We at TPP are walking away from the Vegas "debate" disappointed. We did the quick analysis last night and called it a breakfast buffet. The quick recap is that Romney was the eggs - lots of him, but not really very satisfying. Cain and Gingrich were the bacon - a guilty pleasure. Santorum was the potatoes - hearty but bland. Bachmann and Perry are toast - literally. And Ron Paul is the salsa - some tasty stuff and some stuff that burns most people, and there's no way to separate the bad from the good.

We liked putting a different spin on it, but as we redid the play by play, our disappointment rose. This was yet one more showcase for Mitt Romney, and the "moderator" Anderson Cooper, who did his best to ask inane or gotcha questions. This was borne out with the final question about the hostage / Palestinian swap in Israel, which had a test run earlier in the day when sprung on Herman Cain by Wolf Blitzer.

The debates have not served the electorate well. They have been a hatchet job by sound bite, alternately ignoring or taking down anyone who represents a serious challenge to Romney. You've seen the pattern - Pawlenty, Bachman, Perry, and now Cain were presented as an alternative to the inevitable, and then beaten down by the media, and the pundits. The rest of the field joins in just to get some attention. Ron Paul has been complaining about this since day one.

If our only criteria for choosing a nominee were these debates as presented, we are left with not a two man race, but a one and a half man race. The one man is Romney. The half is Herman Cain who was bloodied up pretty well last night, but he's still standing. For now. Everyone else has been marginalized (Bachmann, Paul, Perry), dropped out (Pawlenty, and by default Christie and Palin who could see the writing on the wall) or has just been ignored (Gingrich, Santorum).

We need to hear these candidates in different forums, but unfortunately, this is the only forum that gets national media attention.We have been warned that Rick Perry was horrible at debates, and he has lived down to that reputation. He comes across well in other forums. Cain is good at debates and not so good in speaking off the cuff during interviews.

Gingrich has consistently presented good ideas and calls out the media on their games whenever he can. He just seldom gets a microphone. Santorum doesn't give sound bite answers, he explains his positions completely. He has not been given the opportunity to do so in this forum.

Bachmann and Paul are not crazy (though we disagree with Rep. Paul on his many of his positions about foreign policy, and generally agree with him on fiscal matters). They are being presented as such by the media who has settled on their candidate - Mitt Romney.

We are not ripping on Mitt either. Mitt has had 5 years of practice at running for President, and he's good at it. He may actually be the best candidate of the bunch, we just don't know. Romneycare is a problem, and it is a problem, in part, because it is presented as a sound bite during a 60 second answer in a debate forum. The problem is the forum at this point.

There is no way to put 8 or 10 people up on a stage, limit them to 60 second answers, ask them foolish questions, and expect to come up with a more educated opinion of anyone running. All we are watching is a cage match, DC style. A debate forum works between 2 candidates, debating each other. Lincoln / Douglas. Kennedy / Nixon. Reagan / Carter. Group debates serve no one, which is proven by the fact that all of the network sponsors, including FoxNews, delivered the same poor product.

Now that we have stated the obvious, what is the solution? How do we get to know our candidates in a meaningful way? How do we inform our vote?

Here's an idea, which we feel will be helpful. Remember "60 Minutes" before the Dan Rather meltdown? Nothing brought more fear into a public official's heart than the sight of Mike Wallace charging into the office with a camera crew in tow. Interviews were tough, talking points and spin were dismissed out of hand, and the subject of the interview was pressed, and pressed hard. Maybe it's time for Chris to pick up his father's mantle.

We suggest a one hour interview for each candidate, in the same manner. The live interview will be videoed, and presented, UNEDITED in whatever media forums are available online and on television. It doesn't need to be Chis Wallace interviewing, and it certainly shouldn't be FoxNews sponsoring this. They will be accused of softballing. It also shouldn't be a mainstream media outlet, which just can't resist the gotcha "journalism".

Ideally, this is a job for an outside, but respected conservative group. The Heritage Foundation comes to mind as a possibility. They can partner with a media outlet - C-SPAN, for example, to access video distrbution. PBS can be enlisted as well as part of their mandate is public education. Everyone gets a PBS station on broadcast TV.

Of greatest importance will be the integrity of the journalist and the research staff assigned to this project. The interviewer must be willing to challenge non-answers, push past talking points, and remain professionally impartial. Research behind the interviews must be accurate and documented. Everything needs to be above board to be trusted.

We feel that this would better serve the needs of the electorate at this point. It would certainly provide an opportunity for voters to educate themselves as opposed to the pop entertainment that the debates have failed to do. A debate is a forum for two opposing sides to argue the value of their ideas. It is not a valuable tool in discerning a "winner" between a group of people who have largely similar views. And they do have largely similar views, pre-eminent among them, that President Obama needs to go. Common Sense agrees with that premise.

RLB