GOP candidates set to sign on to YouTube debate
posted at 10:24 am on August 7, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Four are confirmed — McCain, Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, and America’s Greatest Hero — and campaign sources think the rest of the field could go this week. Whom to thank?
Some of the campaigns have said the originally targeted September 17 date conflicted with their fundraising schedules. Ms. VanSickle was not able to confirm which campaigns have officially agreed to participate or when an official announcement might come.
But the campaign of former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, which privately questioned the debate format, has made a number of public statements indicating he is open to participating. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney appears less convinced after being the target of several YouTube videos questioning his credibility on issues of importance to social conservatives.
Former Govs. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Tommy G. Thompson of Wisconsin are on board.
Multiple sources close to the discussions say it was pressure from conservative bloggers, not scheduling conflicts, that made the reluctant Republican candidates reconsider.
It’s unfair but if Mitt ends up the lone holdout he’s going to face another round of religious demagoguery for it, e.g. “Mormons can’t deal with the ‘edginess’ of YouTube or young America.” I think he’ll show; in fact, I thought the whole field would show just because of the prisoner’s dilemma inherent in the fact that McCain had already committed and Fred would be likely to once he’s in. Rudy and Mitt can’t afford to cede that stage, particularly given the ratings of the last YouTube debate.
As for the influence of righty bloggers, I think this is/was a special case due to the lead role Patrick Ruffini and David All took on it. Both are well respected new media consultants in GOP circles; if it had been a simple case of me and the usual crew howling into the void, with no support from talk radio, we’d have eaten it. Which is to say, it’s not really “bloggers” so much as “Republican advisors who blog” who deserve the credit.
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:
I found some golden plates buried in my backyard. They had an ancient language carved upon them. An Angel helped me translate them to English. Then je took them up to Heaven.
They said “Rudy will be our next President”.
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 7, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Right. Show up for a debate very few people will watch. That will show them.
And after the phony youtube debate, maybe they will learn that they should have listen to conservative blogger commenters instead.
Blake on August 7, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Oh goodie. Another one I won’t watch as I don’t care which video they like best.
moonsbreath on August 7, 2007 at 10:32 AM
We still need a coservative bloggers event set up where we ask republican candidates our questions.
Still holding out for michelle and Micheal yon and others to set their feet on fire.
William Amos on August 7, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Stoner boy had nothing to do with it. Give me a frickin’ break.
EduardoOTI on August 7, 2007 at 10:35 AM
My question to the candidates: If I vote for you, will get me tickets to the Valen Halen reunion concert?
Tony737 on August 7, 2007 at 10:35 AM
I can’t believe that any serious Republican contender would agree to this type of silly TV programming. Of course, I can’t believe that NBC is using Olberman for one of their so-called debates.
This whole campaign/debate? thing has degenerated into a low class comedy show. God help us get through this crap!
OBX Pete on August 7, 2007 at 10:38 AM
While I agree it is important for Presidential candidates to embrace the capabilities of the internet and interact with America in ways never seen before, the youtube debate is an absolute farce.
It amazes me how a minority of dedicated political observers can see it as good for democracy. In fact, it’s a total sham. They bill it as ‘Candidates talking directly to the people’. Absolute b.s. It’s still CNN determining what is asked…and what do they want to see asked…and by who(or more importantly, what).
I’m sick of snowmen and actors posing as white trash singing hicks. The Presidency is better than that.
EduardoOTI on August 7, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Most of them were not backing out because they were worried about the debate itself they had scheduled it at the same time as the Values Voter debate which 7 of the candidates had already committed to.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56927
bj1126 on August 7, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Amen EduardoOTI !!
OBX Pete on August 7, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Hurray! [sarcasm]There goes the baby boomer vote![/sarcasm] Glad to see they are changing their minds about this.
CorinthianJest on August 7, 2007 at 10:47 AM
As stupid and leftist/Ron Paul robot-y as this is gonna be, you still have to go, if for no other reason than you maintain your position to hammer the Dems for refusing to go to debates hosted by FNC.
Bad Candy on August 7, 2007 at 10:48 AM
This is great news. Now there will be no doubt that the Republican candidates can field questions from the real American People. And they will be able to ride that wave of bravery and confidence all the way to election time. It is also good to know that substantive debates are still a part of the political process. It is also good to know that the republicans will do whatever is demanded of them to prove their worth, at any level, regardless of effectiveness.
Weight of Glory on August 7, 2007 at 10:56 AM
No one will watch it. Conservatives have their minds made up. Liberals won’t go near a R rated debate. But just like “He just set there for 10 minutes after the towers were hit and did nothing,” “They refused to answer questions given to them by the common man,” forever.
Some of the high and mighty comments on here reminds me that most people just do not understand “Politics.”
- The Cat
MirCat on August 7, 2007 at 11:02 AM
edit:
But just like “He just set there for 10 minutes after the towers were hit and did nothing,” will will have to hear “They refused to answer questions given to them by the common man,” forever.
- The Cat
MirCat on August 7, 2007 at 11:03 AM
We should make a good video question for Ron Paul which would make him look like the absolute idiot that he is.
jp on August 7, 2007 at 11:03 AM
You should do that. Seriously.
rho on August 7, 2007 at 11:06 AM
jp, just ask a question about fiat money and returning to the gold standard. Ron’ll have them asleep in no time, and no one will watch the debate.
Bad Candy on August 7, 2007 at 11:08 AM
I just threw up in my mouth. REAL AMERICAN PEOPLE!?! I’m pretty sure I saw a snowman and a couple actors trying to get attention. What a sham.
The only reason these ‘internet political consultants’ are pushing this so hard is because it betters their livelihood. Of course, what they are ’selling’ is common sense that any campaign with an intern can pull off. But still, I’m sure some idiots out there will fall for it.
Morons.
EduardoOTI on August 7, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Heh, rho is here to defend The Only Man Who Can Save America. Excellent.
Bad Candy on August 7, 2007 at 11:09 AM
No offence, but it’ll backfire. Using my Jedi like skills, I forsee three possible outcomes for this.
1. It will make conservatives look like kooks.
2. It will make his say/do what he always does, which will make him even more popular with his nutcase idolizers; feeding the beast.
3. The question will be past along to other candidates cornering them into a pie to the face moment.
4. Knowing the fact that concervatives are incapable of understanding the liberal mind and vise versa will spawn an unintentional viral something or other.
- The Cat
P.S. I didn’t forsee that last one
MirCat on August 7, 2007 at 11:13 AM
I hope you realize you just argued for and against it in the same breath. :P
- The Cat
P.S. The fact that there are morons that will fall for it is the entire point. Morons vote. Now I’m not calling the majority of the voters morons, but I will point out why ol’ Ben Franklin proposed the electorial college in the first place.
MirCat on August 7, 2007 at 11:17 AM
The blog-o-centric world got there wish
right2bright on August 7, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Are you kidding me! You Tube is where it’s at baby. Plus with the way the MSM are, I’m sure that if the balls of the republicans are ever challenged, the press will always keep the narrative of, “hey they showed up to the You Tube debate,” going; allowing for residual points among the Volk.
Weight of Glory on August 7, 2007 at 11:20 AM
You really think Fred and Rudy will jump in? I’m still having a hard time picturing that.
Tanya on August 7, 2007 at 11:21 AM
No no. This will truly be the height of the Primary season; the moment when the Republican party galvanized the idea that they can answer the People; it will be that moment towards which all will point and say, “The Republicans do care, and they are not like the Dems.” It will be the day we make our definitive stand.
Weight of Glory on August 7, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Hehehe.
Enrique on August 7, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Rudy will have to if Mitt shows up. Right now it’s just 2nd tier which really doesn’t do much.
Fred, still not in his time frame.
Here’s the kicker, will there be a follow up primary YouTube debate? I still have a hard time seeing them do a general election one. The townhall type is still too new to be trumped.
- The Cat
MirCat on August 7, 2007 at 11:25 AM
I think it is good they will do this stupid debate. We can’t very well call the Dems cowards for not debating on FNC if we can’t do well in their format.
That being said, I would really like it if when a stupid question is used, the Rep. candidates say so. There’s no reason they can’t just tell it like it is. I think that would go a long way to restoring some presidential integrity and show our base that we might actually have some fighters in our corner.
Darksean on August 7, 2007 at 11:30 AM
I agree pandering to a stupid question is the wrong tact. Stating, that question is not pertinent, or that you have answered that a thousand times, or that it is a stupid trap, is not off limits.
Give us some credit, when a stupid question is asked, I want the responder to say so, we know it’s stupid, so should the candidate.
Nothing like a candidate looking at the moderater and saying “you have got to be kidding, next question”.
right2bright on August 7, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Ask Ron Paul about the 9/11 conspiracy. If he answers “yes” or “maybe”, he loses any remaining credibility that he had. If he answers “no”, he loses 75% of his supporters.
aunursa on August 7, 2007 at 11:40 AM
If they really want the votes of the Youtube crowd, I suggest someone have huge cardboard cutout of a paycheck and show the current taxes compared to what a Democrat will do to those taxes.
moonsbreath on August 7, 2007 at 11:41 AM
This far out from the primaries, it probably can’t hurt too much, experimenting with some new, but goofy campaign strategy. Since it appears like it’s going to be done, atleast class it up. Hoping the Republicans are everything that they claim to be.
captivated_dem on August 7, 2007 at 11:55 AM
What a joke.
500,000 15 year old girls who think they’ll be leftists when they turn 22 and get to vote; 200,000 17 year old boys who came to the debate thinking the girls were going to “show us their tits”; and half of the dKos and DU freaks dressed up as snowmen: what a great idea for a GOP Presidential debate forum!
Yeah, AP, I’m sure Patrick Ruffini and his 73 dedicated readers had a huge influence over the campaign of Ron Paul in his sober decision to appear (he wouldn’t know the difference between YouTube and the WSJ editorial board).
Having visited there to see what’s what, I found that the commenters make the HotAir site look like a Mensa convention.
Jaibones on August 7, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Yawn. I watched the first two “debates”, and won’t watch another until the field is narrowed down to Rudy, Fred, Mitt, and maybe one more. I don’t care if a douche like Chrissy Matthews or Mr. Snowman is moderator- if it’s another 9 man DAPS, it’s not worth watching.
Hollowpoint on August 7, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Victory.
Ah yes. I hope you’re proud of yourselves guys. You’ve just volunteered our turd sandwich stumblebum candidates for the rhetorical equivalent of a blanket party.
You’re not actually thinking we’re going to change any minds here are you? That somehow by doing the same things democrat candidates do, we’ll get the same fawning coverage? Bill Clinton fires every US attorney in the country and its a blip on the radar; GWB fires 8 and you’ve got an executive versus legislative power struggle. There’s nothing to be gained in this debate except further humiliation of our meager field.
Thing is, I don’t believe this was really about participating in the debate. I think this was a demonstration of power by the right wing bloggers; I think there’s some jealousy about how much influence that goggle eyed fruitcake over at the daily kos has in Senate office circles, so the right wingers wanted to see if they too could muster some influence and play a little accordion music for our monkey candidates to dance to. Well, way to go guys. Enjoy that victory until election day because I think all you’ve accomplished is to drive another nail into the coffin of the GOP.
It’s hard to resist; I mean, left to their own devices all our party can do is destroy itself but I had hoped that the base would try to put the party back on the path to victory instead of following suit with petty power struggles and trying to curry favor with MSM. Of course, you know what the best part is for the bloggers: you’ll get all kinds of traffic when you write up the debacle, and eventually you’ll get to write your part of the history of the tragic election of 08, and leave out the incriminating bits. So, indeed, victory.
austinnelly on August 7, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Once again Republicans have no backbone. Sometimes the consevative bloggers can get it wrong. Like this YouTube debate.
calgrammy on August 7, 2007 at 12:41 PM
One of the problems for the left is they think all Americans are as stupid as the left is. The gread silent majority will see and know the difference between the slow pitct soft balls Youtube gave to the party of Judas and the Sandy Koufax pitches the Republicans can expect. A quick way to lose relevance in the world of politics by the general electorate is to appear unfair or bias (note FNC’s market share). Talk radio is popular not because it is bias but because of content. Most people recognize truth when they hear it. The left has a problem with that and the ability to tell the truth, for if the truth were known the left would have no chance at victory.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on August 7, 2007 at 12:58 PM
It will be interesting to see if “conservative bloggers” will get behind the Rebulican nominee or trash him for not being conservative enough, and fight for the Republicans running for the House and Senate or just be content complaining. If not all the work to get them in YouTube debates etc will be meaningless.
KBird on August 7, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Blake takes the cake:
“And after the phony YouTube debate, maybe they will learn that they should have listen to conservative blogger commenters instead.”
Yes indeedy.
All the debates are phony. But, I would agree to this is if they would have conservative young adults asking most of the questions. That will never happen.
Christine on August 7, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Until about 4-5 months from now, all ‘debates’ are charades made for TV. Haven’t watched a single one yet, and don’t feel like having missed anything. Know enough about them, or their insignificance so far, from HA threads.
If the questions/videos are selected/edited, by anyone, much substance/luster is lost, in any forum.
Town hall meetings, direct Q&As, and free old style debates among the finalists, without inflated TV yo-yos in between, just a time moderator, would do the country good.
A real strong candidate would have the balls to end the modern-day format. Alas, they’re all ‘handled’, ‘consulted’, ’screened’, and poll-driven, ad infinitum.
Entelechy on August 7, 2007 at 1:32 PM
I was thinking something along the lines of this:
“On your house website, you say the following:
Then go over some of the Federal Crimes/Laws passed by the First Congress and signed by George Washington and maybe somethings James Madison signed into law, which will show how bing a dunce he is and how he is not a real strict contructionist. Or, he’ll have to claim the founders were Socialist/Fascist/Statist
jp on August 7, 2007 at 2:05 PM
some conservatives will not quit arguing with each other as oppossed to fighting the Dems/media united, until Hillary is President and possibly has the House and Senate and atleast 2 SCOTUS nominee’s which tilt the courts to the left for a generation.
jp on August 7, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Well good. I hope all the candidates get on board. I plan to ask them a question about CAIR. I hope I won’t get sued if my question makes it.
mram on August 7, 2007 at 2:10 PM
To all Flat Earthers:
Quit whining and pontificating about an event which has yet to take place.
Why not consolidate and generate a pool of good questions? Remember how CNN had to acknowledge the same question that was submitted by hundreds of people? Why not come up with a few good queries, join forces and submit them so much that they must be acknowledged?
I love winning…but I hate whining. I would rather lose than walk around like a pouty 2 year old. We need to pull up our collective undergarments, learn to wipe and join the rest of the world at the big kids dinner table.
Technology is progress – if you use it wisely. Try, don’t cry!
The Race Card on August 7, 2007 at 2:48 PM
I highly doubt any of us are against using youtube and other technology to reach out to the electorate. What’s ridiculous is a forum such as the youtube debate being billed as candidates talking to real people. It is completely filtered through CNN. The same CNN that had a snowman ask a potential leader of the free world a question about global warming.
Totally. Freakin’. Embarrassing.
CNN will pick questions that ENTERTAIN, first and foremost.
Now quit pushing this stupid idea just so the moronic political internet consultants can line their pockets.
EduardoOTI on August 7, 2007 at 3:30 PM
That illustrates exactly why I can’t see him doing the YouTube debate, actually…
Tanya on August 7, 2007 at 5:09 PM
I will spring for beer for the first candidate who answers some moonbat’s lame question with: “Duuuuuude! What are you smokin’?”
crosspatch on August 7, 2007 at 5:47 PM
That only squares if you think FNC and Youtube are on a par as being credible sources for accurate information and professional behavior.
csdeven on August 7, 2007 at 6:16 PM
I’ve noticed that. There’s lots of people with blogs that are looking for their 15 minutes of fame without going through the same process say a Brit Hume, MM, or other credible sources have. Instead of just having a conversation for the sake of it, they have an agenda to get their name out there to stoke their already over-inflated ego.
csdeven on August 7, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Well said.
Jaibones on August 7, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Great point.
A popular sentiment, agreed; but who are these “they”?
Jaibones on August 7, 2007 at 6:40 PM
I fail to see why “…dealing with the edginess of YouTube.” is important. If I were Mitt(or any of the candidates) and felt strongly that I didn’t want to debate then I wouldn’t and let the chips fall. The only reason YouTube is “edgy” is because it says it’s edgy. No matter what they(GOP candidates) do or say, the same people will recite the same old or new “edgy” criticisms so one might as well be true to oneself—-at least someone’s happy.
jeanie on August 7, 2007 at 7:56 PM
YouTube debates: hip and with it. Far out dude!
saved on August 8, 2007 at 7:10 AM
Comment pages: