The Debate Format

Thomas Sowell had a column in Townhall Daily this week that was similar to the ones I publish under the heading “Random Thoughts.” In it he placed a paragraph that hit me harder than any of the others. Here it is:

Regardless of how the current Republican presidential nomination process ends, I hope that they will never again have these televised "debates" among a crowd of candidates, which just turn into a circular firing squad -- damaging whoever ends up with the nomination, and leaving the voters knowing only who is quickest with glib answers.

I completely agree with his sentiments, and I want to add to them. I have not watched any of the debates fully and my reasons are perfectly clear and correct.

First, of course, is that in every one of the debates – including the one hosted by Fox News – the moderators were generally hostile to the candidates. They were disrespectful in their questioning, focusing on only the candidates they wanted to challenge, not for clarity, but to emphasize the moderator’s view, which differed from the candidate’s

Second, the debate turned into a match to see who could come up with the “wittiest” line or catchphrase. Huntsman: “I thought 999 was the price of a pizza.” The object of each moderator was to get the candidates into name-calling slugfest that will later be used by the Democrats to develop their campaign ads.

Third, there is no need to watch candidate debates unless you want to vote for the one who looks the best, or speaks the best. The current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is, I admit, good looking and speaks well – at least with a teleprompter and pre-screened questions. It doesn’t necessarily reflect on his job performance, however.

Fourth, Giving a candidate a minute to explain or detail an idea they promote is just ridiculous. Using Herman Cain as an example, his 9-9-9 Plan cannot be adequately illustrated in a one-minute sound byte. It takes at least 10-20 minutes to address all of the pros and cons of the plan, and anything less than that gives a distorted conclusion. The same is true with any of the proposed “fixes” the candidates posit.

Fifth, there are way too many candidates up there on the stage vying for attention. Most of them don’t get a fair shake, and only the more controversial ones even get a chance to participate. Unless a candidate wants to be rude and interrupt – a sure way to get put down – they get very little microphone time.

And sixth, all the bickering and verbal jousting is counterproductive. The contenders should be outlining and detailing what they would do differently from the present failed policies to get America moving again. We’ve had a bellyful of Perry’s forced inoculation and Romney’s Obama-like healthcare for Massachusetts. I want to know what they would do to create jobs and reform Social Security and Medicare and the banking system.

I have to tell you that I’ve changed my mind on who I would like to see win the nomination several times, but it hasn’t been as a result of the debates. It has been based on in-depth studies of the candidates’ biographies and past accomplishments. I know that I’ll vote for whoever the eventual candidate is, but I sure hope we don’t have another Bob Dole or John McCain clone.

Now, if you consider this to be a political (offensive?) column, then go ahead and fire away at me for upsetting your day. But know that I would have written the same column if it were a Republican incumbent and a mob of Democrats vying for office instead of the current mob of Republicans. My topic is televised debates, which I detest, not who I think deserves your vote next November.