House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (Fla.) and Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), in an unusual joint press release last week, announced a series of bipartisan congressional debates designed to foster serious discussion about each side’s differences in addressing the nation’s most pressing problems.

“Too often, those differences are boiled down to sound bites and partisan talking points. ‘Congress Debates’ is an effort to break through the rancor of Washington and return real policy discussion to the debate between the parties,” the release stated.

Apart from my snarky observation that Putnam and Emanuel are both specifically tasked by their parties to actually create those nasty “sound bites,” and crack the whip if their members stray from their precious “partisan talking points,” the idea is commendable.

Stretching a bit, Putnam goes on to say: “These debates present a unique opportunity for the American people to see an extension of the healthy exchange of ideas that occurs every day on the floor of the House of Representatives.”

“Extension of the healthy exchange”?!!

No disrespect intended, but unless Putnam is talking about the scintillating debate commending the Houston Dynamo soccer team for winning the 2007 Major League Soccer Cup, “healthy exchange” gave way to stilted, sterile, non-responsive, unilateral, individualized, pre-written mini-speeches about the same time that “cut and paste” was discovered and Abrams tank-sized Xerox printers started cranking out floor charts the size of those billboards you see near South of the Border.

That little snit aside, the first debate will be held Feb. 25 at George Washington University, exactly 2.92 miles from Capitol Hill.

I know it might be a bit of old-fashioned, inside-the-box thinking, but what if these debate-craving members of Congress were to stay closer to home, save the cab fare, reduce their carbon footprint and start “healthy exchanging” right there on the House floor?

What if the rules and schedules were tweaked to encourage members to come to the House floor, listen to one another and (dare I say it) talk to one another?

I am talking about true, honest-to-goodness-full-brain engagement on the issues. In all my years of listening to floor debate I would be hard-pressed to find a single instance in which one member popped up and admitted to having his or her views shaped, let alone changed, by the persuasive argument of an esteemed colleague.

It must happen somewhere, right? Over coffee? Sharing elevator and train rides? Walking to committee hearings? Standing in line for lottery tickets?

Surely, smart, highly motivated, passionate, serious public servants, in the Capitol of the most-free nation on earth, would enjoy the intellectual adventure of having their preconceived notions pushed, prodded, poked, cajoled and even occasionally changed, right?

Sometimes I get the feeling that modern-day politicians might be too preoccupied with other matters to give it much thought. It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that most remote-clicking voters rank watching House floor debate right up there with waterboarding and toenail-pulling, would it?

Surely those same voters don’t want a bunch of insecure, frazzled, nervous-ninny officeholders spending all their discretionary time racing all over creation, raising dough so they can “talk” back at them in 30-second TV spots. That would be counterproductive and silly, right?

I know this is more than a tad naïve and covered with Pollyanna dust, but maybe we could set aside just one hour in the, ahem, hectic floor schedule each week when it would be Improv-Open-Mic Night. No pre-written speeches. No Notes. No Charts. Just intelligent, passionate people from both parties openly discussing issues that are important to them and their beloved nation.

The only requirement for participating would be that the member sign a pledge that he or she has come to the House chamber wanting to learn something. Pretty soon there might be something more compelling to watch on primetime television than “American Idol Rewind.”

The American people just might be ready for new programming. I haven’t Googled it, but unless I missed it, the recent Hollywood writers’ strike didn’t spawn a rash of suicides, did it?

In his 1988 autobiography, written with Jack Casserly, former senator and GOP presidential contender Barry Goldwater talked about a naïve 1963 plan he concocted with his political adversary, President John F. Kennedy.

Anticipating clear sailing against Kennedy in the 1964 race, Goldwater writes: “Kennedy and I informally agreed — it seems a pipe dream in looking at some of today’s negative campaigning — that we would ride the same plane or train to several stops and debate face to face on the same platform.

“It was my hope that our direct confrontation would make it clear to the American people that genuine commitment and principles are necessary to sustain all great countries.”

It is fanciful to suppose, even with Barack Obama’s politics of hope, Mike Huckabee’s winning personality, and the celebrated vodka-drinking-traveling-companion relationship between John McCain and Hillary Clinton, that we might get lucky this election cycle.

But maybe the people will wrest back the political remote control from the candidates, take to the streets, hustle down the avenue and reject any candidate or candidate surrogate who plays the race card, the victim card or any other card that distracts the greatest nation on earth from serious debate during very serious times.

Now, that would be something worth pimping for.

You can reach Jim Mills at This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it