I freely admit to being completely burned out on what are perversely called "debates" in our modern political culture. The format, despite its various permutations (single moderator, moderator with panel of questioners, townhall format, YouTube format, "mash-up," ethnocentric, etc.), fails to effectively draw out the philosophies, positions, and proposals of the leading candidates. Instead, it seems designed to deliver a more vacuous and uninformative joint press conference than precedes most boxing matches.

That said, the Iowa Republican debate held yesterday morning has to be the worst I can recall. Most high schools in Iowa could have put on a better production on 24 hours' notice than Iowa's PBS and the Des Moines Register managed with weeks of time to prepare. Whole major areas of inquiry, including key issues like Iraq and immigration, were ruled out preemptively because, the organizers supposed, "Iowans say they know where the candidates are coming from on those." Uh-huh. This immediately insulates those candidates vulnerable on those issues - like Huckabee and Paul on foreign policy, McCain on immigration - and deprives those strong on them from benefit. Off the top.

Then, the first rounds were limited to answers of a few seconds, and enough time to truly explain one's thoughts on a serious issue was never granted. Sure, there were many candidates to divide the time amongst, but whose fault is that? IPBS and DMR didn't have to invite so many (including Alan Keyes????? WTF? - but they won't invite Kucinich to the Dem's debate they're hosting? They are discriminating among nuts!), or waste time with meaningless "candidate videos." Nobody made them invite Tancredo, Hunter, Paul, and Keyes.

Did I mention the questioning from Carolyn Washburn was asinine? Honestly: "Suggest a New Year's Resolution for one of your opponents (in 15 seconds)?" She may be a great editor, but she shouldn't be allowed within 500 feet of a debate moderator's chair. If that means keeping her in the lobby, or the parking lot, so be it. She embarrassed herself and her paper and her state. If she owns pets, they were embarrassed, too.

Having expressed my frustrations, who won? On overall performance, Mitt Romney. He returned to his form of the earlier debates, and came across as Presidential (insofar as the stupid format would allow). But Fred Thompson also gave his best performance yet, showing the style and ease which were expected of him when his candidacy was still a rumor. He scored particularly well by simply refusing to participate in the ridiculous charade of "a show of hands." It's supposed to be a debate, an exchange of ideas. They ask better questions on The View. Mike Huckabee turned in another good debate, too, and I won't pick a fight with those who think he or Fred won.

Giuliani and McCain weren't bad, but seemed relegated to the background in this one. Both men seem to do better with longer answers, which weren't availed them here, and of course they have been seen as strongest on the security issues which weren't addressed. They didn't hurt themselves, but didn't make any progress either.

The rest don't even belong on the stage at this point in the campaign. If they haven't made the "first tier" after so long, they aren't going to get there. Let's be realistic.

The top candidates need to start organizing their own debates, with a moderator to serve as timekeeper only, making sure everyone gets the same opportunity to speak. Then, let the candidates determine the course of the discussion themselves and use their share of time as they see fit. Use it all, and their microphones are cut off for the rest of the debate. No rules; just right.

The transcript of the debate is here, and trust me, it's better than the video.