Charles Dharapak, Associated Press
Although I understand Linda Jones' desire to have presidential debates behind closed doors ("Republicans should unite," Readers' Forum, Jan. 18), I can offer three reasons why debates are televised and very public (and these reasons apply to presidential candidates from both major parties).
First, it allows for citizens to be involved from the very beginning and helps shape policy. Public debates are useful in keeping the democratic process alive. Second, the debates force candidates to articulate their qualifications and beliefs and demonstrate their leadership styles. This gives the public information to decide, based on tangible evidence, which candidates they like best.
And third, the process essentially strips candidates to their essence and exposes any and every imperfection. Although this is sometimes painful to watch, the process sifts out candidates with the most weaknesses and helps ensure the best ones are on the ballot in November. What doesn't kill them makes them stronger. The current process ultimately brings candidates that are most qualified and best reflect the views of the American people.
- Robert Bennett: Obama has his own 'killer...
- In our opinion: Labor Day revisited
- Drew Clark: Religious freedom is more than a...
- John Hoffmire: Monied interests and democracy
- On second thought
- About Utah: He's a fair fixture
- In our opinion: Trouble on tap? Colleges...
- Charles Krauthammer: Solution to inversion is...
- Drew Clark: Religious freedom is more... 52
- In our opinion: A slippery 'immoral' Tweet 46
- Charles Krauthammer: Solution to... 39
- Letter: Society puzzles 33
- Robert Bennett: Obama has his own... 31
- Americans are changing their tune on... 28
- In our opinion: Trouble on tap?... 25
- In our opinion: Par for the president 24