As I thought about writing a quickie post on what might be a list of solid, substantive questions today, I found myself checking my RSS feeds and found more and more folks thinking along the same lines: we need better questions and better debate not just to "elevate the discourse" (as noble and important as that is). But the political process itself and the players on the Republican side of it desparately need better debate to fill the void created by the Bush presidency.

Right now, the Republicans must distance themselves from Bush and Tom DeLay, so they heaken back to Reagan (as we write here and here).

Let's start with the baseline. Digby (a Democrat) says:

I'd love it if Matthews would take the trivial tack as Williams did with the Dems last week, but I don't expect it. One would think that if they can discuss Edwards' haircuts and Joe Biden's gaffes in a debate they could certainly ask about McCain's temper tantrums. I doubt that they will even near the issue of ties to corrupt, rich businessmen as they did with Obama because well, the debate only lasts an hour and a half. (And I would think it's important to hear about Romney's underwear and Rudy's ferret problem. These are character issues.)But Matthews probably won't ask any of these questions. Republicans are serious, manly people and deserve to be treated with respect.

Yea, Matthews is a "hardballer" but what would it really mean to be serious?

Hotline's list of "What to Watch For" is a mixture of sound bites, pablum and a few policy provocations. In another post, though, they come close by asking the right question but answering with the wrong question list:

We're guessing the questions that will lead to conversation and perhaps even actual debate tonight, will be the ones that address the state of the GOP. These general questions can be asked of everyone on stage and could potentially show some real differences between them:

Who or what played the biggest part in your party's defeat in '06?
Would you let Karl Rove manage your campaign?
Would you say the phrase "Mission Accomplished" can be applied to any aspect/initiative of Bush's presidency?
What does it mean to be "pro-family"? Is everyone pro-family?
What is more important in a voting record: consistency or evolution?

And as the candidates gather at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library to compete for the tittle [sic] of Most Reaganesque, it will be interesting to see who can invoke the late president's sunny optimism and still give a realistic assessment of Iraq, which voters seem to crave.

We're looking forward to tonight being something other than sound bites and stump speeches. We're confident it can be an actual debate if the right questions are asked.

Most of the above questions are questions about how the game (Rove, 2006 defeat blame) of politics is played or how to frame (pro-family, Mission accomplished).  But that's the GOP problem in the first place: the dispute is about the content of twenty-first century conservatism and the Republican Party.

Getting closer to the crux of the problem is the USA Today's article which lists the "five hurdles" facing the GOP. But Chuck Todd, who recently left Hotline to become NBC's political director gets it closest to right with his post today, "Republican Identity Crisis,". His subtitle says, "California debate could define what `conservative' means" but unless his network changes the format and the questions, that is unlikely. Nevertheless, he offers up some good questions:

As for the debate, these 10 Republicans have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to the party's identity crisis. Are they the party of small government?  (If so, then defend the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security - which came without the disbanding of another agency.) Are they the party of national security? (If so, then defend why the public has lost confidence in the current Republican president in regards to Iraq.) Are they the party that defends America's culture of playing by the rules to get ahead? (If so, defend the president's stance on illegal immigrants as well as whether this global economy is good for so-called American Exceptionalism). Are they the party that stays out of your daily lives? (If so, then defend the Terri Schiavo intervention.)

It's really simpler than all of the above: ask straightforward questions about the candidates' positions on the major issues, the role of the president in our structure of government, and the role of government itself.

With ten candidates in ninety minutes we cannot get them to defend those positions or compare the arguments for and against them. But we have months more and many debates more in which to do that.

Good debates start with a statement of the positions of the sides. If we never get off to a good start, we can never get to the more detailed debate we crave and the Republican Party's voters will be unable to choose a coherent direction or a candidate for who they can be enthusiastic.

Some basic suggestions (add your own in comments, please):

Should social services be further privatized?
How politicized should political appointments be?
Should the deficit be reduced and if so, at what cost?
Should the U.S. be more involved in and committed to international institutions and international law?
Is preventive war ever justified?
Is humanitarian intervention justified?
Should we negotiate and have high level diplomatic talks with so-called "rogue states" like Iran, Syria, and North Korea?
Is the rule of law more important than temporary security risks?
Should the president have fast-track authority to conduct trade agreements?
Does the Congress have any role other than the power of the purse in the conduct and duration of war?

Well, you get the idea. We need to know what the fundamental principles are that guide the Republican approach to war and peace, not just that "mistakes were made" in the Bush administration. Until then, it is unlikely Reborn Reagan will ride to the rescue or that people will want to be enthusiastic about "Bush, but competent."