Too much of a good thing?

In the lore of the U.S. political system, debates are among the most hallowed of rituals. From Lincoln-Douglas on, they have been the moments when voters are supposed to have an opportunity to get to know their candidates, contrast their ideas, evaluate their mettle.

But this campaign season, it might be fair to ask: Are Americans getting too much of a good thing?

As of today, there will have been 19 debates among the GOP contenders for president. No other events have played so great a role in turning the party's normally orderly process of picking a standardbearer into a roller coaster ride.

"There's no question that the debates have devolved into one part soap opera, one part reality TV, one part C-SPAN," said Republican strategist Todd Harris.

Debates were the undoing of two once-promising candidates, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. They made front-runners, however briefly, of two otherwise unlikely ones, Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota, and former Godfather's Pizza chief executive Herman Cain.

And without them, former House speaker Newt Gingrich would not have been able to

resurrect his dying campaign, not once but twice.

The long season of debates has undoubtedly made the candidates familiar figures to many Americans, offering the willing viewer plenty of opportunity to absorb competing economic plans and various other positions.

One could argue that it has altered the balance of power a bit, shifting it away from the party establishment to an electorate apparently eager to engage: Ratings show the debates are drawing huge audiences.

But some worry that Republicans are putting too much emphasis on how well the candidates perform on a debating stage, something that might not matter that much this fall.

"The general election is not going to be 17 debates. It is going to be three," said Karl Rove, who was President George W. Bush's top political adviser.

Gingrich has boasted that he would coerce President Obama into doing a series of unmoderated forums in the style made famous by Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas during their 1858 Illinois Senate race (which, incidentally, Douglas won).

Political veterans, however, are skeptical that Obama would agree to anything like that.

In 2000, Rove said, Bush attempted to get Vice President Al Gore to add a fourth debate, and he proposed that it be on NBC's Meet the Press.

"We were kidding ourselves," Rove said. "Al Gore's campaign stiff-armed us, and the national media yawned."

Rove is concerned that the amount of time candidates are spending in debates has taken away from other priorities, such as deepening their messages, broadening their appeal and building their organizations.

Worse, said former congressman Mickey Edwards, a Republican from Oklahoma and a vice president at the Aspen Institute, "People aren't thinking about the qualities it takes to be president. They're thinking about who can give Obama a bloody nose."

Because debates have been so crucial, other aspects of campaigning have become less so.

Where voters in Iowa and New Hampshire were accustomed to getting to know the candidates in person, in their local diners and church basements, they saw relatively little of them this year, except on their television screens.

Romney's 160-page economic plan made far less of an impression than Cain's repetition of his "9-9-9" sound bite.

For better or worse, the debates have become a powerful factor in the race.

Exit polls suggest that Gingrich's performance in two debates last week were crucial in his stunning come-from-behind victory in South Carolina, which interrupted former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's glide path to the nomination.

Among South Carolina voters, Gingrich established himself as the strongest potential rival against Obama and the most credible on the economy, two attributes previously enjoyed by Romney. (next page »)