Save the Republican YouTube Debate
By Bluey Posted in 2008 — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A petition courtesy of Patrick Ruffini. Byran Preston has put together an excellent video on Hot Air.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Doom, Gloom, and The "Flight" From Fred's Campaign — Comments (81) »
Save the Republican YouTube Debate 35 Comments (0 topical, 35 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
and left early for the weekend...
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
the petition's "submit tab" is directed to savethedebate.com, while the embed "src" is directed to wewintheylose.com.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
I was under the impression that people thought it was demeaning to the process having candidates answer questions from snowmen and sock puppets!
If they want to do something more entertainment based, I think that's fine, but it should be packaged "for entertainment purposes only."
I admire our conservatives for opting for more serious questions from Chris Wallace and Brit Hume.
I don't think the people who watched it found it to be entertainment only. Despite some of the viral video formats, they did get some very serious and thoughtful questions. I thought there was nothing unserious about the questions, no matter how they were delivered.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes.
to participate in a YouTube debate.
With all due respect to Patrick, did you actually watch the Democrat debate or pay any attention to the questions that were presented to the candidates? Do you really think that YouTube represents the Internet generation or America in general? Does the word 'narcissism' have any meaning to you?
Are you aware that a percentage of the people who submit to Youtube or spend hours of their time on YouTube do not vote? Are you aware that most of the rest of the population thinks that Youtube is something that ends up in their email as links to funny, embarrassing, or occasionally even incredible performances? Are you aware that Google now owns YouTube, which is rapidly becoming the advertising wing of the very liberal Democrats?
If you do not, please talk to anyone above 35 who is Internet savvy, someone who does not believe that the Internet is the source of all entertainment and wisdom.
If you would like to actually use the Internet, please consider creating something similar to the Committees of Correspondence, and expand the awareness of propaganda now being dispensed by the MSM. Build email lists, point people to discussion and news summaries that reflect the sanity. Create email communication networks, with correspondents and directors, who relay information to adults. Give people input from their friends, not from silly teenages who know how to use a videocam.
If, on the other hand, you feel that that this is truly worth your time, please update your resume. You will likely have amply opportunity to distribute it.
Thank you,
A loyal Republican
for my friends and family.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDS_VmduXFE
He cracks me up every time!
This debate would be beneath the office of President. These questions were incredibly dumb on the dem side I can only imagine how outragous they would be for our candidates. As Gov Romney said, "It's beneath the presidency to answer questions from a snow man." Well put.
"It's beneath the presidency"
First of all, I would hope he didn't actually say that. Shades of John Kerry and his elitist demeanor immediately come to mind when hearing that.
Second, what question was incredibly dumb? Cause when I see these questions being asked, incredibly dumb doesn't come to mind:
So my question is: We have a bunch of leaders who can't seem to do their job. And we pick people based on the issues they that they represent, but then they get in power and they don't do anything about it anyway.
You're going to spend this whole night talking about your views on issues, but the issues don't matter if when you get in power nothing's going to get done.
We have a Congress and a president with, like, a 30 percent approval rating, so clearly we don't think they're doing a good job. What's going to make you any more effectual, beyond all the platitudes and the stuff we're used to hearing? I mean, be honest with us. How are you going to be any different?<
Hello. This question is for all of the candidates. Partisanship played a major role in why nothing can be done in Washington today. All of you say you will be able to work with Republicans. Well, here's a test. If you had to pick any Republican member of Congress or Republican governor to be your running mate, who would it be?
I'm Gabriel. And I'm Connie, from a refugee camp near Darfur.
Before you answer this question, imagine yourself the parent of one of these children.
What action do you commit to that will get these children back home to a safe Darfur and not letting it be yet another empty promise?
My question for all the candidates: How do we pull out now? And the follow-up, are we watching the same blankin' war? I certainly wasn't a big fan of the invasion/liberation. It sickens me to hear about soldiers wounded and getting killed daily, not to mention innocent Iraqis, but how do we pull out now? The government's shaky; bombs daily.
Don't you think if we pulled out now that would open it up for Iran and Syria, God knows who -- Russia -- how do we pull out now? And isn't it our responsibility to get these people up on their feet? I mean, do you leave a newborn baby to take care of himself? How do we pull out now?
In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.
In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
Hi, my name is Shawn and I'm from Ann Arbor, Michigan. There is a scientific consensus for man-caused climate change, and I've heard each of you talk in previous debates about alternative energy sources like solar or wind, but I have not heard any of you speak your opinion on nuclear power. I believe that nuclear power is safer, cleaner, and provides a quicker avenue to energy independence than other alternatives.
I'm rather curious to know why the candidates would rightly feel it is beneath them to answer these questions? How are these, or the other questions, a joke? Even the guy with his gun he called his baby had a valid question behind the unique delivery.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes.
THIS!? THIS? This is what you want?
I would feel insulted if I was running for county board and had to answer that question.
“It is not the possession of truth, but the success which attends the seeking after it, that enriches the seeker and brings happiness to him.”"-Max Planck
The person asking the question had a bit of imagination and a sense of humor, God forbid the high and mighty candidates get exposed to it! The topic was extremely relevant to the Democratic platform, and would have been asked in one way or another no matter what the forum. Does the fact that it is a snowman bother me? Not at all. What is great about it is that anyone had a chance to ask it. Since the candidates aren't given the questions ahead of time, there is a chance they had to consider a wide range of user questions to prepare.
For that reason, yes, this is the way I like it. For the same reason I like blogs. There's exchange, openness, and participation. That also means the bad may come in with the good, but if you can't deal with that you should by no means be running our country.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes.
The topic was extremely relevant to the Democratic platform, and would have been asked in one way or another no matter what the forum.
If that is true then what did it add to have a snowman ask it? Entertainment value. The other wonderful thing about this format is people can ask questions that no reasonable person would.
Like maybe:
Why does the Christian right hate muslims?
Why are republicans so old?
Why did you decide to finally stop beating your wife?
Why do republicans hate the enviroment?
If you want a taste of this type of stuff check out this
“It is not the possession of truth, but the success which attends the seeking after it, that enriches the seeker and brings happiness to him.”"-Max Planck
and look at the level of questioning - there were no softballs, and it was dignified. In our tank tops and flip-flops to work world, I know it is hard to remember what dignity means, but trust me, it is not presidential candidates answering serious policy questions to snowmen or sock puppets.
Viewing the candidates answering rigorous and pointed questions from the likes of Chris Wallace and Brit Hume should leave you asking yourself "why are the dems afraid to go on Fox?", not "why aren't the Republicans not stooping to YouTube on CNN?"
How about if it was "just some naked guy", or someone's dog, or a person in a Nixon mask? Where is this line of creativity drawn.
If I was to attend a dinner with the President, go to church, or attend a wedding or a funeral, I would get dressed up. I do this out of respect. Why is it so out of line to demand a certain level of respect when dealing with people who are part of a group that will produce the next President? Why is it so foreign to people to show a certain level of respect to the voters who are watching it in order to make up their minds about the serious business of selecting the next President?
Question 1 "What would you do different?" is nothing more than an open-ended softball. Reminds me of Kerry saying he had a "smarter plan"... but never mentioning what his plan was.
Question 2 "Republican running mate" is an interesting question, although not particularly helpful. It's basically just a matter of cherry-picking the most "moderate" Republican they can think of, then slandering them (and everyone else with an "R" after their name) after the debate.
Question 3 "Darfur safety" is a strawman, and a somewhat empty argument. Not much of Northern Africa can be considered safe by the Western standard; in fact, it may be harder to ensure stability in Darfur than in Iraq. Yet Darfur has become more of a cause celebre to the left than even Tibet, with even fewer serious ideas being bandied about for it.
Question 4 "How do we pull out now?", while being a fundamentally sound question, is delivered with so emotional of a tone that it would be easy to redirect, or worse, to lecture the questioner on how misguided they are. This is one of the biggest problems with the YouTube debate; it ties too much emotion to politics, leaving it as less of a policy discussion and more of a Clintonian "I feel your pain" session.
Question 5 "Meeting with rogue states" is highly disingenuous. Comparing Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela with Israel smacks of anti-Semitism, forgetting the obvious distinction that the leaders of Israel are rational, something that cannot be said of Ahmadinejad, Il, or Chavez.
Question 6 "Nuclear power", despite the slant at the beginning (forgivable; he is from Ann Arbor), is a solid question otherwise.
That being said, I'd rather have a debate that requires the candidates to think and show vision rather than react and mouth platitudes. In this regard, the YouTube debate failed miserably... as have every other debate, for that matter.
"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent, law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." - James Earl Jones
With question 1, the questioner on multiple occasions tries to discourage the type of blowhard answers one would normally expect. It isn't the fault of the question or the format that politicians will be politicians. At least the questions makes them consider that we are aware that their answers are scrutinized.
Question 2, to me, is helpful. It's a question of character. You aren't just president of dems, you'de be president of all Americans. You have to show me that you can actually tolerate the other side without a grimace.
To be quite honest, I would consider question 3 a throwaway question. But to people that find Darfur to be an important issue, it's not. Once again, in this question, they asked what can be done that isn't empty promises, reminded them that their words may actually mean something to people.
With Q4, or the rest, I don't think emotion should be a problem. People are very emotional about the issue, especially once they are in office. If they choose to deflect, I don't think it's because of the question or format, it's because they fail to lead on the issue.
OK, I'm gonna leave the anti-semitism alone. Would you meet with these leaders was the question. It was a good question and actually got some very interesting responses.
In Q6, the question was laid out as clear as could be. And I think especially that it is a question that would not have come up at your typical MSM Dem debate. And although somewhat deflected, seeing Hillary and Obama refuse to rule it out as the others did does make the question helpful.
I agree, no debate will really get politicians to stop with all the deflecting and puffery, but I did think that the Youtube format did put them slightly out of their element and forced them to deal with some things they wouldn't in a normal debate. In that, I think it was a very good thing. Certainly not every debate, but I'd like to see it mixed up a bit at least once or twice.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes.
That is a funny quote. However if I heard a snowman talking to me you better believe I would be asking it some questions.
By the way if you see me talking to a snowman please call my emergency contact.
“It is not the possession of truth, but the success which attends the seeking after it, that enriches the seeker and brings happiness to him.”"-Max Planck
I think the candidates should accept the CNN GooTube debate. Take a page from the left and practice a little civil disobedience. Expose the absurd questions by refusing to answer them. Answer the appropriate questions. Take public transportation to the debate. Ask AC360 is this the best CNN can do for American's to decide the most powerful position in the world? Wasting our time with idiotic questions like say one good thing and one bad thing about the candidate to your left.
The downside to declining is the media will bash them for avoiding "The people" of GooTube.
The rigged GooTube debate is a trap set by the left but I say take the bait and turn it into an opportunity.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
You can bet some like Ron Paul will ignore the stupid questions and talk about what he wants to. Thats what he does on normal questions anyway.
“It is not the possession of truth, but the success which attends the seeking after it, that enriches the seeker and brings happiness to him.”"-Max Planck
they should all arrive in the same polka dot VW.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I can't believe anyone thinks this is a good idea.
This YouTube crap continues us down the path begun when Clinton answered the "boxers or briefs" question.
Republicans should not participate and remind voters -once again - who the grown-ups are.
BTW - The original post states that "Republicans cannot write off the youth vote. A recent poll showed Democrats with a staggering 24-point advantage among 18 to 29 year old voters." Sorry pal - we CAN write off the youth vote. They don't show up - never have. A 24-point advantage of nothing is nothing.
The MSMers who will choose which YouTube questions actually get presented during the debate will:
(1) deliberately choose entrapment questions -- which is different from "hard questions" -- of the "have you stopped stealing lunch money from America's children yet?" sort.
(2) they would NEVER ask these sorts of questions themselves, because they realize how unfair it is, and how obviously partisan it makes them appear
(3) however, by simply saying "hey, these aren't OUR questions, these are the questions the Merkin Peepul want answered!" they can have their cake and eat it, too: ask completely unanswerable and unfair questions deliberately to make the Rep candidates look the fool, while maintaining so-called journalistic "impartiality" and "fairness".
The whole debate will turn out to be the journalistic equivalent of self-pleasure (do the posting rules allow the use of the m-word?)
Now, the MSMers did not operate in this manner for the Democratic debate. In that case, the questions were silly, sometimes asinine, softballs, with a few true "hard questions" thrown in for flavor. Why the difference between that observed behavior for the Dem debate and my predicted behavior for the Rep one? Well, you treat friends differently than you treat enemies.
We know which side the MSM is on. If you're gonna walk into the lions den -- and the Rep candidates should do so -- make sure you do so only where the lions can claim "I didn't attack you, it was those leopards over there!"
As for citizen participation, I know most of the candidates are already doing town hall appearances and stuff. A really enterprising campaign might solicit YouTube questions themselves, and post their responses on their own website -- and NOT limit their answers to only softball questions. Take on hard questions, difficult questions (Rudy+firefighters, McCain+immigrations, Tanc+'nativism', Fred+'Judi's role in his campaign', etc) -- but this way, they can screen out the obvious "have you stopped beating your wife" idiocy that CNN will inflict on them.
...make sure you do so only where the lions can't claim "I didn't attack you, it was those leopards over there!"
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Hewitt did a great analysis of the questions to expose the agenda shaped by CNN's choosing.
However, this is a trap set for Reps that will backfire on the left big time if they accept and expose the abusurdness of some of the questions they will probably get.
Not showing up is taking the high road like Bush which has failed miserably. Reps need to take this crap head on and confront it. Look how Fred handled the Michael Moore situation with his video. It's time to get down and dirty and expose the stupidity and bias or it will be spun against them.
Edwards fell for the trap by making a negative comment about Hillary's jacket. Stoopid. Biden took the opportunity to say the question was stupid.
It's not what the question is, it is how you answer it that is important.
Fight back on a daily basis and expose the absurdity or you are enabling it and giving it credibility.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
This is not JUST about U tube, it is about CNN and the kind of questions they would pick to be shown -- UTube & FOX might work but when MSNBC is letting Olbermann moderate a debate and you saw what kind of debate you got with Chrissy, why would anyone want to expose themselves to the kind of political crap CNN would put on
paulnashtn
I see it as more of the "me too" wing of the Republican Party that thinks this is a good idea.
The Dems pull out of a debate on Fox News and nary a peep of protest. Republicans pull out of a debate that will assuredly be nothing but ambush questions (CNN: Oh, no. We had nothing to do with those questions; they were just submitted by "the People."), and it is a big deal?
And then to justify it because the Democrats did it? Yup, copying the Dems has done this party a lot of good.
This party has got to get serious about winning instead of trying to be nice and pleasing Democrats.
Presidential candidates are asked "stupid" questions every day.
They kiss babies every day.
They take meetings with individuals they'd never tap with a ten-foot pole for the sake of having a chance at victory.
Given those realities, how is participating in a debate involving user-generated questions unacceptable and demeaning?
Whether this kind of thing is done through YouTube or any other medium, it's critical that our Republican candidates participate and embrace the process.
Shunning Americans because they might ask questions that offend the sensibilities of the candidates seems, well -- UNAMERICAN.
It also gives off the ugly smell of arrogance, an fragrance our party can ill afford if it wants to compete in '08.
and focus on what I wrote, not on how long I've been a registered user.
P.S.- When I write "we" I mean "we conservatives." You don't actually believe that there's a direct correlation between one's conservative views and the length of one's registered membership on RedState do you?
Just came across this gem.
These comedians have been around along time. Next I suppose you would like Colbert to moderate the debate.
“It is not the possession of truth, but the success which attends the seeking after it, that enriches the seeker and brings happiness to him.”"-Max Planck
I think there's a direct correlation when one of a guy's first posts calls a whole bunch of us UNAMERICAN.
Glad you didn't launch your harpoon, because based on your last post you probably would've hit an innocent bystander.
Here's what I wrote: "Shunning Americans because they might ask questions that offend the sensibilities of the candidates seems, well -- UNAMERICAN." How is that calling you or anyone else here un-American? In fact, this blog and the blogosphere generally represent exactly the kind of direct engagement in political debate that I praised in my original post.
Get yourself a pair of glasses and stop judging people based on the length of their registration on RedState. It's a meaningless measurement, which tends to make the person making the measurement, well, meaningless.
Is the petition about the debate or HR 1591?
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan