Does anyone actually care whether Bill Clinton was, in fact, the first Black President? During last week’s CNN Democratic debate, I was annoyed with the fact that question was asked of Barack Obama. Obama chose to answer the question straight and try for a bit of humor at the end, rather than lambaste the question itself and turn it into a focus on one of the issues that needed further discussion. Given the results in South Carolina’s primary, it’s hard to argue with the approach he took.

Because of that question, I made a point of trying to record the questions asked the candidates in the MSNBC Republican debate a few nights later. Thankfully, I did not hear the same sort of (what I felt to be) inane question I heard in the Democratic debate.

One interesting aspect of this MSNBC debate was the moderators allowing the candidates to ask one another questions. The flaw to this is the fact no follow up was allowed to the response. Instead, as one commentator noted, the candidate asking the question would put an incredulous look on their face as they listened to their opponent’s response. Huckabee’s response to McCain’s question about the Fair Tax is an example.

Several questions were asked about the economy and government spending. Republican and Democrat alike, we are simply not hearing the kind of reality based discussion we should hear. Government finance has little difference from household or business finance. When you are in debt as we are, then you must find a way to do two things simultaneously. The first is to reduce your spending to the greatest degree possible. The second is to increase your revenue to the greatest degree possible. Use the additional money to pay down your most expensive debt first, then the next and the next until you are debt free.

The reality of our situation must be confronted. The two-front war we have chosen to involve ourselves in is a $6-8 Billion a month expense. Most of the rest of our Federal expenses are fixed and mandatory spending and those expenses are projected to explode with the retirement of the Baby Boomers. We have no savings to draw from. Instead, we are paying for things by borrowing and our national debt has grown to over $9 Trillion. This is why the Bipartisan Panel at OU said we are engaging in fiscal child abuse.

You cannot pay down debt by cutting your revenue through tax cuts (particularly when those tax cuts are only aimed at the wealthiest 1% among us.) You cannot pay down debt by establishing new programs without a source of revenue to pay for those programs.

So it was that when John McCain was asked this question. (Paraphrasing) “Our Army is on the verge of breaking. So is our economy. How can we sustain this pace without serious injury to our country?” McCain’s response was to scoff at the premise of the question and deny that either our Army or the economy was under serious strain. He made comments about never raising the white flag of surrender. This is simply not the “straight talk” McCain says is his strength.

As a follow-up, Mitt Romney was given a quote from General McCaffrey’s trip report about the Army being too small and poorly resourced to sustain counter-insurgency operations. Romney has said he would increase the size of the military, so Romney was asked how he would accomplish that expansion without resorting to a draft. His response was the standard one of offering more money and an improved GI Bill. The difficulty with this approach is exemplified by our current results. We are paying out incredible amounts of money for enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, yet McCaffrey says 10% of the force is not of sufficient quality to be in the force. Also, this is an increased expense. Where do we get the money to pay for this in light of Romney’s insistence on tax cuts? Perhaps most importantly, we will be continuing a system which does not force our entire population to either commit to victory or cut our losses and get out.

So, in summary, the questions asked in the Republican debate seemed to be superior to those asked in the Democratic debate. The difficulty this particular exercise seems to expose is the inability to bring out an opposing point of view. Or perhaps this is simply the kind of result you get when the contestants in the debate all espouse the same basic philosophy in differing shades of gray (or red or blue, if you prefer).

In criticism of myself, I did not listen to the last Democratic debate with the same approach I took to this Republican debate. As a result, I can’t make the same kind of criticisms of the Democratic candidates I have just made of the Republicans. I will do so at the next Democratic debate.

That said, the debates in the fall between the two parties’ nominees, should be explosive.