USA TODAY International Edition
GOP debates: More is better
From the way primary debates are griped about in Republican circles these days, you’d think they were as bad as teleprompters.
“I think it’s very harmful to Republicans because instead of the candidates presenting their views and their policies and their proposals, it’s all gotcha,” harrumphed Sen. John Mccain, no primary debate stranger, last month. In a December Wall Street Journal column, Karl Rove conceded that the debates had been “for the most part . . . helpful,” but added they “have nearly crippled campaigns, chewing into the precious time each candidate has to organize, raise money, set themes, roll out policy and campaign.”
It’s probably safe to say few voters are counting down the days until the next debate on Feb. 22. Indeed, 45% think there have been too many debates, according to a Rasmussen poll.
But after watching all 19 debates, myattitude is: bring ’ em on. What the debates achieve is yanking unscripted moments out of even polished candidates, a phenomenon at giant panda- level of endangerment amid our carefully choreographed political scenes.
The value of ‘ oops’
No doubt, some memorable moments were planned. As Mitt Romney might say, I’ll bet you $ 10,000 that Newt Gingrich had practiced the outraged speech he fired at CNN’S John King when asked about the “open marriage” allegations. But Rick Perry’s “oops” moment, when he forgot one of the three federal agencies he was planning to nix, sure wasn’t. And when an agitated Romney, explaining how he had inadvertently hired illegal immigrants, said, “I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake. We can’t have illegals,” you can guarantee the campaign never tested the remark with a focus group.
The debates have also allowed candidates to spar directly. When Gingrich lectured Romney about the individual mandate, Romney fired back, “Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.” Gingrich returned the favor two weeks later, scornfully dismissing Romney’s claim that he was a Washington outsider as “pious baloney.” Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann jousted with Ron Paul on Iran, while Herman Cain’s 9- 9- 9 plan was shot at as if it were a coyote Perry had seen during a morning jog.
That’s what primaries should include: a freewheeling arena where policies are heatedly debated. And because we don’t elect platonic ideals but flawed human beings, that means debates will occasionally tip over into the personal. That can be messy — but also revealing of a candidate’s character.
A five- minute answer!
Of course, the debates could improve. I’d like to see non- journalist moderators and longer, more detailed answers — oh, a whopping five minutes would be nice. In the early months, low- polling candidates such as Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer should have been consistently included. But these are quality, not quantity, issues.
In future primary cycles, this year’s debate- heavy schedule should be viewed as an inspiration, not a horror story. The candidate who makes a false or inane statement in a debate is likely to encounter a follow- up question from a moderator, a rebuttal from a rival, an outraged audience reaction— or some combination of the three. That’s healthy for the GOP’S policy discussion, as is the fact that candidates have to speak off the cuff when asked detailed policy questions.
For attentive voters, fewer debates would reduce the exercises to a controlled series of sound bites. Rinse and repeat. And that’s about as enthralling ( and as authentic) as, well, watching a politician deliver a speech with his eyes glued to a teleprompter.