I'm watching a rerun of Sunday's Dem debate on C-SPAN right now, and the experience is giving me an idea; WHY THE HELL ARE WE LETTING CNN DICTATE THE TERMS OF AN INTERNAL DECISIONMAKING PROCESS? Why not have a group of senior party officials (1) conference internally about questions & format, and then meet with television execs about presentation, and (2) pick their own moderator & drill him to death for two days beforehand in order to ensure that (a) their candidates are each given a fair and adequate forum, and (b) that their constituents can cull useful information from the debates and move forward in the primary process with that info in pocket?
I grant that there is something inherently silly and debilitating about having so many candidates. Still, there are ways to manage 8 powerful minds on one stage without making them look like clucking sugar-shocked 3rd graders. Seriously, Wolf lets one candidate respond to one poorly-constructed question & then has the others raise their hands in agreement, leading to a burst of shrill requests for confirmation of the actual question being put? Idiotic.
Rather than preach to the choir about the benefits of having declared, career Democratic party staffers & strategists crafting our primary debates, here are the weaknesses I see in such a policy.
(1) Attacks from the right
These would likely be of two forms: one group crying partiality, another crying that the dems were retreating into their own world rather than having the nation's questions be put to them. Frankly, career dems are going to be partial. But a committee of smart, experienced political operatives knows better than to throw fat curves in the liberal wheelhouse. Such a group, if well-selected, would have to put forth tough questions covering national interests (as indicated by polling) if their debates were to yield any useful information about the leadership capabilities of the candidates. If the questions were along the lines of "What's your least-favorite thing about Dick Cheney?" no one is served, least of all primary voters.
(2) Committee attempting to steer debates in favor of their favorite candidate
This is trickier, because it's a real problem and not a PR attack dog. Trickier still because the incentives to steer debates in favor of a particular candidate would be huge for either an up-and-coming staffer or a strategist eager for entry into the campaign for the eventual primary victor. Still, I think that the existing system includes an approval/negotiation process between journalists & campaign advisers which would probably be sufficient to allay these concerns.
What makes you nervous about such an idea? Do you think it'd even be possible, either legally or politically? Do you think it'd have any real effect on the utility of the primary debates in the primary process?