What's interesting -- and impressive -- to me is how far even McCain is willing to go to in order to repudiate the Bush administration for its secrecy and bombast. Yes, proposals like this may be nothing more than a ploy to get votes from Independents, but at least he's willing to acknowledge overtly that the Bush way of conducting government has been a travesty.

I still like the idea of unmoderated debates, Noam. This would be many levels up from the ghastly "debates" that have been inflicted on us this electoral season.  No George Stephanopolous to ask irrelevant questions - sounds pretty good to me. And Obama is the golden - tongued orator, right? And McCain has that famous temper, no (he might be goaded into exploding, a likelier possibility in this type of forum)? And McCain gets things wrong even in his area of "expertise", foreign policy; Joe Lieberman had to straighten him out on Sunni and Shia in Iraq - the Barackster could press in if he makes some similar gaffe.

I've wished for an American "PM's Question Time" pretty much forever.

But on constitutional separation-of-powers grounds, it really needs to be done in the Senate only, not the House or both chambers together. And there is precedent; President Washington originally took the "advice and consent" clause seriously by coming to the Senate to ask for advice.

"Like the proposal to Obama, it sounds like a pretty savvy move."

No.  Dumb.  This is not a parliamentary system.  Question Time only works in the context of *debate*, not simply taking questions.  Who would be the leader of the opposition?  How could we have a vote of no confidence?  Would we start hearing the catcalls, laughter and boos from the backbenchers?  Etc.

This is another one of those McCain half-baked notions (see "gas tax holiday") that sounds great but vanishes after 30 seconds of serious consideration, raising real questions of how he would govern.

I think the optics alone would be fantastic for Obama. And McCain has verbal tics that get really grating: take a shot every time he says "My friends...", etc.

timteeter, yeah it is dumb if you analyse it, but most people won't bother to do that, all they hear is that McCain is a maverick open to new ideas. You and I know it will never happen, logistically the House of Representatives is not cut out for it, and having 535 Senators or Reps. shouting out questions would be a disaster, so everyone will vie for the right to ask questions, etc. but like I said, most people will just think "hey, that sounds good" and never give it another thought.

If Obama proposed this, one suspects it would not be receiving such negative replies.

It's not a bad idea.  535 is too many?  There are 646 members of Parliament in just the lower house.  

Question Time needn't fit into the context of debate; the defining characteristic is that the backbenchers are entitled to ask questions (as arranged by party leaders of both sides ahead of time), and the Prime Minister is obligated to answer.  Of course, separation of powers could remove any obligation the President would have to answer truthfully - smarter minds than me would have to figure that out - but, on its face, this is a clever idea with many benefits and few risks.

Give McCain credit for having some moxie here.  This is an idea I wish Obama would propose.

Politically, as blackton noted, this works pretty well for McCain. It allows him to distance himself from some of the Bush administration's truly indefensible opaque government policies (which don't really jibe with his public personality anyway), while still allowing him to full-throatedly advocate Bush-style militaristic bravado.

Also, it looks like McCain's totally caving on the 100 years war comment, saying we'll be out by 2013. It's good to see that Democrats can finally beat Republicans over the head with out-of-context comments and win.  Bodes well for the fall.

McCain has been calling for weekly press conferences and "Question Time" since at least his 2000 campaign.

And while I can understand that there's a tactical reason Obama might want to turn down his offer, is there a substantive reason?

"Democrats can finally beat Republicans over the head with out-of-context comments and win"

I can't speak for any other Dems, but Obama has been more than happy to keep those comments within the true context of McCain's comments. See Obama's interview on Hardball: College Tour; google and youtube both have the videos.

Spinks, oh yes I know Obama's been pretty good on that front.

It's Howard Dean who's been primarily responsible for the cringe-worthy vitriole as of late. But as the tactic seems to have worked pretty well, so I'm glad for that.

Phargle,

This is what we have press conferences for.  

Weekly press conferences, yes.  Maybe the President testifying before Congressional committees, yes.  But "Question time"?  No.

Remember, the President in our system combines both Head of State and Head of Government.  Subjecting him to some sort of Question Time circus (because that's what it would be) would come at the expense of the former.

phargle, the House of Commons has 634 members but few are actually within the chamber during question and answer period. Have you ever noticed how small it is?

Members representing the governing party traditionally occupy those seats to the right of the Chair, with the Prime Minister and the other Ministers seated in the front rows. Private Members, otherwise known as backbenchers, representing the governing party are customarily seated according to their seniority or length of service in the House within their caucus. If the number of Members representing the governing party exceeds the number of desks on the right side, the overflow, or “rump”, of government Members occupies those seats across the aisle. This section may, at the discretion of the Speaker, be near the Chair or at the far end of the Chamber.

Members who represent parties in opposition to the government are seated to the left of the Chair. [245]  The Leader of the Official Opposition is seated immediately opposite the Prime Minister and is flanked by Members of his or her party. Other opposition Members sit, according to party, in the remaining seats: the second-rank opposition party gets the first choice of seats after the Official Opposition, the third-rank party the next choice and so on. [246]  The leading Members of the opposition parties, including House Leaders, whips and critics, sit in the front rows of their designated area.

Those Members who do not have a party designation or who represent a party not recognized by the House are seated subject to the discretion of the Speaker in whatever seats are remaining. These Members typically occupy the desks to the left of the Speaker along the back rows, often but not necessarily near the end of the Chamber. The Speaker allocates the seats for these Members pursuant to their seniority as elected Members, while at the same time retaining a degree of latitude in determining these arrangements.

Three desks immediately to the left of the Chair are reserved for the Deputy Speaker and the other Chair occupants when they are not presiding over the House. There is no seat reserved for the Speaker.

The seating plan is modified frequently during a Parliament, sometimes following changes within a party, sometimes as a result of negotiations among the parties. Any changes in the seating of a Member or Members within a party are made by the whip who then notifies the Speaker. If a Member is expelled from his or her party, or chooses to leave to sit as an independent, then the Speaker reassigns a new seat to the Member.