GOP YouTube fallout: We’ve lost the perky vote
posted at 8:18 am on July 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
The teddy bears on the bed are a bit much.
Here’s another one, short but much less sweet. I hope this is what they have the boss talking about tonight on O’Reilly. A righteous, nationally televised lambasting of GOP cowardice on this subject is just what the doctor ordered. Plus, it’d give KP a golden opportunity to perform her crowd-pleasing standard, “I agree with Michelle.”
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 [3] 4 »
That about sums it up right there. You want to pander to the ADD crowd this early in the election process at the risk of alienating conservative voters who will be paying attention throughout?
Guardian on July 30, 2007 at 1:06 PM
go here and rate:
http://www.communitycounts.us/debates/
it’s not nessesarirly our community, but it’ll be the one cnn uses as their guide, i’m sure.
it’s basicly a page which pulls all the debate questions into one page with it’s own seperate rating/tagging system. you can vote for the candidates to either “answer” or “ignore” the question. you can also mark a question as “spam”. you don’t even have to register.
get to it. a “spam” (plamegate) queation is riding the top of the list as we speak.
jummy on July 30, 2007 at 1:07 PM
OK, you’re getting close. The point is, why is the presidential election process controlled nearly step by step by a msm then the majority of the American people know is biased to the left.? There is enough money among the “greedy” republican party to set up a series of debates and to allow any legitamite candidate to participate. Contrary to liberal perception and leftist media contention, conservatives would be able to produce a creative, informative and enjoyable debate.
There is a more important point to making a stand now and not going on this gimic show. When has anyone seen Hilary in a real and honest give and take situation? Know one because it doesn’t happen because the real Hilary would be easily recognizable. Anyone of the legitamite republicans would run circles around Hilary in a real and honest and open debate. If the republicans do not make a stand now about keeping the campaign serios, how will they stand up to the msm and league of women voters when it comess time for face to face debates between the eventual candidates.
If the republicans don’t make a stand now the presidential debates will be very controlled and highly organized to protect Hilary.
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Can some one explain how participating in a debate is going to alienate conservative voters? Serious question and I’m completely open minded about it, but I’m just not seeing it. If I missed an explanation of it already then I’m sorry for the repeat. I did a second glance over the existing comments and didn’t see anything, though.
However, from my perspective, it looks like the older generations just couldn’t care less about the younger ones. To which I reply “gg no re.”
CorinthianJest on July 30, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Here’s a couple of precedents;
Precedent 1)
The republicans don’t want to answer questions from people in costumes chosen by a network with undeniable leftist bias.
Precedent 2)
The democrat party doesn’t want to go on the highest rated cable channel to answer questions from highly experienced and respected journalists.
If you think these two precedents are anywhere close to being similar then you are a moral relativist.
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Uh, what happened to the investigative, go-get-’em spirit of the HA community?
Specifically in regard to Captain Perky, a few quick linkthroughs takes us to this “Melissa Jenna’s” VOX profile where her interests are listed as being:
So not only does she like France, she also seems to have made her choice for POTUS.
Kind of telling as to who/whom is challenging guys like Mitt for pish-awing the UTube debate. Beside the typical cliches we’ve seen above regarding her being clothed and the super-cute teddies in the bg, until a perky, attractive conservative chick in a tube top makes these challenges, the debate is over.
chrisro on July 30, 2007 at 1:20 PM
What is the deal with anonymity in regards to asking questions at a “debate”? Do people wear masks to town hall meetings, protests, etc… If you are going to ask a question on this level, show your @#$#@ face!
I thought the whole point was for typical YouTubers of the YouTube “community” to be representing something or another. You can’t even verify if this is a legitimate YouTuber or just some CNN sock puppet with “masks”.
And besides the YouTube community doesn’t represent anything anymore than any other online “community”. Most of YouTube seems to be marketing/advertisements for something or another and most YouTubers with significant subscriptions are either making money or have an agenda. Get it? YouTube is not representative of anything specific.
nottakingsides on July 30, 2007 at 1:26 PM
WELL DONE!
So Allah, are we all still being paranoid? I guess I’m being paranoid thinking that moveon.org is submitting hundreds of videos as we speak.
Not only should youtube not be considered a real voice of the American people, cnn should not be given any credibility as an objective news source.
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 1:37 PM
I really don’t care what the republicans do, but I do care that they at least do something. Day after day, week after week, month after month there is no activity from the republicans. It’s like they’re all standing around with their heads in the sand. What are they waiting for? Dig up some dirt, make some noise, kick some butt.
At this alarming rate we’re staring at the real possibility of liberal rule for the next 16 years. Complacency is going to kill us in 2008, just as it did in 2006. Can anyone even imagine 16 years of liberals holding all three branches of government??? The time for panic is growing near. Republicans have such a weak crop of candidates to choose from, so they’ve got to stir things up so much that no one is paying close attention to who is running during all the commotion. The only way to pull this one out is to completely discredit the liberals. How hard can that be?
stacman on July 30, 2007 at 1:38 PM
If the R candidates decide to participate, they should immediately dismiss any foolish, demeaning or baiting questions or speeches masquerading as questions. All such videos should be answered “this is a stupid or ridiculous question and I refuse to answer such twaddle.”
I doubt whether anyone would have the fortitude to dismiss such questions but I certainly would.
I won’t pander to those who hate me or have no intention of listening to my views or considering them. Only a fool does that.
ScottG on July 30, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Stuff like that would be shown for YEARS. Anytime anyone on that stage who says something like that is involved in anything serious for the rest of their public lives, that clipp will be on the news constantly to discredit there position.
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Some view it as good others as bad. All in the eye of the beholder. Either way I would not think it will sway an election in either direction.
Wade on July 30, 2007 at 1:44 PM
“…and this one time, at band camp…”
RMCS_USN on July 30, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Jeesh! She’s a motor mouth on her Vox page, too.
Blake on July 30, 2007 at 1:47 PM
ScottG on July 30, 2007 at 1:49 PM
They need the debate, and more importantly the coverage that will come after it is long over. It is a huge chance to get the mass media to talk about something other than Iraq. Furthermore, the decision not to debate clearly is driven by fear. Just like Dems. should not be afraid of Fox, the Republicans must not be afraid of the internet.
If the election is decided on Iraq (as the mid-term was), be prepared for open borders, higher taxes and a weaker military.
doufree on July 30, 2007 at 1:50 PM
I especially liked her quote from her youtube page:
Guardian on July 30, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Who would consider them serious? Us? It’s 99% certain that one of those guys will get our vote. All the undecideds will see are msm news people prefacing clips of them answering that way with remarks about them dodging questions or being condescending or rude to the questioner (AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!). I have a million examples of the msm spinning stuff that way, let’s have some examples of the msm being fair.
Do you people realize algore got 100 million votes! The guy is certifiably insane but the msm helped convince 100 million voters that he could be president. What do you possibly believe could be said at this kind of circus that couldn’t be said in a more dignified environment suitable for a campaign for president of the United States?
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Actually, my comment wan’t directed specifically at your agument. I was bringing up the gay debate hypothetically to make the point that it’s up to us to do what’s in our best interest, and not take our cues from the Democrats.
But mostly it was directed at the argument that “if we don’t do it we’ll be accused of being scared”.
They could certainly make that argument if some or all of the GOP candidates declined to participate in another LOGO debate…it’s basically a where do you draw the line hypothetical.
Dork B. on July 30, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Hey I will always listen to what a cute young girl with an interest in “stretching” has to say.
Zetterson on July 30, 2007 at 2:04 PM
I agree, but so what? The thing about the media is they are what they are. We can moan about it and can even try to change it, but in the mean time we’re stuck with what we’ve got.
Fine, but where? The only possible answer, for TV at least, is Fox. Pros: You get better journalists and probably better questions. It’s the Republican primary, after all, so why not hold the debates on a more conservative (or, at least, less liberal) network? Cons:We would be, probably rightly, ridiculed for not having the courage to face CNN. “How can we expect these Republicans to stand up to our enemies when they’re afraid to face CNN?” I know, I know, that’s exactly what we said about the Democrats, but do you think it will get more or less play this time? And remember, it is the primary, so this is a good time to see how well the candidates can handle foolishness. Lord knows they’ll get enough of it in the general election debates.
Again, whoever our nominee is, he will be subjected to all sorts of tendentious and foolish questions from the usual suspects in the general election debates. This is a chance to see who can handle it.
I’m sure you’re aware that this is going to happen anyway, regardless of what we do or don’t do.
student on July 30, 2007 at 2:12 PM
I agree.
This rabid insularity has already divided the party. We are able to react to issues like Amnesty. But, we don’t have a focused platform.
All the dissenters sound like flat Earth fear mongers afraid to sail over the edge of the planet. It’s like the cheerlead squad begging the football team not to play a tougher team.
Just stay on the sidelines. Cry if we lose. Take credit if we win. The rest of us will step up and play to win.
The Race Card on July 30, 2007 at 2:17 PM
What a waste it is to lose the perky vote. Or not to have the perky vote is being very wasteful. How true that is.
- Dan Quayle (paraphrased)
MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 2:23 PM
I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more perkiness in our voting patterns - but that could change.
- Dan Quayle (paraphrased)
MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 2:25 PM
And in lighter news, the screencap of Ms. Valley Girl 2007 up there is still cracking me up.
Professor Blather on July 30, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Well, as long as we’re willing to discuss the reasoning for a differnce of opinion politely… oh.
I still don’t see the gain. You get a reputation for participating in an oddity (especially if not everyone participates) in the group that has over 60% turnout, and you avoid offending a group that has under 30% turnout.
Now, admittedly, my math degree was a couple years back; but that just doesn’t look like good planning. If the 18-24 crowd voted in elections, it might be a decent plan. If they voted in primaries, it might be a decent plan. Since they statistically don’t get 1/3rd voting… why cater?
Apparently my realization that the 18-24 crowd doesn’t vote is “flat earth fear monger” type stuff? Interesting. Maybe you think the 45+ crowd is watching for sock puppets, masks, etc.?
How many people age 45+ do you know who watch sock puppet videos and consider them serious rational discourse?
Color me concerned when “the race card” wants to play to win.
Really, your comment reads that you’ve decided that you’re right, everyone else is stupid and deserves to be called names, and you’re the only way forward… wait.
Did you post the second video up there? Good job dude, how’d you get away from the pipe long enough to find the camera?
gekkobear on July 30, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Agreed. There wasn’t much respectful in those posts you quoted.
Ironical irony. Dig it.
Professor Blather on July 30, 2007 at 2:44 PM
OK, someone help me out here. Youtube rose to fame by showing idiots making fools of themelves and hosting copyrighted material. They’ve hosted jihadi propaganda and anti-Semetic hate videos. They are now owned by a left-wing internet company that helps China crack down on those who have the audacity to exercise freedom of speech.
People are actually debating whether or not they should be invloved in a GOP presidential debate? This isn’t an election for class president. Usually when people graduate from high school, being cool or hip isn’t the most important thing.
Heck, maybe we should lower the voting age to 14 and let people text their vote to 1-900-DUMBASS.
reaganaut on July 30, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Only 51 million votes, they didn’t quite steal the other 49.
Will they show the questions too? I don’t see enough people being put off by a candidate calling a fool out. It might even help those seen as less manly. (excluding The Evil One of course)
ScottG on July 30, 2007 at 2:47 PM
The lenses in her spectacles look like plain glass.
(Plus I think I still see price tags on those “casually placed” teddy bears.)
And she say her name was Cruella Deville?
profitsbeard on July 30, 2007 at 2:50 PM
I have to question your motives a bit here, AP. You run a blog, and to the extent that internet media can increase the profile and/or roll blogs play in the political cycle, presumably the better it will be for Hot Air. Which is great, by itself–I’d be all for places like Hot Air and MM’s own site gaining more readers and influence–because I feel sites like these generally raise the level of discourse in this country, particularly over that of the soundbite-sniping posturing that dominates virtually all of television news.
Unfortunately, while it may involve the same medium as political blogs, the ridiculous YouTube “debate” format is nevertheless a lowering of the level of discourse in the country. It might be good for the internet medium, but it’s not good for political messages in general.
I can’t help but wonder if your enthusiasm for the former is clouding your judgment about the latter.
Blacklake on July 30, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Nothing like condescension coming from a twenty year old.
Dork B. on July 30, 2007 at 2:59 PM
?
I am constantly amazed…
Your answer to me is “Where?” You are effectively ceding control of the media to the left. Accepting that nothing can be done without their control.
How about a series of debates, each on a different topic. Moderated by experts on that topic(from the right or left). Possibly allow questions from the audience if time permits. Allowing time for substantive answers. Have them open to the public but with dress codes , no signs and strict codes of behavior (if you want to observe an adult debate, you behave like an adult). Different locations around the country. All the networks have to do is bring in their cameras. For all the networks who want to participate, have a drawing to determine which network covers which topic.
If cnn or msnbc opt out, then they tell the American people what they are all about.
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Obviously, the Republicans need to participate in this farce, and for one very simple reason:
I mean, like… hello?
-phil
phile on July 30, 2007 at 3:00 PM
So bend over and grab your ankles?
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 3:02 PM
How can you compare those of us who are against willfully degrading the Presidency by participating in a Game Show where all the contestants are losers and the winners are those who refuse to bow down and worship at the youtube temple of Relativism …to “flat Earth fear mongers”?
Don’t you get it? You can’t “win” at this game. It’s sole purpose is to demean the Presidency. The YouTube Show is irrelevant to the Primary Election anyway.
Guardian on July 30, 2007 at 3:03 PM
I definitely feel there are liberals amongst us pulling chains.
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 3:05 PM
I agree with AP, the GOP is essentially giving up the votes of a whole generation. You stodgy cons who think you are so much “above all this” are yukking it up now but soon enough you will be marginalized to “Ron Paul follower” status.
The Sinner on July 30, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Read back through the posts. There have actually been people on here claiming that not going to the youtube show will cost the republicans a generation of voters for decades.
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 3:08 PM
That really says it all. That electing the leader of the free world needs gimics and that a serious candidate is willing to do anything to win.
If that what we are all looking for, lets’s nominate algore and get it over with.
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Wow. Absolutism at it’s finist. Every 18-24 year old is a devotee to youtube and believes the world revolves around it.
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Prologue: I’m a 24-year old, white male.
Chapter 1: I’ve been a registered Republican since the age of 18. While I have no intention of defecting, the current platform — as convoluted as it is — of the Republican party has left me looking like a moderate-leaning conservative. Rough stuff, I know.
Chapter 2: I think that the CNN/YouTube debate(s) is/are naught but a steamy, heaping pile(s) of bravo sierra. Did I mention that I’m 24?
Epilogue: Unless CNN provides a closed circuit of the debate to every church, VFW hall, gun club, grange, and executive washroom, the YouTube debate will only be of interest to liberals looking for talking points and folks like Melissa Jenna looking for their 15-minutes of fame on real television to justify their communications degree.
Like, totally.
chrisro on July 30, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Every Republican like you is a jesus-freak pompous ass who only has to answer to God and not the people. How’s that for “absolutism”?
The Sinner on July 30, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Dude, don’t you know that at your age you are supposed to be vacuous, narcissistic and of limited intellect. You are supposed to be following the lead of people who videotape themselves punching their best freinds, exposing their breasts or stapling things to their bodies and posting it on the internet for all the world to see.
Get with your generation, bro.
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Shows how shallow and closed minded liberals like you are. That description doesn’t even come close.
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Hitchens?
captivated_dem on July 30, 2007 at 3:28 PM
I left out angry. You liberals are so angry. Are your lives so limited that it’s necessary to spread that anger?
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Not at all; I was merely asking who was going to air this fair and serious debate. As far as I can see, the only possible candidate is Fox, and I gave a couple of pros and cons for that choice. I infer from your follow up that your idea is to hold the debates independently and hope that the networks show up. That might work, I guess, but I’m not at all sanguine that they would. Certainly there’s nothing in their record to suggest that they’d do anything other than cherry pick some embarrassing vignettes for their regular nightly newscasts.
student on July 30, 2007 at 3:34 PM
I am socially progressive, yes, not a religious-based bigot like you and the jihadis. But I believe the Dems are weak on defense, so I have few options. People like AP and Hitchens (i.e. grown-ups who don’t believe in fairy-tales) give me some hope that this party hasn’t forever been damned by the likes of Falwell and Bush.
The Sinner on July 30, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Well BOD, your quote really says it all. They are the douchebags. What is happening now is intimdation from these arseholes in hopes to ‘threaten’ our side to participate. The dippy chik is a setup vid. Four plus minuets of bull. I only had to watch a min/30 and shut it down. The guy is equall a s**thead. The looser vote. You you got it BOD. They’re the same people that no doubt posted on the “We’re Sorry” site after the 04′ Election.
These Freeking Libs are suck jobs. Filth and pig crap. Like Ayan Hirsi said to the Canadian on that farce of a “interview” he did “You spit on your freedom.”
auspatriotman on July 30, 2007 at 3:38 PM
No, but it’s no use pretending that that’s not what the MSM, who, after all, will account for most of the coverage, will do. My alternative was to use the primaries to see which of our acceptable candidates has the best chance of overcoming the natural bias of the MSM for the Democrats. Do you think it’s better to just deny that regardless of what we do the MSM will favor the Democrats?
student on July 30, 2007 at 3:43 PM
I can see your point on Bush, but enlighten me, what did Fallwell do that was so terrible to the GOP?
Dork B. on July 30, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Explains an aweful lot.
Thanks for the good laugh.
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 3:46 PM
What do you think the majority of the people backing walking away from this stupid television show, not a debate, are saying?
You want to lie back and accept the inevitable, I want to take control of the process.
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 3:50 PM
His “Moral Majority” helped turn the GOP away from libertarian-based social views and more towards religious-based social views, turning all secularists and agnostics away from the GOP, perhaps forever. As Hitchens said about Fallwell: “Too bad there’s no hell for him to burn in”
The Sinner on July 30, 2007 at 3:51 PM
But you’re still with us, right?
Dork B. on July 30, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Apparently not…
Dork B. on July 30, 2007 at 4:03 PM
When it comes time to vote, she will be too busy to take the time to do it.
In the late 70’s a Congressman made the statement “Why should we listen to, and do anything for Vietnam Veterans. They don’t bother to vote.”
This one statement did more to get Vietnam Veterans into the polling places than anything.
The same attitude pertains to these kids. Politics has always been a Poker game. When the time comes, place your bet or fold, it’s the only options. These kids always fold.
Helloyawl on July 30, 2007 at 4:08 PM
How is being afraid to face tough questions at the same level as refusing to participate in a promotion for YouTube?
And Allah, please keep us all informed if Ms. Perky does a video on stretching.
pedestrian on July 30, 2007 at 4:11 PM
auspatriotman on July 30, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Why don’t you tell us how you really feel??
;-}
jdawg on July 30, 2007 at 4:14 PM
I really really want to be, and I support Rudy and think he would be a tough, great President, but the attacks of the Evangelical wing of this party against him may kill his chances and our best chance against Hillary.
The Sinner on July 30, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Did you pick the two most irritating youTubers or what! What a couple of self righteous prigs.
I’d draw the line at an interview with Space Ghost.
A quick witted Republican could have some fun with this stuff so whay not. It’s stupid but so is the Dhemocrat base and we just may get some of them this way.
Mojave Mark on July 30, 2007 at 4:33 PM
YouTube, I know you consider yourself politically active and all, but there’s someone I think you should meet.
This is Rock The Vote.
saint kansas on July 30, 2007 at 4:35 PM
But how? All I’ve seen so far is:
(1) Don’t take part in the YouTube debate
(2) Hold our own debate and hope that a network will cover it fairly and in toto.
Number 1 is hardly taking control of anything and will certainly be characterized as running away. Number 2 is a good idea if you can get a promise from one or more of the networks to do so; I’m not at all confident that you can.
Again, I’m not saying that the debate is a good idea; I don’t know. That’s why I’m pressing you for your ideas on alternatives.
student on July 30, 2007 at 4:35 PM
The Sinner - I really really want to be, and I support Rudy and think he would be a tough, great President”
Rudy was a Sanctuary City Mayor. He was to the open borders side of Bill Clinton’s administration on this “issue”. You can have him, I don’t want him.
MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Okay, way too many here are interested in the perkies and not her mind (hell, even just her face - ewww).
And Blake, thanks for the Hillary visual…Must.go.commit.a.Glouchester.
Miss_Anthrope on July 30, 2007 at 4:46 PM
The Sinner on July 30, 2007 at 4:29 PM
As far as Rudy goes, I remember saying not too long ago, “I’ll never vote for a Pro-Choice candidate!”
Then the all-too possible scenario of Rudy vs. Hillary became apparent and I had to do a bit of soul-searching.
I’ve decided that any GOP candidate is better than her. I think if Rudy gets the nomination, the Christian Right may surprise you. We know what else is at stake. I can vote against Socialism as easily as you can vote for a Moderate Republican. I like Rudy very much, by the way.
But my position, of course, is that the Christian Right has been good for the GOP, no doubt about it. And Fallwell was a good man ( not perfect) who was demonized by the Left.
Dork B. on July 30, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Allah, I can’t believe you subjected us to that broad who couldn’t have been more annoying. Wow!
And does anyone notice that neither of these people actually made a real case why the Republicans should attend this shambate? There “points” boil down to “these are the American people” and a “big segment of the population” and “youth vote”. What they neglect to note is “…. through the CNN filter!”
I agree the Republicans should go to this thing, because it makes the Dems look worse for not going on Fox.
Anyway, Army of Davids is one thing, but the army of self important YouTube douchebags is practically vomit inducing. I posted a couple versions of the Saddam hanging and got about 100,000 views on just those… but that didn’t force me to jump in front of my camera and start acting like some condescending a-hole and pretending I’m more important than I am, and that YouTube is a serious venue for political debates. It could be… if there weren’t so many fricken’ morons on there.
As for Ms. Perky, take a look at her during happier times:
http://mjc.vox.com/library/photo/6a00c225278094604a00e39897b1f70004.html
RightWinged on July 30, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Some of the people on this thread don’t seem to know that every action a politician or a political party takes results in adding supporters/ contributors/ votyers while simultaneously losing s/c/v.
It’s not “you win some, you lose some”; it’s “Everything loses you some while winning you some”.
the Originator or this thread apparently believes–to the extent that AllahSuperSkeptic actually believes anything– that appearing on a CNN YouTube ‘debate’ will gain more s/c/v than such an appearance will lose for that candidate
I seriously doubt that figuring or configuring…….
Even if a GOP candidate goes on this circus act, anything he says can and will be used against him–and by going, he will alienate more than a few existing s/c/v
The Nays outweigh the Yeas
Janos Hunyadi on July 30, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Well then you can have Hillary, cause she would surely trump whatever single-issue candidate like Tancredo or Hunter you seem likely to support.
The Sinner on July 30, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Why can’t I help think of 2000 when reading this….
Another problem with this statement: The YouTube audience and the YouTube debate audience probably don’t have as much overlap as some might assume.
calbear on July 30, 2007 at 5:40 PM
In the short term, yes, the religious right was beneficial to the GOP. But since young voters are now favoring the Dhimmicrats by almost 30% margins, the long-term effects are absolutely toxic.
The Sinner on July 30, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Her mind?
- The first thing out of her mouth was a lie. She is not undecided.
- Her voice was dripping in condescension to her listeners.
- She chose her wardrobe.
- YouTube is named after BoobTube. It’s all about the perkies.
pedestrian on July 30, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Yes, but how will that be any different from appearing on NBC, CBS, ABC or any of the others? Do you think that the average YouTube user will ask questions dumber than the ones asked by, say, Chris Mathews or Wolf Blitzer?
Unless you’re advocating retreating to the relative safety of Fox with all that entails, I don’t see how the Republican candidates are going to avoid hostile questioning. I also don’t see how your remarks regarding AllahPundit advances the debate.
student on July 30, 2007 at 5:54 PM
The answers to your questions are, “yes” and “yes”
Regarding what you can and cannot see, that is your obvious problem and not mine.
Try not to reach too far with “entails” and kissing up to Allah
Janos Hunyadi on July 30, 2007 at 5:58 PM
That’s a percentage I’ve never heard but accepting it’s true there is no evidence that it has anything to do with religion. All evidence points to this country becoming more spiritual, among 20 somethings pro-choice is not a given and when asked, voter dissatisfaction with republicans seems to be more with the parties shift away from conservative values.
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 6:00 PM
What Janos means is that since Allah is not a Jesus Freak Zombie like him and actually has the intelligence to not believe in fairy tales written 2000 years ago, he has no credibility in his eyes.
The Sinner on July 30, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Man you are giving yourself away. I don’t even watch cable tv but what liberals perceive as a conservative slant is actually balanced. Everytime I watch there as many liberals on as conservatives and I’m always annoyed they don’t hold the liberals feet to the fire. Most of the time Ann Couter is on Hannity and Colmes they usually have two liberals as well as Combes to shout her down.
I have yet to hear any decent answers to my questions. Why are conservative candidates not allowed to demand standards of behavior and a certain decorum and respect for what this process is all about? Why do republicans have to play by democrat and msm rules?
I would have more respect for a candidate that stood up and refused to take part in this farce then soemone who gives credibility to left wing youtube and cnn.
By the way, hasn’t there been youtube censorship of conservative videos? Didn’t something happen with one of Michelle’s videos?
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 6:08 PM
As Brad Pitt, played by Achilles, said to that Australian actor who was trying to be Hector, “You are not a worthy opponent”
capitalizing “zombie” gave you away……..
Janos Hunyadi on July 30, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Here’s a Better Idea:
How about instead of taking questions from fools dressed as Polar Bears and expressing concern for what their “cubs” will face in light of global warming……
How about real live debate. Real questions from an audience. Questions that haven’t been approved by all the “debaters” staffs. Questions that don’t require a show of hands or can be answered by carefully scripted answers.
Some examples:
What would you do as President if Congressional Democrats get their way and defund the war causing immediate withdrawal?
Would your administration make stopping the flow of illegal aliens a priority? How would you keep the illegals out?
Would you grow or shrink government spending? Where would your spending priorities be?
Do you support measures such as warrantless wiretapping of foreign nationals?
Do you think that the atrocites of 9/11/01 were a terrorist act or a criminal act?
highhopes on July 30, 2007 at 6:18 PM
NOT ALIGNED WITH A PARTY!?!?!
LOL! How stupid do you think people are?
She’s doing the exact thing she claims Romney, et al, are doing….underestimating the viewer.
Idiot.
Ok, a hot idiot….but still an idiot.
EduardoOTI on July 30, 2007 at 6:21 PM
ok, it’s 22%, not 30%, but it’s trending that way, and you can read that for yourself here. And yes, stringent, archaic, religious rules and intolerance are very much to blame. Just read.
The Sinner on July 30, 2007 at 6:26 PM
As our incompetent, Jesus-Freak President would say, “Bring it On”
The Sinner on July 30, 2007 at 6:29 PM
chrisro on July 30, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Heh. Winterguard: color guard for those who can’t get their fill of it during football season. She’s the stereotypical winterguard girl.
Big S on July 30, 2007 at 6:31 PM
How dare we decline an invitation to dialog with Time Magazine’s Person Of The Year?
Who do we think we are?
Dork B. on July 30, 2007 at 6:37 PM
To follow up on chrisro’s comment -
From this “bank slate’s” website, “I know Hilary and her Political Death Machine are already favored, but my loyalty lies with Barack Obama. I would give John Edwards a chance if only he were a little more definable.”
Source
Blank slate indeed.
JoeRed on July 30, 2007 at 6:57 PM
The preference for the Democrats can be explained in part by default.
You may want to go back and read that article again, Sport. The hard information supports my statement, the writers opinion about the data mostly support my position, and then his hatred of Bush comes out and he goes right off the tracks. Nothing in there says religious values have chased the young away from the republicans. What all the data supports is what Winston Churchill said more then 50 years ago, “If you are under 30 and are not liberal you have no heart, if you are over 30 and are not conservative you have no brain.”
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 6:58 PM
The Sinner - “Well then you can have Hillary, cause she would surely trump whatever single-issue candidate like Tancredo or Hunter you seem likely to support.
I don’t want Hillary either. I am not into choosing the lesser of poisons. Been there, done that.
MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 7:03 PM
JoeRed on July 30, 2007 at 6:57 PM
Checked that link - good grief. Thet “blank slate” ought to be “empty brain”.
jdawg on July 30, 2007 at 7:09 PM
“If you are under 30 and are not liberal you have no heart, if you are over 30 and are not conservative you have no brain.”
peacenprosperity on July 30, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Man, you are cool. I Googled that quote earlier to see who said it - I thought it was Chesterton. Thanks for adding it to your comment. It rings so true, at least in my case… I didn’t grow up immediately when reality struck, but I abandoned Liberalism!
Dork B. on July 30, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Winston Churchill said more then 50 years ago, “If you are under 30 and are not liberal you have no heart, if you are over 30 and are not conservative you have no brain.”
Frequently attributed to Churchill, but apocryphal. (Yeah. I know. I was disappointed too.)
CyberCipher on July 30, 2007 at 7:20 PM
“52% believe the Democrats reflect their moral values, compared with 36% backing the Republicans. This is grim news for the right.
44% favour marriage rights for gay couples, compared with 28% of all adults.”
So if the GOP’s extreme-religious values have not chased away young people, why do more young people now than ever support gay marriage and say the Democrats more reflect their “moral values”? The younger generation is more tolerant, and feels pushed out by the GOP’s religious zealots when they don’t join them at the pew.
The Sinner on July 30, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Fact is, the GOP needs to purge itself of the religious nuts like Bush, Brownback, Dobson, Robertson etc, and embrace those more secular and libertarian like Arnold, Bloomberg, Guiliani and even Ron Paul if it wants to continue to be a viable party. The time for this purge is now, as 2006 taught the GOP a huge lesson. You religious nuts can split into the “Jesus” party (sounds a lot like the ones they have in the Middle East, huh?) and leave the “Republican” party to us purists.
The Sinner on July 30, 2007 at 7:28 PM
See
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
where it says:
CyberCipher on July 30, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Don’t you mean Christians should vacate so that YOU can rename the G.O.P. to the Gay Old Party? Mark Foley? Is that you?
/sarcasm off
CyberCipher on July 30, 2007 at 7:38 PM
This is just silly. I said relative safety of Fox. I didn’t say that Fox was conseravate–in fact I specifically said in a previous response that at least they are less liberal than the others. Why do you insist on labeling me a liberal just because I won’t acquiesce to your view on the debate?
You haven’t asked any questions, you’ve merely asserted that being part of the YouTube debates is a bad idea. I have tried to draw you out on this as to why you think that. As to why Republicans have to play by MSM rules, I would think it’s obvious. That’s like asking why do we have to die. Some things may suck, but they are what they are and this is one of them. The question is, how can we make the best of the situation we find ourselves in?
Of course. YouTube is much like the MSM and Hollywood and all the rest: the liberal assumptions are built in. So what? We have to deal with the hand we’re dealt and it doesn’t do any good to weep about how bad it is.
student on July 30, 2007 at 7:43 PM
The Sinner on July 30, 2007 at 7:28 PM
You sound a bit Christophobic to me, partner. I’m also guessing from some of your other posts, looking at your spelling and grammar, you ain’t from these parts, are you? You sound like one of those post-modernist european socialists who hate anything that might even slightly smack of religious (except maybe islam).
jdawg on July 30, 2007 at 7:45 PM
AP,
I’d be more sympathetic to your worries here if we had a good chance of winning in ‘08. But we don’t. We’ll do well to hold the line on the congressional races, much less retain the White House.
So ultimately, it just doesn’t matter whether our guys do the YouTube thing or not. The result will be the same.
paul006 on July 30, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Well, I don’t think their worldview and priorities are set in stone at that age. Mine weren’t.
Liberalism sounded rational and appealing to me at that point in time. All of my heroes were hippies, druggie artists or musicians; and I read Rolling Stone religiously. College seemed hip enough to trust as it informed my politics…
But I grew out of it. Soon after I was forced to grow up and support myself - as soon as I was experiencing adult consequences for everything I said, signed, did or did not do. In other words…when reality struck!
So kids today, I’m certain will fall along traditional party lines as they grow older with about half Right and the other half wrong. They have never been a factor as a group in any election that I’m aware of.
Rolling Stone may disagree…
Dork B. on July 30, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »