I’d say he was reformed from his “Contract with America” days, but in the same article in which Newt Gingrich bemoans soundbite campaigning, he says
“These aren’t debates,” the former Georgia congressman said. “This is a cross between [TV shows] ‘The Bachelor,’ ‘American Idol’ and ‘Who’s Smarter than a Fifth-Grader.'”
I suppose I’d be afraid to look into too many mirrors if I were Newt, too. After all, this is a man that lead a charge against Clinton while having an extramarital affair himself
Still, he’s got something of a point. If only he didn’t surround it with some very questionable ideas. And I don’t think he’s the best messenger, as partisan as he’s always been.
I like the idea of more and longer debates. But he includes only major party candidates. And would longer debates drive more people from the process? Or does that matter?
The debates aren’t even about the debates, at least at this point. They’re about going under the lights and not becoming the mistake the media prattles about the next day. I can’t imagine too many people watch the debates at this stage, but plenty of people watch the morning shows or read the Metro paper where it says “Romney picks nose during debate”. Aside from a vague “attaboy” for doing well, candidates rarely can benefit from a good performance. The whole “meet with dictators” thing was the only vaguely substantive policy discussion that came out of the debates, and that was only because again the Clinton campaign felt that Obama’s answer was a mistake it could exploit.
<
p>
It’s kind of a silly exercise, but it keeps junkies like us happy, I suppose.