Mind your Qs and As

One of the things I realized while following presidential candidates around Iowa for the Jan. 19 caucus was that Americans so rarely get to see their presidents in action.\nWhen we do get to see them in action, it's before they're president -- while they're in campaign mode.\nOnce they ascend to the office of the presidency, however, they become detached from it all. In fact, the only time the president is constitutionally required to communicate with Americans is through the State of the Union, which until 1913 was typically done through a letter instead of a speech.\nCompare this to our allies across the ocean who have a much more in-your-face procedural style. When Parliament is in session, the Prime Minister of Great Britain is constitutionally required to field questions about a variety of subjects for 30 minutes a week.\n"Prime Minister's Questions," as they are called, are very popular in England, and the show is replayed in America on C-SPAN.\nIf you've never seen it, basically, the Prime Minister takes flak and is hit with questions from the politically right and the politically left and then inevitably responds with a very witty comeback. No member of Parliament is apparently ever satisfied, and the body politic is always shouting inaudible things in its dismay, as depicted in this fictitious yet applicable exchange:\nMember: Does the Prime Minister have anything to say to my constituents of South Brookingshirewood North who are among the FOUR people in this country who have lost jobs under the Prime Minister's awful economic programs?\nParliament: Rabble rabble rabble!\nPrime Minister: I welcome the question from my friend and would tell him that I have spoken directly to his constituents and, as of this morning, found them employment.\nParliament: Rabble rabble rabble!\nIt can be completely silly (that's government for you), and sometimes it's more comical than anything else in the 9 p.m. time slot on Sundays, but what's most important is that beyond all the laughs, the Prime Minister is actually being held accountable for statements, positions and issues -- in person and live on television -- by fellow elected officials.\nAmerica needs this. So why don't we have it?\nWell, for one thing, it's really tough, and it should be. I imagine few presidents in our nation's history would have fared well doing it. It might have even caused some not to run for reelection -- or even run in the first place. It might be a clever way to thin out the herd.\nFor another, some would say we already have something like that -- the press corps. That sentiment is understandable, but wrong.\nThe press isn't invulnerable. Some administrations are particularly talented at keeping the press at bay, leaving urgent stories floating in the air. And when the press doesn't have anything to report on, they will create something.\nThey will often quote anonymous sources, run with the same storylines they seem to create and milk their guess-work punditry to fill airtime or column inches (everyone remember "The unstoppable Howard Dean will win the Iowa caucuses"?).\nIf we're looking for a way to start holding our leaders accountable for their actions and forcing them to level with the American people, we couldn't go wrong implementing a required Q-and-A between the president and Congress similar to the "Prime Minister's Questions."\nI suppose it certainly wouldn't hurt anything, except maybe the stale and distant status quo.