Disaster: GOP may bail on September CNN YouTube debate; Update: Ruffini responds to Hewitt
posted at 7:49 pm on July 26, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
It’s not certain yet but Rudy’s “unlikely to attend” and Mitt won’t commit. Ruffini puts it succinctly:
This is a big mistake. The Democrats are afraid to answer questions from Big Bad Fox News Anchors, and the Republicans are afraid to answer questions from regular people. Which is worse?…
Yes, some of the questions on Monday were trivial. Yes, they were partisan. (I expect many of the 9/17 questioners to be partisan Republicans.) Yes, they were messy. But so is democracy. And the fact that some place so much faith in the broken mainstream media over a benign format like this one says a lot about the difficult straits the Republicans are in right now.
The debate Monday night was no worse than the three previous ones and even if it hadn’t been, having to endure two hours of talking snowmen is worth it given the endless mileage the Democrats would get from them skipping out. “The GOP can’t face the people, the GOP can’t handle unorthodox questions, the GOP has no sense no fun” — it’s a PR disaster in the making. Although I’m not surprised it’s Rudy who’s leading the way. Formats that don’t lend themselves to pat answers aren’t his strong suit.
But why should the rest of the field follow his lead? In the case of the Fox debate, they all had to get out after Edwards got out lest they be seen as embracing Fox News and end up ceding to him the progressive high ground. In this case, if the frontrunner walks, the rest have every incentive to attend and then bludgeon Rudy with the same no-guts-no-fun talking points the Democrats have on ice. Fred in particular would want to be there as it’s set for three weeks after he’s supposed to declare and he needs all the free exposure he can get. His persona would work well in that forum too. McCain will be there, I assure you. In fact, having the rest of the field walk away would be his dream come true, as it would give him a stage to himself to do his maverick shtick and resuscitate his candidacy. Given all the obvious advantages to the others, Rudy will be there too. He’ll have no choice.
Then again, what does it matter?
Update: Another good one from Ruffini although he makes too much of the Rathergate analogy. No one except a few handfuls of bloggers and media wonks will care if the GOP comes off as pro-big media; everyone will care if they come off looking cowardly in the face of unscripted questions. He’s got Hewitt dead to rights on this point, though:
While I can certainly appreciate the desire to avoid “set up” questions, it is intellectually dishonest to simultaneously attack the Democrats for running from Fox News while raising the red flag at agenda journalism in the form of CNN/YouTube. I couldn’t agree more with what one of the Republican candidates said about this:
“Why is it that the Democrats wouldn’t even go on Fox, but we Republicans are happy to sit there and have Chris Matthews of the Carter administration, former chief of staff to (ex-House speaker) Tip O’Neill? We’re happy to sit there and have him dish questions to us, but they won’t even go on Fox.”
That candidate? Mitt Romney.
You can’t go crying about the Democrats ducking Fox and then pat Rudy Giuliani on the back for having the savvy to avoid a “set up,” boys. That dog won’t eat the dog food, as Fred’s latest cornpone koan (sort of) goes. Ruffini’s right too about the criticism that the YT debate is “unpresidential.” Revisit this video comparison Media Blog put together last month and remind yourself what a crack job the big media types at MSNBC did. I assure you, nothing will be asked by any YouTube user that’s half as moronic or undignified as “What do you dislike most about America?”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Good to see the Republican candidates doing their best to preserve the GOP’s reputation as the stupid party.
Slublog on July 26, 2007 at 7:53 PM
You left out the point that the democratic youtube debate trivilized our political process, came across as a joke and was nothing but a big media promtion for youtube.
offroadaz on July 26, 2007 at 7:55 PM
This whole process is a farce.
I wish many more Americans were politically aware and gave a sheit. Instead, we have the YouTube debates to reach the ignorant masses.
PBoilermaker on July 26, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Sure, there were some dumb questions – but this was a debate where citizens asked questions of their candidates. The GOP is opening itself up to charges of elitism if it skips this debate.
Slublog on July 26, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Absolutely. It doesn’t matter how stupid the questions are — and if you think they were unduly stupid Monday night, I invite you to find the transcript of the Chris Matthews debate from a few months ago. It’s the symbolic value of facing the people.
Allahpundit on July 26, 2007 at 8:00 PM
uTube CNN Democrats = no real credibility
Let’s have a real debate on issues and not a gong show.
Le’s not have Chris Mathews 2.0 debate and substitute uTube for Mathews.
Kini on July 26, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Seriously, it’s just hazing. Given the last one they are completely justified. I am so fine with their decision to skip this. And they get a pass because of the Fox News thing.
see-dubya on July 26, 2007 at 8:04 PM
Im all for having citizens ask questions. I think that is a great way for the people to get a real feel of their candidates. I just hate the way it was done on Monday.
I think it was done in poor taste, and was a 2hour advertisement for youtube.
Would you honestly go up to a candidate running for president and sing a song on a guitar to ask him a question? Would you wear a puppet on your hand and speak through the puppet to them?
Of course not. You would have respect for that person and what they represent.
offroadaz on July 26, 2007 at 8:05 PM
Sad… Pray for a miracle I guess.
George Bush has destroyed conservativism for a generation.
Lehosh on July 26, 2007 at 8:05 PM
I don’t think this will end up being a big deal when it is all said and done. The idea that the video questions presented on youtube represent the real, raw voice of the hoi poloi is stretching it, especially when they have been filtered through that room of four or five CNN producers.
Weight of Glory on July 26, 2007 at 8:07 PM
Boy, I think bailing is a big mistake. A big mistake.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 8:08 PM
This is beginning to become an, “I dare you to do this debate” sort of thing. Last month the idea of an all Spanish debate with, I think, Galavision was tossed around. Then, as now with this story, was the line, “Will the Repubs. do it?” And wasn’t it last week or so that the Dems. held a debate on only gay and lesbian issues? Will the Repubs. be expected to ante up to that too? I know CNN is not the same as Galavision, but the focus of this story isn’t CNN, but youtube’s involvement.
Weight of Glory on July 26, 2007 at 8:11 PM
The GOP doesn’t have exclusive rights here. AP, I laud your sentiments, but CNN and all the MSM have long lost any credibility or respect with conservatives. If no candidates show up, I wouldn’t be surprised.
kevcad on July 26, 2007 at 8:13 PM
I’d prefer they didn’t do the youtube debate. It’s not presidential.
I think it would be alright. Having a town hall debate should deflect any suggestions of cowardice. What’s the real difference?
thebriand on July 26, 2007 at 8:16 PM
In fact with this youtube/CNN debate, I don’t think the “people’s voice” was any more present than with the traditional “townhall” format, where people in the audience offer up questions. In other words, the fall out of skipping this debate should be the same as skipping out on any other debate. The involvement of youtube shouldn’t factor in anything new.
Weight of Glory on July 26, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Yep, a big mistake. It honestly appears like they don’t expect to win anyway and are just coasting through the process.
Buzzy on July 26, 2007 at 8:20 PM
Fine. You’re all right.
Republicans should ignore all debates that smack of liberals, or icky marketing.
That whole ‘connecting with the people thing?’
Totally overrated.
Slublog on July 26, 2007 at 8:20 PM
Yeah, skipping this one is just pure stupidity. The Democrat’s YouTube debate probably got the most publicity of any debate so far this preseason. They’ll just look humorless to opt out on grounds of “dignity” when the Republicans already seem out of touch as it is.
frankj on July 26, 2007 at 8:23 PM
My knee-jerk reaction was the same as Ruffini’s, but I’m tending to agree with Romney and, if it’s true, Rudy. There was lot about the debate that was stupid and demeaning – as though even our political process is now just another “free to be you and me” self-esteem session.
Yuk.
CK MacLeod on July 26, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Uhhhhhhhh…………..those were “regular” people I saw the other night?
Talon on July 26, 2007 at 8:24 PM
The Democrats have the lowest approval rating in polling history, have even disappointed their own base with not doing anything, and can you say William Jefferson?
And he’s right. What do questions from two comedians from “Red State Update” asking if the coverage of Al Gore hurts your feelings, have to do with how you will handle terrorism? Even the Democrats didn’t get many Iraq-related questions last week – and that’s their strong point.
amerpundit on July 26, 2007 at 8:24 PM
From the Mathews pMSNBC debate:
How may more questions like this one,
“Wouldya like to see Bill Clinton back in the White House?”
“Why not? I’m serious!!??”
uTube gonna be any different? I don’t consider it worthwhile or serious.
Kini on July 26, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Well it looks as though I’m in the minority on this one. I’ll blame it on my really cynical mood right now.
Weight of Glory on July 26, 2007 at 8:25 PM
I usually agree with Ruffini, but hold on. These aren’t questions from the average Joe. These will be questions selected from submissions, approved by Liberal CNN. CNN is only selecting the videos with questions they’d want asked.
You think Republicans wouldn’t get questions from Moonbats? Why? Because it’d be unfair? Like Republicans getting asked “What do you hate most about America?” while Democrats only get softball, Bush-bashing, opportunities?
amerpundit on July 26, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Shall we wager?
I could not agree more. Republicans cannot afford the public thrashing that bailing will earn them. The press will only add to the deafening public outcry of elitism and tone-deafness.
Furthermore, despite the poor showing by many of the youtubers, we have the same opportunity to flood youtube with our own video statements and questions. Good content will get reviewed and the cream will rise to the top.
Even if CNN ignores the bevy of astute questions I expect Republicans to submit, MM, HA, Instapundit, LaShawn, Redstate, Ace et al will do a great job of streaming the best questions from their own sites. We can exert pressure from now until then to make this as impartial as possible.
Times change. Our debate paradigm needs to be updated. This will give access to those who aren’t donors, or delegates…the little people who would never get invited to a town hall or pancake breakfast.
We have to think of this as an opportunity to maximize media reach. Anything else makes us look like a gaggle of whining wusses.
The Race Card on July 26, 2007 at 8:29 PM
MSNBC is even further left than CNN. If you want them to boycott because you’re afraid of left-wing questions then you’re adopting precisely the same mindset as the left vis-a-vis the Fox debate.
Allahpundit on July 26, 2007 at 8:29 PM
But the viewership disappointed.
Comparing the ratings for the CNN/YouTube Debate with the ratings for the CNN New Hampshire Democratic Debate, CNN was down a bit across the board; down by 6% in Total Viewers and down by 21% in Demo Viewers (25-54)…
YouTube Debate – 2,552,000 Total Viewers/831,000 Demo Viewers
New Hampshire Debate – 2,714,000 Total Viewers/1,050 Demo Viewers
amerpundit on July 26, 2007 at 8:30 PM
The Republicans are just scared they will have to answer real questions. Sure the truthers wasted time with talking snowmen, but I look forward to the chance to get down to brass tacks.
“What will you do about the millions of law breakers in this country illegally? Will you deal with them your first day in office? If not, why not?”
“How will you handle traitorous leaks of strategy and programs in liberal news media?”
If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
e-pirate on July 26, 2007 at 8:30 PM
“What Do You Hate Most About America?”
amerpundit on July 26, 2007 at 8:32 PM
By election time it will be meaningless rather they show or not.
Wade on July 26, 2007 at 8:33 PM
CNN picks the questions. You think they’re going to allow a question through which criticizes MSM mediums like CNN?
amerpundit on July 26, 2007 at 8:33 PM
Agreed. We’re months out from even the first primary. If this is the biggest criticism the Democrats could use against us, we’re in good shape. Fact is: It’s not.
When they’re attacking us on Iraq, are we going to counter with “But, we took part in a CNN debate!”?
amerpundit on July 26, 2007 at 8:34 PM
Heck, I’m glad the GOP candidates are looking like they won’t attend this youtube debate. It cheapens the entire political process of electing candidates. It’s simply a low, pathetic attempt to involve “Joe regular guy”, or make it seem as if he’s involved…
We all know what questions we’d like to ask…and so would a decent (note I say “decent”) moderator.
The whole youtube thing is “fluff”…and I, personally, don’t need the fluff surrounding what should be a serious debate on the issues.
JetBoy on July 26, 2007 at 8:36 PM
This field of Republican candidates keeps proving over and over again that they are the weakest group of presidential aspirants ever to stand up and bark. We are soooo screwed unless the dems nominate Silky Pony. I think either Hilary or He Who Walks on Water will wipe the floor with these guys.
McCain has lost his mind. He can’t find the right side of the issue without three kicks in the butt. Mitt can’t make his mind up. Da Mayor is only a little to the right of Hilary. And then there’s that loony dwarf.
The number of viewers on these things is always weak, but the coverage the networks provide in their wake provides gobs of free advertising.
doufree on July 26, 2007 at 8:41 PM
The Republicans should all eat at Taco Bell before the youtube debate, and then respond to stupid questions by simply farting into their microphones.
radjah shelduck on July 26, 2007 at 8:41 PM
However, the GOP’s lack of online presence is something that has to be addressed. This would be less of an issue, if we usually use the web to campaign. Might I recommend some John McCain ringtones?
amerpundit on July 26, 2007 at 8:42 PM
I would defin say that “regular people” is the worse choice. PBoilermaker summed it up nicely. At least with guys like Hume, Angle, Goler, and Cameron you can get good questions with follow-ups designed to pressure the candidates. But this far out from the election influencing public opinion of the GOP? I don’t see this happening and I have a hatred of GOP establishment. And the ratings… well it’s cnn. They’d be better off doing it on al-jazerra.
Of course, if you have the clip of Billa Bob and Jimbo talking bout the goracle of the lambs, count me in.
TheEJS on July 26, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Wow. It may have an influence on the scary 2.6 million viewers for the last YouTube debate. Of course, judging by the mixed opinions above, skipping it is as likely to impress as it is to turn off, so how is it anything but a wash?
a4g on July 26, 2007 at 8:42 PM
I think they should all skip it!
CNN will probably let some vulgar stuff get in and then say that they can’t help that the people feel this way.
So, yet again, the Republicans lose and the Democrats win in public relations.
pugsly on July 26, 2007 at 8:43 PM
Well McCain will win if that’s the test.
doufree on July 26, 2007 at 8:44 PM
I’m gonna need more details.
amerpundit on July 26, 2007 at 8:44 PM
The Republican candidates all did extremely well at the last debate – which was very left-leaning in the questions and tough. They should be willing to debate anyone, anywhere, at any time, since they are all able to that without any problem.
progressoverpeace on July 26, 2007 at 8:45 PM
They absolutely should not miss this. I am of the mind that if you believe in what you do, then you have no problems answering any questions even if they are biased or unfair.
I have always thought it wrong for any Republicans to avoid any legit forum, such as the NAACP. Just be a man (or woman) and stand up to the plate with what you believe.
Rightwingsparkle on July 26, 2007 at 8:46 PM
Do anyone think anyone would really watch another uTube debate?
There’s just too many candidates in the mix to have anything worthwhile. It seems more emotional rather than substance at this point in the race.
Kini on July 26, 2007 at 8:48 PM
There’s gotta be a point you cut off before making yourself and the process into a complete travesty.
TheEJS on July 26, 2007 at 8:49 PM
NAACP, would that be a somewhat Hostile audience?
Kini on July 26, 2007 at 8:53 PM
There is. But that point is not after it is setup and after your opponents have already engaged in theirs.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 8:54 PM
I say good for them for canceling. The youtube fiasco was demeaning.
Blake on July 26, 2007 at 8:57 PM
If the Republicans chicken out of the debate, they will really be shooting themselves in the foot. So hopefully somebody will talk some sense into these guys.
SoulGlo on July 26, 2007 at 8:57 PM
Yet jumping off a bridge just because the democrats do has never been a strong suite to the GOP.
TheEJS on July 26, 2007 at 8:57 PM
I dont have problem with the youtube format.
I have major problems with a biased CNN picking and choicing what questions to pass on.
We have seen truthers and other smear artist trying to target republicans. Do we really want a Kosnut asking stuid questions of our presidentual candidates ?
I think it would be more fair of a panel partly media and partly selected by the candidates to chose which Vids to answer.
William Amos on July 26, 2007 at 8:58 PM
Amen to that. The numbers on the Dim debate were 2.5 million total and 850,000 in the “young people” demographic. I would imagine they were hoping this format would appeal to the “kids.”
Waste of time. The candidates were told what the questions would be before the debate, so there were no surprises. At this point, debates are fill-in shows competing with the summer reruns and baseball games. Wake me up in October or November.
Mallard T. Drake on July 26, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Did I miss something? Jorge Bush is a conservative?
He destroyed NEO-conservatism (just setting the record straight here).
There fixed that for you!! (YouTube Debate – 2,552,000 Total Viewers) less than New Hampshire debate!!!!!
What the hell does a meager non-viewer rating have to with reality?
The Redstate Update was the only saving grace only because it was funny!!
The majority voting public didn’t care a hoot about the YouTube promotion.
The medium was the message.
The message?: Politics is a joke.
Which the majority voting public is not going buy into because they don’t believe this country is a joke.
Mcguyver on July 26, 2007 at 9:11 PM
But they already did a CNN debtate, and the questions were designed to be as embarrassing as possible. And they all did fine. Their performances at that debate made the Dem debate look like a 3rd grade food fight.
progressoverpeace on July 26, 2007 at 9:13 PM
Kini,
The Gong Show would be a far more respectable venue for debate.
In other news, when asked about his potential campaign Fred Thompson said “It takes a while to get your apparatus going.” hmmmmmmm
Fred would be a natural for the Gong Show debate.
jdkchem on July 26, 2007 at 9:15 PM
Let’s give ourselves a shake, eh?
There is NO-WAY a Republican Presidential debate on CNN-You Tube will be fair or “level-headed”. The Dems smell blood in the water and the MSM is shoveling the chum.
Any Repub. candidate who thinks otherwise will be lunch.
Randy
williars on July 26, 2007 at 9:19 PM
How am I supposed to make that analogy apply? Some help here would be nice.
The press hates a vacuum and if you create a space and then abandon it, they will fill it for you. The Press are not the Republican candidates’ friends. Do the d@mn debate.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Agreed, the whole uTube thinky is nothing more than a Regurgitation of the gong show. It’s entertainment and not substance.
Kini on July 26, 2007 at 9:21 PM
This should be the first debate with Fred Thompson in the race…they’ll show up even if the debate itself is less than normal.
SouthernGent on July 26, 2007 at 9:25 PM
The press may abhor a vacuum, but how many people trust the press anymore? Newspapers on decline, cable news programs in decline, and uTube is not news.
Kini on July 26, 2007 at 9:26 PM
They already did the Dem gay debate? I wanted to check that out.
I think the Republicans can come up with a better format for a debate than a repete of the Youtube thing. I would prefer that they not follow the Dems lead on this nor take the bait. They can certainly answer questions submitted via email, etc. in order to satisfy the ” questions from real people” thing.
Or, they can have a traditional debate that honors the Office to which they are campaigning for. But NO Chris Matthews/Queef Olbermann…
Dork B. on July 26, 2007 at 9:29 PM
Believe it or not. Most large gatherings of African-Americans have enough mooderates and conservatives to balance the load. I’m not saying there wouldn’t be some ruffled feathers. But African-Americans do show some love to the loud mouth contrarian.
Also, since many African-Americans typically feel “disenfranchised,” they are glad whenever anybody outside of the usual suspects shows up to be heard. Black audiences do a great job at disagreeing agreeably.
Just like most of us, they are going to complain when you’re not around…just a little bit louder.
Ask Tom Tancredo. Ask Rudy Giuliani. Both of these guys have been slammed in their absence and received accolades and applause when they showed up.
This same concept can be applied to the youtube format.
We must accept that this type of interactive medium is going to be more prevalent in the future. How lame of a legacy for our struggling party to have wussed out of the first one.
Malappropriation of the term disenfranchised acknowledged. Thank you for noticing.
The Race Card on July 26, 2007 at 9:29 PM
You really want to do something just because the other guy did it first? That’s really bad politics to start with, really really bad character traits in the long run. GOP is infamous for trying what the dems did first, if you want to go ahead then do it. Personally I would love to see the GOP fail if not for the House of Pelosi being 2 heartbeats away from total leadership.
TheEJS on July 26, 2007 at 9:29 PM
You can still give an intelligent answer to a stupid question, if not intelligent, than entertaining. In other words, you can still communicate to others besides the questionaire.
right2bright on July 26, 2007 at 9:32 PM
It’s not a matter of trust, if it were people would just turn on Brian Williams so he could tell them who to vote for. Save the trouble of all the debates. True – papers decline, cable declines – but that doesn’t justify ignoring them.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 9:32 PM
And they haven’t done so already? At some point, put principles above politics. ‘94 GOP sweep was due to having a backbone.
TheEJS on July 26, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Is your personal motive affecting your judgment?
No, but half of the battle is showing up.
So unless we schedule our debates before the dem debates, we should forgo them. Got it.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 9:34 PM
I found it very interesting that only 2000 questions were submitted on You Tube.
ericire12 on July 26, 2007 at 9:35 PM
Please clarify. What is the ’so’ they have done? I apologize, I didn’t follow. Create vacuum? Debate?
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 9:36 PM
“What does it matter?” Fact is, it doesn’t!!! The questions are canned, contrived and blatently partisan. ALL the debate(I dignify them for lack of another term) so far have been a waste of time, no matter the party. I agree with Rudy(or whomever is the leader). There must be better ways to spend ones time and money. The Dems boycott Fox, the GOP scorns CNN–yada, yada yada.
jeanie on July 26, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Can’t you see the headline: “McCain breaks new ground as he breaks wind.”
radjah shelduck on July 26, 2007 at 9:38 PM
No, but half of the battle is showing up.
So unless we schedule our debates before the dem debates, we should forgo them. Got it.
TheEJS on July 26, 2007 at 9:43 PM
ah dammit I get to eat humble pie for trying to move around some sentences when I’ve already got the thing written… BUT I SWEAR THAT I DID NOT PUT A STRIKE IN ANY SENTENCES!
I question the timing.
TheEJS on July 26, 2007 at 9:44 PM
Stupid people vote too. This would be a good chance to reach out to stupid voters.
e-pirate on July 26, 2007 at 9:45 PM
And what if Tom Tancredo, Rudy Giuliani, start speaking in a southern slang? I think Fred could get away with that.
Perhaps, but I would like to see more creditability in the questions and content. Not just some talking global warming snowman and some hillbilly with a Bushmaster rifle worried about getting his baby taken away. Which is what’s gonna happen.
Kini on July 26, 2007 at 9:45 PM
you mean that CNN debate where they asked them about creation vs Evolution ? Or that really impoartant Question about mothers behind bars ? Or all the Scooter libby questions ?
William Amos on July 26, 2007 at 9:45 PM
How can anyone think its a good idea to skip out on the youtube debates? I agree with Slubbo, Stupid Party indeed.
Bad Candy on July 26, 2007 at 9:46 PM
The so was about the vaccuum you talked about being filled by the media. I believe if you look at my entire comment, I included a blockquote in which you said “The press hates a vacuum and if you create a space and then abandon it, they will fill it for you.” Which I responded “And they haven’t done so already?”
Contrary to popular belief, I’m not bill clinton with “is”- just run into murphy’s law of internet postings when on HA.
TheEJS on July 26, 2007 at 9:48 PM
Usually don’t post again so soon but……finally clicked on the “what does it matter” link to discover the author of that piece saying that John Sununu of NH is already behind his likely opposition. I live in NH and that’s news to me!!!!!! The only people saying that are the NH Dems. and their own polls of their own people. I challenge that remark–in fact, it’s nonsense. Also, “likely challenger”–the Dems don’t even have one yet apparently. Saying it enough makes it so I guess?
jeanie on July 26, 2007 at 9:50 PM
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Presidential debate. I’ve seen a lot of prime time campaign speeches with the Presidential candidates all gathered in one place, followed by another half hour of pundits explaining to me who “won” based on how well they rehearsed, how confident they looked and how much they did or didn’t sweat. Can’t say I’ve ever seen a real debate though.
You exactly are these people that are swayed by these shows?
lowandslow on July 26, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Mitt! would be making a mistake by not attending. He does very well in these types of hit job debates. He may want to avoid it because, as he has been getting his message out, he is proving that his vision resonates with regular folks, and getting into a position to have to answer stupid premarital sex questions would be a step backward.
csdeven on July 26, 2007 at 9:52 PM
Who exactly are these people that are swayed by these shows? PIMF
lowandslow on July 26, 2007 at 9:52 PM
That’s the point. The questions at the last debate were stupid, nasty and intended to do nothing more than embarrass the candidates. Even so, all of the candidates came across quite well. This YouTube debate format could not be any worse. So, what’s to fear? They can handle it.
If a question goes over the top (although I can’t imagine anything worse than before) then one of the candidates can distinguish himself by challenging the question, itself. People would like to see that.
progressoverpeace on July 26, 2007 at 9:53 PM
You guys are forgetting something very important. Not only was the YouTube debate somewhat ridiculous in and of itself,
but Newt Gingrich the next day blasted the whole idea of the debates as they have been held so far and his critique may well have had an impact on initial GOP reaction to THEIR upcoming YouTube tilt.
To remind, here is what the Speaker said just two days ago:
Gingrich then blasted the MSNBC Republican debate held in May and also the behavior of the candidates at that debate. “You’re watching an utterly irrelevant, shallow television celebrity (Chris Matthews) dominate everybody who claimed they want to lead the most powerful nation in the world.” Gingrich also mocked “the idea of 10 or 11 people standing passively at microphones,” and said he refused to “shrink to the level of 40-second answers, standing like a trained seal, waiting for someone to throw me a fish.”
The whole idea of Chrissy “dominating” the candidates then transfers to a bunch of youtube snowmen and assorted citizen goofballs “dominating” the candidates, all courtesy of the “totally unbiased” editorial process of CNN. Yeah right.
Plus, you KNOW the submissions will be far more vicious, anti-Republican, and partisan when directed to the GOP.
I assume these guys will ultimately show up, but you can understand their reluctance right now as a product of what actually happened Monday + Newt’s stinging critique of the whole “trained seal, sound bite” procedure that masquerades as a “Debate”.
Always Right on July 26, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Not trust, but legitimacy.
Believe half of what you read and nothing what you’ve heard.
Kini on July 26, 2007 at 9:55 PM
How about the Republican IFILM Debate.
Cause, IFILM treats HA better than “Stumping for JewHatersTube.”
We can expect more moderation and less “OMG GHETTO N**Z HUMPIN’ SOFAS.”
BKennedy on July 26, 2007 at 9:57 PM
The Republicans should be showing up for the CNN/YouTube debate. I agree with the previous comments among those holding this position.
And I find many of those saying it’s OK for the Republicans to skip this debate to be hypocrites. I guess because the Republicans want to do it, then it MUST be the correct thing to do. But if the Democrats do it…well, that’s a TOTALLY DIFFERENT situation.
asc85 on July 26, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Addendum: The FOX NEWS/IFILM debate.
Good coverage for IFILM, more OMG FOX DOESN’T COUNT BS from the left, and no stupid left wing toolery.
BKennedy on July 26, 2007 at 9:59 PM
I think they should all bail on the YouTube debate. The problem with YouTube questions is who determines which of the many videos submitted are used? The Democratic You Tube show was designed to pander to their base. I don’t think it would go well for the GOP. Actually none of the debates of either party are worth watching.
Dasher on July 26, 2007 at 10:00 PM
All the more reason to take ‘live, unfiltered’ opportunities.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Why because I hate mindless primary debates, debates in general, or actors trying to play robin hood without a british accent?
“The great questions of the day will not be decided by speeches and the resolutions of majorities — that was the great mistake from 1848 to 1849 — but by blood and iron.”
TheEJS on July 26, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Ah well if they already created a vacuum in your perspective (ideological vacuum?), then a physical absence wouldn’t matter. Might as well pitch the debate and let the press spin that unflatteringly for the rest of the whole long process.
I’m not impressed with the Rep establishment either frankly.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Are your saying uTube is unfiltered?
It’s a opportunity, agreed, a lose lose opportunity. I liken it to Michael Moore moderating the debate. For that matter, how could it be called a debate? The Dem version wasn’t a debate. was it?
Kini on July 26, 2007 at 10:11 PM
He has done well. Only one misstep in all of the debates so far. He’s been impressive.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Good idea.
amerpundit on July 26, 2007 at 10:13 PM
I feel that no matter what you do, there will be that gap. If you honestly believe that taking time to do these debates is a good move, I’ll back you. But I’m especially not happy about elected representatives, like emperor bill of NM, spending time on the circuits more than fulfilling responsibilities they get paid for. I’m also not happy about the election being more then a year away yet you spend energy on debates, even more so primary debates where everyone but ron paul agrees to some extent.
In all concession, there’s a lot dems say right now you can turn around and use in the election. That’s a double-edge sword that leans towards Republican favor.
TheEJS on July 26, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Of course, YouTube is filtered. The opportunity to speak to the American people live is not.
If the debate were not already scheduled. If the dems had not already done their bit, then I might agree. But still the Rep are faced with a sense of inevitability, face time on TV, etc, is important to chip away at that.
I don’t care if they debate or just give stump speeches. Finish what you started.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Battling a sense of inevitability (61% I believe) about Hillary being next President. Sorry for confusion.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 10:16 PM
I would rather see a Fox debate that somehow involved some of the Talk Radio luminaries – Rush, Laura, etc. Followed by a similar debate for the blogs. To somehow get the media that we respect involved in the debate, Q and A, whatever.
Our talk show favorites and serious blogmasters could really contribute to the dialog, but wouldn’t shy away from tough questions and wouldn’t throw softballs. Think of how much more substance such a debate would have, compared to Chris Matthews asking Mitt what he hates most about the U.S.
Where would Conservatism be without Talk Radio and the Blogosphere?
I guess I’m saying that I want to see theses guys get tough, fair questions form real conservatives. If you’re looking for a dynamic new format that will interest the base, why not somehow involve some of the leaders in conservative media? And on Fox, because they have the most viwers.
The left will criticize it, but they’re gonna whine regardless.
Dork B. on July 26, 2007 at 10:17 PM
I’ll take a few headlines about the GOP skipping the debate over a lifetime of clips showing them playing stupid politician tricks with youtube asshats.
It’s better to be silent and appear a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
unamused on July 26, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »