The problems with the debates

Michael Walsh:

...

 Today, the questions fall into two main categories.

The first is gotcha queries that seek to trip up the victim with some past inconsistencies or try to force an admission that he really has no chance, as happened back in August when Fox’s Chris Wallace asked Newt Gingrich about his troubled campaign. 

The second is just plain-stupid questions. In New Hampshire, CNN’s John King asked former Sen. Rick Santorum whether he preferred Jay Leno to Conan O’Brien (answer: neither) and grilled Herman Cain about how he likes his pizza (deep dish). The idea was to show the candidates’ human side, but the result was to display the frivolousness of the moderator. 

Everyone agrees that the 2012 election will be one of the most important in US history. Probably not since the 1860 election have the two parties offered more radically differing views of the country: the Democrats’ big-government Keynesianism versus ... versus what? 

That’s what the electorate -- which is tuning into the debates in record numbers -- hungers to know. But smothered by campaign consultants, the candidates reduce themselves to focus-group-tested tag lines, happy to play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern instead of striving for Hamlet. 

As now staged, the debates are a game of musical chairs in which the last man or woman on the stage is sure to be bloodied while President Obama cruises to renomination with his hair unmussed and a campaign war chest that’s heading toward a billion dollars. Meanwhile, the real issues get lost in the sound bites and bon mots. 

So how do we fix things? Simple: 

* Tone down the circus atmosphere. Yes, the debates are TV shows, but they’re not “American Gladiator.” Running the country is serious business, so act like it.
* Eliminate YouTube, Twitter and e-mailed queries. TV journalists are paid big money for their expertise. Amateurs shouldn’t be asking the questions the pros should ask. 

* Put the same set of tightly honed economic and foreign-policy questions to each candidate, and give him or her adequate time to answer without worrying about the clock or being badgered by competitors. Stop pandering to audience members’ presumed brief attention span, and start treating them like adults. 

* Quickly winnow the candidates to a manageable number. Yes, it’s true that during the last cycle Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson were the early front-runners and Hillary Clinton was a dead-solid lock for the Democrat nomination. But this isn’t 2008, when no incumbent was running. 

Obama was swept into office on an emotional tide of hope and change. Now he has a record to run on, one he’s hoping desperately to ignore in favor of demonizing his eventual opponent. The sooner substantive discussion begins, the better for the nation. 

* Reduce the number of debates. The media love the horse-race aspect of politics, so for them the more the merrier is fodder for traditional who’s-up, who’s-down analysis. Already, their story line has gone from Rick Perry, surprise front-runner, to Rick Perry, stumblebum.
...

I have found the debates almost unwatchable for the reasons Walsh sets forth.  And, there are too many of them.  This has the effect of giving the candidates little time to prepare and meet their normal campaign schedules.