One more note about Raddatz: near the end of the debate, she asked the two Catholic candidates how their religion influences their views on abortion. This was a reasonable question unto itself, but also reflects standard DC assumptions on these issues.
It is often noted that the Catholic Church stridently opposes reproductive rights. But it is almost never noted that the Church just as stridently opposes US militarism and its economic policies that continuously promote corporate cronyism over the poor. Too much emphasis on that latter fact might imperil the bipartisan commitment to those policies, and so discussion of religious belief is typically confined to the safer arena of social issues. That the Church has for decades denounced the US government's military aggression and its subservience to the wealthiest is almost always excluded from establishment journalistic circles, even as its steadfast opposition to abortion and gay rights is endlessly touted.From this we are asked to acknowledge a consistent moral platform placed against the American concept of political expedience (that expedience which serves candidates and their chances at being elected and staying on the Govt dole).
A politician cannot talk about moral issues because every single assertion they make is immoral by nearly every standard. Sanctions against Iran to starve the population? Drone strikes on mourners at funerals? Hell, drone strikes anywhere? Decades-long detention of "combatants" without charges and/or evidence of any sort? Lying about "entitlements"?
Name it. Politics is Lying to Serve Interests. Why do we debate this?
So, now, what good is a debate within this frame?