In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes a variety of opinions from outside writers. On political and policy matters, we publish opinions from across the political spectrum.  Roughly half of our columns come from our Board of Contributors, a group whose interests range from education to religion to sports to the economy. Their charge is to chronicle American culture by telling the stories, large and small, that collectively make us what we are.  We also publish weekly columns by Al Neuharth, USA TODAY's founder, and DeWayne Wickham, who writes primarily on matters of race but on other subjects as well. That leaves plenty of room for other views from across the nation by well-known and lesser-known names alike.  Today: How to build a better election.  Bob: Labor Day has long been the unofficial kickoff of the next presidential election campaign, and we're already getting a preview of what's coming our way in 2012. It's not pretty.  Cal: President Obama surely wasted no time. He gave his "jobs" speech and then hit the campaign trail while setting his sights on all things Republican. I suppose that when a politician has no record to campaign on, he attacks.  Bob: Are you kidding me? The Republican presidential candidates have used their first debates to excoriate the president while Republicans in Congress pile on. Then you have House Speaker John Boehner saying the special "supercommittee" better not even think about tax increases. But Obama's the bad guy?  Cal: Who said bad guy? I'm just saying that he hasn't left his sharp elbows in Chicago.  Bob: He needs 'em, and he'll need them during the campaign. Let's be real: Obama announces plans for a jobs bill, and the GOP candidates belittle it before they've even seen it. People are out of work and suffering, the president tries to do something about it, and the Republicans attack him. How civil!  Cal: Are you suggesting Democrats never piled on when they were on the ascendency? I mean they neeeeeeeeever attacked President Bush like that, did they? Please. But wait. Wasn't it President Obama who promised to change the rhetorical excesses in Washington?  Bob: OK, I don't like where this is going. We're getting down there in the mud like the rest of them. The president clearly has failed to bring a new tone to Washington. That, I'll give you. But Republicans haven't exactly been bosom buddies with his administration either. Let's get beyond this, though, and to something constructive.  Bob: So is there any reason to hope for a civilized presidential race? If both sides could agree to a set of rules from the outset, we might actually see a campaign that informs voters rather than inflaming them.  Cal: Good luck. I'm not holding my breath, but go ahead and give it a go.  Bob: First, let's talk about substance. A sure-footed candidate should be willing to go toe-to-toe with the president anytime, anyplace. A Texan like Rick Perry surely understands where I'm coming from. So how about the GOP candidate and President Obama agree, beginning on Labor Day 2012, to hold weekly forums that would be held across the country. There, they could really debate the issues.  Cal: We have those now, do we not?  Bob: I don't mean moderator-controlled events, or social media gimmicks to feed the egos of that world. I mean a system in which real voters ask the questions, and the candidates are tested on their feet. Substance over style.  Cal: Republicans smell blood, so I'm not sure they would agree to do anything that would stop the president's "bleeding," but it does have a Lincoln/Douglas debate feel to it.  Bob: So, after responding to the voters' questions, both candidates could ask each other questions on the issue at hand. The forums would last three hours instead of the 90-minute formats in previous debates. This would allow the candidates to provide substantive answers rather than poll-driven sound bites.  Cal: I like it, though you're asking a lot of people to sit with this for three hours at a time.  Bob: Americans can devote three-plus hours to a single NFL game. This seems like a small sacrifice when you're talking about the future of this great country.  Cal: Absolutely true. I do fear, however, that the broadcast and cable network anchors might suffer bruised egos! I mean, who would ask the "gotcha" questions? If fellow Americans — and that's what presidential candidates are — can't be civil to one another, there isn't much hope for the political process.  Bob: It would give them an opportunity to lead by example.  Cal: I have a suggestion that might bring one back to the elementary school playground, but how about no name calling or unfair labeling? I don't mind "liberal" and "conservative," but suggesting one's opponent is un-American or unpatriotic or a religious fanatic is beyond the pale. They should make a pledge to each other and the public that neither campaign will engage in political savagery, and that if an "independent" group does so, the candidate will publicly denounce those efforts.  Bob: There's no reason why the candidates shouldn't take your idea. I'd go a step further and suggest both candidates call for all independent political action committees to cease activities by Labor Day 2012.  Cal: Isn't that like asking a junkyard dog not to bark?  Bob: The president and the GOP nominee will have great leverage with their core constituencies. Both candidates should ask the PACs to disband, or at a minimum the candidates should discourage them from running negative ads. If the PACs do anyway, Obama and the GOP nominee can call them out.  Cal: Well, who is to define what is "negative"? After all, there is this thing called free speech.  Bob: I think it's like the Supreme Court's definition of pornography. You know it when you see it.  Cal: Here's another suggestion: Keep religion out of the discussion unless it plays directly on a political issue. For example, if a candidate believes that God wanted him to bomb Iran (like Iran's president implies his god wants him to do to Israel), that would be a legitimate issue. But where someone goes to church — or doesn't — and his worship style ought not be a qualification or disqualification for office. The Constitution says there shall be no "religious test." That should be sufficient for the public as well.  Bob: I couldn't agree more. Lord knows President Obama and his family were subjected to withering attacks over his affiliation with the Chicago church he attended. While we're at it, attacks on a candidate's family have no place in a presidential campaign, or any campaign for that matter.  Cal: No argument here. Finally, I'd simply urge the candidates to spare us the ideological talking points. We can all repeat them from memory. Republicans hate the poor and elderly, but love the rich. Democrats hate America, hate the wealthy and successful and are socialists. Why must we keep hearing the same tired rhetoric every election cycle? If a liberal idea produces results that promote the general welfare, I'm for it. If a conservative idea does, you should be for that idea. The general good, not political power, ought to be the goal.  Bob: Your idea is admirable, but the campaigns will tell you their respective policies are exactly what will work and that's why they are running in the first place. But how's this for a rule that would limit resources the campaigns might use to go negative? Both candidates should accept federal matching funds, thus evening the playing field and putting the focus of the campaign back on issues rather than fundraising.  Cal: Sorry, Bob, but the genie is out of the bottle on that one. Then-candidate Obama walked away from matching funds in the 2008 election because he knew he'd gain a massive advantage. And though it may have hurt the process, it helped him win. There's no going back now. Besides, the time to do something like this is right after an election, not this close to the next one. One candidate or the other might see this as unilateral disarmament.  Bob: Whether they take our advice or not, a positive, issue-oriented campaign is just what the American people have ordered. And that's ultimately what we're both calling for, right?  Cal: That's correct. Frankly, though, I am not optimistic that the candidates will accept any of our ideas, but that shouldn't keep us and the public from demanding they behave like grown-ups.  Bob: I'm not optimistic either, but we must keep the heat on the candidates. One of these days a candidate will go positive, campaign on substance and obliterate his or her opponent. At that point, Cal, we can say, "Told you so."  Cal: I look forward to that day. And Bob, I suppose some people will call our vision pie-in-the-sky or wishful thinking, but as the song Happy Talk reminds us: "You got to have a dream. If you don't have a dream, how you gonna have a dream come true?"
Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel: Lose the negativity, and hands off family and faith. A (hopeful) guide to Campaign 2012.