More about presidential debates

You may have noticed the debate or discussion between Mario Cuomo and Newt Gingrich that was held on Feb. 28 at Cooper Union, and was moderated by Tim Russert. It was rebroadcast on C-span Sat, night, March 17. (You can watch it at www.c-span.org; search for Mario Cuomo.)

Gingrich spoke for about 40 minutes, then Cuomo spoke for about 30 minutes, then Russert threw in some questions, (I did not get to see the whole broadcast.) The whole discussion was in the nature of an extended debate, although neither Cuomo nor Gingrich are presidential candidates. Near the end of the end of the session Gingrich suggested that the two presidential candidates of the major parties agree to a series of nine debates, to be held across the country. So the idea of Loncoln-Douglas style debates seems to be spreading around.

But holding off the debates until after the candidates are chosen is wrong. Major debates should be held during the primary season so that good candidates can be selected in the first place. These "primary debates" should be held between two or three candidates, including all qualified independents who are willing to participate. Then, after the candidates are chosen, further debates are a good idea, since the major parties have different philosophies. Independent candidates should be included in some but not necessarily all of these "election debates".

One of the important side benefits of holding extended debates would be to decrease the influence of money on the election. Money is still going to talk, but it won't be the only voice.