This has been a rumor going around for a while, but I'm surprised to hear that it might end up
an actual campaign strategy:
After a series of poor debate performances in the early months of his presidential campaign, Texas Gov. Rick Perry is backing off the upcoming GOP debate schedule, committing to just one of the next three events between now and Nov. 15. [...]
Perry hinted at his frustration with the debates earlier this week when he told Fox News that participating in them was a “mistake.”
Problem: Rick Perry's base of support crumbled immediately once he started talking. Solution: keep Perry from talking. Genius!
I'm deeply skeptical this strategy would actually work. First, are Republicans who have been turned off by the stuff coming out of Perry's mouth going to forget that they dislike him, once he stops talking? That seems to suggest the Perry camp is counting on exceptional stupidity on the part of primary voters. (That said, those are generally the voters Perry's been courting anyway, so hell, maybe it's worth a shot.) Second, bowing out of the debates may save Perry from a few gaffes, but it will also mean that everybody but him is getting that free publicity. (That said, Perry's performances so far have been just awful. I mean, just shudderingly bad.)
Most importantly (for Republicans, anyway) let's say the strategy works, and Perry gets the final nod as the person to go up against President Obama next year. Is he suddenly going to get better at debating then? Not likely.
As excruciating as debates are to watch, for most of us, they represent the truest picture of each candidate and what their policy instincts might tend towards, when put on the spot. Yes, I know that's very sad—but that's what we have to work with, at this point. The answers may be mostly recited from memory, and the attacks mostly pre-planned, but it still is the only public venue available where candidates are forced to think on their feet in the face of hostile questioning.
Heaven knows campaign ads, speeches to supporters, flyers and the rest don't provide any of that. Press interviews don't do that: the media will pull punches, when necessary, in order to be allowed further access. The only group with an inherent interest in aggressively challenging a candidate is, in the end, the opposing campaigns. While the rote answers from each candidate never get much news coverage, the spontaneous moments usually do, often driving resulting coverage. That's the whole point of having debates: the spontaneous moments.
Watching the Republican candidates muddle around this season has been depressing, and listening to each candidate lob their little grenades from their own ideological foxholes has been maddening, but it's still a necessary process. If Perry can't handle even that small element of democracy—answering questions coherently—I'm not sure why he or anyone else would think he was presidential material.