Session: 1234567891011121314151617         Page 365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418419 of 755

issues, they know their points of view, they know the vulnerabilities of both sides. I think you'd have a very, very interesting discussion. If it doesn't work, you can always change it.

Now, what would I do about the third candidate? There I would want to be sure I had a strong moderator, because I think there's a temptation for the two giants, if you will, to squeeze the third guy out -- not deliberately, just because of the force of the situation.

Perot seemed to insert himself quite well, though, into the dynamic.

Yes, but you're not always going to have a Perot. A strong moderator could say, “Well, now we've heard from the two of you. It's time to hear from So-and-So.” With skill and dignity, I think that could be handled very well. If they get into a shouting match, so be it. That wouldn't bother me. But, I would not have a panel, I would have it run an hour and a half. An hour's too short, if it's a meaningful discussion, and I think it would be: two hours is too much, I think, for the span of attention, but an hour and a half I think could work very well. If I were writing the rules, I would say to the House and the Senate, “Relax Section #315 so it's administered by the FCC,” and I would say to the FCC, “Try this out and see how it works.”

Do you think that's likely to happen?

I don't know, it might. Last night, after I had turned off the set and was thinking back over the campaigns, and particularly the election nights that I spent in the studio and the question of the East/West thing: Two things I think are going to come out of this election, maybe more, that have to do with television, or broadcasting. One is polling and