Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rlgvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!wjh12!harvard!seismo!rlgvax!plunkett From: plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: `Debate' suggestion Message-ID: <174@rlgvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Oct-84 13:18:22 EDT Article-I.D.: rlgvax.174 Posted: Tue Oct 9 13:18:22 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Oct-84 04:17:40 EDT Distribution: net Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA Lines: 27 Why not this: Each candidate, in turn, is submitted to two one-hour sit-down discussion sessions with, say, Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. for one session and, say, J. K. Galbraith for the other. The intent is to have each candidate grilled by a known representative from both political traditions. At all four sessions there may be a panel of one or two journalists or academics, who will be given an opportunity to direct specific questions to the candidate in the final half-hour. The candidates may be questioned where ever they like. For the incumbent, it would probably be the Oval Office. This would maintain the proper dignity that should be accorded the President. For the challenger, it would be any location that suited his "theme." The above, as some will notice, is similar to the format of Buckley's highly successful "Firing Line." (Successful in the sense that "issues" are discussed intelligently and at length, and have been for a very long time.) It would eliminate the inanities and absurdities seen last Sunday night: e.g., a scolding moderator, a partisan and cheering audience, insipid questions, dodged and incomplete answers, and not least, an utter waste of time for all concerned. Scott Plunkett, ..{ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett