As I think about all the things I dislike about the direction Mr. Obama is trying to take us, I wonder what the Great United States of America would be like now with a different president.

I disregard the democrats without much thought because of my extreme conservative orientation, both fiscal and social. You know, small government - not just smaller but small - and almost no government intervention into individual affairs. I want a government that does for us what we cannot possibly do for ourselves, such as building roads and maintaining a strong national defense.

There were three 2008 republican candidates I would have eagerly voted for. I did vote for Mr. McCain, my second choice, and I was surprised his showing wasn’t better because of his popularity here in Arizona, his state of residence. Perhaps it was that people were leery of Mrs. Palin and it might be that voters thought of him as a dud. My first and third choices were Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee respectively.

I think the 2008 outcome might have been closer with a different debate structure. The 2008 debates between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama didn't tell me anything new. Why? Because of the structured questions - yielding the same answers as we have already heard - that were picked in advance and asked by a moderator. Therefore, the candidates had little opportunity to be themselves - something I would like to see.

I thoroughly enjoyed watching Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain in their good-natured verbal jousting session during the 2008 Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner October 17. There, they were on their own as they should be, I think, in debates.

Here's how I think at least one of the debates should go.

Assign the candidates nine topics for the ninety minutes. That's ten minutes for each topic. Then, let them go. During each ten minute segment we would see each candidate state his or her position, question the other and attempt to debunk the other's ideas with or without interruption.

After all, that's how most of us persuade others. We state our position, question the other and attempt to debunk the other's ideas in meaningful dialog. Sometimes it works to our advantage. Other times it doesn't. Regardless, the approach more times than not has genuine productive results.

Ideally, I think the best approach would be for the candidates to engage in a ten minute discussion for each topic while sitting in chairs much like we discuss issues at home.

If used in presidential debates, this approach will let us see the candidates in action, probably as energetic debaters and with a passion for what they believe. Further, the candidates would not be restricted to 60-120 seconds for answering questions which, judging by the time overruns, seems to short. Too, this approach will minimize, and might even eliminate, moderator bias.

We've seen too many presidential debates where the candidates come across as stuffed shirts. They cannot feel good about themselves. We shouldn't feel good about them either for they say little that we haven't already learned from the media.