Tuesday’s debate between Obama and Romney showed once again why events of this kind are a poor way of picking a president.
The commentators were delighted that the candidates went “toe to toe.” That there was sharp disagreement. That they accused each other of lying. That there were sparks in their air. And so on.
But do we want a sharp-tongued talker to be the president of the United States? Do we want an aggressive verbal pugilist? How about, instead, someone who can govern? Someone who has ideas that favor American freedom and can carry them out.
In the debate Tuesday, both candidates said things that were not so. This is inevitable in such a high-pressure format. When you have just a few seconds, it’s easy to misspeak.
Voters would be better advised to choose the candidate who best reflects their own ideas based on their records in actual deeds. For that, they don’t need debates. (hh)
