Keller @ Large: These Debates Need To Change

BOSTON (CBS) - Did you enjoy the more-than-two-hour-long Republican candidates' debate Tuesday night on foreign policy and the war on terror?

I did not, for several reasons.

For starters, I've had enough of so-called debates with nine candidates on stage. It saps the discussion of any coherence or continuity, promotes sloganeering and redundancy, and fails to produce any actual, meaningful debate.

Instead, we get a joint interview with the panelists and moderator that at times exposes the shallowness of the candidates' knowledge but rarely provides clear focus and contrast, as a good debate should.

It's time for debate sponsors to put on their grown-up pants and produce serious debates involving no more than four candidates at a time. Draw lots, flip a coin, let the polls decide, I don't care, produce multiple debates if you can't take the heat, but these cattle calls are not a satisfactory response to the public's need to know.

Secondly, when will we learn that what candidates say about foreign affairs during a campaign has little connection with what they wind up doing once elected?

Candidate Obama said he would close Guantanomo and make the U.S. popular in the Muslim world; those both turned out to be pipe dreams. You can expect the same fate for much of the rhetoric onstage Tuesday night.

A good debate gives you insight into the political courage and skill of a candidate, or lack of it. Other than Jeb Bush, who stumbled through some weak moments, no one Tuesday had the nerve to take on the front-runner.

And that makes you wonder – what are they all so afraid of?

Listen to Jon's commentary: