[Publius]

...it points out that the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858 began the American tradition that live, face-to-face debates are the best way for voters to judge between (among) candidates. It challenges the civic associations in some two dozen towns to get together,. choose a hall, and invite all four of the candidates to appear for a debate.

John, I'm interested in your definition of debate. When we talk of "debate" nowadays, we're really talking about joint press conferences. There is no cross-questioning or anything one would expect from a classical debate.

In the early Nineties, the Lincoln-Douglas debates were staged by re-enactors in the same towns in Illinois where the original debates took place. I saw all the debates on CSPAN and was struck by the difference in formats. While the more formal language of 1858 was difficult to parse, I could see where Lincoln and Douglas did a point/counterpoint that is foreign to today's politics.

Are you planning something like that or what we call "debates" today?

[Congressman Billybob]

There was method in my madness to suggest in my ad that the local "newspaper editor" might run the debate. That would accomplisher three purposes. 1. It would increase the possibility that the debates will take place. 2. It would guarantee thorough press coverage. 3. The editors would know that a good verbal scrap makes good copy.

It is not my purpose to try to dictate the format of the debates. I am on record as saying I will "debate my opponents any time, any where, in any format." No matter what the format, there will be opening statements. And after I make my opening statement, I guar-on-damn-tee that fur will fly.

John / Billybob