A debate scheduled for Wednesday night among all the major candidates running for governor -- the only one in which Arnold Schwarzenegger has agreed to appear -- is getting pummeled by purveyors of conventional wisdom because its sponsors have released the questions to the public and the candidates in advance.

If, like a lot of pundits and several of the candidates, you think this is the dumbest idea you have ever heard, read on. It was mine.

First, a caveat. The sponsors of the debate, the California Broadcasters Association, accepted my general concept but mangled the details. I would have preferred a single question, in this case: How would you bring California's taxes and spending back into balance? Throw all of the candidates out on the stage, let them debate that for 90 minutes in a free-form match with a moderator present only to keep their feet to the fire and maintain decorum, and see what happens.

The actual event won't be that good. The problem is that instead of one question, or maybe four or five, the broadcasters have released 12, not all of which will be used. That will dilute the public debate leading up to the event and, probably, spread the candidate discussion too thin. But the idea still has merit, and the format still might work. If all of the candidates are up to it.

The obvious rap against the idea is that the candidates will memorize their answers to the questions to look smarter than they really are. But anyone who has ever watched a political debate knows that candidates do this anyway. Their staffs help them anticipate 90 percent or more of the questions that might be asked. Then the candidates give quick, memorized answers to whatever comes up before retreating to the message they came prepared to convey.

The hope with this format is that the viewing public will get engaged in advance, read the questions and some background on the issues, and expect more than just sound bites for answers. That goal was undermined by the large number of questions, but it's still possible, if newspapers, television stations and talk radio programs jump in and inform their readers, viewers and listeners with some primers on the topics.

The other advantage of the format, really the ace in the hole here, is that it is completely open-ended. Instead of reporters asking questions and candidates answering in set time frames -- 60 seconds for your answer, 30 seconds for rebuttal -- the candidates themselves will get to ask follow-ups if they like, or offer rebuttal. The whole thing will be free-flowing, with the moderator on hand only to keep the responses on point and maintain order.

Ironically, the candidates vying with Schwarzenegger don't seem to understand the opportunity being handed them here. They are so fixated on the idea of the actor memorizing his lines they have yet to acknowledge that in this role, a script won't do. He will have to improvise.

Last week, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante proposed that all the other candidates walk out of the debate and stage their own outside.

"I would suggest to the four of us that what we should do, instead of going to that scripted debate, is we should have a debate, an unscripted one, right outside, right in front, same place, same time, right there at Sacramento State," Bustamante said.

But if they like, the other four major candidates can spend the entire 90 minutes grilling Schwarzenegger on specifics, pointing out the flaws in his positions and stating why their ideas are superior to his. They won't be confined to 15 seconds to do so. What's not to like about that?

If Schwarzenegger says, as he does in his television commercials, that his first act as governor will be to launch a 60-day audit and then use the findings to wipe out that "crazy deficit," state Sen. Tom McClintock can remind him that he will have to send a new, balanced budget to the printer before his audit is complete. How does he propose to do that?

If the actor says he's for "more schools, more teachers, more books," Bustamante can demand that he say how he'll pay for them with the state's shortfall already pushing $10 billion.

One correspondent of mine, a veteran political consultant, ridiculed the format by citing one of the questions: "What is the single most important piece of legislation either signed or vetoed during this past legislative session?" This would have been a great question and could have stumped Arnold if it came as a surprise, my source said, but now he'll have all his consultants pouring over the legislative record to come up with an answer.

But this misses the point. If this were a typical debate and Schwarzenegger could offer his answer in 15 seconds and then move on, that might be true. But in this format, no matter what he says, the other candidates can prod him for details, or ask him to list numbers two and three on the list, or correct his facts if he misstates them.

And this isn't just about beating up on Schwarzenegger. If he's smart, he will come equipped with some questions for McClintock and Bustamante, perhaps about the Indian casino money they've been collecting, or, in the case of Bustamante, the potential effect on the economy of the tax increases he's proposed. And for all their huffing and puffing about his lack of specifics, none of the other candidates has yet to offer a detailed plan for closing the budget gap. Perhaps Schwarzenegger will point that out.

It is too bad that the sponsors of the debate blurred its focus with so many potential questions, all of which are listed in the article below. But the format still holds the possibility of producing an engaging and informative discussion. I know I don't want to miss it.