Saturday, July 28, 2007
|
|
On Prudence In The Virtual Campaign
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:21 AM
|
After listening to yesterday's broadcast of many of the questions in the queue for the GOP YouTube debate, blogger Publius has changed his mind and now agrees the GOP should say no thanks to the set-up. May many more follow.
Patrick's lengthy post below is a fascinating exercise in missing the point. I am glad that Patrick posts here in the virtual house of one of the fellows blinkered to the need for the GOP to embrace the web, but he is ignoring the real dilemma the campaigns are confronting and refusing to visualize the worst case scenario. Summary of his argument: "We are very, very, very far behind on the web. So run into this wall."
Patrick writes:
At the end of the day, the issue is not YouTube. The YouTube debate snub is the symptom, not the disease. If Republicans fret about a simple debate format, which is really just the modern version of the 1992 townhall debate, how in the heck are we going to be make the really bold, gutsy decisions to transform our campaigns so we can raise over $100 million online and recruit millions — yes millions — of volunteers over the Internet?
Skipping a CNN set-up camouflaged with YouTube videos is a symptom of wanting to win, that's all. Don't believe me, go visit the question site, and this is before the moonbats, egged on by Arianna and Josh Marshall, begin the inevitable push to salt the mine after any of the major candidates agree to appear at the circus. I hope the candidates step up and bluntly announce that they are connecting with millions of Americans and will continue to do so, but won't agree to be props in a CNN carnival. Some staight talk about MSM's dumbing down of the campaign --and the war-- would be an excellent thing to hear.
I must also dissent partially from Patrick's more persuasive argument about lagging behind Democrats in the online campaign.
First, did he see what happened to the immigration bill? That was a grassroots phenomenon, one which overpowered D.C. elites. It represented the combination of online advocacy and talk radio energy. It suggests not that the center-right base is behind when it comes to connectedness, but that it isn't yet fully motivated to use the tools it has already mastered in the servioce of any of the GOP presidential candidates or their Congressional counterparts. Many are, but many are waiting to see who has the message that motivates. (That message: Win the war. Confirm the judges. Cut the taxes. Control the spending. Secure the border.)
Second, the GOP's Big Two have excellent web teams and a visit to MittRomney.com and JoinRudy2008.com will prove that. What neither candidate has --yet-- is the momentum of being the certain nominee (as Hillary does) or the backing of a swooning old media, like Barack Obama. So Joe Trippi thinks we are behind. I like Joe, and shared a fine lunch with him at the NAB in Las Vegas a few months back. He's a smart guy, but not that smart. He's worried about the GOP's virtual gap? Why isn't he working on the Dems talk radio gap? Because he can't fix that, of course, whereas the GOP already trounced the Dems once in an online match-up in a main event.
Money? How many of Obama's 100,000 donors are going to shrug their shoulders and turn over to Hillary when they see their guy scissored the old fashioned way by Clinton Inc? And many of Edwards people aren't going to be dancing with the same old gang that has run the Clinton operation since 1991.
What the GOP lacks right now is not just some internet talents and a commitment to use them, but a much more fundamental commitment to an agenda that motivates and candidates that believe in it. See this post for my agreement that the GOP is fumbling campaign 2008 in the House and Senate.
The most important thing is of course a sense in the broader public that the war is going the right way, and that the GOP is committed to victory and not to the round-heeled nervousness that marks many of the most visible members of the Senate GOP. The energy that animated the Bush-Cheney turnout and win in 2004 can be recaptured, but not by a Gordon Smith or Pete Domenici-led GOP, nor by plans to do deals with Senator Kennedy and ignore the border or by the defense of earmarks or the refusal to push back at Chuck Schumer's extra-constitutional announcement concerning SCOTUS nominees. ( He wants to shut down the advise and consent process? Then shut down the Senate --that's what the center-right in this country is waiting for, the evidence of conviction as to agenda and determinationas to tactics.)
There is a great tendency to overvalue the skills we personally excel at. Patrick and many other online bright lights of the center-right appear to be reacting to the evolving decision to pass on the set-up as a personal slight when it is fact a prudent bit of campaign management in a campaign marathon nearing mile 3. CNN showed us how it manages such a format, and the goofy, biased parade isn't one we want to march in, and for perfectly acceptable reasons that say nothing about the candidates' commitment to online activism.
There is also a great exaggeration of the left's hold on the web. As both Dean and I have argued in other places, the lead pipes the left constructed to move their virtual information are slowly but surely poisoning their netroots. The Micahel Moore-Loose Change people are an important part of the virtual energy that worries Patrick. Al Franken and Randi Rhodes are heroes in that part of the virtual world. That's not an advantage in the campaign ahead. May they grow in numbers and prosper in their influence. Long may Glenn Greenwald launch attacks on General Petraeus and Josh Marschall and Matthew Yglesias rally to the cause of Scott Thomas Beauchamp.
Smart and steady --online and offline-- are the hallmarks of a mature but vigorous campaign. MSM wants the candidates to get into the YouTube arena, and they'll want a whole bunch more of whatever brings them viewers in the months ahead. They probably want Duncan Hunter and Joe Biden in Dancing With The Stars, and Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul on celebrity Jeopardy.
What we should want are candidates willing to go to every serious forum the schedule allows and debate at length and in detail the top Democrats. If CNN scrapped their carnival and instead convened a great panel and invited Senator Clinton, Edwards, and Obama and Mayor Giuliani, Senator McCain and Governor Romney to a joint appearance and exchange, I'd say go.
But, please, talking to the man legally named Santa Claus and living at Lake Tahoe isn't a sign of online sophistication, and refusing to do so isn't surrender in the virtual campaign.
|
|
|
The problem with this YouTube joke is you can't win it. It is a "When did you stop beating your wife?" sort of thing. It probably doesn't matter one way or another whether they do or not, so who cares. Just because this would address a certain audience doesn't mean it is the only way to do it. I don't see the point. |
|
The DEMS sure ran from the FOX debates that was sponsored by the NAACP so what is all this DEMOPUKE that you LIBS are spewing about now. It sounds like to me the DEMS are afraid of the NAACP AND FOX. Who cares when it is all said and done there will be 2 CANDIDATES satanding at a podium being asked what the REAL PEOPLE of America wants to know. Not some dummies in a snowman suit, or some redneck with his baby(GUN).
We also know that there is nothing in our Consttution about GAY MARRIAGE so when they ask that question again I hope the idiots who pick that question will not statethat do to the CONSTITUTION what would you do. |
|
|
until all types of media starts to interview all those Republicans who sent in YouTube debate questions - that didn't get answered because nobody showed up. Lmao, how funny is that?? |
|
Glad to see so many of you have recognized what should be painfully obvious to all of us!
The "CNN" part of the "You Tube/CNN Debate" will clobber any conservative message. The Grand Old Party will lose in that setting.
---WARNING--- Run on sentence>>>>
Is the Republican Party a group of Flintstonian extinction candidates who are destined to go the way of the buggy whip for their woefully inept web savvy quotient?
You Betcha.
But hooking up with CNN on anything....ain't the answer. Even Hugh got this right....I am amazed! |
|
|
Lordy...Balance the lithium. Arid wasteland of a priority system y'all got there,Bubba. |
|
A Rose by any other name is still a Rose.
The perception in politics is trust. Do people really vote yard signs and TV ads? Yes they do.
Why?
Campaign slogans and political theater are about establish one thing, a perception of trust.
American people, rightly or wrongly, trust the two major parties and no other. People trust that politicians are going to do the promised thing.
That trust is built on perception alone. A president cannot get to know personally 300 million people.
That perception can, and always has been, easily manipulated. The Swift boat veterans campaign was a perfect storm of circumstances that undermined the trust of John Kerry.
That's why mudslinging will always be an intricate part of politics.
The flip side to tearing someone down with mudslinging is building respect through perception. By appearing on YouTube the perception is that the Democrats are wanting to embrace the new frontiers, embrace the next generation of voters. This perception is a opening salvo in a trust dialog.
The Republicans do not want to earn peoples trust. They demand it. Well, in the perception game it doesn't work that way. If one is a dictator or a despot public trust is unimportant.
In a Democracy it is the oxygen of political life. Like oxygen, one can take it for granted until it comes up short. Well, the Republicans are coming up short on political oxygen. They need to work at rebuilding the perception of public trust.
|
|
In fact, that is THE lesson of the Bush years. GOP was able to obtain power through political technics and perception management, but in the end, reality intervened, and Republicans were forced to stew in the juices of their own bad governance.
There is an objective world and it operates in accordance to its own rules, regardless of what people think about it. Those who think they can win by controlling perceptions will ultimately and finally be losers. They may win an election here and there, but after a year or two, or a decade or two, when their ill-conceived and contradictory platitudes fall flat as policy, they will lose with a couple big fat exclamation points at the end!! |
|
|
A cliche, but in politics largely true. If GOP candidates are "perceived" to be avoiding taking questions from ordinary folk they will be "perceived" to be showing elitism, cowardice, etc etc. If we think the electorate doesn't know that Bush only appears before hand picked audiences we're kidding ourselves. They know it and it's just another tiny brick in the wall of disdain in which he held by the public. They also have a fair idea that Giuliani and co are dodging this because they are terrified of a "macaca" moment. If Hugh thinks Rudy and Romney and Fred are going to get through this campaign hiding from normal voters and appearing in front of hand picked Republicans, and strictly controlled tv debates, while Hillary and Bill are pulling huge crowds and generating the big mo then we might as well concede now. Anyone who uses the internet and has the slightest interest in politics is going to pick up on this and have certain perceptions indelibly printed on their brains about the nature of our candidates. So go right ahead, follow Hugh's advice, and see what happens. |
|
...Nutters above. LP,D-By,M,et al ? Poster children for NOT doing the Goofy(to be too kind)
U-Tubular Circus.
SDS type "Paticipatory Democracy" being tooted by these guys. Rubbish.
D-by-by thinks it's some dingbat on the right
making a mock of this serious forum(U-Tubular!)
that's the resaon it is hitting many of us in the nausea and Be Careful Zone. Nope.Nada.Nonsense. Search Hugh's Threads--PLEASE--and show all us Drooling Righty's the nuke throwing dimsters of which you speak.Uh-huh.
Hugh's show yesterday was all the vision we need for what-not-to-let-ourselves-in-for.Obvious to
alot of us T-Rex's,you cutting edge nerds.
Now,By-by,take a little trip to your Monarch, The Kos and you'll quickly have need of a Butterfly Net. |
|
That is just silly. First off, youtube is open to all -- so your critique is really directed at America and its culture. This is a typical conservative position -- represents itself as the friend of the people, of freedom, and of free markets (which youtube is a great example of), but, in practice displays nothing but contempt for people and for "anarchic" freedom. Sneer away at people. It is the difference between elitist conservatism and movements that actually represent all people.
As for Romney's "respect for the office" -- he has such respect for the office that he doesn't think it should be directly responsive to the people it serves? This idea that we should all genuflect in the presence of the President -- a public servant just as the local dog-catcher is a public servant -- is residual monarchism. We don't owe the President respect -- he owes US deference. He is our employee -- and a well paid one, at that. All elected officials -- President, Congressmen and -women, Senators, etc. -- should be paid less, worked more, and treated as average citizens who are temporarily providing a service to the people. This is a republic. |
|
Hugh, you're spinning.
It just looks like another flip flop and avoidance to the people.
You won't be able to spin that away, unfortunately. If this is indicative of how the rest of the campaign season is going to go... I'm afraid its going to be President Clinton again in Jan '09.
Unless the GOP bravely backs the one candidate in the field with any guts at all. You know who I'm talking about. |
|
"Walking into a trap...
...doesn't make you brave. It makes you stupid."..
I wonder if this was the line of thinking the Dems employed..hmmm...
|
|
You have it completely backwards Hugh.
The immigration bill was a setup. The truth is out there if you really want to hear it.
The immigration bill was DOA. There weren't enough votes to pass it before it was submitted. That fact is a matter of public record.
However, the Republicans and Democrats both colluded to play politics with their respective bases in order to put up a facade of addressing the immigration problem all the while knowing it would never pass.
Classic Washington set up.
CNN on the other hand:
1.) Put the Democrats on first so Republicans could see the gist of it.
2.) Is putting the questions on-line apriori.
A ruse or a ploy requires a certain unwitting-ness on part of the victim. Everyone knows the score so IT CAN'T BE A SETUP.
Unfortunately, alas, the same is true with immigration reform. The sponsors of the bill said apriori they didn't have the votes and that the bill was a long shot when it was submitted. Pay attention.
Then to credit the online community for a "victory" on defeating something doomed to defeat anyway, Hugh, is just pure cynicism at its brightest. |
|
What does anyone have to gain by giving any legitimacy to the "culture" of mentos on a soda bottle and teen age girls violent fighting?
What's next?
Holding a debate on a strip joint? On the Jerry Springer show?
The Left has always cater to the worst anarchic, nihilistic elements in society. Someone needs not to cuddle the Lindsey Lohans, Britney Spears, Paris Hiltons, of this world.
Let's find new media platforms and vehicles that reinforce, not dilute, who we are, our identity.
I belive Mitt Rommey already said that he would not particpate out of respect for the office of the President.
|
|
We have to find our own way in the virtual world. Imitating Dems is not going to work for us. It will play to their strengths.
We have to play in the virtual world but we have to play to our strenghts. Our candidates do CNN debates. They have a strong You Tube presence.
The real issue is ambush journalism. The CNN/YouTube combo sets up an opportunity for ambush journalism. The Dems were not ambushed because CNN made sure that the wrong questions never made it into the debate and then made sure that the hard questions did not go to Hillary and Obama. Obama still muffed it. |
|
The argument in Soxeryn's link above is basically that Republican leadership--which would include Hugh--are concerned about bringing their base to polite company. They like the votes and the activism the base provides, but some of the base's opinions are, shall we say, a bit much.
What happens if one of these foamers get through with a question about why we shouldn't just nuke Tehran? Or, indeed, the entire Islamic world? While that kind of talk seems tough-minded and realistic in some circles, the bulk of America literally thinks it's crazy.
The balancing act Republican candidates are doing is trying to accommodate the nutjob aunt in the attic while making sure no one else knows she's there. Personally, I think the jig is up, that America has finally figured it out. But Republican leadership is still trying to string it out for another election and the Youtube format creates the risk that America will see, not a harmless (if somewhat silly) lesbian couple, as with the Democrats, but a real scary piece of work.
These scary pieces of work will vote for you. They'll donate dollars and sweat. But ya sure hate for people to know they're there. And THAT's what is at the heart of Hugh's opposition. This, and a fundamental aversion to democracy--at least to the extent it cannot be controlled and contrived. |
|
...in six months when there are no excuses left and its clear the GOP is far behind in fundraising and online activism, you'll be forced to admit Patrick is right. Of course by then, it'll be too late.
I can't believe the argument against the debate is being made on the basis of loaded questions. If our candidates are ready for prime time, they can sure as hell handle questions from amateurs. What the hell are Hugh and Dean afraid of?
I don't care what arguments you make on the merits of the debate. The GOP will look behind the times, and skipping any debate is always a detriment to a serious candidate. No, it doesn't matter that Rudy and Mitt have well designed websites. The fact that Hugh and Dean even think in these terms demonstrates the very serious problem the GOP has in comprehending how to fight and win this new type of campaign that is emerging.
I only hope the feedback on the issue will salvage the situation. |
|
|
|
Can be trusted to hold a real debate, a fair one too! My answer is no! The GOP needs to tell CNN: "Go fish!"
If the youtube debate doesn't happen, then CNN will simply get Huffin Puff and her buddies to submit idiot questions directly to the CNN staff weenies, not that I'd suspect CNN of being biased towards being objective; never happen.
|
|
...doesn't make you brave. It makes you stupid.
|
|
The GOP should take on its challengers any place, any time. A challenge has risk, but also opportunity. I agree with Hugh that it may be a set up, but the GOP is in a bad place right now with an unpopular war and an engergized left. Some risk taking is warranted.
When did Mitt rise to Number 2? Hugh wrote: "Second, the GOP's Big Two have excellent web teams and a visit to MittRomney.com and JoinRudy2008.com will prove that." If you want to call the GOP candidates the big three go ahead (and Team Thompson actually has a good web presence too), but Mitt is decidely in third place right now.
I am sorry to question your hormone levels Hugh, but the GOP needs to take some risks and running away from a silly YouTube debate is not a good start. If Giuliani, Thompson or even Romney are going to win, they are going to have to persuade more than the GOP base. |
|
What are Republicans afraid of in the U Tube debate format?
There is a world of difference between Fox News asking tough questions about taxation and the U Tube crowd asking questions about gender identity. The first is a constitutionally mandated responsibility of the federal government and germane to a presidential debate. The second is an attempt to insert non-constitutionally mandated positions, platforms and ideas into a debate where the debaters have no authority to remedy the problem.
It shouldn’t be called the U-TUBE debate. It should be named the Big Brother debate. You start asking all sorts of non-constitutionally founded questions to presidential candidates and pretty soon the electorate believes that the federal government generally and the president specifically has the authority to not only address the issue but the responsibility to fix it when the people who are fundamentally responsible are the individuals asking the questions, their families, their neighbors and neighborhoods, their cities and maybe their states.
The U Tube debate is the debate of personal non-responsibility, big government and big brother. The Fox News debate is the debate of personal responsibility, small government, and constitutionally based power that falls within the realm of the president’s ability to change, correct or influence. Walk away from the U Tube debate Republicans and be proud you understood the constitutionally-based power of your office, the limited reach of your authority and the relatively narrow scope of government responsibility in the lives of freedom-loving Americans.
|
|
.... the YouTube debates prove that the election season is WAY too long. Can we PLEASE just get to 2 or 3 or 4 real candidates and get serious? This really looks like a 3 ring circus.
As has been stated, the problem with the YouTube debates is that really stupid, irrelevant and unimportant questions unrelated to the President's job with the intent to make the candidate look bad. In other words, 'loaded questions'. We need questions that really probe and can reveal a potential president's positions and instincts on relevant and important issues to THAT JOB. That is, running the Executive Branch of the Federal government.
A big part of this problem is that there is no OWNERSHIP to the question. You saw that in the first debate when the "moderator" insisted that it was not their question. Too many people do not understand that it really IS their question.
So, the "moderator" and producers of the debate can ACT as independent third parties when they are NOT. It really is disingenuous.
It's not a town hall because the process of selecting questions is not open. PERHAPS it would work if reporters would choose the questions, frame them to provide context, and explain why they believe they are important. |
|
I agree with Scott. He also just made the case for using Face Book instead of You Tube as a format.
Face Book is the electronic version of "friends and family".
We need to exploit Face Book!
Only 10 or 11 % use the internet as their primary news source, 50 or 51 % use TV. However, after the MSM filter the news, "Friends and Family" then discuss the news.
If we did a Face Book Debate we could short circuit some of the filter by the MSM. There are a lot more Republican voters on Face Book than on You Tube. |
|
...forums today where kooks are king. We certainly don't need to spread that insanity to something as serious as picking a President. Make the anchors and reporters involved in the debates OWN their own questions. Every Presidential debate will be a piece of history. It's not just a night at the comedy club.
|
|
YouTube is online. The questions are posted online. The candidates can reply by posting the answers online.
What does CNN add to this process besides bias and annoying TV anchormen? |
|
Ruffini is a Rudy backer. He knows that the MSM tend to give preferential treatment to Rudy and McCain. A You Tube debate is most likely to be used as a drive by against Romney and Thompson.
Ruffini knows that. It is a lot easier for him to support You Tube debates as there is less risk to his favored candidates. |
|
relevant. It's a lefty site and those folks would never vote for a conservative anyway.
Not to mention it alienates those who don't use YouTube, add millions of dollars of advertising to the lefty owners of YouTube and their advertisers, and helps separate the candidates from the voices of real people... |
|
As always, there has been enough whining on the rigtht ahead of time about how everyone is out to get them -- the vast, Left-wing conspiracy -- and only Republican primary voters are going to watch and/or care about a debate this early -- so if questions seem "biased" -- and, let's face it, reality does tend to be biased against the conservative perspective -- they can score points with their audience by whining about them. Or, if they are legitimate questions, they can *gasp* answer them.
But the thing that this seems to reveal -- and has run through much of the discussion on this site -- is a terrible elitism regarding the American voter. Why shouldn't some of the oddball voters, some of the average people, get a shot at asking candidates questions? The same old basic questions get asked over and over. Having grown up around a bunch of Republican elite money-bags, I have long known that the inner-Republican circles hold the average American in disdain -- and this is another example of it. |
|
The Republicans are losing the Internet war for one significant reason: the MSM uses the leftist blogs as a weather vane for their attacks. Let something brew on the Kos, or DU, or other slightly more acceptable sites, and then launch the bomb after the fuse is lit.
The Right has no comparable outlet. True, the Right side of the Internet has a significant following, as does the Left, but we have little visibility beyond the the True Believers.
Soccer moms (I am married to one, so I have some experience in this arena) will not read blogs. It's not fun for them. Their impressions are set by the constant whine and grind of radio, TV and newspapers. The MSM may be bad, may even be failing, but they still affect a lot of opinions in the middle.
Example: Scott Taylor Beauchamp and the TNR fraud. What impression has been left with middle America? It probably ain't that TNR is a bunch of liars. That fact never made the MSM. Only the "atrocities" made the MSM. They also do not watch political debates, stupid or otherwise. The "winners" will be announced on the MSM the next day, and the impression is set.
However, soccer moms are very interested in emails from other soccer moms about crucial issues. They share info and forward emails from a trusted source: friends and people like themselves.
If the Internet is going to be a tool for the Republicans, it must stretch beyond a bunch of connected blogs that debate, link, even praise each other, and find a way to reach the connected but busy, less fanatical middle. |
|
"Some staight talk about MSM's dumbing down of the campaign --and the war-- would be an excellent thing to hear."
That's the problem. We never hear any straight talk from these guys and probably won't on this either. Someone else will do the talking. There's an "emperor's new clothes" feel to all of this handling that does nothing but underscore that these candidates are trying to come across as something other than who they truly are. Too much handling. It's one missed opportunity after another. It's like watching a soccer game where everyone is careful not to score. "Who's the guy married to Posh again? Is she here?"
|
|
|
|