by Doug Allen
Howard Kurtz responds to Stuart Stevens’ call for fewer debates in the primaries:
It’s not surprising that Stuart Stevens wants fewer presidential debates, since his candidate Mitt Romney got beat up in so many of them. But his suggestion, in his debut column for The Daily Beast, that the debates be wrenched away from the networks is way off the mark. Maybe he’s suffering from posttraumatic debate syndrome, but these televised extravaganzas actually give the country a good look at how the candidates perform under pressure. … A strong candidate knows how to hit major-league pitching.
Justin Green counters:
I’ll indulge the sports metaphor: having 18 debates before the first actual vote is like asking a pitcher to throw 300 pitches while warming up in the bullpen.
At a certain point, all you’re doing is wearing down your arm. And after, let’s say, four or five debates, a voter will have all the information he or she needs to make an informed choice. The Michele Bachmann screeds about stealth jihad, the Ron Paul demands for a gold standard and Newt’s rambling about Newt-things quickly reach the point of no longer being helpful to the democratic process. …
[W]as there a single moment from the primary debates that added something substantive to the presidential race? Did we really learn how any of the candidates handled themselves under pressure? Were conservative ideas vigorously debated, with differing viewpoints well-represented? Were conservative voters offered a variety of options that gave them a hand in shaping the future of the Republican Party? Did the debates strengthen the GOP? Did they strengthen the general election?
My answer on all counts: no.
