Thursday, July 26, 2007
|
|
The Great YouTube Debate, Only on Townhall
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
9:35 PM
|
I can see from Hugh's post that the Romney campaign has made its decision not to participate in the YouTube debate. You heard it here first! (Of course, I kid.)
While I can certainly appreciate the desire to avoid "set up" questions, it is intellectually dishonest to simultaneously attack the Democrats for running from Fox News while raising the red flag at agenda journalism in the form of CNN/YouTube. I couldn't agree more with what one of the Republican candidates said about this:
"Why is it that the Democrats wouldn't even go on Fox, but we Republicans are happy to sit there and have Chris Matthews of the Carter administration, former chief of staff to (ex-House speaker) Tip O'Neill? We're happy to sit there and have him dish questions to us, but they won't even go on Fox." That candidate? Mitt Romney.
For years, we have rightly derided the media's farcical defense of its "layers upon layers of fact checkers and editors." And yet that is what Hugh is asking to see more of. Yes -- the media "posed" questions via YouTube that they would never have actually asked themselves. That's what bloggers do everyday, isn't it?
Hugh says, "Go to all the networks and talk to all the journalists, yes" (but not YouTube users). But why should it matter if I am a journalist? Do we now believe that journalists are the fount of all knowledge and wisdom? Isn't the vigorous belief that they are manifestly not what the right-blogosphere was founded on? You know where I learned that? Hugh Hewitt's Blog: The Information Reformation That is Sweeping Our World.
It's not that we look old by rejecting this debate -- and that we do. It's that we look like CBS executives tut-tutting at the 2008 version of the pajama-clad bloggers that brought down Dan Rather, with their messiness and lack of editorial control.
Hugh also argues that "the format diminishes the importance of the presidency, at least as it was managed by CNN." The gripping fear of appearing "unpresidential" is what weighs heavily on the minds of the campaign's high commands. Okay, that sounds legitimate in theory. But we had a controlled experiment in that on Monday night. Did all the snowmen and music videos make Hillary Clinton appear "unpresidential?" I'm sorry, but I saw the same debate you did, and they didn't. The Democratic candidates proved themselves unfit to lead by the content of their answers, not by who was asking the questions. Arguably, Mitt's best moment in the first debate was when we took out that idiot questioner who asked what he hated about America. As commenter manfred put it in response to my earlier post:
I am not sure, though, that I agree that being President or running for President means you are too dignified for odd-ball questions. You are running to represent the people -- not to be king. I think we mystify the office too much already. He is not our superior -- he is our servant. He serves at OUR pleasure, and he should never forget that or get too big for his britches (or her, as the case may be in a bit more than a year). If a question strikes you as being silly, answer it with grace. It needn't be an embarrassing moment -- it can show what you are made of. I'm no CNN fan either, Hugh. I hope that now that the CNN/YouTube debate is for all intents and purposes dead, it can reconstituted as a Fox News/YouTube debate and scheduled at a time that is convenient for all the candidates.
But here's the difference between this and any ordinary debate. In an open source environment, both conservatives and liberals have an equal opportunity to shape the outcome. Concerned about loaded questions? Have the Republican National Committee and other conservative groups send emails to their massive lists encouraging submissions. State parties should set up video cameras at shopping malls in GOP base areas taking questions and uploading them. This can be a powerful galvanizing moment in bringing thousands more Republicans online. We would have been better as a party for having it in its full glory.
Some Republicans will look at their candidates pulling out and fall in line. But we need to look at the bigger picture here. The Republican Party faces a demographic and technological emergency in 2008. We are losing an entire generation of voters -- and once lost, it will be very, very, very hard to get them back. Refusing to engage them on their own terms, in their choice of media, won't help things.
More to the point, we already face a massive online fundraising gap that will only get worse as our attitude towards the medium morphs from indifference into outright hostility. I've worked at this stuff long enough to know that you get out of the Internet what you put in. I had hoped that things would get better with Hillary as the nominee, but with unforced errors like this, now I'm not so sure they will. By trying to maintain an unshakable aura of decorum, by avoiding a tough question or two, we may be winning a battle, but we are losing the war.
|
|
How is it that the party that recognized and embraced Talk Radio 20 years ago is missing the next great media opportunity?
I would hate to see Democrats dominate YouTube the way Republicans own Talk Radio -- especially since YouTube is so much cooler.
Still, I see Hewitt's concern with the CNN factor.
Still, the 21st Century candidate needs to be prepared for these kinds of new things. This ain't your Daddy's campaign!
Still, maybe it is, since the so-called "Youth Vote" is so overrated.
Still, you can't call out the Dems for wimping out on Fox if Republicans can't even handle simple questions from average folks with camcorders -- and that's exactly how it will be spun for Republicans that wimp out. |
|
|
Listen, the last thing I want is a member of big business in the white house. Big corporations are the biggest welfare queens out there, and they create unseen taxes as well. Why do you think corporations are so active and powerful in Washington while Government remains large? Shouldn't they be pushing for deregulation across the board? No they want regulations that benefit them and create new unneccessary costs across the board hurting small businesses, creating oligarchies, and essentially creating central planning. Right now we are fighting two drawn out wars, Bin Laden is free, Al Qaeda is stronger, and the administration is composed of members from the construction, government contractors, and the oil industry. Condi Rice has an oil tanker named after her. Cheney was Halliburton's CEO. Rumsfeld had his hands in a few things. They get payed to break, build, and drill it. Where do you think they are going to make their money afterwards? Look at James Baker . If you are in the military I am sure you see the revolving door. This is also being done on the credit card mind you, debt to China, while our dollar gets weaker. No I do not want a member of BIG business in the White House. |
|
I havn't checked for his marbles, so until his wife gets back to me I'll hold judgement on that. You could always go to his website he has alot of videos including townhall meetings with unscripted question and answer. He also was the Governor of one of the (if not the) most Liberal state and stood up to the local media and the state legistlature by vetoing numerous bills. Not to mention that he stood up to a country's worth of homosexuals when he enforced a state law that outlaws marriages that are illegal in those individual's home states.
But as far as being a big government RINO Romney is not. Romney however did close a $3 Billion state deficit that he inherited when he bacame the governor of Tax-achusetts. He did that without raising taxes. When he ran the '02 Olympics that were right after the 9/11 attacks, and plagued by scandle he erased a $379 million operating deficit before he held an elected office. |
|
YouTube doesn't represent a cross-section of American youth. It doesn't represent the people who actually bother to vote...
the vaunted CNN/YouTube debate was a townhall format without actual people... There's no way to know what the questioners thought of the answer... There's no way to know what they really look like...
One of the values of meeting people is that as people ask questions, the rest of us see who is asking what and how the candidates respond... We form our opinions based on both sides of the conversations...
Get with the program and stop supporting technology that isolates leaders from the people! |
|
its a simple forum, where people ask questions and the candidates respond. It's labeled as a debate, but there is no such thing going on.
Candidates should just post their own YouTube video of them responding to all the questions that are worthwhile. Skip the snowman lunacy and the "do you still hit your wife" setups, and answer the honest questions that a candidate wants to. Splice it together and post it.
That would accomplish what Patrick wants, and avoid the lunacy that Hugh fears.
Only go on a debate if its a real debate. And by the way debates work best as 1 on 1, or maybe 1 on 1 on 1, but after three people it breaks down, and even three is pushing it.
Let's get a debate of Rudy versus Romney - that would be interesting.
|
|
The fact that CNN let the Dims have what was an essentially "open-book" debate (thanks Rush) will somehow be turned into a case of the "Conservative Media Bias" by the She-Beast. You know it's true! It is just another part of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" she has the goods on.
w/o= |
|
Joe Biden sure seems to know how to shoot himself in the foot.
He's been doing it for years...... |
|
The GOP candidates might point out that asking a question about the 2nd Amendment doesn't make one "mentally unstable"...In fact quite the opposite is true...Anyone who thinks the 2nd Amendment is the problem are in "need of professional help" as Biden said (though I may have paraphrased)
w/o= |
|
CNN gave the Dims the list of questions prior to the debate...would they do the same for the GOP?
The fact is I would be in favor of another CNN/You-Boob debate this time for the GOP candidates if CNN just replayed the same questions from the same snowman and the rest...it would only be fair and on par with the "preview" afforded the Dims.
I might even watch to see who gets the "black enough" question thrown their way...
w/o= |
|
but I agree with Hugh on this one.
CNN and moonbats do not a debate make. A CNN circus with Anderson Cooper as the ringmaster is not the only way to engage "youth" and the "new media."
I thought Fred Thompson's response to Michael Moore was excellent use of the internet. Sadly, the CNN debate is just another way nutrooty way of playing "gotcha." |
|
Some of us are old enough to remember the Kennedy-Nixon debate which fundamentally tilted the political process from ideas to cosmetics. Yes, ideas still matter. But now it is all packaging and marketing. You can argue (I do) that the Youtube carnival is a farce which drags the discussion down to a new low. But the fact remains - this is the medium. This is the model we have today. The candidates will be forced to be part of the circus because that is the natural progression from where we have come.
The greater question is: will we elect better or worse candidates with this type of "debate?" I am sure we will not get better, but that is not to say that we will get worse. It just means that we are continuing to separate the serious business of selecting the leader of the free world from any process of seeing whether he/she has the values/gravity to responsibly hold the job. e.g. How does knowing a candidate's boxer/briefs status help us decide who should decide our response to a nuclear Iran?
Heaven help us. |
|
its not just YouTube or whatever, its all of these silly debates - they are designed to make the candidates seem small and the issues trivial.
A real man would refuse to participate in any of them. |
|
If you're quoting Manfred to bolster your argument, you probably won't get very far on this post.....
I'm just sayin'.... |
|
On the MSNBC or CNN debates, the audience of course was well aware that the questions were coming from the media, and as such were going to be left of center. Similarly for FOX, questions were going to be right of center.
In the CNN/Youtube debate though, these questions are being billed as "from the American people," but the media is filtering them in such a way to give a false impression as to the concerns of Americans as a whole, and rather only offers concerns from the left-wing. As such, CNN hopes to fool the viewer into buying this, and the quality of questions is also just abysmal. That's the problem. |
|
Hugh is now using his blog to counter your posts, which also appear on his blog.
I'm all for spirited dialogue among a group who can respectfully disagree, but as I've stated in the comments elsewhere, if your mentions of McCain's earlier polling, when he was beating Romney, didn't send you to the penalty corner, I'm pretty sure this latest post will do the trick. |
|
The MSM thinks a left-wing bias is fair and balanced. FOX IS fair and balanced.
Democrats will not put up with fair and balanced. Republicans should not put up with leftist bias.
Republicans should let people like Newt Gingrich, Charleston Heston or Tom Selleck ask the questions. Then the MSM can act like real journalists and actually cover the news. |
|
The only important issue is whether the question posed by the snowman was valid or not. Period.
I do not buy into the junk science surrounding global warming, but that does not mean that climate change and environmental law is not a relevant topic for a Presidential debate. It obviously is.
Since Jack Kennedy's time [maybe since FDR's time] the Presidency has been overtaken by its own symbolism. "Oh noes, I'm demeaned if I answer a question from a snowman!" No, you're demeaned if you answer crap softball questions or if you slavishly devote your time to contriving "Presidential" photo ops to appear in, rather than campaigning on issues and ideology in as forthright a way as you can. |
|
... arenas in which to take questions from You-tubies. Just because the Dems are willing to look stupid on CNN in order to satisfy the moonbats- doesn't mean the GOP should.
Remember what you mamma always said about jumpin off that bridge! |
|
I mentioned this earlier this week in Patrick's post about a GOP YouTube debate.
THERE IS ALREADY A GOP CNN/YOU TUBE DEBATE SCHEDULED FOR ON SEPTEMBER 17 IN ST PETERSBURG, FL HOSTED BY THE FLORIDA STATE GOP.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/14/the-skinny-on-cnn-youtubes-presidential-debates/
Hugh and Patrick-
You guys need to do research before you come up with these ideas. And perhaps a little more reading from your posters. Sometimes we do know more than you.
:-)
-SORRY FOR THE RE-POST, BUT....
|
|
Totally agree with you.
Is the current Republican leadership fulfulling some kind death wish?
Are they trying to destroy the party now and for future generations?
Their refusal to at least try the YouTube debate, coupled with several other actions of the current President and others in the Congress, are alienating many on the middle ground of Americans. |
|
Should all the candidates be prepared to answer a "boxers or briefs" question?
I lose respect for a candidate who answers questions from cartoon snowmen. In rare circumstances, a candidate may need to appear on a comedy show to overcome an overly serious or "mean" public image; Nixon's cameos on "Laugh-In" in 1968 come to mind - "Sock it to ME?" And nowadays all candidates book on Leno and Letterman to demonstrate they can take and make a joke.
This, however, isn't a bit of comic relief. It purports to be a serious event in the campaign. It diminishes the office, the candidates, and the country. |
|
This is going to be a tough race and the GOP candidates need lots of exposure. Take on the crazy tough questions now, worry about specific debate tactics when the general election comes.
Republicans should not be scare-d-cats. |
|
The thing the MSM/Democrats sponsored the other night was not a debate.As their TNR homie TSB might have known if he knew military slang,The YOU TUBE slice of sophomoric polito-porn was what GI's used to call a C.....r F..k! Nada mas.Trying to equate Democratic refusal to "Face the Nation" on a Fox Network venue with this "potential"event is like asking an Islamic woman to pose for PLAYBOY
in Iran.If it weren't for THE HONOR,it's probably a wise "opportunity" to pass on.
|
|
|
You are absolutely, 100 percent correct, Patrick. Our candidates should debate anytime, anyplace anywhere. |
|
Let Fox and facebook sponsor a debate. Facebook is capable of sending in voter questions just as well if not better than You Tube.
Who chooses the questions is the most important thing. |
|
|
Why repeat it? Republicans have debated on the liberals turf, and answered their 'odd ball' questions, and will until this process is over. I don't see anyone with a leg to stand on in that argument. |
|
|
|