Kerry should challenge Bush* to a REAL debate -- ON THE NET!

Folks, with all that's at stake this election, how about a REAL debate this time around?

The issues are simply too numerous and complicated -- not to mention too serious -- to be dealt with in paid-for ads, media sound-bites, superficial talking-head "analysis", and the speechified TV "debates" that have become the norm.

Why not put this net technology to good use in the service of a real democracy? How about a real debate where we, the people, get to propose the questions, and each candidate gets ample opportunity to offer his best response, and to substantively rebut his opponents responses? Put it in writing, where it won't evaporate in the media vapor, and where people can digest it when they have the serious time to devote to it. And of course, there would be no stopping the public discussion of the specific issues raised, all over the net.

Instead of just complaining about the continued degradation of our democracy and civil discourse, why can't we demand something like this from the people who would ask our permission to lead our country?

I seriously doubt that Bush*Co would go for it, but chickening out would be a revealing "rebuttal" in itself. And, if Bush* refuses to participate, Kerry could go for it unilaterally, in effect saying, "These are the people's questions that Bush* is afraid to answer."

have someone do it for him.

How about debates over each of the major topics. One just for the economy. One just for education. One for social issues. One for terrorism. One for Iraq. Give them ample time to reply to the questions and ample time for rebuttal.

Would Bush have someone answer (or at least type) for him?

In a debate situation, I'd expect even someone highly literate to misspell a few words, have some mistakes.

I'd hate to try to read something Bush had typed in a hurry :evilgrin:

Someone else is already doing his thinking for him and writing his only coherent statements. The important thing is that he puts his name to it.

in an open debate where he didn't know the softball questions beforehand. On the 'net you'd end up debating Rove or one of his wetboys. They got the chimp in office by shielding him from the public. No way they change that now.

and the way bush's numbers are looking he may actually consider doing them . . .YEEHAW!

There should be those, too -- and Kerry is going to f'ing kick ass -- but those are never real "debates", either. Generally, they just take turns making mini-speeches, with no real opportunity to "take it to the mat." The winner will be the best speech maker -- did I mention that Kerry is going to f'ing kick ass? -- but the real issues get glossed over and evaded, and unsubstantiated assertions and faulty logic get a pass.

As I said above, I don't think it would really matter that a net debate like this would become the Bush* campaign versus the Kerry campaign. The important thing would be to delve deeply into the real issues -- the ones people really care about -- with the candidates taking responsibility for what's said. If Rove can't do any better than to try to dodge the real issues by creating phony ones and flat-out lying when backed into a corner, then Kerry can call him on it and let Bush* take the consequences.

Basically, I'm thinking it would be yet another opportunity to kick Bush*'s ass. Hit him where it hurts the most -- right in the issues -- in a format where there's an opportunity to counter the spin and deceptions, point by point. Lay it all out for the people to really see, in a venue that would, at the very least, attract a lot of attention, and people might actually start thinking about what the choices are.