Debates have been an important part of the political theater over the past few decades. It’s a chance for both parties to get up on stage and discuss critical topics. Usually, there’s one person who is asking the questions as well as making sure that each party has plenty of time to respond.
That hasn’t quite been the case in the most recent debates.
There’s a lot of finger-pointing, quite literally. Candidates talk over one another. Candidates argue with one another. Nothing is really accomplished, and it makes it impossible to know who to vote for when both are acting like petty children.
The GOP candidates who are preparing for the midterms have a solution: Stop having debates.
Wait, is that actually a possibility? It would seem so. Rather than participate in the circus where the liberal media is simply there to collect sound bites to use against the GOP candidates, they’d rather not participate at all.
Dave Carney, the Republican strategist who is the advisor to Texas Governor Greg Abbott has a comment. “The media will fight like cats and dogs, because it’s the last thing in a campaign environment they have any control over.” He calls the concept of debates “crazy” because it’s not a controlled environment anymore. “It’s like having your candidates do pet tricks for the media, and I’m against them.”
Carney goes as far as to say that in 10 years, when debates no longer happen, no one will even notice – and the voters won’t care if there are no debates to take place.
This is all as a result of saying that Abbott may not actually join a debate with Beto O’Rourke, the Democratic opponent.
Now, some of the left-leaning media outlets are already having a field day with the possibility of debates being shut down by Republicans. Politico says that GOP candidates are “increasingly ducking out of” the debates. However, isn’t it about time that we stop with the games?
Many Republican candidates have been skipping the primary debates – and there have been little to no repercussions. It’s proving that it can be done.
In today’s society, there are plenty of other ways for people to get the information they need about candidates. They can watch videos on YouTube, follow the candidates on Instagram, read through their political promises on their websites, and more.
A face-to-face debate is only there to bait the media-feeding frenzy.
Herschel Walker, the Republican Senate primary candidate and former NFL star has chosen to walk away from the debates. And about a half-dozen other Republican candidates in Senate, House, and gubernatorial races have chosen to do the same.
Now, there are some Republican candidates who do want to debate – but not in the traditional way. For example, Mehmet Oz is a Pennsylvania Senate candidate. He’d love nothing more than to debate Dr. Anthony Fauci. Sadly, Fauci isn’t in the running, so a debate is being ignored.
It’s not that the Republicans aren’t against a good, healthy debate. The problem is that no such thing can be guaranteed. Most of those who want to host the debates are Democrats – and they’ll put their own spin on questions to make it hard for the GOP candidates to come out on top. Why on Earth would any Republican sign up to face public humiliation at the hand of a far-left progressive?
The GOP is doing what needs to be done. They’re ending debates. If a discussion needs to happen, it can play out on Twitter where the liberal media can see both sides without either side being shut down when a good point is made.
Saul Anuzis, a former chair of the Michigan Republican Party sums it up best when he says, “Just from a strategic perspective, there’s not a whole lot of reason to give your opponents an opportunity to attack you or make a mistake or set yourself up on an issue that may backfire against you…why put yourself at risk for anything?”