Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Robert Bluey :: Townhall.com Columnist
Will GOP Field ‘Cut and Run’ From YouTube Debate?
by Robert Bluey
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has more videos on YouTube than any other candidate -- in either party. Yet the former Massachusetts governor isn’t sure he’ll participate in the CNN/YouTube debate on Sept. 17.

“We currently have seven debate invitations over an 11-day span in September that are under consideration,” Romney spokesman Kevin Madden told the American Spectator. “No final decision has been delivered at this point.”

Why would Romney, a telegenic and articulate candidate, not jump at the opportunity to appear in this historic debate?

“I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman,” he told the New Hampshire Union Leader, referring to a videotaped question posed during the Democratic version of the CNN/YouTube debate.

While the snowman question wasn’t exactly the highlight of the debate, it certainly didn’t demean the presidency. Laugh it off or call it stupid, but don’t use it as a litmus test.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas are the only two Republicans to commit to the YouTube debate. The rest of the Republican field, like Romney, has expressed dissatisfaction or stayed eerily silent.

The situation illustrates precisely the problem facing the right in a world constantly being shaped by technology. Unlike any other time in history, citizens today can have an impact by creating a video on YouTube or starting a fan page on MySpace. The political world is being flattened, as Thomas Friedman would say.

The growth of participatory democracy and citizen journalism is fueling some of the ambivalence among Republican advisers and political operatives. It makes things messy, and campaign pros hate “messy.” It creates unwanted distractions. It makes it harder to stay on message. But the times they are a-changin’ and everyone -- not just Democrats -- must adapt to the new world.

The GOP’s general unwillingness to engage fully online -- in terms of staffing and candidate activity -- helps explain why Republicans trail Democrats in everything from online fundraising to “friends” on social networks such as MySpace and Facebook. Yes, Romney boasts 231 YouTube videos, and Ron Paul has nearly 50,000 MySpace supporters. But these are exceptions to the basic rule that Republican politicos are woefully behind their Democratic counterparts in exploiting the possibilities of Internet-based politicking.

Bailing on the YouTube debate would be even more foolish than the Democrats’ refusal to participate in a debate hosted by Fox News. The immaturity of the left-wing blogosphere led to that debate’s demise, but the right-wing blogosphere is having the exact opposite reaction. Conservative bloggers want the GOP candidates to participate.

“This is a big mistake,” wrote Patrick Ruffini, the former Republican National Committee e-campaign director and a former adviser to presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani. “The Democrats are afraid to answer questions from Big Bad Fox News Anchors, and the Republicans are afraid to answer questions from regular people. Which is worse?”

Ruffini’s frustration led him to launch a petition to save the debate, which was instantly endorsed by the right’s most tech-savvy bloggers. Meanwhile, popular conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, no fan of YouTube herself, put it bluntly: “The CNN/YouTube Democrat debate was a circus. I said so. But Republicans shouldn’t sit out their turn. And conservatives shouldn’t abandon YouTube to the moonbats and jihadists. The GOP candidates should see it as an opportunity.”

This is a huge opportunity for Republicans, but they don’t seem to realize it. It’s no wonder young people say they are “profoundly alienated from the Republican party and its perceived values,” as a survey from Democracy Corps and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner revealed.

If candidates aren’t even willing to talk to younger Americans via their preferred means of communication, how on earth will they change that negative perception?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Robert B. Bluey is director of the Center for Media & Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation and maintains a blog at RobertBluey.com
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Ron Paul
I do not support Ron Paul, primarily because of his foreign policy. The threat of Islamojihadist imperialism (pace HalO) is not silly or invented. No doubt some of our policies have further inflamed our enemies, even though some of our interventions (Bosnia, Kuwait) benefited Muslims. But what inflames this enemy over the projection of American power and interests is that it frustrates their ultimate, eschatological objective of a global Caliphate.

However, a CNN/UTube debate between McCain and RP would be well worth watching -- especially if the moderators allowed for some good, spontaneous interaction between the candidates. I am no fan of McCain, but I would love to see a good exchange of ideas on the war, the budget, taxes, and federalism. I say give RP a chance to break through to the top tier. Even if he does not win the nomination, I would like to see his Constitutional philosophy gain a wider hearing in the electorate. Maybe he could help push the party back to its conservative roots, and we could also have the opportunity to assess the claims of Liberty, HalO, and others that RP's ideas will resonate well with a large segment of the electorate.

SteveL -- I do not support RP, but I do not believe, as you do, that his nomination would destroy the Republican party. Bush and a spendthrift Congress has already done a pretty good job of this. I am an evangelical, social conservative; I certainly will not vote for RP in the primaries, but if he is the GOP nominee, I would gladly cast my vote for him in the general election, despite my deep concerns about his naivetés regarding Islamojihadist imperialism. Hillary might be able to get to RP's right on the war, but if she manages to turn our nation into a socialist Republic, the Islamic threat will be the least of our worries. And as a social conservative, I do not want/need to see more government spending to promote conservative social causes. Yes, I disagree with the libertarians about the constitutionality of federal proscriptions against abortion and gay marriage, but if RP is willing to nominate strict Constitutional constructionist to the federal bench, I'd be a very happy social con.

Ron Paul...
...is a good politician with many strong points. He speaks his mind openly and honestly, not many do that. He has some very compelling ideas, also, few politicians can say the same. He has been a good congressman for many years, faithfully serving his state.

However, he is unelectable, at least at this time. Look at any poll (I mean real polls, not some shanghiaed internet bs) and he is in single digits, usually down near zero. He can not and will not get the nomination. If he did, the Hildebeast would eat him alive.

I would love to see some of his ideas come to fruition, but he will not be the president to implement them. That's just how it is. Sorry.

Heck
I'd vote for Ron Paul, too. He's a true American, no doubt about it, who understand how to operate America in this age of globalism.
Ron Paul, yeah!

PArepublican
Yeah CNN is liberal, but the purpose of debates at this point in the election cycle is to determine who has the best ideas and who can articulate them the best. The nature of the questions is irrelevant. All candidates should be clamoring for the opportunity to answer them. Turning you nose up at political debate is not a good idea. I suspect that the more the frontrunners talk, the more people realize that they only represent the status quo, which is really bad in the current political climate. It’s even worse to have those ideas juxtaposed to Ron Paul’s ideas, which are extremely persuasive if you actually listen to him speak. Check out his Google interview. It’s the best hour you’ll ever spend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

Massachusettsliberal's question
That's the type of sarcasm that I would expect in the YOUTUBE/CNN GOP debate. Republicans who think GOP candidates should take part are nuts. CNN is no less Liberal then Massachusettsliberal.

SteveL
So Ron Paul can't win because he would alienate all of the special interests? I disagree. First of all, most people are sick of the federal government being so strongly beholden to special interests and so weakly beholden to voters. Secondly, what the party used to get from special interest support, Ron Paul will gain from grassroots activism. He has something like 25,000 meetup group members across the country. These are real people who get together at the local level to spread the word. No other candidate, Democrat or Republican, comes close. RP also receives a greater percentage of small donations than any other candidate. This small army of supporters has the ability to persuade people.

I’ll concede that Paul will probably not gain the support of the hard core hawks, but social conservatives should line up behind the man. He wants to return the legislation of social issues to the states where it belongs. This empowers social conservatives to push for change at the local level. How do you think the federal government was able to legalize abortion? It was through centralization of traditionally state-held powers.

There is another demographic that Paul will greatly appeal to. That is the 50% of the population that is apathetic to politics. Many of these people have realized that it no longer matters who they vote for; we always get more government, more taxes, and less liberty. These people are the sleeping giant in American politics.

for POTSI
POTSI asks: "My question is this: Why are so many of you saying Ron Paul can't get elected?"

For one thing, the nomination of Ron Paul would destroy the Republican Party. The Libertarian wing of the GOP is now relatively tiny (and that's why Ron Paul has so few Republican allies in Congress who think and vote the way he does). So if Ron Paul staged an insurgency and won the nomination anyway, he would alienate the entire rest of the GOP, splitting the party badly.

So Ron Paul would come out of the GOP Convention as the nominee with no GOP campaign organization to help him win. The hawks he alienates with his noninterventionist stance won't support him. The GOP's traditional business backers won't support him because he doesn't believe in using the Federal Government to grant them favors and exclusive charters and franchises. Even the social conservatives won't support him after they realize that while he has personally conservative views, he won't use the Federal Government to promote their programs.

Ron Paul's antiwar stance might appeal to voters outside the GOP. But the same left-leaning voters who are antiwar want to cut the Pentagon budget and spend it on social programs like national health care, which Ron Paul doesn't. So they would continue to see Hillary as a more reasonable compromise.

So Paul would have no campaign organization and no significant campaign contributions to help him campaign against Hillary.

Who would pay for Ron Paul's TV ads? Who would get out the vote on Election Day for Ron Paul?

Compared to the huge financial and organizational advantages Hillary enjoys, Paul would be doomed.

New Hampshire and 38 miles for R. Paul
http://www.fmnn.com/

38 miles for Ron Paul:
http://www.fmnn.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=46457

Do what this woman is doing in New Hampshire. Get Business cards for Ron Paul's campaign and send them out to the grocery store where you and I know the prices have gone up on food. Tell them your government is debasing the the US Dollar currency based on illegal immigration and the IRAQ war. It is showing up at the grocery store.

Ex:
Milk 3 months ago was 3.79 cents for 2 gallons. Now it is $4.29 at Publix grocery store. It is showing up in all our foods.

Get business cards by contacting Ron Paul's staff.
website:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com

R. Novak admitted Ron Paul being popular
Excuse me for my spelling. The spelling police will be out in full force.
Look in Spartenburg, S.C - great place near my once hometown of Charlotte, NC (SC ROCKS!). Ron Paul got standing room only.

People want to hear about freedom, liberty, sovereignty, tax elimination, sound money - gold and silver. Americans want our country back.

Fear has run its course.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

R. Novak admited Ron Paul being popular
Look in Spartenburg, S.C - great place near my once hometown of Charlotte, NC (SC ROCKS!). Ron Paul got standing room only.

People want to hear about freedom, liberty, sovereignty, tax elimination, sound money - gold and silver. Americans want our country back.

Fear has run its course.

These posts are for Ron Paul
I knew he'd be popular.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

To "Liberty" (Ron Paul)
Ron Paul's popularity is amazing over here in Florida. I have never seen anything like this.

Here is something interesting Liberty. I always perform my weekly listening to financialsense.com (Jim Puplava). Peter Schiff from Euro Pacific Captial said he believes that Ron Paul has a realistic shot at the nomination and that people need to start ponying up to his campaign. He is right. If you are concerned about your personal finances and your sovereignty of the country Ron Paul is the deal.

Peter Schiff's analysis is a 180 degree turn (1 year ago) where he thought he wouldn't have a chance (of course both Ron Paul and Peter Schiff agree with philosophy).

Ron Paul's site:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com

Euro Pacific Capital
http://www.europac.net

I don't understand this nonsense...
Conservative candidates know that they have far fewer chances than the Liberals to get their message out in the media without being edited. I would think that these candidates would jump at the opportunity for any televised debate. They're not going to get a fair shake any other way, so to turn away opportunities such as this one is sheer madness, even if the questions are coming from braindead pothead Liberals.

CharlieS

Perhaps you need to read some history, or why not read President Reagan's Memoirs, if you do not remember.

Ronald Reagan reflected on Lebanon in his memoirs, describing the Middle East as a jungle and Middle East politics as irrational. It forced him to rethink his policy in the region. It’s time we do some rethinking as well.

Reagan DID "cave", as you put it. He was wise enough to realize that Middle Eastern politics were irrational and we had no business being there.

CharlieS
"Reagan also was NOT an isolationist like Paul is."

So sorry, you're wrong again. Dr. Paul is not an isolationist; he is a non-interventionist. He is a strong advocate of true free trade and where possible, good relations with other countries. Isolationists, on the other hand, do not like free trade and like tariffs, etc.

You really don't know anything about this man, Charlie, because you've been wrong on just about every single thing you've said. Maybe you ought to actually take a few minutes and go read something that he wrote. He's been one of the most prolific Congressmen in office.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php

CharlieS
If you think he's naive, then you must believe that the following are also: the CIA, the 9-11 Commission, the Chief of the CIA's bin Laden unit, numerous foreign policy experts and Paul Wolfowitz.

Note: He didn't blame America. He blamed our foreign policy for contributing to the islamo-crazies hatred of us. Apparently, they don't like it when their countries are occupied and their government's overthrown. Imagine that.

"His [bin Laden’s] rhetoric selectively draws from multiple sources -- Islam, history, and the region's political and economic malaise. He also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War..."-- 9/11 Commission Report, pages 48-49

"There are a lot of things that are different now [after the invasion of Iraq], and one that has gone by almost unnoticed -- but it's huge -- is that by complete mutual agreement between the US and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al-Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so- called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things."-- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair, May 2003

"One of the greatest dangers for Americans in deciding how to confront the Islamist threat lies in continuing to believe -- at the urging of senior U.S. leaders -- that Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than for what we do. The Islamic world is not so offended by our democratic system of politics, guarantees of personal rights and civil liberties, and separation of church and state that it is willing to wage war against overwhelming odds in order to stop Americans from voting, speaking freely, and praying, or not, as they wish."-- Michael Scheuer (former head the CIA's bin Laden unit), Imperial Hubris, page 8

"We assume, moreover, that bin Laden and the Islamists hate us for our liberty, freedoms, and democracy -- not because they and many millions of Muslims believe U.S. foreign policy is an attack on Islam or because the U.S. military now has a ten-year record of smashing people and things in the Islamic world."-- Michael Scheuer (former head the CIA's bin Laden unit), Imperial Hubris, page 165

"The U.S. invasion of Iraq is Osama bin Laden's gift from America, one he has long and ardently desired, but never realistically expected."-- Michael Scheuer (former head the CIA's bin Laden unit), Imperial Hubris, page 213

"Although suicide terrorism is virtually always a response to foreign occupation, only some occupations lead to this result. Suicide terrorism is most likely when the occupying power's religion differs from the religion of the occupied, for three reasons. A conflict across a religious divide increases fears that the enemy will seek to transform the occupied society; makes demonization, and therefore killing, of enemy civilians easier; and makes it easier to use one's own religion to relabel suicides that would otherwise be taboo as martyrdom instead."-- Robert A. Pape, Dying to Win, page 22

"An attempt to transform Muslim societies through regime change is likely to dramatically increase the threat we face. The root cause of suicide terrorism is foreign occupation and the threat that foreign military presence poses to the local community's way of life. ... Even if our intentions are good, anti-American terrorism would likely grow, and grow rapidly."-- Robert A. Pape, Dying to Win, page 245

"The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001 did not 'attack America,' as political leaders and news media in the United States have tried to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy. Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders, whose innocence is, of course, no different from that of the civilians killed by American bombs in Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere."-- Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, page XV

"The term 'blowback,' which officials of the Central Intelligence Agency first invented for their own internal use, is starting to circulate among students of international relations. It refers to the unintended consequences of policies that were kept secret from the American people. What the daily press reports as the malign acts of 'terrorists' or 'drug lords' or 'rogue states' or 'illegal arms merchants' often turn out to be blowback from earlier American operations."-- Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, page 8

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/1400063175

Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Consequences-American-Empire-Second/dp/0805075593

Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror
http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Hubris-West-Losing-Terror/dp/1574888625

The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
http://www.amazon.com/Commission-Report-Terrorist-Hardcover-Authorized/dp/0393060411


CharlieS
If you find it funny to make fun of the only conservative and Constitutionalist in the Presidential race, what does that say about you?

Is it the Constitution that you hate? Or is it because he wants to do away with the IRS and income taxes? Maybe it's because he believes our dollar should be sound and be worth more than .04 of what it was worth in 1913? Is it because he will secure our ports and borders, will never allow amnesty and will remove the free handouts to illegal aliens? Or, is it because he will support our troops and bring them home and provide for our own national security?

CharlieS
By the way, why is it exactly that you think I am a liberal? Because I support Ron Paul? I support him because he is the closest thing we have to Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. I have watched this great man for over 20 years and have read his speeches and books. He is a true statesman, a Constitutionalist and the only real conservative in the race.

Since you apparently think I am so wrong, how do you explain these statements?

“...the two American political figures Ron Paul strikes me as being the most similar to are Thomas Jefferson and Barry Goldwater.” – Chuck Muth

“I strongly support Ron Paul. We very badly need to have more Representatives in the House who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom” – Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Economist

"If the framers of the Constitution were somehow to come back, Ron Paul is one of possibly only three people in Congress that they'd even talk to," said Mr. Williams, adding that most politicians have a "generalized contempt" for the values of the Constitution. – Walter Williams

“...in his heart and in his head, in his character and in his intellect, in what he has done and in what he will become, the Thomas Jefferson of our day, Ron Paul is one of us!" --Judge Andrew Napolitano
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8

"Texas Congressman Ron Paul's pro-gun credentials are impeccable and he has been a leading proponent of rolling back the past 40 years of gun control." -- Gun Owners of America

and just for you, I'll add one by President Reagan...

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country." -- President Ronald Reagan

or how about Barry Goldwater, Jr....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPoFXl97wv4

Ron Paul
Ron Paul is the only of the Republican candidates that offers up any kind of original thought when he speaks. All the rest are just giving us the same old talking points that failed in 2006.

CharlieS
Interesting Charlie. Were you aware that they were friends? Were you aware that Ron Paul was 1 of only 4 members of the House who broke ranks with the rest of the Republicans and supported Reagan over Ford?

No, I guess you weren't, were you?

As far as the comparison is concerned. Ron Paul is much better than Reagan actually. Where President Reagan only talked, Ron Paul has walked.

You should really check him out. I think you'd like what you found, if you really thought a lot of Reagan. Seriously.

Ron Paul for President '08 -- "HOPE FOR AMERICA"
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/
http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html
http://gunowners.org/pres08/paul.htm

His new book on foreign policy:
http://www.mises.org/store/Foreign-Policy-of-Freedom-A-P359C0.aspx?AFID=2

Here's what frightens me about
Ron Paul
"If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries?
If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody - which would guarantee her own annihilation - are zero. And the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group."

Before the U.S. House of Representatives, April 5, 2006

I think he is a tad naive.

W/O=

Hey Liberty
Liberty picked some great questions with no FRILLS. I would'nt presume that CNN would select those type of quality questions.

Anne
Ron Paul is is not 'unelectable'. You just don't want to see him elected so you choose to use that word. He is the only Republican candidate that is drawing support from both sides of the aisle right now. The top three Republican candidates aren't preaching anything different than the Republicans were in the 2006 midterm elections. The American people didn't like that message then, why would they like it any more in 2008?

Why not Ron Paul???
My question is this: Why are so many of you saying Ron Paul can't get elected? Is that actually your own opinion or are you just parroting what the idiots on talk radio are saying? Medved? Well, I hate to tell you this but if you are not in the elite, you are beneath him, he has said so on numerous occasions. Hewitt? He's saying that because he's got his favorite already. As with all the others. It would do you good to remember that Medved, O'Reilly, and I believe Hewitt also were very much behind the Amnesty plan. And you are all going to go along with their decision on who should be President? I think if the Republicans back out of this debate they will hurt themselves immensely. Which in the case of Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani, McCain I'm all for it. So by all means, I hope they do back out. maybe then all you naysayers will get some sense and form your own opinions. All 3 of the frontrunners right now are liberals in Republican clothing and if you look at their records you would see this. Abortion, Gun Control, Property Rights, nary a conservative among them. However, they are the annointed ones and all you sheep will go along with ahatever they pundits tell you. One final thought before I end this almost endless ramble. In 2004, who knew Kerry before Iowa? Let's wait until the caucuses and first round of primaries before we decide who is unelectable. As for me...Go Dr. Ron Paul.

PHONY PHONY PHONY
Many of my fellow Republicans, who support Fred Thompson, are blasting Mitt and Rudy for opting out of this silly debate.

Fred's strategy is non-engagement: He speaks in front only friendly audiences. He avoids any real dialogue and has not appeared in a single debate. However he is the greatest thing to come along since sliced bread. Where is all this outrage when it comes to Fred Thompson.

Mitt and Rudy have the audacity to skip one debate and thats a travesty of justice. Fred has avoided committing to this campaign, and thereby avoided all the debates thus far and thats playing it smart. Phony Outrage, thats how I see it.

What is Free Trade?
Our current trade agreements are MANAGED TRADE agreements, which do nothing more than give trade advantages to select international companies and establish an international ruling body (the WTO) above our own Congress. These agreements, INCREASE the size and scope of government, not to mention control; they do not decrease it.

Who Killed Free Trade?
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=189&sortorder=articledate

What is Free Trade?
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr050200.htm

"As economist Murray Rothbard explained, true free trade does not require treaties or agreements between governments. On the contrary, true free trade occurs in the absence of government intervention in the free flow of goods across borders. Organizations like the WTO and NAFTA represent government-managed trade schemes, not free trade. Government-managed trade is inherently political, meaning politicians and bureaucrats determine who wins and loses in the marketplace. We should not allow globalist trade schemes to masquerade as free trade.

One critical point must not be ignored. The Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade and craft tax laws. Congress cannot cede that authority to the WTO or any other international body, nor can the President legally sign any treaty that purports to do so. Our Founders never intended for America to become entangled in global trade schemes, and they certainly never intended to have our domestic laws overridden by international bureaucrats. Quasi-governmental organizations like the WTO are simply incompatible with American national sovereignty." -- Dr. Ron Paul

Or, read to your heart's content at http://www.mises.org
Search on "free trade" or "NAFTA".

sans pareil
Interesting comment, because Dr. Paul has no such desire. He is a non-interventionist. He is a strong advocate of free trade and in talking to other nations. What we have now with Bush is isolationism.

Liberty
"Alas, we cannot ask him his opinion about Dr. Paul's" desire to return the US to 19th century protectionism either.

W/O=

dyerje writes:
dyerje writes: "... to all who advocate YouTubeAmerica: there is no value in descending to the intellectual, moral, or spiritual level of adolescents for any purpose. Adolescents need to be turned into adults, period. Until they can engage like adults, they need to shut up."

In case you hadn't noticed, Bill of Rights doesn't make exceptions for young people. They have just as much right to speak in the political process and to participate peacefully in the political process as you do. In fact, many young people volunteer to work on political campaigns. If you're going to tell those young volunteers to "Shut up," I guarantee you they will walk out and join the other party.

And as soon as a young person turns 18, he or she has just as much a right to vote as YOU do.

But an attitude of being AFRAID of young persons and their independence virtually guarantees that the youth of America will vote Democrat as soon as they're able.

Just today, I was shopping and in line in front of me was a young woman finishing her shopping for Saturday night. She was dressed like a "goth," with hideous makeup, black leather, purple hair and four-inch clogs. Totally weird. But guess what, she was probably at least 18 years old. And she probably VOTES. Do you want her vote or not? Or if you had been campaigning for the Republicans, would you have just told her to "shut up"?

I'm appalled, frankly, at this newfound defensiveness and insularity on the part of some conservatives like yourself. You act and talk like you don't even WANT blacks, Hispanics, gays, lesbians, young people, feminists, in your party. Do you realize how self-defeating that is? How long can Republicans continue to win elections in this century, if they're entirely a white Christian middle-aged hetero party?

Check the demographic trends. In this century, probably before 2050, white hetero middle-aged Christians are going to be a minority in the United States. And unless the GOP has widened its appeal by then, it's going to be a permanent minority party.

And then dyerje writes: "A sensible person does not want a president who wastes his time 'engaging' with exhibitionists who ask stupid questions."

In case you hadn't noticed: When a President meets with a foreign leader, he gets asked a LOT of oddball questions dealing with local issues that you or I don't care about. Even worse, American presidents have been harangued, insulted, threatened. Remember how Khrushchev raked President John F. Kennedy over the coals? JFK was practically shaking after that Soviet premier was through with him. How a President deals with that sort of thing, with grace and not losing his head, can determine the future of our country.

If a President truly doesn't want "stupid questions," then he should hide in the White House and not talk to anyone, only coming out to deliver prepared texts to captive audiences. He shouldn't dare to talk to suspicious or hostile foreign leaders because he fears being made a fool of.

Which, incidentally, is what Bush has been doing lately.

And notice what his poll numbers are.

for mohaski
mohaski writes: "I don't want to see politicians pandering to stupidity."

Then they shouldn't run for office.

Candidates routinely: kiss babies; munch hot dogs and pizza, and then go around with ketchup and mustard on their chins; speak a few words to ethnic voters (such as Hispanics) in their own language; and tell various key constituent groups what they want to hear.

(I'm more bothered by that last one.)

American political campaigns have never been as stuffy as European ones. Hoopla is everywhere, from dumb slogans and campaign songs ("We Like Ike") to political conventions in which "spontaneous demonstrations" for a candidate involved marching bands.

Lighten up.

Stoic Patriot
"As for the endorsements of Paul, might I contextually note that Milton Friedman's statement is taken out of context. He's been dead for awhile now, and never endorsed a Ron Paul presidency."


And no such claim was made. In fact, if you'll take another look at the quote, Friedman was talking about Dr. Paul as a member of the House of Representatives. Alas, we cannot ask him his opinion about Dr. Paul's candidacy for President, because as you said, he is dead. You can however note what he said about the man, Ron Paul.

“I strongly support Ron Paul. We very badly need to have more Representatives in the House who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom” – Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Economist


Actually, IF we nominate ronpaul we WILL

surely lose!


But, not to worry. It WON'T happen!!!!



Bluey
I do believe that the Repubs could do a You-tube style debate,but after the CNN fiasco,I can understand the reluctance.However,that being said,this kinda a damn if they do, damn if they don't situation.Of course,if it is CNN handling it, you can just about imagine the level of the ?? being asked. I say,give it a shot. The Repubs more than likely would not garner many votes from the You-Tube/CNN types anyway. Might as well peer into the opposition's tent,so to speak.

I may be an atheist, but...
To paraphrase the bible: don't place your pearls before swine.

As for the endorsements of Paul, might I contextually note that Milton Friedman's statement is taken out of context. He's been dead for awhile now, and never endorsed a Ron Paul presidency.

will: In a word, "NO!"

And, for the record, after some of the names you've called people, and some of the accusations you've made, you're really the last person to worry about anyone calling him ronniepaul...

Get off your high-horse!





Mitt Romney v Hillary, Johnny, & Barack
Technology may be shaping the world but, Mitt Romney is not allowing technology to shape him. From all the questions asked by YouTube WAS the one that sparked the debate between Hillary and Obama regarding chats with dictators and terrorist countries leaders. That's about all I gleened from the Q&A game. So much for technology.

sans pareil
Welcome to this century. The YouTube community is huge. If you ignore them, you are ignoring all the techies, all the young people and a lot of people in between.

The Republican Party has lost a lot of people during the Bushiite years. If we hope to remain a viable party and even grow ourselves back to what we once were, you can't ignore these people.

Here's a video from a young Republican YouTuber about this issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pobVZF0Vx7c&eurl=

YANKEE
If you think the Boob-Tubers featured on the Dim 'debate' are "everyday Americans" my advice to you would be to get out more, go someplace other then "the Mall"...meet some "everyday Americans" for real...then re-post.

W/O=

GOP =
chickens*its as well as chickenhawks. Way to sink your paltry party even further down in the dumps. Avoiding everyday Americans, wow!, what an insightful political strategy!
lmao

Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_Fsv7iwZRc

Ron Paul is the true conservative in the race and a man of principles that we have not seen in a Presidential race for a long time.

If Republicans want to win in November of 2008, they must nominate Ron Paul.

If they nominate anyone else, they will assuredly lose.

The Reagan coalition has turned into the Ron Paul Revolution.

IF, Heaven Forbid,
the GOP candidates DO participate in the CNN/Boob-Tube Debate...

The first one that answers a typically Lib, utterly ridiculous question with, "NEXT QUESTION." Gets my vote.

W/O=

You Tube Stupid
The You Tube Demo debate was stupid, nothing more than an opportunity for silly, self serving, narcissists to put forth stupid questions.

And CNN did its very best tp pander with softy questions for the Demos.

They will do the opposite for the Repubs, but the questions will still be stupid.

The candidates should pass on this one.

It is absolutely AMAZING to me that

there are those who still... yes STILL, think ronniepaul has a chance....

Wonder why TH does not give coverage to ronniepaul? He's UNELECTABLE!

The ronniepaul sheep are following a loser...He might be a "nice guy" and undoubtedly a Conservative, but he's UNELECTABLE!!!!

Not only does he not have a chance to win the election against ANY demo, he's has no chance of winning the primaries.

So, let's just put that puppie to rest!




no value in descending
"there is no value in descending to the intellectual, moral, or spiritual level of adolescents for any purpose. "

Really, so why did Jesus hang out with the whores and thieves?

Perhaps those who are the most lost are those most in the need of saving?

Perhaps Jesus commands it?

Perhaps the leader of this country leads everyone, fools and foolhardy included and THOSE PEOPLE VOTE.

While its true that a foolhardy person will have a difficult time appealing to the more responsible, a responsible person can always find ways to appeal to the least among us. As Christians and fishers of men we are commanded to specifically target those less fortunate and less capable, those most lost, and APPEAL TO THEM.

As childish as they may be, they are OUR CHILDREN. We are not somehow relieved of all responsibility to them. We cannot just kill all the liberals or dismiss their concerns as if they do not exist. The President is the president of all, not just elitist Republicans.

However, George Bush is definitely a case for arguing that even the respectable can be attracted by the most foolish of fools. It is hard to imagine a bigger clown who has ever been promoted by more respected.

In any case the You Tube question is highlighting quite clearly just how arrogant the Republicans have become and how "America" is not inclusive of those most lost to them, even though Jesus commands us to never give up hope.


Lighten Up, Mitt!!!
Well, well Mitt Romney has revealed his true colors at last--he's just an snot-nosed elitist who thinks he's better than a concerned American citizen dressed up as a snowman. Uh, Mitt, that person may have been dressed a little over the top, but he had something to say and this is how he chose to express himself. It' called an attention getter! And, uh, Mitt, you don't have the nomination yet nor have you been elected to anything yet so snubbing your fellow citizens is bound to make the wrong impression. So lighten up already. What are you so afraid of, hmmmmmmm?

Republicans never get it right on any new technological wonder. FDR was a master at the new technology of the 1930's--radio. Millions of Americans found his fireside chats very comforting in the dark days of the Depression. Imagine, the president of the United States was talking to ordinary people in their very own living rooms! Gadzooks, what will think of next? And who could forget a cool, confident JFK debating a sweating, uncomfortable looking Nixon on TV in 1960. Tricky Dick never recovered from the sorry impression he made, even though he did eventually become president thanks to slick marketing.

I think it's safe to say Mitt lost the snowman vote. Patronizing your fellow citizens is no way to win the White House, shmuck.

What are Republicans scared of?

YouTube reply to the chicken-hearted Republican candidates who are too scared, or think they are above, answering questions from the general public in the YouTube debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIoQ6MhhhDQ


Republicans need to accept the debate
"The best format is face book as it is the electronic version of "friends and family". It has more Republican voters than You Tube."

You are very wrong. If Republicans ignore the YouTube community, we are ignoring all the young voters and all the techies. Not to mention the overall huge audience in between that watch and make Youtube videos.

This is the grassroots at its very core. Why would Republicans duck out from answering questions from real people, rather than political pundits?

Reagan coal. is now Ron Paul Revolution

If Republicans want to win in November of 2008, they must nominate Ron Paul.

If they nominate anyone else, they will assuredly lose.

The Reagan coalition has turned into the Ron Paul Revolution.

---------------

“...the two American political figures Ron Paul strikes me as being the most similar to are Thomas Jefferson and Barry Goldwater.” – Chuck Muth

“I strongly support Ron Paul. We very badly need to have more Representatives in the House who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom” – Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Economist

"If the framers of the Constitution were somehow to come back, Ron Paul is one of possibly only three people in Congress that they'd even talk to," said Mr. Williams, adding that most politicians have a "generalized contempt" for the values of the Constitution. – Walter Williams

“...in his heart and in his head, in his character and in his intellect, in what he has done and in what he will become, the Thomas Jefferson of our day, Ron Paul is one of us!" --Judge Andrew Napolitano
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8

"Texas Congressman Ron Paul's pro-gun credentials are impeccable and he has been a leading proponent of rolling back the past 40 years of gun control." -- Gun Owners of America

Ron Paul for President '08 -- "HOPE FOR AMERICA"
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/
http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html
http://gunowners.org/pres08/paul.htm

His new book on foreign policy:
http://www.mises.org/store/Foreign-Policy-of-Freedom-A-P359C0.aspx?AFID=2
Email It

Cut CNN
Cut CNN out of it and You Tube becomes more feasible. If there is a mechanism for eliminating "drive shooting videos" a You Tube debate is less of a problem.

The best format is face book as it is the electronic version of "friends and family". It has more Republican voters than You Tube.

With respect
... to all who advocate YouTubeAmerica: there is no value in descending to the intellectual, moral, or spiritual level of adolescents for any purpose. Adolescents need to be turned into adults, period. Until they can engage like adults, they need to shut up.

A sensible person does not want a president who wastes his time "engaging" with exhibitionists who ask stupid questions. There is a reason youthful humans who haven't gotten over themselves yet can't be trusted to borrow money, sign contracts, drive cars, fight in uniform, marry each other, make their own decisions about alcohol or cigarettes, be accountable to the state for bearing arms -- or pick our national leaders.

The chronological age of those who submitted YouTube questions for the Democrat debate was, of course, officially 18 or older. Their intellectual and moral age was clearly much lower.

I have a better opinion of average young American adults than that, incidentally. Other columnists here have been exactly correct: CNN is at fault for choosing videos to maximize the snarky YouTube-ism of the event. Perhaps the videos were "representative," but I am sure they were not 100% so.

The celebration of irresponsible adolescent BS is practiced as much by nominal "adults" today as by chronological children. That doesn't make it something to be catered to. I will give points to every GOP candidate who declines to do so.

stay off youtube
I don't want to see politicians pandering to stupidity. Besides, look at the difference in questions from our professional broadcasters to dems and repubs. Chris Matthews asks question that are basically "whats your favorite tree" type of the dems, While Mike Wallace wants to know about premarital sex from the repubs. If the repub. candidates are stupid enough to participate, they are in for daily Kos type attacks. Let Mccain do it, he's done anyway.

Mitt Romney
I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that Mitt Romney has the most videos on YouTube. It appears that you just counted the number of videos that each candidate has on their YouTube channel, while leaving out the thousands of videos from other users. When you actually add up ALL of the videos on YouTube, Ron Paul has the most.

I'd love to see a debate between just McCain and Paul. Something tells me that Guiliani and Romney would still get more questions to answer than Ron Paul though...
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.