Felicia Sonmez notes that various deficit idealists are asking (demanding?) that one of the presidential debates be set aside for their pet issue, and asks whether we should do what they want.
Obvious answer: no.
We get three presidential debates. Generally one is given to foreign affairs and national security, which seams reasonable. So half of the other two debates should go to one peripheral issue?
Oh, yes: some people claim to believe that the national debt is overwhelmingly important. But no one actually acts as if it is, and with good reason. Of course, there are lots of issues for which the claim is made that they are overwhelmingly important, but we don't have one of the three debates over, say, climate change.
Granted: pushing for presidential debate questions about one's pet issue is a perfectly understandable strategy for interest groups to do if their goal is to raise their issue's profile. So I can't really blame anyone for trying. But personally, I'd rather see Mitt Romney and Barack Obama spend 90 minutes talking about how to keep Bud Selig from implementing his awful playoff scheme and realignment that forces constant interleague play than to watch them waste 90 minutes spouting cliches about how awful terrible the big bad deficit is.