Friday, July 27, 2007
|
|
YouTubing The Beltway Boys
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
7:02 PM
|
I used YouTube questions already submitted for the GOP presidential candidates to quiz Fred Barnes and Morton Kondracke on today's segment with them. I spent the first hour playing dozens of them and answering them. (The audio for the show will be posted here later). They are full of lunatic assumptions and hard left fevers. Which is why Josh Marshall, Andrew Sullivan and bunches of other pundits unfriendly to the GOP want the Republicans to drive up to the debate in Michael Dukakis' tank wearing John Kerry's Teletubby HazMat suit and take questions culled by CNN's lefties for two hours.
I understand why these folks want the GOP's top candidates to go into the box canyon, but cannot understand why so many ordinarily smart commentators don't see what is waiting for Giuliani and Romney especially. It isn't like these GOP front runners are ducking a legit debate as the Dems did the Fox News debate. Romney's done three debates thus far --including one sponsored by CNN-- and 50 "Ask Mitt Anything" forums aa well as hundreds of talk radio appearances. (He's also accepted the invitation to the August 5th debate). The same is true for Rudy, and Fred Thompson is going to have to do the same (and very soon) if he is to be a serious candidate.
Love of the new technology shouldn't trump political common sense, and for either of the front runners to agree to this looney format is to risk a great deal of hard work and the contributions of thousands of supporters for very little upside. Listen to today's show when it is posted tonight and you'll get a sense of the questions piling up in the YouTube in box. The moonbat brigades are just beginning to assemble, and the question queue is already beyond bizarre.
|
|
...response above.The Looney Tunes are drooling for the Republican Candidates to be Deer-in-the-
Headlights on the whacko format.Wouldn't it be just loads of fun to take Rudy or Mitt and show them looking insanely sillyduring a U-Tube Ambush,etc ?...Fill in the blanks.
Read Brian Harris anytime and you'll get the drift of what the little guys are after. Nada to be gained. Mucho to be lost. |
|
...children's hour would be stupid and unecessary. Forsaking this debacle hardlly equates to throwing the entire technology of the future under the bus.
If all you young'uns want this thing so bad- then come up with a different format that would have actual value to grownup voters. GROWNUP VOTERS!
None of this makin our candidates look like idiots just because theirs are willing to.
|
|
CNN SnowTubies have the filter on what questions, among tens of thousands, would be addressed to the Repubs. All this under the guise of being contemporary and listening to the voice of the people. Wholesale BS.
The Repubs should appear for the CNN SnowTubies debate under two preconditions: (1) that a neutral panel be chosen to filter the questions, and (2) that the Billary, Silky, O. Hassen Barack cadre participate in the FOXNews/Black Caucas debate as originally planned.
Otherwise, they should tell the CNN SnowTubies where to stick their snowmen. |
|
|
Apparently there are a substantial number of people who believe that "heads I lose, tails I break even" provides a sound basis for a risky investment, or participating in silly youtube/CNN nonsense. |
|
|
Sorry for misreading that, my mistake. Agreed about Olbermann, Matthews, et al. |
|
If Hewitt were to unexplainably change his mind and argue for a GOP YouTube debate, how many of the above would change their minds and agree?
More than a few, I think.
And I must agree with this barking, raving moonbat, as noted above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_ULHJjK1CI
Since Hugh and company enjoyed smirking at the Democrats for blowing Fox off for a debate, they look more obviously hypocritical than usual in smirking about a YouTube debate.
I continue to be surprised at the remarkably conformist nature of today's GOP "base." It'll do whatever the radio show hosts tell you do to, and it wonders why the polls rush farther and farther away from it.
Doing the usual things aren't going to work anymore.
A GOP that talks tough about facing down mullahs shouldn't be afraid of a few unusual questions.
http://www.themechanicaleye.com
DU |
|
"If you have not been watching the Republican debates thus far, and if you know for sure that the majority who have are only left wingers"
Never said I haven't watched the GOP debates. I said I never watched the GOP debate on MSNBC.
Nothing will make me watch MSNBC. I can't even stand to see Keith Olberman, let alone listen to him. Gives me indigestion.The GOP debate on Fox was infinitely better.
Personally, I think it was a mistake for the GOP to agree to a "debate" on MSNBC moderated by a guy like Chris Matthews.
It's not so much the debate(which is fine), it's the medium. |
|
You and/or Hugh Hewitt tell me how Keith Olbermann is a more valid questioner than a woman riding a fake ostrich?
|
|
|
the liberals!.......Sence when do great strategist allow their enemy to choose the battlefield? |
|
If you have not been watching the Republican debates thus far, and if you know for sure that the majority who have are only left wingers, then what on earth have these candidates been doing debating in the first place?
The CNN/YT debate would be a total waste of time and resources, but that's what the Republicans have been doing thus far anyway?
This line of thinking makes no sense. |
|
|
|
"SteveR - would the CNN/YT debate be watched only by left wingers? "
For the most part yes.
Heck, most Republicans didn't even watch the GOP debate on MSNBC, precisely because it was on MSNBC and had crazies like Keith Olbermann presenting it. I sure didn't. I stopped watching MSNBC long ago.
"Are left wingers going to be persuaded by what a bunch of Republicans have to say? "
No
"Are you going to vote for Hillary after she shot down Obama's dictator gab-fest tour idea? "
No.
|
|
"ChickenHawks, but now Chicken*hits, too."
"Chicken hawks" huh?
Remind me.
How many wars has Hilary Clinton actually fought in again?
She voted for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, no?
As did over 90% of the US Senate too, no?
"Keep it up fellas, you're party is sinking into irrelevancy as I type. "
Is that why the Democratic Party controlled congress is at an all time low of 14% in approval ratings with the American public? |
|
"Sure the Republican candidate will need votes from the middle to win the general elections, but those guys that sent in the questions for Youtube simply don't represent the middle in America."
SteveR - would the CNN/YT debate be watched only by left wingers? Are left wingers going to be persuaded by what a bunch of Republicans have to say? Are you going to vote for Hillary after she shot down Obama's dictator gab-fest tour idea?
Gee, did an actual, serious debate ensue between Hillary and Obama after the gimmick-ridden and ridiculous CNN/YT debate the other night?
This "ambush" argument is ridiculous. These people are going to face the same lopsided questions by dolts in any other debate format, except the dolts will not be dressed as snowmen or Santa or a piece of Pecan pie or whatever. |
|
|
OK .I'm game.What's the point? |
|
|
....sometimes a comment begs for it's obverse, but more often comments about comments become so obscure that questions about the point can appear fearless....so what's your point? |
|
Again, I'm sure that if one of Romney's "police officers" could be dispatched to monitor the questions and intimidate the "bad people" who were being "disruptive," Hugh would be all over the format. That's why Republicans love talk radio--it looks like democracy, despite being carefully contrived propaganda.
When you know God's answers to life's ultimate questions, like Hugh and so many on these threads do, democracy is little more than an irritant. |
|
"SteveR - The conservative base is probably not going to care, of course. The party cannot win the White House on only with the base, there are a lot more voters out there."
Sure the Republican candidate will need votes from the middle to win the general elections, but those guys that sent in the questions for Youtube simply don't represent the middle in America. I have seen the kinds of questions they asked. They have little to do with what the average American working man is worried about in his day to day life.
Someone on here suggested Fox do a Facebook/Fox debate.
I could support that, or even better, since Fox owns Myspace.com, and Myspace is by far the biggest social network on the planet, Fox cold do a Fox/Myspace debate, with sensible people like Brit Hume moderating. If Fox is smart, they will do something like that, and snatch an important victory aginst CNN.
The important thing is to avoid the Google controlled Youtube at all costs. Google is simply evil. |
|
|
Unless, of course, it doesn't conform to his exact specifications. Like the scorpion that stung the frog, this is entirely according to Hugh's nature, but you have to wonder about his fans who seem to have an insatiable appetite for this hypocrisy. |
|
"So what difference does it make whether it's Chris Matthews or Joe Schmoe asking the stupid questions, aside from your personal desire to see Mitt Romney run rhetorical circles around some hairdo? "
I don't support Romney. Read this again: I don't support Romney. You are the victim of an ASSumption.
"The "dignity" of the office went out the window when television was introduced"
Tell that to Walter Mondale,Michael Dukakis and, yes, John Kerry.
"So what difference does it make whether it's Chris Matthews or Joe Schmoe asking the stupid questions.."...oh, maybe audience, viewership....hell, by your theory, why don't we have the UN presiding over the debate?
One thing is certain, you don't understand for a minute the concerns Paddy served up...and probably because you have no respect for the office. Here's the twist, Einstein; when your guy gets in office he is going to want, in fact , demand respect as the leader of the world's most powerful country. Stupid YouTube videos of him will not help him.
|
|
From a moderator or audience member in the 1-on-1 debates in 2008: "Mr. So-and-So, you didn't participate in the CNN/YouTube debate in 2007, do you think the regular people who sent in questions were too crazy, or do you think the people weren't smart enough with their questions and so forth - seems like kind of a slap in the face to the regular people who want to participate in their government."
Total stupid BS question, yes, but one that would take some nice Fred Astaire mental choreography to navigate around. I'd rather have a candidate face that sort of thing more than a year out, instead of, say, two months.
SteveR - The conservative base is probably not going to care, of course. The party cannot win the White House on only with the base, there are a lot more voters out there. |
|
"It's not conservatives you need to be worrying about"
It is. It's they that elect the Republican candidate in the primaries.
The loony left crazies from Youtube/Kos elect Democratic candidates like they elected Ned Lamont for Senate last time.
"It's the vast majority of people in the middle who have to choose one side or the other in the general election. "
The leftwing crazies at Kos/Youtube DON'T represent the vast majority of working Americans, nor do the lunatic "questions" they ask represent what the average working American is worried about in his day to day life, like mortgage rates, unemployment rate, the invasion by 20 million illegals immigrants and the massive downward pressure in wages being brought about by this unrelenting invasion by Mexican illegals.
|
|
"You talk as though there aren't any crazies on the right."
I don't care if there are crazies on the right.
Those "crazies on the right" vote Republcan. The left wing crazies at Youtube don't.
So why wastte time on them? |
|
"I don't know ANY conservative who is not going to vote for a Republican candidate because they refused to go for the 5th degree by a bunch of Soviet style/KGB style commissars on Youtube."
It's not conservatives you need to be worrying about. It's the vast majority of people in the middle who have to choose one side or the other in the general election. Given the choice, are they going to vote for the guy (or gal) who listened to someone who was more like them, or the guy who would only take questions from some jerkoff in a suit? |
|
"Love of the new technology shouldn't trump political common sense, and for either of the front runners to agree to this looney format is to risk a great deal of hard work and the contributions of thousands of supporters for very little upside."
The GOP candidates have less to fear from the new techology and Anderson Cooper than they do from the Administration's poor legacy and things like Alberto Gonzales's pathetic performance this week.
|
|
"The perception of skipping this debate is already worse than the Democrats running away from Fox."
Not to conseravtivs it isn't.
To the loony left, maybe, but they don't vote Republican anyways, so they don't count.
Just say not to Algore/Google/Youtube.
|
|
I've seen paddy's remarks and I'm unimpressed. The "dignity" of the office went out the window when television was introduced. There's no such thing as public dignity in today's world, especially in politics. This entire PROCESS is a joke because the American people have no patience for complex arguments. And as long as television is there to break it down into soundbites for them, that isn't going to change.
So what difference does it make whether it's Chris Matthews or Joe Schmoe asking the stupid questions, aside from your personal desire to see Mitt Romney run rhetorical circles around some hairdo? Really, I'd like to know. The majority of the American people won't watch it anyway, and they'll just get the highlights on the evening news or the Daily Show. |
|
benner :If we are going to win elections we are going to have to put up with and handle bias in the MSM"
I don't know ANY conservative who is not going to vote for a Republican candidate because they refused to go for the 5th degree by a bunch of Soviet style/KGB style commissars on Youtube.
On the other hand, the loony left crazies that control the Youtube process, will never vote Republican anyways, so why waste time on them.
I mind very much that the Algore run Google, which owns Youtube, has to the tune of NINERT XIX PERCENTE(98%) of their executives make their campaign contributions exclusively to the Democrat Party.
Republicans going for a "debate"on Youtun=e would be worse than going for a debate on Daily Kos. |
|
I congratulate Hugh on knowing at this point that the R's are capable of doing nothing other than driving in a Dukakis tank.
The perception of skipping this debate is already worse than the Democrats running away from Fox.
At least now it's even, and voters can choose between two packs of pansies.
|
|
You talk as though there aren't any crazies on the right.
Here's an interesting query: if the YouTube questioners are going to be such patently loony moonbats, and the majority of the American people are in such disagreement with the loony moonbat segment of the populace, then why not let them spew their nonsense in the debates? Who cares? It'll make your GOP heroes look like just that, won't it? |
|
"If Mitt already did a CNN debate and CNN is made up of a bunch of liberals out to mess him up, then what's the difference whose questions they ask? If the end result is a liberal ambush, then why not dodge every debate CNN sponsors altogether?"
I would much rather see a candidate put down a well known national journalist than a fool on YouTube. The fool on YouTube is on national media for one night; the leftist media (excepting Fox) is there every night.
The YouTube concept is for circus effect only. And simply put, I don't trust any media outlet to treat Republicans fairly. Beyond that, there is the matter of the honor of the Executive, whether Republican or Democrat. The world looks at this and forms their own opinions.
See Paddy's remarks.
|
|
"No wonder he’s a scared-y-cat about YouTube and thinks everyone else should be too"
Oh Puleeze!
Youtube Schmutube!
Refusing to to "debate" lunatics don't make anyone scared of lunatics, it just makes them sane and sensible.
Youtube is an illegitimate son of Algore/Google and the loony left.
Under no circumstances should the top Republican cans[-didates, give any legitimacy to the unaccountable crazies at Youtube, be deigning to participate in any "debate"(aka lynching fr republicans".
It's easy: Say no to Youtube and the Algore loony left.
|
|
...Michelle Malkin and many other Conservatives don't think Republicans should stay out of the debate either.
I'll say it again: if our candidates can't handle harsh questions from amateurs, how are they ready for prime time? Arguing MSM bias doesn't cut it, if that's the standard then other "mainstream" debates don't qualify.
Always attend, get the publicity, call bias out for what it is. Nothing is served by refusing to answer questions. |
|
Just what is it exactly that makes this debate unlegit, Hugh? Because you said it was?
If Mitt already did a CNN debate and CNN is made up of a bunch of liberals out to mess him up, then what's the difference whose questions they ask? If the end result is a liberal ambush, then why not dodge every debate CNN sponsors altogether?
There is NO difference between the Dems dodging Fox (which I've said all along was a horrible mistake) and the GOP dodging CNN/YouTube. No, strike that. The only difference is that the GOP dodging CNN/YouTube is potentially a PR disaster for the candidates, while the Dems dodging Fox was a two-day story, tops. "Republicans talk to Chris Matthews but snub the America people". It doesn't matter how many townhalls Mitt Romney has done, that's going to be the headline.
Your ability to justify positions taken out of fear and disguise them as positions taken out of principle continues to be unprecedented, Hugh. |
|
and having his hormone levels checked seem to have made him jump the other way. Teletubbies! Even our three year old has moved on to Blue's Clues.
Oh wait, is that Ol' Blue on the left?
Republican candidates cannot act out of fear. Box canyon? I should think Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney could handle Anderson Cooper and a bunch of cherry picked YouTube posts in any box canyon. |
|
|
|