Friday, November 30, 2007
|
|
Last Thought on CNN/YouTube
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
10:18 AM
|
Immediately following the YouTube debate, the format appeared to have been a success (this was partly due to the fact that I had reservations about it going in, so my expectations were probably low). That was my view, and it was shared by most other Townhall bloggers.
Sure, there were some outright crazy questions asked, but bad questions coming from average Americans are better than bad questions coming from a moderator, or so the reasoning went. Democracy is messy, and if you're going to empower average people to ask questions, you accept the notion that some of them won't be good ... Except that after the debate ended, we learned that many of the bad questions did not come from "average" Americans, they came from people connected to Democrat campaigns. This, of course, is unacceptable.
What is more, because it was initially regarded as a fine debate, CNN's inexcusable malfeasance was truly a disaster and a missed opportunity for them. Additionally, it might very well deter Republicans from participating in future YouTube debates.
Although conservatives are rightly outraged by the biased questions, I also believe some of the consternation is overwrought. For example, I do disagree with all hand-wringing about the contentious nature of the debate. Personally, I like to see the candidates mix it up, because I think that tells us something about how they handle pressure -- and how they react when they are under scrutiny (something that will come in handy in the White House). Bad questions sometimes tell us more about the candidates than good ones do. For example, we learned that Mike Huckabee can take a bad question and still make lemonade (if he can do it now, imagine what he could do to the press corps) ...
What is more, fighting it out in a Primary helps us select the toughest candidate to take on Hillary.
Ultimately, Republicans should be allowed to pick our own nominee -- and that's the entire argument for why the debate venue -- and moderator -- is important.
It should be noted that earlier this year, Townhall.com invited Republican candidates to participate in a conservative radio/online debate. At the time, the frontrunners were McCain, Rudy, and Romney.
To give you an idea of how a Townhall debate might have gone, it would have probably featured a moderator like Bill Bennett, instead of a moderator such as Anderson Cooper ...
Unfortunately, of the frontrunners invited, only Mitt Romney accepted our invitation.
So what's stopping Townhall.com -- or RedState -- or National Review -- from having our conservative readers submit YouTube questions to be answered by the GOP candidates?
Frankly, it's the candidates' willingness to participate...
If we're going to get away from the CNN's of the world, it will require the candidates to do their part in picking the venue that will be more favorable to them. That means saying "no" to CNN, and "yes" to conservative media outlets.
|
|
The GOP should never again agree to a CNN debate.
What question did Huckabee make lemonaide out of? I must have missed it, he didn't get one hard question. |
|
That is exactly right. The candidates are listening to bad advice which is making most of them appear to be deaf. I don't remember which TH blogger said it, maybe Dean, Hugh, Patrick or you, but when people like us are taking the time to tell the candidates what we think for free, it is a big mistake to flip us off and then pore over the polling data. It just creates the feeling that our candidates are cardboard cutouts being paraded past us with a sound track blasting. "Shut up and listen voters! We hear you!" Oh really? What did we just say?
McCain: "First of all, it's not amnesty..."
Giuliani: "NYC was not a sanctuary city..."
Your witness counselor. |
|
WHAT a surprise.
By the way, the REAL republican voters that Frank Luntz had rate the debate picked FRED the winner.
Huck wasn't even in the game.
And RUSH very acurately said that there was only one REAL conservative in the race- FRED!
This thing is just gittin' started! |
|
We do have to start somewhere with those willing to break the mold. If it's Romney plus some minor candidates intially, so be it. The rest will come, or at least strongly consider, once they see that what is started is successful.
What wouldn't help is if we deride those that don't have the courage to come to something outside the usual. |
|
Matt Lewis,
Below is the date/time stamp followed by your initial commentary about the debate;
------------------
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Winners and Losers
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 10:16 PM
"The real winner tonight was CNN, YouTube, the GOP, and the American people."
------------------
Matt, you initially thought CNN was 'the real winner.'
But Hugh has told you over and over again for months that this was going to happen.
Many of us said that by relying on the editorial judgment by CNN to choose questions, there was a big risk of planted questions by Democrats.
Now might be the right time for you to acknowledge, 'Yeah, maybe Hugh was right about this.'
But now you're claiming,
------------------
"I had reservations about it going in, so my expectations were probably low). That was my view, and it was shared by most other Townhall bloggers."
------------------
MOST other Townhall bloggers had reservations about it ??!
Other than Hugh, the rest of you were PUSHING for the CNN/YouTube debate.
When Hugh interviewed the YouTube's Steve Grove on the radio the other day, Grove said to Hugh that just about everyone else at Townhall was leading the brigade in FAVOR OF the YouTube debate.
You're really disingenous, Matt.
That's why when Dean Barnett first posted that pic of the puppy dog for you several months ago, he also at the same time politely chastised you for not being transparent about your obvious support for John McCain.
All a blogger has at the end of the day is his or her reputation.
And yours is in need of major repairs. |
|
|
|
|
|