Reflecting on the higher negatives of all the presidential candidates as this campaign continues and how the debates, negative ads and the media distractions play into a virtual death by a thousand cuts to all of them, professional pundit David Brooks wonders if there isn't a more relevant way to pick the candidate.
BROOKS: Can you imagine doing that, leading that life? No normal person would live that way. And no normal person would emerge normally after that, giving the same speech eight times a day for 15 months? It destroys you, and it makes you less attractive and that’s even without the negative ads.
RUSSERT: Is it a fair test to determine who would be the best president?
BROOKS: I don’t think so. You know, watching the debate, the whole furor over the ABC debate, what strikes me is we should actually test candidates by how they’re going to act as President. We should have war games. Put them in a room with their advisers, give them a circumstance and see how they react to decisions and uncertainty. The debate is a totally artificial way to judge who is going to be a good president or not.
Yeah, Bobo, war games aren't totally artificial, are they? Let's say we tried your way. Can we automatically disqualify any candidate who advocates an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, seeing as that's a violation of international law? If so, can we hope to see your contrition for cheerleading Bush for doing so five years ago?