Dear Senator McCain:

When it comes to what to say as well as how to say it in a debate, speech, or even an argument over a microphone, your political hero was the consummate master. Therefore, it’s not fair to ask you to become Ronald Reagan.

However, after your performance Friday, it is fair (and imperative) to urge you to become a lot more like Reagan, a task that shouldn’t be in the least daunting to a former fighter pilot who has faced up to challenges that make a presidential debate look like a pillow fight.

To help you imitate the amiable former president who always had his game face on in a verbal battle, here are some suggestions regarding what you needed to say last week with gusto and conviction — if not your hero’s unparalleled style.

Having received the first question, which inquired about the Wall Street bailout, your opponent didn’t honestly discuss the issue. As expected, he politicized it by turning his fire solely on Republicans.

Incredibly, your response didn’t include something like this:

“Yes, the government must do everything it can to craft a rescue plan that prevents economic catastrophe and protects the American taxpayer. As you know, I have committed myself to that task. And may I say I am proud of my fellow Republicans who are working as hard as they can to limit liability to America’s honest, hard-working people.

However, I am sorry to see my opponent, a self-professed agent of change, stoop to crass, unproductive, business-as-usual politics regarding this important problem by placing blame for it exclusively on one side of the political aisle.

As he well knows, congressional Democrats are up to their necks in the mortgage mess. In fact, some of them, who happen to be among the very top beneficiaries of political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are now lead negotiators involved in structuring a rescue of financial institutions — unless, of course, I’m wrong that Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd are Democrats, Fannie and Freddie Democrats at that.

Now, all of us know about the tangled web a person weaves when he practices to deceive. With that thought in mind, I put these questions to a person who has based his entire campaign upon the idea of change:

Will he explain to the American people why to head up his vice presidential search committee, he chose former Fannie Mae Chairman James Johnson, a man who resigned from his campaign post after charges came out he had received preferential mortgage terms from a mortgage institution awash in bad mortgages?

Will he say that his campaign has never had any contact whatsoever with Franklin Raines, regarding, of all things, mortgage and housing issues — any contact whatsoever with the Franklin Raines who earned 90 million dollars destroying Fannie Mae?

Will he call the Washington Post reporter who quoted Mr. Raines as admitting such contacts a liar? And will he say he believes Mr. Raines, who now denies the conversation with the reporter?”

Senator McCain, I know you and your team can improve upon the content of the suggestions made above and settle upon the most effective manner of delivery. But think of it. No sooner had the battle begun last Friday than your opponent foolishly flew right in front of your jet fighter. Can you imagine the impact you would have made with voters if you had shot him down with the substance and at least some of your hero’s style?

There’s not time to analyze the entire debate, Senator, so I’ll make suggestions regarding just one other exchange, one that called for a crucially important technique of political debate on which, frankly, far too many Republican politicians deserve a “D” at best.

Recall that your opponent spoke first on the subject of Russia’s invasion of Georgia, responding with the usual obligatory statements about that act of aggression.

You reacted correctly by immediately pointing out he didn’t see things quite the same in his first statement regarding the invasion, when he called upon both sides to “show restraint.”

However, you spoke in a low, indistinct voice that most likely caused many to miss what you said. You also failed to give your important point force by providing the strong introduction it deserves. Moreover, you failed to mention that only after days of fumbling from one statement to another did he come to his current position.

Therefore, you failed to cash in on a perfect opportunity to define your opponent as a weak, unsure, morally uncertain “typical liberal” without ever mentioning that term.

Moreover — and crucially — you didn’t follow up with the most important technique of political debate: Using concrete images, examples, and anecdotes that evoke both thoughts and emotions in ordinary citizens.

Here’s how you might have done that not just to emphasize your opponent’s “Georgia fumble” but to take advantage of a “teachable moment,” in this case, one that prompts voters to move from the issue at hand to a larger notion — the twisted, Pollyannish, “ACLU” behavior of liberals in general.

“Georgia needs to show restraint? Well . . .there you go again with a false moral equivalency that reminds me of behavior exhibited by too many politicians, judges, and so-called experts.

For example, upon hearing an intruder in her home, a woman reaches for the firearm she keeps for protection and subsequently fires at the intruder as he flees through her yard.

What’s the reaction we hear all too often from liberals? Both the woman and the intruder need to ‘show restraint’ — the woman, especially. . . because as the intruder ran away from her home, he posed ‘no threat’ to her.

That kind of thinking, my fellow Americans, is not only morally wrong and unspeakably insulting; it is enormously dangerous — whether it applies to the woman of my example or a nation’s aggression against an innocent neighbor.”

Senator, no matter his slickness with words, it is virtually certain that had your opponent tried to explain why your generalization about liberals is “wrong” and your example “inappropriate,” he would have succeeded only in sending his plane into a tailspin.

To sum this up, Senator McCain, I’ll mention your hero again and give you a piece of advice whose soundness can’t be disputed:

Ronald Reagan knew that whether they’re talking about taxes, jobs, energy, gun rights, or judicial activism, Republican politicians can’t simply say things such as, “I believe in the Second Amendment” or “I’m against judges who legislate from the bench” but must speak in language powerfully of and for the people, language that speaks to the mind and the heart.

Therefore, stand on Reagan’s shoulders, Senator; and you will debate in a way that causes voters to exclaim, “McCain did a helluva job! A helluva job! Reminded me of the Gipper . . .the Gipper, God bless him.”