- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The forum of having 6-8 people on stage giving short responses to complex questions is just not very effective. I'd like to see 3-4 different credible people interview each candidate on a variety of important issues with the ability to ask follow up questions and push the button when they evade the question ... then take all that taped information and edit it into a truly effective way to see how the candidates respond to different issues. Then, allow the candidates to truly debate one another in 10-minute segments ... for instance, Rudy against Mitt on immigration for 10 minutes or Ron Paul against Rudy on the economy for 15 minutes. This would give us a much, much better view into how the candidates think and a deeper perspective into their vision. I've watched at least 5 debates and have no idea what the vision of any of the candidates is. I know what they're against, but have no idea what they're for. They do each seem to try and promote short phrase image-isms of themselves like "fighter against poverty" or "bring the country together" or "the anti-terrorism" candidate, but that just isn't enough. What about their positions on size of government, government spending, focus on domestic vs. foreign issues, role of American military, energy independence, pollution, corporate influence on politics, etc? We need a much better system to get their ideas onto the television without it being a shallow, sound bite driven exercise.
