Of course there is substantive pre-analysis of the debate. For example, Adam Nagourney (NYT) writes for the International Herald Tribune a preview from a perspective of what the candidates need to do. In his observation, Bush naturally is not absent from the calculus, but the declared candidates do have a role in the drama. Nagourney writes:

As much as Iraq or health care or any other issue, the question of how to deal with President George W. Bush is vexing the Republican presidential candidates.

Do they embrace him as a means of appealing to the conservative voters who tend to decide Republican primaries? Or do they break from him in an effort to show that they will lead the United States in a new direction? Do they applaud his policies or question his competence - or both?

By almost any measure, the field that these candidates are playing on has been created by Bush, who has dominated his party and politics for years.

It is his policies - the war in Iraq, the surge in federal spending, his proposals on immigration - as well as his failings, in such areas as Katrina, that are going to set the framework for the debate and the discussion ahead.

. The subtle part of the frame is that candidates are stand-ins for the Bush record, becoming one and the same. Fairly or unfairly, the interpretive context is guilt by association. Generally the press frames the debate in versions of "dissatisfaction with the current candidates." This framework has three basic manifestations.

Conservatives Reject the Announced Candidates

John Whitesides, Political Correspondent Reuters, summarizes:

The Republican presidential field has sparked some dissatisfaction among activists, particularly conservatives.

Giuliani, while leading in the polls, has drawn criticism from some conservatives for his liberal stances in support of gay rights and abortion rights. Romney has been attacked for changing his views and adopting more conservative stances on those issues before launching his campaign.

Carla Marinucci, San Francisco Chronicle Political Writer, quotes Bill Whalen, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University to make the point. "The conservative Republican shopper right now is looking at a display of dented cans, and the question is, are they willing to accept that or will they look for a different product?"

Candidate are "Fatally" Flawed

MSNBC condenses what to look for in the debate, each a laser pointed to shortcoming, perhaps disqualifiers. Surely similar zingers were pointed to Democratic candidates last week but their stories also contained redeeming qualities.

*    Will Giuliani, the former mayor of ultraliberal New York who is known to ramble on the campaign trail, project a focused message and adequately answer for his moderate stances on social issues?
*    Will McCain, linked to the unpopular war in Iraq and fighting the perception that he's tired, broaden his pitch and show energy?
*    Will Romney, fighting the label of flip-flopper and scoring low in the polls, come across as sincere in his beliefs and prove he deserves his top-tier spot?

The "Real" Story: Who Is Missing

There are three sets of non-participants who dominate the pre-debate coverage (and may dominate the actual debate).

Ronald Reagan
Reagan's newly released diaries and Nancy's front row seat, serve as reminders that the ten contenders are really the "seven dwarfs." The San Francisco Chronicle quotes, "If this debate were a drinking game, and you had to imbibe every time you hear the word 'Reagan,' you would pass out before the closing remarks,'' predicted Bill Whalen, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. (see also Ross Smith, "GOP Debate Debut in the Shadow of Reagan")

Arnold Schwarzenegger
Arnold joins Nancy in the audience and stands in for enlightened Republicans who are woefully without a representative on stage. Readers are reminded that, as Nagourney writes:

Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor of California who has managed to win re-election in a Democratic state in no small part by breaking away from conservative Republicans, said he thought it was a mistake for candidates to explicitly distance themselves from the president.

In the Wings
Newt Gingrich appears in debate commentary as the Republican with ideas, the GOP candidate only a conservative could love; while former Senator (and current Law and Order actor) Fred Thompson, the Southern Reagan, represents possessing decorum in an otherwise floundering assembly.

Taken together, the media frames feed the view that the GOP debate is less important; and by inference so are the participants. Certainly there is partial validity to each tale, but when told over and over as lockstep conventional wisdom, the deliberative space open to candidates is largely eroded. Why debate at all . . .