Since you don’t give specific examples, it’s impossible to know what you have in mind.

It seems to me, however, that much of what is perceived as ‘left’ or ‘right’ questions would be better handled by ‘left’ or ‘right’ answers than by sorting questions into political piles.

I also think that you and Kritter are veering off into expecting too much from the format of group debates, and in the context of the primaries, to boot. In the brief seconds allotted for answers in the current debates, there really is no opportunity for in-depth and nuanced treatises on complex policy issues. Answers, by necessity, have to be confined to being indications of broad general principles and approaches, rather than detailed explanations. Even those can convey a lot, though.
and can be conveyed either from a ‘left’ or ‘right’ perspective.

Unless I see a proposal convincing me otherwise, then, I see no reason to worry about the bias in questions. The man in the street (or youTube) is concerned with a broad array of topics.

It’s the answers!

I watched some of the Senate debates on Meet the Press for the ‘06 election, and felt like Tim Russert did a fairly good job of asking hardball questions with follow-up. But, he only had to interview two candidates- unlike the 8-10 that are usually in front of us.

Are there some things each party would rather not talk about in public?

I think that is absolutely the case. Certain issues are avoided altogether by one party or the other, while others are the issues on which they can easily score points with the voters. The base for each party has different primary concerns and a much different perspective on the problems of the country. This can easily be manipulated, and certain types of questioning allow one ’side’ or the other to appeal to their base while also hooking in some independent voters and avoiding alienation of all but the hardcore base of the opponent’s party.

There’re two factors at work: one is that certain groups of voters have more interest and concern on certain issues and have a particular mindset about how problems can be best addressed. So, a questioner who has a bias and wants to help one party or one candidate win a debate (and this could be either a conscious or an unconscious desire to help) will tend to stick to the “easy” issues for the party he/she favors and the harder ones for the opponent(s).

The second factor is that when this hypothetical biased questioner poses certain questions to both parties or candidates, he can lob a soft one at his favored candidate and a much tougher version of the question to the other(s). Or, he might let the answers of his preferred candidate stand while challenging the others with tougher followup.

My preference is that ALL questions should be tough and probing, with vigorous followup that is designed to highlight the different approaches of all of the candidates. If a candidate makes a proposal that sounds great on the surface, the questioner should play devil’s advocate; for example, if the candidate proposes a program to combat poverty, followup questions should force him/her to also divulge the expected costs of the program and defend the cost effectiveness of it. If a candidate talks about reducing taxes, he/she should be asked whether or not he/she would run up deficit spending in order to maintain tax cuts, if spending was deemed necessary as in our current state of war.

It seems almost universal that these candidates are permitted to pretend that they have simple answers to very complex problems. We should ask them to defend their proposals, always playing devil’s advocate to their pat answers.

Prescriptions for the perfect debate sound good, but that’s another subject and doesn’t answer why the questions themselves are seen as being partisan.
Are there some things each party would rather not talk about in public?

One important question that i would life to ask concerns earmarks and lobbyists, for example. Both parties are acting badly in this regard, so would this question be a ‘left’ or a ‘right’ question?
What about Iraq? Is that ‘left’ or ‘right’?

When you watch a Democratic debate-there’s little discussion beyond a prescription for diplomacy about the regional war that is now brewing in the ME. When you watch a Republican debate there’s no mention of the real problem of global warming. These problems will affect us no matter what our party affiiation is.
I guess I’m comprehending the impetus behind Unity ‘08, though still seeing pitfalls as well, unfortunately.

I agree with you on the vapidity of this and almost all presidential debates. I’d love to see William F. Buckley moderate a GOP primary debate, and for serious liberal/progressives to nominate someone similar to moderate the Dems- and then the two of them co-moderate the general election debates after the primaries are over (could also include questioner to raise relevant issues and philosophical questions for Libertarians, Green party voters, or any other third party that gets on the ballot in enough states). And when I say that the questions come from a questioner who has a particular political/philosophical leaning, for the general election my point is that ALL of the candidates would then have to answer all of those questions- so that a Dem would be answering questions that are important to conserative/Republican leaning voters, and a GOP candidate would have to answer on issues important to liberal/Democratic leaning voters. Instead of pandering then, they’d have to explain how their policies could still be embraced by people from both sides of the political spectrum; and with the addition of third parties, we’d also hear answers to how the two mainstream parties would address the issues that have led people to consider the alternative parties/candidates.

Some folks are also pushing for a bloggers debate, which might be interesting as well- though I imagine there would be lots of fighting over which bloggers get to participate.

The questions relfect what’s on people’s minds
The answeres are up to the candidtes, and they can answer according to whatever political leanints they espouse.
I don;t understand why you focus on the questions and not the spectrum of possible answers.

I missed a lot of this while out today, but in response to Rambie…

I’m sorry CS, I meant to put SD instead and didn’t even notice… again, my apologies.

I’ll agree with you that there were plenty of frivolous quests in that debate. Some of the topics are what I’d like them to discuss but the questions were not thought out well.

That the problem with the other major debates from the past several election cycles. There are no tough questions that really challenge a candidates stance on the issue at question. Most of them are allowed to just squirm away without really having to give a definitive answer.

I’m talking about both Left and Right here.

My feeling though is that when it comes to the GOP, the questions will STILL have a left of center leaning. Some people will feel that’s appropriate since anger at Bush has led many people to tilt that way anyway, but it still means we won’t have a discussion based on conservative philosophy and concerns which would be more appropriate for a GOP primary debate. You’ll have candidates trying to earn conservative cred on social issues, but on true fiscal conservatism or a return to the more realistic foreign policy of past GOP administrations, not so much.

There is an open season on abusing victimhood.
Abuses should be called out. Smearing one party with a denigrating lebel is inexcusable.

Besides, the process is destroying the English language, where words no longer mean what they mean but are hjacked to be used as a specific political attack.

Electoral politics are about showing that you’re the right person to solve problems, and if there are problems there are likely victims.

And don’t “Republican issues” have victims too?

“I’m horrified that Jim and Bill are kissing!!!”

“The government wants to take away my guns!!!”

Also, I wouldn’t assume that anyone who thinks the GOP needs to attract new voting blocs is a moonbat.

If that were true, we’d be hoping that they stagnate and die out so that one-party rule would prevail. I seriously doubt anyone here wants that. To me permanent Democratic rule would only encourage the corruption we had under 12 years of Republican rule.

PWT, “Where is this ‘moderate voice’ that I keep hearing about?”

Pot, meet Kettle.

I’m sorry SuperDestroyer (and a bit embarrassed!)

Wolf Blitzer cannot make a video claiming to be a victim and demanding that the government give him something. What the Republican, correctly, know is that CNN will pick videos that go: I am a fill in the blank (lesbian, father of a sick child, widow, elderly person, black man) and I am suffering.

Is CNN picking the question in the GOP debate? And if so, why didn’t they choose the question in the dems debate (You Tube did).

I know you are proned to knee jerk reactions based on no knowledge and all, but seriously..

Like promising to double the size of Gitmo? Or promising not to take nukes off the table in our conflict with Iran? Or saying that all of the socially liberal positions you took to win a liberal state are no longer your official positions? What about Gingrich who promised Liberty University to work towards Christianizing the nation? Or pledging to close the borders?

My point is that politicians all pander to their audiences- whether they believe in what they’re saying or not. The GOP base gets galvanized when you talk about flag-burning, banning gay marriage ,revoking Roe v Wade and closing down the borders. So that’s what their candidates tell them.

I guess they can afford to forget about the black vote, since they dissed the NAACP- not their base right? And Hispanics might be a little annoyed about their immigration rhetoric. Now I assume they realize that gays and lesbians won’t be rushing out to vote GOP or feminists or atheists or Muslims.

Now, they decide that only younger people who don’t really vote anyway (and when they do vote Democratic) really use You-tube or watch CNN. And, of course, anyone who hasn’t profitted in the last 7 years from Bushonomics is just a parasite, whining about their victimhood.

Maybe they ought to think about widening their base before they become as extinct as a brontosaurus, lol!