COMMENTARY | The GOP has made a huge mistake in deciding to have so many debates. In the 2008 race for the Republican nominations, there were 21 (already quite a number, to be honest). This time around, when all is said and done, the candidates will have slugged through 27.
Of course, it's just an increase of six, but there are several reasons why I consider this an unwise idea.
Reason number one: Let's face it, regardless of what party (or not) you claim allegiance to, we know that politicians aren't always the brightest bulbs around and, therefore, are more than likely to commit gaffes. See: Rick Perry.
Now, the reason why these gaffes perhaps seem even more glaring is because the Democrats clearly aren't debating each other this year, so we have no regular gaffes from a bunch of candidates across the spectrum. Yes, I know Obama is quite prone to the verbal slip-up as well, but I just feel that the GOP are more exposed due to the fact that they're trying to unseat him.
Reason two: By the time all has been said and done, Obama and his crew of advisers will have gouged out every candidate's weakness. This could arguably give him the upper hand once the Republican nominee is finally chosen.
And, thirdly, the tension between the candidates is really so thick it can be cut with a knife, and these increased debates aren't exactly helping things. In fact, it could create a lasting friction between some that will remain even after the official candidate is chosen.
But not to be a complete downer, there is one upside. All of this exposure has allowed candidates such as Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul to enjoy the kind of exposure they probably wouldn't have gotten if there had only been , say, ten debates.
This is good, because it makes this more interesting and less predictable for the general public, even though I tend to believe that Mitt Romney will end up winning. But, really, who knows?
Which candidate do you favor? Or are they all just as bad as each other? Go on, voice your opinion.
