Jamison Foser of Media Matters posted a detailed commentary about the content of the presidential debates - or, more specifically, the prominent absence of questions in the debates on issues of rule of law and the Constitution. (Hat tip to imapatriottoo for the link)
Through 17 debates this year, roughly 1,500 questions have been asked of the two parties' presidential candidates. But only a small handful of questions have touched on the candidates' views on executive power, the Constitution, torture, wiretapping, or other civil liberties concerns. (A description of those questions appears at the end of this column.)
Only one question about wiretapping. Not a single question about FISA.
There has, however, been a question about whether the Constitution should be changed to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to be president.
Not one question about renditions. The words "habeas corpus" have not once been spoken by a debate moderator. Candidates have not been asked about telecom liability.
It's a shocking assessment of what the candidates have not had a chance to talk about in the presidential debates. Foser contextualizes the meaning of the absence of discussion of rule of law issues in the debates:
These are serious times. There is no guarantee that the next president will quietly abandon the Bush administration's embrace of torture and wiretapping and detaining people without charging them with crimes. There is no guarantee that the next president will ignore Bush's precedent and treat Congress as an equal branch of government. The political media's shocking indifference to these matters suggests that they think the nation will simply and spontaneously return to normalcy the moment George W. Bush leaves office, governed once again by the laws and principles and freedoms that have long constituted America's essential qualities.
But this is by no means a certainty, and helping Americans understand the approach the various candidates would take to these matters is perhaps the most important thing the media can do over the next year.
Chris Dodd has made his campaign for the presidency about restoring the Constitution because he recognizes how critically important leading according to the rule of law is for maintaining our identity at home and keeping America safe. His dedication to these issues has also been a hallmark of his career in the Senate. He's arrived at these issues despite the absence of their coverage in the press - a clear indication of how seriously he takes them.
Unfortunately there just haven't been many opportunities for Senator Dodd and the other Democratic candidates to discuss issues related to the rule of law in the presidential debates. Tim Tagaris and I usually check in at some point in every debate to point out there doesn't like questions related to FISA, habeas, or oversight into Bush administration lawlessness would come up in the debate.
What makes the lack of discussion on these issues isn't so much that I think Chris Dodd's record on them would be recognized by voters as distinguishing him from his competitors (though I do think that's the case), but that these issues are crucial and pressing. As Foser writes, "these are serious times." The onus will be on the next President to either continue or end the Bush administration's questionable policies relating to the rule of law.
We know where Chris Dodd stands - he will get the Constitution back for the American people - but it'd be a credit to the American public if there was a greater emphasis on these issues in the presidential debates.
