Question Length

The vast majority of answers were limited to 30 seconds (some even to 15 seconds!). It goes without saying that with such little time the candidates barely have a chance to explain the basics of their own positions, let alone getting into comparisons with others on the stage.

INDICATION: Think of this, the timing restrictions were so confining that not a single candidate even mentioned Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or any other Democratic candidate.  When was the last time that happened?

Why not allow longer responses that encourage interaction between the candidates?

False Choices

Several questions posed false choices that were obviously going to be dodged by the candidates.  Fiscal or social conservatism?  Good grief, how could anyone have expected an answer from a candidate other than "both." Another example was the question about what part of the U.S. public is overtaxed. Shockingly, we're all over-taxed (except Mitt).

Timeliness

Several questions lacked a pointedness that could have been enhanced with timely updates based on recent events and statements.  It has been reported that the moderator had spent a year preparing for the debate (not sure where all that time was evident).  This may have resulted in her missing, or undervaluing, the latest twists on a few of the issues.  

Example: Asking questions about the economy but not raising recent reports of the likelihood of an upcoming recession.  Should the Federal Reserve have taken stronger action this week to prevent a recession?  What early steps would your administration take to address a recession?  

Example: Asking questions about the role of religion in public life without asking Huckabee about his recent NYT statement about Romney's Mormonism, or a pointed question to Romney about his recent speech on his religion.

Issue Representativeness

Generally, moderators like Chris Matthews in these debates ask too many obscure "inside baseball" questions concerning issues that the average voter or caucus-goer doesn't care much about.  They usually leave me feeling that the candidates aren't forced to answer important kitchen-table questions.

The questioning in this debate seemed to veer, almost desperately, to the other extreme. Questions seemed to be chosen with deliberate disregard of the issues that are prominent parts of the current campaigns.  Not a single question about immigration?  No question about the Iraq war?

Missing the Point

Even though some important issues were raised, like the economy, the questions themselves did not get to the important points of disagreement among candidates.  

Example: the first question about the economy. The candidates were asked if the debt was a threat to national security. How could anyone expect a question framed this way to unearth important insight into candidates, let alone comparisons?  

Why not expose and probe important areas of disagreement (free trade, relations with China, immigration, extending the Bush tax cuts)?

Why not ask specific questions about how each candidate would reduce the debt? Was Bill Clinton a better steward of the national debt than George Bush? Would any of the candidates be willing to cut ethanol (or other agriculture) subsidies as part of a deal to limit domestic spending?

An old friend of mine used to say that these political events were not debates at all - but were parallel press conferences.  The Republican DMR debate today certainly matched that description aptly.  

I wonder if, upon reflection, the sponsors of this debate will be satisfied with what they produced.  It will be interesting to see if tomorrow's Democratic debate has the same shortcomings.