Robin Williams once said that like parliament was like Congress but with a two drink minimum. I love to watch them shout each other down.

/wonder if McCain really means it

Well, groove is in the heart.

Only if the Congress could vote the president out of office (or call a new election) with a simple majority.

You mean there isn't a question period in the US government?

That's just weird because I always thought there was. I do hope they introduce this soon.

Old news as I remember him proposing this very early in the campaign cycle, perhaps even during the primaries. Either way, I think it's a great idea. I love watching PMQ on CSPAN, and I think it'd be fantastic viewing here in America with our crazy politicians.

/waiting for the muthaship

Though I'd love to see it happen, I fear that it would be boring as hell. American politicians take themselves too seriously to let out a resounding "yeaaaaaaaaaah" after someone makes a point they agree with.

GoDawgs!: Though I'd love to see it happen, I fear that it would be boring as hell. American politicians take themselves too seriously to let out a resounding "yeaaaaaaaaaah" after someone makes a point they agree with.

Exactly.

There would be no entertainment value in it.

Thing with the House of Commons is the seating is much more intimate than in either house of Congress. Plus the rules are a bit different. Though Congress could use a bit of just shouting out and talking over people.

To illustrate my point, here is the House of Commons



and here is, part, of the US House of Representatives



between size and seating arrangement, the US just doesn't have it for talking out and such

sure he will. Bush wasn't going to be a nation builder either.
He was going to restore integrity to the white house and cut spending.

I LOLed, submitter .

It's not actually that great an idea. There's rarely any questioning, usually it's point-scoring and shouting, or shameless toadying and planted questions.

I've been to Prime Ministers questions a lot (I work just over the road from the palace of Westminster) and it's fun, although less so since they put the big perspex screen in the public gallery. But fun isn't the point.

This almost seems to be an admission from McCain that he's expecting to lose, and wants Obama to put up with a Q&A. McCain can't even handle softball "Why are you so awesome?" questions from Fox News without stumbling.

If McCain honestly believes he can handle a Q&A from a hostile Democratic-majority Congress, he's out of his farking mind.

Bush, sadly, is probably the least communicative President in US history. He used the Republican majority in Congress to rubber stamp legislation for so long that by the time the Democrats took over he didn't have any relationships he could lean on.

But he's getting his way. Democrats won in 2006 as the anti-Bush, anti-Republican party and they rolled over for Bush on war and surveillance.

Hmm... I can see both the good and the bad of this. However, I think more often than not it would turn out about like the Titanic: A good idea at first but ultimately it will sink and leave a lot of bodies.

It would be interesting if there were a way to enforce a rule that questions could not cover any front page news from the past week. That might lead to less bickering for the cameras and more productive discussion about real issues. Alternatively, put the video of the session on a one week delay.

How about importing the custom of "loser pays" in lawsuits?

I would love to see this dude's closet

This thread is suffering from a lack of the funk.

I propose the custom of C-SPAN tasering. Viewers can dial a 900# to vote for or against the politician blathering at the podium, and if a certain threshold is reached, a 50,000 volt shock gently reminds him to leave the stage.

Then people can drag him off to a recovery room, and the next one can speak.

/They can call it "Ow! My bills!"

ZAZ: It would be interesting if there were a way to enforce a rule that questions could not cover any front page news from the past week. That might lead to less bickering for the cameras and more productive discussion about real issues. Alternatively, put the video of the session on a one week delay.

Have you ever heard any part of the British Prime Minister's question and answer session? It isn't about cutting down on bickering, it is about giving the opposition party a chance to call the PM out on the carpet, to keep him on the straight and narrow as it were.

There is vastly more good than bad in this idea.

A functional idiot like Bush would never have been able to get reelected for a second term if he had to face down hostile questions on live TV.

We need more politicians like Clinton & Blair. Not because of their party affiliation or politics, but because they know how to put three farking words together without a room full of speechwriters or a closely screened audience.

/bring 'em on

Our Prime Minister actually sits as a Member of Parliament, your President isn't actually a member of your Congress. So I'm not really sure how it'd work. And as someone else said, I can't really imagine American politicians shouting and booing like ours do, it just wouldn't be the same.

Still, I guess it's worth a try.

Bad idea regardless of who proposes it.

McCain should be the last person that should be proposing something like this.

In the slight chance it might make the Republican party think twice about appointing doddering old men or childish morons I support the idea.

I've always fantasized about this, it would be great if applied to Bush Jr. He would have his ass handed to him, time and time again.
Bush couldn't even handle the debate against John Kerry. He got so flustered and pissed. He couldn't handle having hundreds of people laughing in his face. Overall its really interesting to watch, much more entertaining than C-Span.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdYrqVmf7Ts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpVycRpa2L8&feature=related

Best for Last: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xUy2inkGHQ&feature=related

This would have been awesome if we had this, oh, eight years ago.

The lasting impression I have of the UK Q & A sessions is one of a South Park crowd shouting "Rabblerabblerabble" any time the PM tries to say something.

This is great Parliament debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsAa9VmwOaI&feature=related

WhyteRaven74: between size and seating arrangement, the US just doesn't have it for talking out and such

The House Chamber is actually not that big. The camera angles always make it look HUUUUUUGE but when you're actually there, it's really not. It's a little shocking the first time you go in there... Kind of one of those "it's smaller on the inside than on the outside" moments.

Pope George Ringo: Only if the Congress could vote the president out of office (or call a new election) with a simple majority.

This is why it shouldn't be done.

Fun Parliamentary Fact of the day: Sir Horace Walpole the 'first' Prime Minister, spoke no German. The King of England at the time, George the First, spoke no English, so they communicated between each other in Latin.

But back to TFA. I couldn't see America with a form of P.M's questions for the following reasons. Not even in the debates which preface presidential elections, have I ever got a sense that American politicians are able to think on their feet at the speed thats required in PM's Questions. I know Bush couldn't (suspicious bump under his jacket notwithstanding), I don't think McCain could (given the gaffs already made), and I don't think Obama could either (works well with speeches, but unprepared debate? Don't know).
My second reason is, while the American system is sort of Bicameral (the Senate and the House), it also has that triangle thing, with the three branches. Why would a Q&A session be so important to only one of the three branches, which leads me to an interesting proposition. PM's Questions takes place every wednesday for an hour at Midday in Westminster, London, the seat of Government. Why couldn't the US have the President, the Supreme Court, and both Houses in one room to ask questions of each other in the public eye for an hour every week in Washington? The charge of "They've got better things to do" or "They're too busy" doesn't wash well when they're spending your money and are supposed to be working in your interest. Even the Supreme court are public servants, and should be subject to the degree of responsibility to the public in an open advanced society.
Only trouble would be finding someone for the Speaker of the House role, someone who can be trusted in American politics to be apolitical, and has the respect of all present.

I love this idea, I've actually had this thought before - the prospect of a Bushesque dolt trying to hit his talking points and keep his doublespeak consistent on the fly, without speechwriters, would be incredible. They could just replace The Daily Show with live Q + A footage.

This makes a total of two ideas of McCain's that I like, along with the $300 million dollar prize for renewable energy. Still isn't nearly enough to tip the scales though.

Back to the minutiae:

The difference between the two systems is that the PM is ultimately responsible to Commons and, as a member of the Government, they have a right to question him.

The President is not responsible to Congress (nor is Congress responsible to the President, FWIW). If the President agreed to answer questions from the Congress, it would be as if he was subjecting the whole Executive Branch to the Legislative Branch.

Not saying that it wouldn't be a laugh riot, but it's constitutionally specious.

This I want. This I've actually tried to pitch myself in a listening session by Tom Petri (R-WI).

Hey Obama! You got a policy to steal.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat:
The President is not responsible to Congress (nor is Congress responsible to the President, FWIW). If the President agreed to answer questions from the Congress, it would be as if he was subjecting the whole Executive Branch to the Legislative Branch.



A lot of people have a hard time understanding those concepts especially regarding "executive privilege"

I've thought this would be a good idea ever since I caught the PM's minutes on CSPAN one day. It was hilarious and thought-provoking at the same time. I know the Brits aren't too fond of Blair right now, but that guy did a good job fighting back without coming across to smarmy when attacked.

Still, it won't happen here, because the President's minutes would be Bush saying "executive privilege" over and over again as Cheney waves a shotgun in the background.

Tenebreux: Not even in the debates which preface presidential elections, have I ever got a sense that American politicians are able to think on their feet at the speed thats required in PM's Questions.

I think politicians in every country probably have about the same ability to evade, quip, plagerize and snark. Most of the Question Periods I've watched were mostly mundane. Churhillian wit stands out because it's so rare.

As for the debates: make their political career rest on a very few, high-viewerhip national events, and the parliment members will probably stiffen up, become more scripted and gaffe-paranoid too.

i'd prefer seeing a Congressional rumble on occasion, like the South Korea politicians do.

TheOther: As for the debates: make their political career rest on a very few, high-viewerhip national events, and the parliment members will probably stiffen up, become more scripted and gaffe-paranoid too.

Kind of like what has happened in the United States Presidential debates?

Look at the Canadian debates. We had a clown hold up a sign that he wrote on-stage saying "No Two-Tier Healthcare" (honestly!) which devolved the debate into an outright shouting match.

atlanta_ufo: i'd prefer seeing a Congressional rumble on occasion, like the South Korea politicians do.

The Taiwanese are the best.

Have you ever heard any part of the British Prime Minister's question and answer session?

I've seen clips. I haven't seen an unbiased sample.

Donald_McRonald: atlanta_ufo: i'd prefer seeing a Congressional rumble on occasion, like the South Korea politicians do.

The Taiwanese are the best.

The Alabama State Senate ain't so bad either (new window) (not RR)

pvd021: I've always fantasized about this, it would be great if applied to Bush Jr. He would have his ass handed to him, time and time again.
Bush couldn't even handle the debate against John Kerry. He got so flustered and pissed.

No he didn't. Bush held his own which was all he had to do. You obviously did not watch the 04 debates

The guys that are on my side stand up and tell me how great I am, but there'd be others that would have some very tough questions to ask," he said. "I'd like to see that."


Now this sounds like a damn good idea.

pvd021: I've always fantasized about this, it would be great if applied to Bush Jr. He would have his ass handed to him, time and time again.
Bush couldn't even handle the debate against John Kerry. He got so flustered and pissed.

No he didn't. Bush held his own which was all he had to do. You obviously did not watch the 04 debates

I think you're both right. I remember Bush doing horrible in the first debate, getting all flustered and such, and then doing much better in the following debates. This large improvement led to the speculation he had an earpiece to assist him in the subsequent debates.

/the more you know (or remember)

BenderZone: This large improvement led to the speculation he had an earpiece to assist him in the subsequent debates.

I thought it was Satan whispering all the right answers after Bush sold his soul.

McSame wouldn't survive.

/some day he'll even be able to access the Internets!

3_Butt_Cheeks: BenderZone: This large improvement led to the speculation he had an earpiece to assist him in the subsequent debates.

I thought it was Satan whispering all the right answers after Bush sold his soul.

Pfft. Bush never had a soul.

/Yalies from Connecticut have less soul than Milli Vanilli