You might doubt the sincerity of the Newsweek reporter who opined recently about the benefits of multiple Republican presidential debates. After all, a publication that clearly supports President Obama is likely to support any part of the political process that bloodies his eventual opponent.
Perhaps you’ll assign more credibility to a right-of-center commentator expressing the same idea. Jonathan S. Tobin writes the following on Commentary‘s blog:
The GOP debates have come in for a great deal of criticism for the formats, lame questions, the mostly ineffective and foolish moderators, as well as the low level of discourse from most of the participants. All of this is true. Yet if, as some anticipate, the parties will limit the number of similar encounters during the next presidential election in 2016, then that would be a mistake. As much as they have infuriated and bored us at times, the debate show has served an important purpose. Though some are distrustful of the disproportionate impact they had on the process, it is through these sometimes interminable and not particularly inspiring episodes that we have gotten to know the candidates in a way that would not have been possible had there been fewer or no debates at all.
How else would we have known Tim Pawlenty was incapable of telling Mitt Romney to his face that his health care bill was the inspiration for Obamacare, had not the former Minnesota governor choked on the phrase “Obamaneycare” when offered the chance to say it in a debate?
Would we have caught on to Rick Perry’s superficial grasp of the issues and his inability to articulate his vision without being able to see his various “oops” moments? The same goes for Herman Cain and his simplistic tax plan that he never could explain to anyone’s satisfaction.
Without the debates, how would we have learned about Michele Bachmann’s penchant for foolish exaggerations such as her claims about Perry’s Texas inoculation program?
The ebb and flow between the final four during the last few months has also been instructive. The debates gave us the best illustration of Romney’s single-minded zeal to batter his opponents no matter how hypocritical his stances on the issues might be. They’ve also shown us the best and worst of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum as well as providing the nation with more than enough proof Ron Paul is not the sort of person who ought to be trusted with nuclear weapons.