Earlier this morning (and aired on C-SPAN2), Newt Gingrich and Sen. John Kerry held a "debate on Global Climate Change, specifically carbons in the atmosphere," in the Russell Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill.

John and Newt debated two views for an American solution to help reduce carbons emissions. The debate wasn't moderated; but was rather an open dialogue-style debate of back and forth question and response.

This format is something Newt Gingrich called for after watching the media swarm on the YouTube Hillary Clinton "Big Sister" ad which now has over 3 million views. In calling for very real conversations about the future of America (instead of 30 second spots), Gingrich said (YouTube video):

“There is not a single thing in that commercial that enables America to solve a problem. Oh, it’s clever…fills up space in television…people can talk about it. It’s the Entertainment Tonight version of governing a great country, and it’s very dangerous." He then challenges the respective Nominees for President of each Party to a weekly, 90-minute dialogue, from Labor Day to the Election…”two adults, the future of America, and a conversation.”

So Newt posed a solution to a problem (issues being reduced to clever ads). And Senator John Kerry accepted. Porridge to both of them.

So what about the substance of their debate? Well, as you know, I don't watch TV unless it's a clip someone sends to me on YouTube or a show on my DVR. But Matt Keller of the Draft Newt team live-blogged it and sent me a quick summary of his thoughts for your reading pleasure:

Senator Kerry’s viewpoint was that of imposing more government regulations on industry while Speaker Gingrich’s approach was to give tax incentives to the marketplace, to stimulate green technological growth.

I think the most important thing to take out of the debate, was the difference in tone and quality of the non moderated debate vs. the kind of debate we see in Presidential contests. John Kerry and Newt Gingrich were warm and friendly to each other; they were engaging each other’s minds as well as the audience. The conversation was genuine.

The other key aspect was the changing nature of the debate, toward the end both sides found common ground. John Kerry stated that he and Speaker Gingrich could work together to form a hybrid plan in an effort to control carbon emissions. The debate proved that Newt’s model for American Solutions is on the right path. It is the Ideas generated through these debates that will provide Solutions tomorrow.

This is interesting. Two strong minds (yes, I'm being bipartisan) held a debate/discussion about how best to solve a problem which everyone cares about (in some way). And instead of reciting partisan rhetoric and vehemently opposing the other guy, they actually found some common-ground. That's good news.

Could Newt and John be re-inventing the Presidential debate?