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