Before the 2012 presidential campaign hits full stride, let's acknowledge the obvious: presidential debates are a joke.  In fact, they have become such theatrical productions that it seems the only actual benefit coming from their quadrennial occurrence is to provide enough fodder for the comedians at Saturday Night Live to sustain their tired program.

That's why it was so refreshing to hear a prominent politician like former Speaker of the House and potential future presidential candidate Newt Gingrich propose dramatic changes to the debate format.

In a discussion with C-SPAN's Steve Scully, Gingrich reasoned, "I think that the candidates and the Party ought to organize the debates [and] not the news media."

Almost instinctively, Scully responded, "Can you do that?"  My humble answer to Mr. Scully is of course we can, and if we're serious about saving the country, we will.

The media is in a perpetual competition to put on productions that people will watch - it's how they make their money.  Long-winded, serious conversations about foreign and domestic policy may produce better presidents, but they don't produce better ratings.  And consequently, the American people are subjected to such scripted, rehearsed, stiff and unimaginative exchanges between candidates that many times it is difficult to detect any real differences in their ideas or beliefs.

That's not good for the country, and it's why I join with Gingrich (though he was focusing on primaries) in proposing a total revamp to the system.  As implausible as I will be told this is, here's my suggestion: in the three months following the conventions and leading up to the presidential election, the two nominees of their respective parties will tour the country...together.

Traveling from state to state, the candidates won't hold private political rallies where they deliver a standard stump speech to supporters, but rather will engage in open exchanges with their opponent in front of large audiences.  No moderator is necessary as they candidates will either take unscreened questions from the audience, or they will pose questions to each other.  And while there could be a time limit placed on the entire debate, the candidates will get as long as they need to expound upon and explain their positions in detail.  No more, "raise your hand if you think the earth is warming" nonsense, or as Gingrich expressed, "You now have 30 seconds to describe your policy on Pakistan."

In terms of the media, it's simple: let them decide what debates they want to cover and what ones they want to ignore...there will be plenty to choose from.  But whatever they do, the media will be observers just like everyone else.

So what would happen if we actually saw this type of dramatic change?  The truth is we already know.  The famed Lincoln/Douglas debates were modeled in this manner: 7 debates, 3 hours in length, free exchange of ideas, no moderator - just a timekeeper.  What resulted were the most meaningful debates our nation has ever seen between potential officeholders...so much so that we're still talking about them today (do you think in another 150 years anyone will be talking about the great Obama/McCain debates?).

Additionally, a change of this nature might bring a modicum of civility to our public discourse.  Locking the two candidates in a bus together would force them to get to know one another, and perhaps learn to respect their opponent enough to keep disagreements policy-based rather than personal.

Finally, think of the kind of candidates who wouldn't survive this gauntlet.  By expecting substantive discussions about issues, we would effectively eliminate from contention candidates who are far out of the American mainstream.  There is little doubt that had Americans been exposed to Barack Obama's fascination with European-style socialism during the 2008 campaign, his popularity as a candidate then would have mirrored his popularity as president now.  Instead, through carefully scripted statements on his Teleprompter that revealed nothing about what he really believed, Obama traversed the entire landscape of a presidential campaign without ever being asked to explain what he meant by "hope and change."  Republicans should be on board with this idea.

We would also eliminate candidates who are ignorant and unqualified.  While bumper sticker sloganeering, lofting rhetorical bombs, and rote recitation of a stump speech can be mastered by virtually any political dimwit, standing on a stage for three hours passionately and articulately defending your beliefs takes someone who is wise, well-reasoned and intelligent.  If Sarah Palin is truly the dunce they say she is, Democrats should be on board with this idea.

So let's call the bluff of our two political parties: if Democrats are serious about preventing "dolts" like George W. Bush from ascending to the presidency, and if Republicans are serious about preventing "socialists" like Barack Obama from accomplishing the same, they should immediately seize control of presidential debates and make them something valuable to more people than Will Ferrell and Tina Fey.

This column was first published at The American Thinker.

Had Dante penned his opus The Inferno in our time, there is little doubt in my mind that he would have replaced the punishments for Judas, Cassius and Brutus in his ninth and most dastardly level of Hell.  Rather than being devoured by one of Lucifer's three heads, they would have been strapped to wooden chairs and been subjected to an unending loop of episodes from ABC's "The View."  Even joking about such a penalty causes me to cringe at the thought.

Attempting to find a more vacuous, more irrational mixture of moral idiocy, intellectual bankruptcy, and mind-numbing contradictions is a futile task.  Consider as but one example the recent exchange between The View's queen of incoherence, Joy Behar, and mega-minister Joel Osteen.

Having previously seen Osteen's weak performance on CNN's Larry King Live when the mild-mannered host pressured him on the issue of homosexuality, I wasn't expecting a rigorous defense of moral truth when that same subject was raised by Barbara Walters.

True to form, Osteen began a very tepid response by saying, "I mean, the main thing Barbara, is we are for people.  Sometimes we get stuck on..." That's as far as he got before the Behar badgering commenced.

"You know it's not a choice, Pastor," she interrupted, "I don't think that God would look askance at homosexuality in that way."  She continued, "They're born this way...they are what they are."

Try as he might, the affable minister couldn't get a word in as Joy kept pouring it on.  "And so the Christian church should embrace that notion."  Joy Behar: philosopher, scientist, theologian.

Then came the inevitable moment that almost makes watching this show tolerable.  After throwing out enough rhetorical rope, Ms. Behar promptly hung herself.  "You wouldn't reject somebody that had a deformity," she reasoned.  Quickly realizing she had just likened the very cause she was supposedly defending to a warped abnormality (can you imagine the righteous indignation she would have expressed if Osteen had made such a comparison?), Joy tried to distract the audience and blanket her gaffe with what has become the tired accusation of left.

"When you say that the Bible is against gays, that makes people get bullied, and bad things happen to people because of what the people say about that," Behar thundered.

This is the biggest problem with The View.  It takes so much time and energy to respond to all the logical fallacies in that simple sound bite that most rational minds don't even bother.  But rather than discourage or embarrass the feeble mind that produced it, being dismissed is interpreted by the Behar crowd as validation.  It feeds the beast.

And so as someone who is quite convinced that the beast needs to be starved rather than gorged, let me address these misstatements.

First, the Bible is not "against gays."  The Bible condemns the activity of homosexuality, as well as many other sexually deviant behaviors.  In fact, the Bible doesn't even recognize the existence of a group known as "gays."  It acknowledges the existence of males and females, and the moral expectations for their sexual behavior (and yes, Joy, behavior is always a choice).

Second, the Bible never commends or advocates bullying of any kind.  Whether the Golden Rule, the fruit of the Spirit, or the parables of Christ himself, Christian principle teaches respect and dignity for all those made in the image of God.

Third, there is a profound difference between moral objection to the behavior of homosexuality and the physical intimidation or abuse of those tempted by same-sex attraction.  Warning against and opposing the societal embrace of certain sexual behaviors is not bullying. 

If it is, Ms. Behar, I look forward to your upcoming show in which you will chastise First Lady Michelle Obama for being a willing accomplice of the brutal bullying of obese children.  After all, the most bullied group of young people in our country remains the overweight children.  Mrs. Obama's warning against the societal embrace of unhealthy eating habits is only ostracizing and stigmatizing the fat kids, thus inviting more bullying.  And her opposition to overeating couldn't be born out of love and concern for those kids' well being, could it Ms. Behar?

Finally, to put the last nail in the coffin of incoherence that defines those dames of disinformation, simply stop and think what happened on The View almost exactly one month prior to the Osteen exchange.

That was the day that Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg stormed out of the studio, outraged that guest Bill O'Reilly had stated the seemingly obvious fact that the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims.

That's all you need to know.  On The View, Bible-inspired bullying is a given.  But Koran-inspired terror is such an unmentionable thought, the hostesses can't tolerate it.

This show should come with a mental health advisory.

This column first appeared at The American Thinker.

In an email to supporters the day after the 2010 midterm elections, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards wrote, "There's no getting around it: the results of yesterday's election are truly alarming."  She lamented the "extremists" who had been elected, and who would "pursue a dangerous agenda."  That agenda, of course, is saving unborn children from being murdered.

Still, amidst the doom and gloom of her correspondence, she pointed to one shining success for the movement of legalized child killing: Colorado's ballot initiative 62 - an amendment that would have defined the child in the womb as a person and therefore entitled to legal protection - was defeated by voters 70% to 30%.

Ironically, though this is perceived as a victory for the abortion lobby, the debate that preceded it actually exposed the Achilles heel of the anti-life movement in America.  It is now beyond question that the entire case for legalized abortion is one that totally eschews science, medicine, logic and rational thought.  The best justification Planned Parenthood can offer for the perpetuation of this barbaric practice is a relativistic brand of emotional appeals that offend the intellect and shock the conscience.

For proof, consider what happened at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado, just weeks before the election.  Debating the two sides of Amendment 62 were spokesmen for Personhood USA and an organization called Advocates for Choice, the college outreach group of Planned Parenthood.

After being presented with the biological evidence of the unborn child's humanity, a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman proudly proclaimed to the audience, "We are not going to try to use science or evidence, the fact of the matter is, this is, this is opinion.  We all have our own opinions as far as when human life begins."

The utter stupidity inherent in such a statement is hard to digest.  Is it seriously the position of Planned Parenthood that what constitutes human life and what does not is merely a matter of personal opinion?  A murderer is no longer a murderer if he or she simply declares that they don't believe in the humanity of their victim? 

This relativistic tripe makes a mockery of what is legitimately and scientifically known: that the terms "embryo" and "fetus" - just as other terms like "infant" or "adult" - don't refer to nonhumans.  They refer to humans at particular stages of development.  But this blatant antipathy towards science, expressed by the Advocates for Choice, was just beginning.

Later, that same Planned Parenthood spokeswoman enlightened the audience that, "What is inside a body that cannot function outside its host is not a child."  Leaving aside the galling use of the word "host" to define the relationship between a mother and her baby, this argument represents a transparent strategy of misdirection. 

Viability - that is, the ability to function independently and autonomously - is an arbitrary line that is drawn to determine what a person can do.  It does not determine what a person is.  Highlighting that significant detail literally implodes this entire line of faulty logic.

Yet seemingly undeterred by these inconvenient facts, the anti-science activists from Planned Parenthood railed on: "We're talking about science as if it is something that is absolutely concrete, like there is absolute proof that there is life and there is not life."

Knowing how to respond to that ridiculousness is difficult, because it demonstrates not only a total disregard of simple biology, but a bizarre contempt for rational thinking.  Ignorance is frustrating.  But taking pride in ignorance is scary. 

And how can we not be frightened when considering that the same Planned Parenthood activists that went on to level further jewels of idiocy like, "science cannot be applied to my body," and "the heart doesn't beat ?til 24 weeks" (medical science has established the heart begins beating at 3 weeks), are the very ones who have crafted our national policy on abortion?

Listening to their parade of buffoonery, I understand why the leadership of Planned Parenthood is concerned about the outcome of the recent elections.  To their eternal shame, the Democrat Party has sold its soul to forces perpetuating the great moral evil of our day.  In exchange for campaign donations and votes, they have been willing to facilitate the transfer of millions of taxpayer dollars to this abortion mill. 

But with heavy Democrat losses at the national and state level comes the possibility of dealing with Republican lawmakers who will not be willing to barter the lives of unborn children for Planned Parenthood's blood money.

Indeed, Indiana's staunch conservative Representative Mike Pence has already authored legislation to strip the abortion chain of their federal funding.  And with Republicans gaining almost 700 state legislature seats across the country, several have signaled their intent to do the same.

God willing, they will follow through.  For as the Advocates for Choice demonstrate, the science of this issue was settled long ago.  All that remains is for us to have the moral courage to act on it.

After his self-described shellacking at the polls last Tuesday, astute political observers began postulating and pontificating whether or not Barack Obama would seek to moderate his agenda from the far left lollapalooza he has been pursuing since inauguration day.

Without question, such a move would be a humbling experience for a man who chose to characterize his first two years in office by hubris and unparalleled condescension towards his conquered political adversaries. 

After all, how does a man who - as recently as two weeks ago - told Republicans that "they can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back," and that they shouldn't "do a lot of talking," reach out a hand of bipartisanship when the tables turn as dramatically as they have? 

How does he expect to maintain any shred of credibility when he proclaims that a Republican victory means the people want the two parties to "work together," given that two years ago he declared that a Democrat victory gave him license to lock Republicans out of policy-making and call all the shots? 

How does he face a gavel-wielding John Boehner and expect cooperation when after winning the presidency he boasted in Boehner's face that "elections have consequences and at the end of the day, I won?" 

Attempting any of this would require eating so much crow it would frighten even Alfred Hitchcock.  Yet, that was the move many political analysts felt was incumbent upon the president.  They argued that he must emulate Bill Clinton and move to the center if he wanted to accomplish anything and salvage his presidency.

But the president gave them less than 24 hours to discuss and debate his intentions before confirming what many of us already knew...Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton.

Holding a press conference at the White House, Obama was asked whether he dismissed the notion that the election results were a rejection of his policies.  His answer: yes.

More specifically, when pressed on the fate of his signature government healthcare takeover, Obama intoned, "We'd be misreading the election if we thought the American people want to see us for the next two years re-litigate arguments we had over the last two years."

It is tough to imagine a more incoherent conclusion.  In the months preceding the midterm elections, polls consistently showed that support for the Republican Party was far from overwhelming.  The electorate had warmed very little towards the party who had so recently betrayed their trust.  So how did moderately popular Republicans deliver one of the most extraordinary Congressional takeovers in history?  Simply put: they ran a national campaign as the party that will reverse Obama's agenda, specifically repealing ObamaCare.

What is more, the number of Democrats who campaigned for re-election not just by distancing themselves from that policy, but actually running against it, was embarrassing.  And those who didn't - those who stood by their ObamaCare votes - went down in flames. 

Figuring out what the electorate was saying then is not rocket science.  In fact, it's the same message the voters in Massachusetts had sent back in January when they elected a man to the Senate, Scott Brown, who campaigned as #41 (his election represented the 41^st vote needed for Republicans to filibuster and stop ObamaCare in the first place).  And it's the same message the public was sending when the largest grassroots political movement the country has seen for generations stormed Congressional town hall meetings and marched on Washington, D.C. in an effort to prevent the healthcare takeover.

Yet then, as now, Barack Obama arrogantly ignored the electorate.

Call it stubbornness or foolishness, but this much is clear: the president is not changing course.  He is, above all else, a radical ideologue committed to pursuing his left-wing agenda.  He is convinced that if he lectures us long enough, we will begin to understand his brilliance and appreciate his greatness.

Not that any of this should surprise us.  After all, it was Obama and the Democrats' fundamental misreading of the 2008 presidential election that actually brought us to this point to begin with.  Rather than recognize his election for what it was: a vote for symbolism (youth, energy, change, charisma, biracial diversity) over substance (not even his most ardent supporters could name a single Obama legislative accomplishment), they regarded it as a mandate for an unapologetic crusade of radical liberal progressivism.

The results of that misinterpretation are self-evident: an enraged electorate, disillusioned supporters, and devastation at the polls.  Yet despite all this, Mr. Obama has signaled he has no desire to take correction from the unwashed masses he has spent two years pretending he is above. 

Unlike Bill Clinton, it appears his pride will prevent him from changing course as the people have demanded.  Which most likely means that unlike Bill Clinton, he won't need to worry about writing a second inaugural address.

NOTE: This column was first published at The American Thinker.