Only Two GOP'ers Have Agreed to YouTube Debate

One of the thoughts that occurred to me with regards to the Democratic Youtube debate was how weird the questions for the GOP candidates could potentially be. For the Democratic debates, most of the issues that are on the table are pretty mainstream, like healthcare and Iraq and poverty and global warming, and thus its pretty difficult for the standard rank-and-file member of the democratic base to ask them in an amusing viral format like Youtube and still come out as looking too bizarre (unless they happen to be a talking snowman). As far as issues like illegal immigration and "coercive interrogation techniques" go, how does one ask questions like this in a Youtube format in an amusing way? The differences between the GOP base and the political mainstream can seem less extreme when asked by someone like Wolf Blitzer, but if presented from the standard GOP rank-and-file member of the base, it seemed like a great way to show how unhinged the GOP has become on some of these issues. Personally, I'm surprised the GOP ever got close to agreeing to this format, and once the Democratic debate happened and showed the format in action, I didn't see how it could have been pulled off by the GOP.

So, is this another case of "We won't waste time talking to people who won't vote for us"?

Or is it more a case of "We are scared shitless by a more spontaneous format where we might be asked things we aren't willing to talk about"?


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/07/26/but_dont_ask_him_on_youtube_1.html#more

In April, Edwards led the charge in refusing to participate in a Fox-sponsored debate. His deputy campaign manager, Jonathan Prince, told AP: "We believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective."

Within days, Clinton followed suit. Unlike Edwards, Clinton did not directly attack Fox in announcing her decision.

"We're going to participate in the D.N.C. [Democratic National Committee]-sanctioned debates only. We've previously committed to participating in the South Carolina and Tavis Smiley debates," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said. The Fox debate was not DNC-approved.

Obama joined in with Clinton. Bill Burton, Obama's spokesman, said a CNN-sponsored debate would be a more "appropriate venue."

But in her most recent filing at the FEC, Hillary Clinton reported two large donations from the very top of the Fox corporate structure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/07/16/hillary-clinton-shuns-fox_n_56495.html

snood wrote:

So, is this another case of "We won't waste time talking to people who won't vote for us"?

Or is it more a case of "We are scared shitless by a more spontaneous format where we might be asked things we aren't willing to talk about"?


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/07/26/but_dont_ask_him_on_youtube_1.html#more

No. It's a case of the Democrats being scared shitless about debating on Fox where they might be asked things they aren't willing to talk about.

Hypocrites.

Quote:

In April, Edwards led the charge in refusing to participate in a Fox-sponsored debate. His deputy campaign manager, Jonathan Prince, told AP: "We believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective."

Within days, Clinton followed suit. Unlike Edwards, Clinton did not directly attack Fox in announcing her decision.

"We're going to participate in the D.N.C. [Democratic National Committee]-sanctioned debates only. We've previously committed to participating in the South Carolina and Tavis Smiley debates," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said. The Fox debate was not DNC-approved.

Obama joined in with Clinton. Bill Burton, Obama's spokesman, said a CNN-sponsored debate would be a more "appropriate venue."

But in her most recent filing at the FEC, Hillary Clinton reported two large donations from the very top of the Fox corporate structure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/07/16/hillary-clinton-shuns-fox_n_56495.html

The GOP base, though, strikes me as another story. Look at John's post below - even among the mainstream every issue seems to bring an undercurrent of anger and violence. The idea of stringing up liberals, war critics, apostate Republicans as traitors seeps into every forum. They love torture, they hate civil rights and long ago the right's mainstream leaders declared the entire religion of Islam a free-fire zone. Better still, six years of holding government in a headlock has left these guys with a sense that they're entitled to say all this without apology or self-consciousness.

Letting through one or a few of Charles Johnson's true believers could put the GOP candidates in a mighty bind. Either reject the idea of nuking Tehran and lose the surprisingly large number of Republicans who think that is a smart idea, or horrify the rest of America. With hardline GOP policies polling behind Democrats across the board there are dozens of possible Sophie's Choices to make the candidates squirm.

No. It's a case of the Democrats being scared shitless about debating on Fox where they might be asked things they aren't willing to talk about.

HokieBird said

Quote:

No. It's a case of the Democrats being scared shitless about debating on Fox where they might be asked things they aren't willing to talk about.

I take this post as evidence that America is slowly making some sort of return in the direction of sanity. Not because any of the content is rational...it isn't...but because posts like this, "arguiing" something like this, are becoming increasingly rare here.

blatham wrote:

HokieBird said

Quote:

No. It's a case of the Democrats being scared shitless about debating on Fox where they might be asked things they aren't willing to talk about.

I take this post as evidence that America is slowly making some sort of return in the direction of sanity. Not because any of the content is rational...it isn't...but because posts like this, "arguiing" something like this, are becoming increasingly rare here.

Your liberal bias is showing.

Okay, oh fair, balanced and objective one, what would be a good venue for a debate?

Well, I seriously hope the main republican contenders aren't swayed by their younger members. Much better they continue to forward notions that they are cold, are disconnected from average folks, are ill-humored and elitist.

It's also exactly the correct decision for the dem candidates to refuse to validate Fox. The regular Fox audience, and HokieBird seems a perfect example, aren't going to be swayed in their voting patterns by anything some Dem might say. All that seems likely to influence them is continued demoralization from the incompetence and disasters that emanate from their heroes. Much better the network is ostracized and made to stand out as the unique propaganda operation that it is.

Americans think CNN has a liberal bias by a margin of 33% to 16%. They also think that Fox News is more unbiased than CNN is unbiased.

Quote:

Americans think CNN has a liberal bias by a margin of 33% to 16%. They also think that Fox News is more unbiased than CNN is unbiased.

Provide your citation for these and I'll continue talking to you.

The regular Air America audience, and blatham seems a perfect example,

aren't going to be swayed in their voting patterns by anything some Republican might say. Americans think CNN has a liberal bias by a margin of 33% to 16%. They also think that Fox News is more unbiased than CNN is unbiased. Even so, a majority of conservative bloggers think the GOP should not skip the CNN YouTube debate and are chastising Republicans who refuse to appear. Not so for the Left. You won't find any Democrats criticizing their candidates for refusing to appear on Fox and face the tough questions. That spells hypocrisy to me.

You also won't see any from the Left admitting to the liberal bias in the media. I remember a study that came out a few years ago in which the authors were expecting to find 'some' liberal bias in the media (drawn from voting patterns) but were astounded by the extent of liberal bias they 'actually' found. One point that stood out for me was their assertion that in order to get a balanced perspective, one would have to spend twice as much time watching Fox News as he or she spent reading the New York Times.

I don't see how you can vilify Fox News with a straight face knowing that CNN for years withheld and censored information about Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers in order to skew opinion on the need to depose him

or, if that's not enough, how about CBS having to give Dan Rather the boot for manufacturing 'news'?

The fact that you ignore this and the fact that you continue to accept distorted news from such discredited information brokers says much about you.