This story is stupid on so many levels, I almost don't know where to begin.
The short form is this: the commission that decides the when and where of the Presidential debates (really they just propose them, the campaigns can still agree or not) published their list of same, along with the moderators. Surprising precisely no one, all the moderators were confirmed leftists. So some Senators- Republicans Lindsey Graham and Saxby Chambliss, Democrat Mark Pryor, and the Independent (see also: Democrat) Joe Lieberman sent a letter specifically requesting questions, in the first debate, on the so-called Simpson-Bowles commission on deficit reduction. Showing their true colors, three Democrats in the House, Mike Honda, Jerry Nadler, and Jan Schakowsky, all signed a letter asking the debate not "to unnecessarily narrow such an important debate by placing disproportionate attention on one set of proposals over another." They went on to say that it would "thwart the candidates' ability to explain alternative proposals."
With the basic facts out of the way, we can begin mocking the Democrats.
First, this was Obama's commission, which he then summarily ignored. Certainly asking questions about the commission, and specific points they support or reject would be valid questions. To argue otherwise is stupid. It would be like asking the moderators of a Bush/Kerry debate not to ask about the War on Terror. It's a major issue, it needs to be discussed.
Second, there's the little problem that they just called Barack Obama stupid. You didn't see it? Take a look at this again: "thwart the candidates' ability to explain alternative proposals."
For this to be true, here is what would have to happen:
MODERATOR: Mr. Obama, you commissioned the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to find a way to reduce the deficit. Thought the the committee's proposals never made it into law, can you highlight some specific areas where you agree and specific areas where you disagree, with the panel's suggestions?
OBAMA: [Deer in Headlights.]
Seriously, that's what would have to happen. Any even moderately competent debater could answer that question. Here's one, of the top of my head, example:
"I'm glad you asked that. The Simpson-Bowles plan was wide ranging and ambitious. I did agree with much of it. They understood the need of the top 1% to pay more of their fare share in taxes, for instance. They saw that Defense spending is getting out of control. However, they use the backs of the poor- those most dependent on the social safety-net- too much to regain balance. The Simpson-Bowles plan would simply have devastated social safety-net programs, and that would simply be unacceptable."
(Okay, need to go puke from channeling the SCOAMT. BRB... Alright. Back.)
Given how transparent that is, the House Democrats can only have one real motive for opposing those questions: they know that the President will simply get destroyed if those issues come up in the debate. Worse, for them, they're tied to him. When they voted for Nancy Pelosi as House Minority Leader, they reaffirmed their support for Barack Obama and his agenda.
Let's see how that looks for them: Forty-two months of official unemployment over 8%, and real unemployment over 14%. Deficits in the millions of millions of dollars. New Debt already accumulated of five million million dollars. Energy prices soaring. Food costs soaring. Manufacturing down.
The economy is in a shambles because of Barack Obama's policies, and the Democrats know it. It's hardly surprising they'd rather not be embarrassed by it on live national TV.