Thursday, July 26, 2007
|
|
No Sale, Patrick
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
11:27 PM
|
Patrick really want the GOP candidates to do a YouTube debate. Why not have them go in barrels over Niagara Falls --that would get a lot of interest as well?
What Patrick fails to see is that it isn't about talking to people or being willing to connect with voters through new media. Both Giuliani and Romney --less so Thompson-- have been very, very available to all sorts of people at stop after stop, and both do all sorts of media without preconditions. They answer all the questions.
What they are wise to avoid is a set-up ambush using gimmicks that separate the ambush from the planner. See my post below, but the YouTube formay allows nameless, faceless MSM lefties to hit below the belt and then shrug their shoulders and say "It wasn't my question."
The CNN YouTube debate was orchestrated by MSMers with no names and no accountability for the buffoonery that ensured. The GOP candidates skipping such a circus is not the same as the Democrats passing on a Fox News Channel debate moderated by Brit Hume and Chris Wallace, and I'd blast the GOPers if they skipped an MSNBC debate. In fact I'm all for letting Keith Olbermann moderate a debate of the GOPers because poor old Keith wouldn't know what hit him. It isn't about being willing to go anywhere and answer anything, it is about refusing to walk into a media box canyon where the anonymous MSMers will have had a few days to pick the best thirty body slams from tens of thousand of moonbat-generated videos. Would Patrick recommend the GOP candidates attend a YearlyKos sponsored and nutter-moderated debate? That's what the YouTube Debate, GOP edition will be.
Running for president is supposed to show us that candidates are prudent, and the wise choice here is to say yes to every MSM debate, and no to gimmicks, no matter how appealing they are to the slackers and snowmen demographic.
If you are feeling ambitious this weekend, develop a YouTube hit question of the sort I am writing about here and send the link to me at hugh@hughhewitt.com. Perhaps a few examples will spell it out for Patrick.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall is fulminating: "But if they can't face Youtube how can they defeat the terrorists?" Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. Being stupid about media is a qualification to fight the war on terror. And tackling snowman videos measures leadership. Sheesh.
|
|
shouldn't you be studying for that summer school algebra exam? You don't want to repeat 8th grade AGAIN do you?
So take your flyin' f*@k back to KOS so you can't blame the Republicans for your failure to achieve this summer too!
W/O= |
|
who thought the Democrats looked dumb for skipping the FOX Noise debate are, sadly, people like you folks here at this fascist site, TH. You know, the 14 percenters. So nobody gives a flying fu** what you people have to say, about anything. Fox Noise is seen by 90% of America as a Republican opinion channel, nothing else.
-
Now, find jobs and get a life, will ya? Quit your incredibly irritating and untiringly incessant whining about everything in your lives. America doesn't care anymore what you people think, got it? If Nov 2006 didn't show you that, you're in for one hell of a shock come Nov 2008.
Peace to my brothers and sisters |
|
In all of Para-Hollywood adulation media (think: Access Hollywood, “E” Television, etc.) it’s all about the “get”. They are whole herds of reporters traveling around on “junkets” to stand in line for a get. Maybe, just maybe, they will be the one interviewer out of dozens that day who will come away with a get moment from the likes of Tom, Will, Al, or Jack.
The reason the actors do these parade of reporter interviews is because they’re contracted, meaning the pay off was right. The big winners there are the studios. Complaining about how GOP dodged the get is like saying I’m not watching
Well, for you whinny self professed new media sycophants, the metric for controlling one’s image is determined by the pay off. I’m looking for someone to show me how many You Tube viewers vote.
What you don’t fully realize is that the new media does not need the old to moderate, especially CNN. That is, in fact, the appeal of the new media, they can get anyone to broker content, if it either has demonstrable impact on opinion or draws enough attention to create it own weather pattern. Remember the reworking of Apple’s 1984 commercial was done by some guy sitting around in his underwear, away from his day job at the political campaign media sub-contractor.
P.T. Barnum is still right. You Tube is a carnival act. By the time the election gets here, we all will have moved onto another act in the next media ring. “BG”, the first post here, had it right, right up front, Facebook is the next big ring.
|
|
The Libocrats looked foolish refusing to go on Fox.
The GOPers will look just as foolish by not going on YouTube.
Just my thought... |
|
|
If you can't accept new converts into your camp then the big tent that Ronald Reagen envisioned will only continue to shrink. There are three parts to an effective Republican party Social conservatives, Fiscal conservatives, and Pro-military/security. The whole idea is that none of them are mutually exclusive so even though all three apply to me someone else can be/vote Republican if they feel strongly enough about just one of them. Anti-abortion/lower taxes/kill the jihadis! |
|
Refusing to participate says several things, and will be spun this way:
1. You're afraid to take questions from the unwashed masses.
2. You think you're too good (or elite) to take questions from the unwashed masses.
3. You are completely out of touch in regards to the internet
4. You take yourself way too seriously.
Whereas participating lets the folks who frequent YouTube and similar sites that you are not an uptight Luddite and you're willing to listen to and answer questions and concerns from ordinary people. |
|
I'm sorry, but this is absurd. Even if Hugh were correct perception matters as much as reality here, and skipping the debate just to avoid answering harsh questions made on a home video is pathetic. It simply looks awful to not go through the exercise after the Democrats did it.
Yes, dumb questions will get asked. Some dumb questions were asked during the first MSNBC/politico debates as well. So what?
Hugh's argument seems to be that biased professional questions are fine but biased amateur questions are not. Why?
Fine, lets say the MSM picks the worst of the worst. So what? If our candidates can't hit those out of the park, please explain to me how they are possibly ready for prime time. |
|
"What justifies the notion that some individuals have this special right to have their "needs" fulfilled at other people's expense, while other people are denied that same right and in fact are forced to work extra to fulfill this special right possessed by some but denied to others? What happened to the concept of equal rights for all?"
The notion is justified by emphasis on the nature of man to be compassionate and empathize with those less fortunate. Other ethical systems could put emphasis on the nature of man to be cruel and pitiless. These opposing potentialities exist in all of us and the role of ethics is to think about how we actualize the aspects of our nature that make us as individuals and our civilization thrive. As for these being "special rights" for some, denied for others, the assertion makes no sense. The fact that the kid down the street from me goes to public school doesn't mean that mine can't...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, most townhall and open forum questionings have been aggravatingly stupid and irritating over the years, full of uninformed people asking candidates "what will you do for ME?", bringing up pet peeves, etc. So what, in any large crowd one will encounter a considerable number of unpleasant and useless people.
CNN (or whoever) filters the submissions, skews the questions, that is a known hazard.
The candidates would be well advised to view it as an opportunity rather than a threat. Imagine how Bill Clinton COULD have handled the MTV boxers or briefs question... if he had wanted to defend his stature and dignity.
Nothing prevents the candidates from clearly saying that I will not respond to that foolish and inappropriate question because it demeans the American people and the high office to which I aspire.
Sorry Hugh, Patrick has his head on straight about this one, you need to re-think the priorities here. |
|
|
My other post seems to have been lost in the shuffle... Why would any candidate worth a vote be intimidated by a You Tube video? Make one in which you ask & answer your own questions if MSM isn't asking anything you want to answer! There is quite a mix of opinions on You Tube so don't expect everybody on there to agree with all your opinions. Maybe you'll pick up some votes from You Tube that wouldn't have had otherwise... |
|
Sorry, thought of another reason to say yes. Even if the debate is a bomb, the pubby candidates have the opportunity of presenting themselves as the ones who fearlessly welcome any and every venue, even as the dems shrink from Fox. Let the dem nominee then try to reject a Fox debate in the general election. If she does, Fox should proceed with an evening with the republican and an empty chair. We'd have earned it.
|
|
I think Mr. Ruffini has the better of the argument. This is America, wacky, American-originals are part and parcel of the national fabric, and the ability to handle them will only burnish the image of the candidate who can.
Nor will viewers be unmindful of a network's slanted selection of such questioners, and the candidates themselves should be capable of reminding the viewers if necessary that "if the questions seem hostile tonight, let's all remember who selected them - our CNN hosts, who selected much gentle questions at the democratic debate. But my fellow Americans, I welcome the challenge of hard questions, blah blah blah...".
Bring. It. On. |
|
The problem is that too many people believe there is some correlation between glib sound bites and responsible, mature leadership. The current process, as it has evolved, is just a group of too many wannabees fighting for too little airtime to get their soundbite out. There is no interest in putting out logical argument. Debate (as some of us old folks and a very few school aged geeks understand) involves setting up a premise (thesis) and then building a logical structure to either support or oppose it. Current politics does none of this. The process is not about debate. It is about marketing.
It takes just a little 4th grade math to show the problem with the CNN/Youtube "debate." Let's assume you have 10 candidates. In a two hour show, if you did nothing but listen to the candidates and not stop for commercials, questions, commentary or breath, each candidate would have 12 minutes. Based on adding all the other content, you probably get down to about half that. Not very much time to develop a "nuanced" position.
Now let's open it up for questions. I don't have the data, but I would guess there were at least several hundred questions submitted for the Democrat carnival. Someone has to winnow those down to the 15-20 that you will use. How do you select them? Lets, for the moment, ignore the potential political leaning of the selector. Do you go for the most entertaining video? Do you go for the most difficult questions? Do you select brief videos vs. the ones that may be longer but have a more important question? Clearly the person making this selection has a lot of power to direct what will actually get on the air. I am absolutely positive that there are folks who believe that even, though CNN selected the setups for the candidates, they had to "face the people." Horsesqueeze!
Finally, this is all about the networks selling cars and burgers. The concern that by shunning the Youtube circus will cause some political damage assumes that the people who would be bothered by that actually get off the couch to vote. The data following the overwhelming MTV campaign shows that they enjoy the entertainment value of the process, but standing in line to vote is just too boring. |
|
in their quest to make the candidates jump through the most demeaning and ridiculous hoops imaginable.
Let the Dems play this game. It just gives more ammunition for their 'Dukakis tank moment'. It makes them all look small and silly.
The lefties are just mad because their candidates look stupid and it's too late to save them from THE SNOWMAN! |
|
|
coming into this discussion, but the arguments made by both sides have swung me in favor of the "just do it" camp. Yes, the event will be undignified, but as long as the Democrats are putting up with the snowmen, the impact is a wash. And yes, I know that the questions will be even more innane than those the Democrats faced. That's just part of being a Republican running for office. |
|
|
A little known factoid. A young Hugh Hewitt told GOP hopeful Richard Nixon he'd look more presidential if he didn't shave before a debate with with a certain young senator named Kennedy. |
|
"...allows nameless, faceless MSM lefties to hit below the belt."
Boo-hoo! How unfair!
What you're really trying to do (you know your wingnuts have to show up for that debate, and all of them will), is to "work the refs". Don't worry: CNN will continue to treat the Republican Party just as Pravda treated the Communist Party.
|
|
...of every candidate:
Do you believe that the proper function of government is to take money from those who've earned it and transfer it to those who have not, for purposes of satisfying their "needs" for food, shelter, transportation, retirement income, education, health care or any other need they can come up with?
To those who answer "yes", ask this: What justifies the notion that some individuals have this special right to have their "needs" fulfilled at other people's expense, while other people are denied that same right and in fact are forced to work extra to fulfill this special right possessed by some but denied to others? What happened to the concept of equal rights for all?
To those who answer "no", ask this: which wealth-confiscation-by-government-theft programs will you dismantle and when can the taxpayers expect to see real declines in government spending coupled by tax reductions? |
|
It's apparent I haven't had my morning sugar-free Red Bull yet. You guys already mentioned the CNN/You Tube debate in lower POSTS.
As the kids say, "My bad!".
Sorry about the mess. I'm an idiot. |
|
|
|
"Let Townhall select the questions and let Fox and Facebook sponsor a debate. People can submit questions via Facebook just as easily as they can via You Tube. "
Sounds like a good idea.
Alternatively Fox can do a debate in conjunction with Myspace.com, which is actually owned by the same parent company of Fox.
The CNN/Youtube nonsense needs to get dumped by Republicans |
|
"is hewitt scared of the new media "
That's like saying my refusing to "debate" a madman means I am scared of the madman.
Only a fool, or another madman will debate a start raving loony.
The DemonCRATS drink from the same cup as the leftwing loons, so it's perfectly alright for them to have a pow wow with their leftwing pals.
It don't make any sense for Republican candidates to subject themselvs to a Spanish inquisition/Soviet Style inquisition by a bunch of unaccountable , wild eyed left wing loons from Algore's Youtube.
|
|
Say no, to Youtube.
If the Republican candidates are stupid enough to give legitimacy to a bunch of loonly left crazies on Youtube, I will not watch it, same as I boycotted the Republican "debate" on the Al Quaeda Network, MSNBC.
Who the heck are Youtube?
Who are they eccountable to?
Who made these clowns the arbiters of who becomes president of this country?
|
|
|
Your arguments are irrefutable. |
|
------------------
"UPDATE: Josh Marshall is fulminating: "But if they can't face Youtube how can they defeat the terrorists?" Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. Being stupid about media is a qualification to fight the war on terror. And tackling snowman videos measures leadership. Sheesh."
------------------
Hugh,
Ask Joshua Marshall who he bets will win the Al-Qaeda straw poll---I'm betting it's not anyone named Rudy, Mitt, or Duncan !
Truth is, the GOP candidates actually WANT to discuss fighting terrorism, Al-Qaeda, and national security.
This is entirely different from the Democrats running away from Brit Hume and Chris Wallace for the Fox News-NAACP sponsored debate.
The Democratic candidates ran from that format because they FEARED being asked tough questions about terrorism and national security. They feel safe with Chris Matthews, Anderson Cooper, et al, because they trust those guys to throw them softballs about clean air, bird flu, and healthy school lunches for children.
The reason we object to the YouTube debate is because we know the GOP candidates won't get ENOUGH questions about national security from a YouTube format. Instead, they'll be asked irrelevant questions about organ donors, Terri Schiavo, steroids in baseball, whether they wear briefs or boxers ?, and gotcha(!) questions about naming how much a half-gallon of milk costs in Des Moines. And no doubt Frosty the Snowman will ask an apocalyptic question about the impending doom of "global warming."
Additionally, there will be the inevitable inappropriate personal questions to Romney about his religion, or Rudy about his divorces, etc, just as Obama was asked if he's "black enough."
Most importantly, this YouTube format gives legitimacy to such "inappropriate" questions.
Now, every wisenheimer in America not named David Gregory will have license to say, "Hey, why CAN'T I ask you 'that' question ? After all, I saw Anderson Cooper ask you the very 'same' question on a nationally televised debate on CNN !"
The concept of a 'populist' YouTube debate is not what we object to, rather, we object to the un-seriousness of the questions which the CNN moderators will select for the GOP candidates.
This is the American Presidency---not American Idol.
|
|
|
|
I agree it was gutless of them...but I don't hear any of them saying they want a chance at a do-over.
They think pandering to the fringe element will get them elected. They think they'll tack to the middle in the general election and the Lunatic Left will still vote for them....I think they are misreading their BASE as well as the moderates!
As small a percentage as it may be, the middle is what really counts and they are snubbing them too for the Freak-Friinge! LOL...I see a SHOCKER when the November votes are tallied and they wonder what went wrong!!!
w/o= |
|
see post at 12:39
and another at 12:48
then get back to us about who can't face what.
at least for now the GOP refusal to to skip the You-Boob devate is hypothetical...the Dims running away from the NAACP & Fox News is a historical fact. |
|
|
How can they face Al Qaeda????????????????? |
|
|
To the contrary, my friend, I thought it was lame, stupid, and cowardly for the Dems to refuse to debate on Fox. While Fox is a wholy owned subsidiary of the Republican party, how can the Democrats face down this country's enemies when they are afraid to deal with gasbags like Brit Hume and Chris Wallace? So you're wrong about that. This Democrat says go on Fox, look those stinkers in the eye, and call them on their nonsense. |
|
can shine if you take off the leash and muzzle and let them answer the questions. Stop living in fear. What's next Naomi Wolfe telling them how to act "alpha." Let Fred Thompons take an ED question (I bet he gives a very funny answer). Let Mitt take some ignorant anti Mormon question. Let Rudy get challenged on how he was a facists in New York--heck these guys have faced the heat before. Now is the time to take chances, it is a year before the primaries.
You don't like YouTube, why not have Leno, O'Brien, Stewart, and Maher pepper the GOP candidates with questions. Make it like Dodgeball when they threw wrenches! It would be funny and I bet under extreme circumstances the GOP candidates would shine.
|
|
Hugh,
You're spot on.
Just as Anderson Cooper cowardly absolved himself from responsibility about asking Barack Obama the "are you black 'enough'?" question, Cooper will absolve himself from responsibility in asking the GOP candidates likewise inappropriate questions that he (or any other reporter) would NEVER dare ask a candidate if their journalistic reputation actually risked being damaged by the consequences of doing so.
(Can you imagine the wacky questions that the blustery Chris Matthews would ask if he could hide behind the cover of "Well, it's technically not 'my' question")
Plus, we all can expect CNN will do a little water-carrying on behalf of assisting the Democratic cause (!) by selectively choosing questions which are not necessarily going to reflect the concerns of "actual" Republican primary voters.
Every college age kid who belongs to Greenpeace or Code Pink and has access to a camcorder is going to be posing as a "Republican voter" in order to subversively submit a wacko question to make the GOP candidates look silly on national TV.
And once these inappropriate questions are surrogately asked of the candidates on a nationally televised debate, it gives LEGITIMACY for other people to ask the same inappropriate question of the candidate at a FUTURE time.
For example, in the future, I wouldn't be surprised to see some wiseguy with a microphone and a camera asking Obama the same inappropriate question about his "blackness" that was asked of him the other nite on CNN.
Also, look at the silly questions which ended up being asked of the GOP candidates when Politico asked 'online submitted questions' at the May debate at the Reagan Library.
Tom Tancredo was asked about "organ donors."
Such an issue is not even close to being an Executive or a Federal issue---what a colossal waste of time, when he could have been asked a serious question about national security or immigration.
With spurious questions like the one about "organ donors," they might as well just send in funny midget clowns wearing over-sized shoes to juggle bowling pins.
|
|
religious glib - Liberal Parrot - stinkling...
AND all the rest of the Dim-wits who eventually will post their outrage that the GOP candidates will skip the You-Boobs style fiasco.
I didn't hear any of your BS when the Dummycrap hopefuls ran away and hid rather than take part in a Fox News debate...
But to give your fearful leaders the benefit of the doubt I suppose it wasn't the terror they must have felt of being asked a serious question...
In fact I am quite sure their collective trepidation was brought on by the fact that the Fox Debate was sponsored by the NAACP and we all know how the Dim Party and their Lib supporters REALLY FEEL about THOSE people.
AND I think they made it quite clear to anyone who didn't know the truth about them when they snubbed the NAACP that evening.
w/o=
PS That goes for Barak Hussein Obama as well. Lets face it, he's just white enough to be a REAL Dim-Lib politician. |
|
That wasn't a debate and Hugh's 100% right on this just like when he rightly pointed out who's question it was regarding O's "blackness".
That supposed debate made me ill and depressed even when I expected the worse going in. Did you see the questions they chose? One would think they were intentionally attempting to boost the morale of AQ by highlighting the worst of American "thought".
Also, real debate would have moderation but more questions between the candidates so anytime, anywhere would mean something.
It would not have silly questions from people who know nothing of history, nothing of the role of government, and have never read our constitution let alone have the capacity to understand it. The net result distraction and feel-good moronics.
Afraid of YouTube? I don't have to be afraid of garbage to know I should walk around it. |
|
... Republican candidates are going to look too much like Bush -- incapable of addressing the serious questions citizens have. To wit: what really happened to Pat Tillman. Was he killed by his own men, and if so, why?
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/26/ap3958728.html
It is a no win situation. If the candidates don't go, they are cowards running away. If they do, they may have to answer for their party's crimes and errors. |
|
I'm not buying the "ambush" theory or the "gimmick" theory. That just makes you sound frightened, Hugh. I hate saying so, but that's how I take it.
Of course a CNN/YT debate would be hostile toward the Republicans. Ah - is this news to anyone? This avoidance thinking matches too closely the Dem/Fox News paranoia. I'm sick of Republicans playing defense far too much instead of offense, I'm tired of Republicans having to fight off excuses, as lame or as incorrect as they may be - doesn't matter, they're still on defense.
Would a CNN/YT debate really hit below the belt and register on the Kos Stupidity Scale? I doubt it but let's say it does. Who will look like the idiot? Unless someone says something beyond ludicrous like Obama and his dictator gab-fest tour idea, it's not going to be the candidates.
|
|
some tough questions from CNN? I know CNN would be tougher on the GOP than the Dems (even to the point of being unfair), but I also know that tough questions should be looked at as an opportunity. Thompson, Giuliani and Romney should look at it as a chance to outshire the Democratic challenger, not a threat.
Stop being such a wuss. |
|
If a candidate is afraid of a YouTube video or a partisan press, he is useless against Al Qaeda. Even Dennis Kuchinich wasn't afraid of the debate format!
Sorry, but GOP better not make Li'l Dennis look like a courageous leader. |
|
|
Maybe Hugh would feel better about the Youtube thing if Slick Willard were allowed to post some of his "policemen" at the portal and prevent "bad questions' from getting in.. |
|
in every other instance hewitt touts the new media as the savior of mankind but when it comes to unpredicitablilty of youtube he wimps out.
you are either in or out mr. hewitt you can't say you only choose your new media over someone elses. |
|
Let Townhall select the questions and let Fox and Facebook sponsor a debate. People can submit questions via Facebook just as easily as they can via You Tube.
Facebook reaches the younger generation much better than You Tube anyway. |
|
|
|