GOP Debates

I will start of by saying that I am a pro-Romney guy and will vote for any Republican who wins and is up against President Obama, but realistically I can't help but wonder why the format for these debates is how it is.
When you have nine people on a stage and you only get a minute to answer a question, do you really have an opportunity to better understand the individuals running for office? Yes, I think Romney is very polished. Rick Perry loves Texas. Ron Paul loves the Constitution. And Herman Cain might be the most entertaining candidate ever. But really, is this the format we should be going with?
I propose a few changes, the least of which is never, ever going back to MSNBC. It's like having an Israeli Prime Minister debate in Tehran. It just doesn't make sense. The Fox News debate was fine, but really, how about you take 1 member of each of the military branches to ask questions. Do you think a Marine Gunny is going to let Rick Perry off the hook on his horrible answer about Pakistan losing a nuke? Or an Army Captain isn't going to take Ron Paul to task for his stance on foreign policy? *(I just came up with this idea... yea, I think I love this idea!)
But here go the changes I would propose:
First, can we please get rid of that freakin' bell, or buzzer, or whatever. How about this: the moderator asks a question, the candidate answers, the moderator or one of the other candidates challenges him/her on the answer and it actually turns into a debate. Could you imagine this exchange:
Gov Perry: "I don't know which Mitt Romney we are going to see because he changes his position every 24-hours. He was for abortion before he was against it, then he was for gun control before he was against is... which is it Governor?"
Gov Romney: "You know Governor, you make a great point. I have had to change my position because I have been wrong on some things. I made mistakes with RomneyCare because I was stuck with a Democratic dominated House in Massachusetts so they made changes I didn't want. And I have always been pro-life, but I made a mistake by giving money to an agency that promoted abortions when I wanted the money to go to helping women in a tough situation. But I can't control those things. But there is one thing I can control, I didn't ever sign up to be the head of a serious bigwig of the liberal movement like Al Gore. So, why did you support Al Gore, Governor? Are you telling me you still support him because if you don't, then you changed positions, which you just said was a horrible thing, right?"
Gov. Perry: "Well, in Texas, we uh, well, you see Texas is great because we do things there like threatening to secede from the Union. It means we don't ever back down from a fight, right Ron Paul?"
Rep Paul: "Sorry Governor. I'm all for the Constitution, which says Freedom of Speech is guaranteed. And it sounds like you are exercising you right to melt down."
Gov. Perry: "But I said I would do things differently, like sew Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain together into the greatest Frankenstein VP ever and let him have a tax credit to go to Texas, because illegals aren't monsters, and monsters aren't illegal, they are just trying to dig holes like Gov. Johnson's neighbors dogs...."
Audience: Cricket, Cricket, Cricket.

I mean, don't we all want to see that debate?

There is one more thing I would change about the debate...
Do we really need 9 people on the stage? I mean, I loved the shovel ready project line by Johnson, but does he really have a chance in hell of becoming the President? How about Rick Santorum? Or John Huntsman? I think if you can't pull at least 5% you should have to go to a different debate.
Let's take a note from the English Premier League (soccer, for those of you who don't know.) Every year they have 20 clubs play the season and the bottom four get sent to the lower league and are replaced by the top four from that league.
So if you had, say a "Top 5" debate, according to RealClearPolitics polling, it would have been Perry, Romney, Cain, Gingrich and Bachman.
Ron Paul would have just missed out because the most recent poll by Rasmussen had him 6th. But if you averaged the last three polls, he would be in. So while you have the Top 5 debate, the next night you can have the "Everybody Else" debate to actually hear where they stand. You don't think that a bad showing in the Top 5 by Bachman wouldn't drop her into the EE debate? And after last night, maybe Cain gets bumped up. Its a win/win for everyone.
The heavy hitters have a chance to really show off who they are, the 3rd tier guys actually get a chance to be heard and America might find out what the candidates actually think.

I have some other changes, but I think that is good for now. Realistically, it doesn't matter who the Republican is because if unemployment stays above 9%, the economy grows at less than 2% and gas is over $3.50 nationally, Obama is toast. But hopefully American also give the supermajority to the Republicans and whomever is in the White House actually acts like a Conservative. I hope they will, but I hoped for that with President Bush, too (shaking head....)

After I wrote all that, I went back to proof read. That's when I came up with the military moderating the debate. Really, isn't that a freakin' brilliant idea? (If I do say so myself!)