it in the final Kennedy-Nixon debate way back in 1960, I’m pretty confident we can handle it even better 47 years later).
The result would be much more entertaining and worthwhile. Real debates. Real dialogue. Real Solutions. Candidate Cage Matches.
To make the process even more interactive and user-friendly, allow CSPAN to re-air the segments on its air as well as making them available online for anyone interested in seeing them.
Makes sense to me, but unfortunately it will never happen.
I guess I’ll be forced to watch Mike Gravel make an idiot out of himself and take away time from quality candidates and ideas again…
[…] One final thought: this field is way too large (and getting bigger). With this many candidates Republicans are not helping to nominate a candidate prepared to do one-on-one battle with the Democrat’s nominee. The field needs to be pared down by summer’s end or a different approach should be considered for these events. […]
[…] Frankly, I’d much rather see a process like this, than the sham that the candidates and their handlers continue to force feed the American public. […]
[…] While I’ve been a strong dissenter to this current debate process (I continue to advocate for a more substantive Cooper Union styled one-on-one format), I am curious about how well one of this panderthons would go over with the Republican candidates. The Democrats seem more than willing to preen and fawn for every special interest group that typically supports their party (AFSCME, AFL-CIO, etc.) while the GOP’s candidates are forced to debate in front of receptive yet non-red meat begging audiences. […]