Schieffer: Let's have MORE debates

(CBS News) It's an honor to moderate a presidential debate, and while I never say never, at this stage of my life I can't imagine I'd ever do another.

So here are some observations after doing three of them.

They seem to work best when the candidates are seated at a table rather than behind more formal podiums or wandering around the stage in a town hall format.

The debates do matter and people like them - around sixty million people will gather around their televisions on three separate nights, that means it's obvious voters find them relevant.

Even more important, they are one of the rare events left in modern politics that people from both sides of the political spectrum will watch at the same time.

Even when you have to hold your nose, listening to the other guy from time to time can be a learning experience.

That's why I believe we should have MORE, not fewer debates.

Instead of three, I'd propose six, with the first one immediately after the political conventions.

Starting early and sitting the candidates down face-to-face could change the entire tone of the campaign.

An argument with someone you know - even just a little - is generally conducted on a higher plane than an argument with a stranger.

Anything that gives us a different version of events than what we get in these awful negative ads cannot be all bad.

The debates are one of the few things that can do that. I hope we'll see more of them.

[csb2740]

Yes! I agree completely, moving forward there should be a minimum of 4 debates with Presidential contenders, and 2 with the Vice-Presidential nominee's and/or incumbents. National elections are too important to be relegated to less than a brief conversation. I would also support debates that are far more indepth than present for both the House and Senate

[oldjones]

With all due respect, Bob, let's have about four debates (in a closed three month long campaign) and have the Press "do it's job". Instead of concentrating all the time on the "Horse Race"; have the Press return to it's traditional job of informing the people of the "truth". A "lie is a lie", and the nation needs to be informed of this immediately and with vigor; rather than having the Press be the "enabler"(And the soapbox!) of a seemingly never-ending parade of political spinners, partisans, lobbyists, and "has-been" Party parrots (And the usual collection of Wits and Nitwits). They are deceivers all: In their attempts to spin, obfuscate and/or tell the American people "what and how to think" ... Please do your jobs..

[tsigili]

Let's have more substantive debates. Let's have more honest debates, that aren't RIGGED for one candidate. Let's have a real, honest, genuine, discussion of issues, with time limits that call for details, and not gloss overs.

What we are getting......is not helping people to make a choice, that is a truly informed choice.

Let's have debates with real neutral moderators, and not the media people who are all totally biased!

let's have debates designed to inform, rather than be exercises in empty rhetoric.

[Davy1der]

It would help if there was a way to call a candidate out when they lie. (e.g. "obama proposes cutting the military" when they are talking about the Sequestration that THEY proposed. Or the $716 billion that was saved on Medicare. It is NOT benefit cuts. Or the whole business about closing all the Jeep plants and sending them to China. That's not fudging or inflection. It's lying, plain and simple. Candidates need to be called out and stopped from repeating the lie the next day in their stump speeches. The headline that day should read, "Romney repeats lies from debate." Debates should incorporate fact checking to have any value at all.

[catlady1950]

I agree 100%! I think the candidates hope that people don't read the papers so they won't know they are lying. Please remember to vote and take someone with you to the polls....

[Jakeandthesnake]

Sure, Bob, let's have more debates. But let's make them debates, real debates instead of a "Conversation with America." Why not divide 90 minutes into 3 segments, each for a single topic of "debate?" Perhaps the first segment might be -"Obamacare has been a failure." One candidate argues for 10 minutes that it has. Absolutely no interruptions. Then the other candidate gets a 5 minute rebuttal. No interruptions. Then the other candidate argues that Obamacare has been a success-10 minutes, then a 5 minute rebuttal. That's it. Next 30 minutes, another topic such as "The Stimulus Plan has been a success." The moderator's job is to maintain the rules. As it is, the current debate formats are jokes. In addition, since these people debating are often lawyers and politicians, why not use the courtroom or legislative format for debate?

[nymparsons]

I agree. I would like to hear the candidates discuss their views and intentions on decision-making. I would also like them each to talk, as if talking *with* the viewers, not at them. Presume we are all intelligent, well-informed, and capable of independent thought. Don't coddle us or give us soundbites. We make decisions for our own families every day. We do understand a lot.