As we contemplate the lengthy process to pick a Republican nominee for President of the United States, it’s worth considering how we should go about it.
It seems abundantly clear at this point that we should value beyond all else the candidate who is glib and the master of sound bites. The candidate needs to be entertaining, pithy, and fast on his or her feet, with the ability to counter punch and deliver that devastating blow. Real experience in solving problems, substantive depth, and the proven record of being able to do what you say, well, that’s so yesterday.
How do we know all this? The media unanimously declared it following last week’s debate, and of course the voting public listened and responded accordingly. And after all, look how well these criteria worked in the past two elections of President Obama.
It’s only early November, and the spectacle of having 10 candidates on stage in each debate has muddled up the process and distracted the party form having a serious conversation. This time around the GOP was supposed to have a better handle on the debates. But the drivel that came out of the third Republican debate best example yet of a departure from serious dialogue in favor of sound bites on matters of little consequence.
Cutting down on the number of candidates on the debate stage would help encourage a more substantive examination of the candidates’ policy positions. Otherwise, we’re going to be stuck with the meaningless and debilitating contest that’s been going on since the Summer.
When experience and proven accomplishments are overlooked, we end up with an inferior candidate. Let’s get the conversation back on track and start talking about real issues.