GOP Youtube Debate a No Show?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...be_1.html#more

Quote:

so far, only Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) have agreed to participate in the debate, co-hosted by Republican Party of Florida in St. Petersburg. . . .

Sources familiar with the Guiliani campaign said he’s unlikely to participate. . . .

In an interview Wednesday with the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader, Romney said he’s not a fan of the CNN/YouTube format. Referring to the video of a snowman asking the Democratic candidates about global warming, Romney quipped, “I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman.” . . .

“We’re very hopeful that all the campaigns will get on board,” said Steve Grove, head of news and politics at YouTube.

Added state Republican spokeswoman Erin VanSickle: “It’s an important debate in an important battleground state that just moved its primary to Jan. 29th. In other words, we have every confidence that they will attend. They can’t afford not to.”

Considering the success of the Democratic debate, it's pretty distressing that such a massive disconnect exists between the GOP and the internet.

When the only two guys who agree to take questions from people screened by CNN are a man whose campaign only exists because of the internet, and a man whose campaign is constantly being suspected of tanking out at any time, it's pretty distressing.

A Youtube debate with just Ron Paul would be pretty hilarious, though.

Quote:

“I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman.”

I'd agree, only if the Snowman was not a registered voter.

On the general subject: Given Ron Paul's warm reception with the internet, his nearly sole attendance at that debate (Should they proceed ahead with so few canidates) could actually bolster his likelihood of getting the GOP Nomination all the way up to Maybe.

It would be more like raised from lol to Definitely not.

It's odd. Mike Gravel had to beg to be added to CNN-YouTube debate (or any CNN debate for that matter), but Republicans be damned if they touch the thing with a ten foot poll.

Quote:

Referring to the video of a snowman asking the Democratic candidates about global warming, Romney quipped, “I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman.”

Dear Old Republican Farts,

We ("the citizens," "people you wish to serve for by assuming the role of 'President,'") call this in "English" (one of the dominant "languages" "spoken" in the United States,) "humor." See, it is supposed to a "funny" way of bringing up a "serious" subject, because the question would be "incredibly boring" otherwise.

We're "sorry" that this method of "asking a question" "offends" you, for the Presidency is No Laughing Matter, but decades of "fucking it in the ass" has made it one giant "joke" and a "laughingstock."

"Sorry" again, and "pull that rod out of your ass, you're walking funny,"
- The "American People"

Funny enough the snowman asked a pointed question about global warming. More like Romney doesn't want questions raised about real issues he's expected to answer.

To be honest, I think he actually believes it. Guys like Romney are stuck in a mindset where the presidency is to be deified, and guys like Reagan should be turned into demigods. These are the guys who showed up at FDR's grave to give him homage for being an asshole.

Politicians in general are so full of shit that they think respect should be afforded to them because of position and not because they're actually respectable.

I think they're more afraid of the race questions, because something like "Global Warming" can be easily researched and argued for and against convincingly.

Well, as if in reaction to the response by Romney and Giulani, it appears that Tommy Thompson is promising to attend the YouTube debates.

http://www.tommy2008.com/site/Viewer...icle&rpid=2745

Although, I find it interesting that it says that McCain is hesitant to participate, when obviously other sources say that he is on board as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291267,00.html
(lol Fox News)

Anyways, there is still time for candidates to change their minds on this, though one can only hope that Rudy and Mitt discredit themselves by not attending.

Though your post was well done Merv, I went ahead and paraphrased it for you:

Originally Posted by Merv Burger

Dear Old Republican Farts,

OMG SERIOUS BUSINESS

- The "American People"

Why does anyone even give a fuck about any of these debates? All of the candidates' positions are already clear to anyone who bothers to pay the slightest attention. The candidates just throw out the same bullshit regardless of which question they're asked. In the Democratic Youtube debate Edwards answered every single question with "I've been taking on insurance companies my entire life".

Quote:

Why does anyone even give a fuck about any of these debates?

Because they're fun to watch, and they give lots of candidates the rope to hang themselves.

I thought the Democratic debate was great since Obama came out OK'ing nuclear power, Biden outed himself as an asshole, and Richardson did his best as of yet.

I watch all the debates I can get, no matter how stupid they are or which party is doing it. I like to watch them. They're interesting.

At the same time, I can not BELIEVE a response like "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman." What a douche, I'm sorry.

I thought the CNN YouTube debates were well done, despite the small disconnect between "serious" and "lol internet."

First of all, you'd think these bad boys running for president would want their constituents to feel free asking questions. You could tell that the people submitting videos were more comfortable asking important questions from their own home, which makes me feel better about it all and I can't quite say why.

Secondly, this kind of "snowman" thing would (in my opinion) make people more likely to watch the debates. Not enough Americans give a shit about their right to vote, and I think what CNN did with the YouTube shit was genius: get people to watch.

If you're too good to take questions from a creative and important video, maybe you shouldn't be running for president.

The SERIOUS BUSINESS of the debates bores the public to tears. No wonder no one watches.

There's nothing wrong with Serious Business for presidential debates, regardless of how little exposure it may get because we're all so fat and stupid.

The real problem is that these aren't really debates, but an I-go-you-go-mostly the free frontrunners-go exercise in talking points. The Youtube format has been the closest thing to something that actually gets the candidates to think about what they're saying, since the nature of who is asking the questions allows for tougher issues.

Clinton earned huge Beltway Brownie points because she answered a question on presidential dynasty without breaking a sweat. I mean, I still think she's a dynastic authoritarian bitch, but it was impressive.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The real problem is that these aren't really debates, but an I-go-you-go-mostly the free frontrunners-go exercise in talking points.

No, they aren't really debates. For heaven's sakes, people don't even really ARGUE while up there. They just try to avoid questions and talk about their own plans - on both sides of the fence.

There's so little argument that no one really wants to watch it, I guess. Even I consider flipping the channel when watching then because everyone is so dry and predictable - which is why I LIKE the YouTube idea. It brings some much-needed fresh air to the debates.

Quote:

The Youtube format has been the closest thing to something that actually gets the candidates to think about what they're saying, since the nature of who is asking the questions allows for tougher issues.

I agree, but why does it take YouTube to accomplish this?

Quote:

Clinton earned huge Beltway Brownie points because she answered a question on presidential dynasty without breaking a sweat. I mean, I still think she's a dynastic authoritarian bitch, but it was impressive.

It just indicates that she's a really good liar. ^_^

Quote:

It just indicates that she's a really good liar. ^_^

No shit. "I sent Chelsea to Private School to protect her from the media."

Quote:

I agree, but why does it take YouTube to accomplish this?

Because they can operate under the pretext of a "town hall." Because it's Joe Blo asking the question, and not CNN appointed faces, then it's easier for CNN to dissociate themselves from the questions being asked. CNN won't lose brownie points for letting normal people ask questions, and nobody can really be targeted for asking loaded questions.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Because they can operate under the pretext of a "town hall." Because it's Joe Blo asking the question, and not CNN appointed faces, then it's easier for CNN to dissociate themselves from the questions being asked. CNN won't lose brownie points for letting normal people ask questions, and nobody can really be targeted for asking loaded questions.

"Town hall" sorts of debates go down across the country in communities everywhere, though. Their turn-out rates are kind of shit, too.

I was thinking more along the lines of questions from the audience as opposed to questions from YouTube, but I guess I should retract that silly business since the debates weren't exclusively based on questions from the audience.

I'm still offended Romney thinks he shouldn't answer questions from snowmen. (I enjoyed that particular question. I think the candidates should pay attention to how questions are posed. Not everyone wears a suit and tie all day long in America. To me, it serves to prove the rift between Politician and Working Man....not something you'd want to highlight in your campaign.)

Originally Posted by Sass

To me, it serves to prove the rift between Politician and Working Man....not something you'd want to highlight in your campaign.

...unless you were a worthwhile candidate for the presidency. A rare bird, unfortunately.

The CNN/YouTube debates were bullshit. "To hell with equality, let's give all the airtime to those who payed the most!" Gravel barely got a word edgewise, but you KNOW Obama, Clinton, and Edwards got a turn almost every round. Bullshit. Who trusts CNN these days anyway? :P

It's a step towards more direct democracy, though. The more involvement the people have in government, the better. It would be nice if corporate interests were taken out of the picture to reduce the opportunity for censorship and bias.

Gravel's effectively demonstrated that he can't do anything other than make a lot of noise by now, though, so I'm not exactly shedding tears over baby's miniscule speaking time.

Giving more time to the frontrunners has been the problem with all of the debates so far.

I can't believe people are up in arms because a blowhard windbag like Gravel was overlooked. Obama, Edwards and Clinton get the airtime, because barring a massive fuck up, one of those three is getting the nom. I agree the outsiders don't get the airtime necessary, but when all the outside contenders do is snipe at the main three, a lot of their stuff becomes sort of superfluous. You want the outside guys asked? Ask them a specific question on youtube next time.

Also, Brady, Biden was hilarious. I love what a horrible candidate he is. Like we weren't all thinking that dude with the rifle was a fucking whack job.