Posted on 07/30/2007 1:04:08 PM PDT by metalmanx2j
The sequel to the self-styled "ground-breaking" YouTube debate on CNN may be history before it even begins.
The Rudy Giuliani campaign has cited scheduling conflicts in saying it will skip the Republican version of this week's Democratic debate, while Mitt Romney has mocked the seriousness of the questions and also seems likely to withdraw. John McCain, one of two candidates who had agreed to participate (Ron Paul is the other), has also expressed doubts about the Democratic debate's level of decorum and aides say he may reconsider his commitment. Undeclared candidate Fred Thompson may still not officially be in the race by the event's Sept. 17 airdate.
The Republicans' sudden aversion has political observers wondering whether abandoning an opportunity to participate in the fledging format shows a potentially costly reluctance to engage with voters or is simply an exercise in prudent message management.
CNN's YouTube debate with the Democratic candidates, heralded as an almost life-changing event for American voters, had its rough moments (the puppet snowman, the man with a gun for a baby), and even those on stage complained (Joe Biden referred to it at one point as a "ridiculous exercise"). But once the cameras were turned off, the event received warm reviews from most observers in the mainstream media. The Washington Post's Dan Balz called it "the best of the campaign season," the Chicago Tribune's blog said it was the "summer's best reality show," and the New York Times said that the viewer-submitted questions were able to elicit "points of difference on a broad range of issues, from whether the United States should build more nuclear power plants to whether it would be good policy - or even feasible - to withdraw American troops from Iraq within six months."
The view from the right was less favorable about the impact of this technological shift on politics. White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters that the President had not even watched, saying Bush was "not big on YouTube debates." Hugh Hewitt, a popular right-wing blogger and radio talk show host, got more specific about what conservatives might object to in a CNN/YouTube debate - he alleged that CNN cherrypicked the submissions for biased questions that a "responsible" journalist wouldn't ask: "the CNN team used the device of the third-party video to inject a question that would have embarrassed any anchor posing it." One staffer for a Republican candidate now leaning toward not participating put it this way: "The problem isn't YouTube, it's CNN."
G.O.P. consultants and campaign staffers say that candidates' hesitancy about the debate stems from concerns similar to Hewitt's, rather than from any nervousness about the unpredictability of the format. What's more, says another G.O.P. operative, "Every day you're debating is a day you're not raising money." Adds the operative: "We've shown our willingness to take questions from real people. Look at the Politico debate" - in which questions submitted by e-mail were read. "And the game isn't over. There could be a online video debate somewhere, someday; it just doesn't look like this one will happen." The Florida debate was already on much shakier ground than the Democratic YouTube debate; the Democratic National Committee had put its seal on that debate, whereas the Republican National Committee has not endorsed this forum. It is co-sponsored by the Republican Party of Florida, which has insisted the show will go on.
The Florida party's optimism may lie in the hope that Governor Charlie Crist will use his influence to round up candidates. Crist has yet to endorse a anyone in his state's hugely important early primary - a mouth-watering carrot for any candidate willing to face the YouTube stick. But campaign staffers say that the prospect of a different G.O.P. debate in Florida - one sponsored by Fox - makes it unlikely that Crist will really turn on the heat.
Still, some Republicans worry that shying away from YouTube will make their candidates seem technophobic or out of touch. Patrick Ruffini, a G.O.P. online political strategist, wrote on his blog: "It's stuff like this that will set the G.O.P. back an election cycle or more on the Internet." Democratic consultants are rubbing their hands together at being able to portray their general election rivals as being - as one put it to me - "afraid of snowmen" or simply ignorant of techonologies that many Americans use on a daily basis. Indeed, Governor Romney today, in the context of evincing concern over Internet predators, supported that suspicion: "YouTube looked to see if they had any convicted sex offenders on their web site. They had 29,000," he said, mistaking the debate co-sponsor for the social network MySpace, which has recently done a purge of sex offenders from its rolls.
Ruffini has already started an online petition to encourage G.O.P. candidates to participate in the YouTube debate - savethedebate.com . One campaign staffer, however, contended that Ruffini is viewing the controversy through the "narrow vision" of an online consultant. The format, this staffer said, is only a problem insofar as it allows CNN to present questions that may be too aggressive or controversial for the confines of a standard campaign interaction. One might argue that this is the whole point of a YouTube debate - and that since the Democratic candidates have already dealt with them, why should the G.O.P. candidates be able to avoid snowmen and matrimony-seeking gay couples when their rivals couldn't?
If G.O.P. contenders succeed in making the case that technology is only incidental to their objections, they will have a precedent: The major Democratic candidates have pledged to boycott a debate sponsored by Fox News, citing the network's conservative bias as their reason. Right-wing commentators mocked the Democrats for their decision, but the netroots applauded. And whether Republicans can make the case to a general audience that CNN is biased to the left hardly matters - their base voters likely already believe it.
View this article on Time.com
I’m slightly torn between what can easily become a circus against the impact that this media forum could have on young voters.
Scheduling conflicts, mocking, lack of decorum...
More likely Reps just don’t want to face the music. I’m not a Ron Paul supporter but if it’s just him standing up there then I’ll watch just because the guy has the cejones to actually show up.
They should do it- but only field serious and difficult questions.
No dolts, flakes, pierced queers, or weird angry teenagers.
Crist has only the power of being governor of Florida. He already SOLD that by moving the primary up to accomondate Rudy Rhodham Guiliani.
He has no more pull and has pull to far to the left with his california style environwacko proposals.
GOP - If the Dems can say no to FOX, for Gods sake grow a pair and say NO TO YOU TUBE.
To me the problem isn’s having to answer voters on the issues — it’s giving airtime to snowmen.
Someone asks a question about Gorebbal Warming - say “the sun controls the warming and cooling of the earth not lightbulbs.”
A couple of homosexuals ask if they can get married, say ‘”sure, just not to each other.”
70% of the public agrees with those answers
Have they been cancelled yet?
I heard that CNN was considering cancelling them since the only viable candidates had said pass.
I think the fact the serious GOP candidates dropped out says far more about the value of CNN to legitimate journalism than anything else. (for those in rio linda, CNN has no value to serious news it is just bias)
I think many Americans want a President that can think on his feet. When something hits us from left field, I want the President to snap to it and give me the indication that he’s on the case and not frozen with indecision.
The debates, in a very small way, show how the candidates think on their feet. Rarely do they get the defining questions like Dukakis got but it’s important to show up for the joust.
No kidding! Who wants frosty the snowman asking stupid questions.
I think the GOP understands that they aren’t really “questions” coming from the YouTubers, but rather political statements disguised as questions.
The Republicans would be idiots sticking their heads in nooses if they fall for the trap of agreeing to a Youtube debate. Youtube is notorious for catering to moonbat sensibilities and filtering conservative POV’s when it can get away with it.
The ‘Rats said no to Fox? I missed that. What happened?
I think (someone correct me if I’m wrong) CNN gets to choose the questions. They’re right to turn this one down if so.
Maybe they just want assurances that they will be asked a question by two guys dressed up like a horse with a blow-up Lady Godiva on it. I’m sure they don’t want to be outdone by the dems.
"The problem isn't YouTube, it's CNN."That's it, exactly. CNN is biased. And its biased is more easily applied in this format than a standard format.
Now TIME is in on this. Where was TIME regarding the FOX debates that Democrats refused. Same old double standard in the MSM. The Democrats refuse to debate on FOX and...nothing. Republicans refise to debate the YouTubers and its a MSM sensation. What garbage.
LiveLeak might be willing to make a deal... there are plenty of ways to do this sanely.
Heck, you could have people email short video clips. The files aren’t too big for it these days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.