It’s debate season. That period where we’re overwhelmed with verbal beauty pageants judged by every correspondent, analyst, poll, tweet, politician, academic and “wannabe.”

It’s a game designed to convince us who won, who lost, who had the biggest put-down or the cleverest line. Ever wonder why you often change your mind about the candidates after a debate? It’s those self-proclaimed experts incessantly browbeating you into submission. You really don’t think the debates are about you, do you?

There’s pre-debate hype greater than a Super Bowl. Pandering at its highest levels. Mindnumbed robots answering inconsequential questions. Moderators who can’t break themselves away from looking in their mirrors and who’ve been instructed on what to ask and who to ask.

The public gets the reflection of the debate coaches, polls, media bias, consultants and big donors. The candidates’ real persona stays hidden. Are we really so gullible?

When will we decide for ourselves? Maybe that’s the point, we won’t. It’s been a long time since our last real statesman. Maybe we don’t know one when we see one? But, how can we do any worse?

If we truly believe in our Constitution and our republic, do we need the “cute tricks” and the “make believe” to pick our nominee?

Thomas Carlyle: “A man lives by believing something: not by debating and arguing about many things.”

Do the stupid questions, interruptions, talking over one another, time limits and playing gotcha have any real value?

What’s so wrong with substantive one-on-one discussions, actual job interviews? We can’t afford more canned speeches, trained seals and phony side shows in deciding who will become the most powerful person in the world.

Aren’t we at that significant moment in American history where getting a genuine statesman is not debatable?