GOP, Don’t Abandon YouTube Debate

by Sean Hackbarth

The CNN/YouTube debate wasn’t horrible. Is was mildly worse than a townhall-style debate. There were a few video clips that were worthless (the snowman and the No Child Left Behind music video) and Anderson Cooper was kind enough not to make the candidates answer the redneck yucksters asking about AlGore. It could have been set-up question after set-up question. That didn’t happen and yet we still had candidates demonstrate they’re not ready to be President (I’m talking to you Sens. Biden and Obama). It’s not as much about the format as the quality of the candidate.

Now, we hear Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are reluctant to take part in the 09.17 CNN/YouTube debate-that-isn’t in Florida.

Hugh Hewitt thinks this is a good idea. For him this allows CNN producers to ask hit questions they’d be too embarrassed to put into the mouth of Anderson Cooper. Don Surber also wants the GOP to ignore this format to retain dignity.

Romney said, “I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman.” That’s the wrong way to look at it. Yes, an animated pile of frozen water is a juvenile way to answer a question, but after every video Anderson Cooper asked the question to help the candidates figure out what the YouTuber was trying to get at. If Romney doesn’t want to be asked a question by a cartoon character answer the moderator’s question. Either way he’d probably dish out his standard talking points. He certainly wouldn’t claim the video producer was mentally unstable.

Patrick Ruffini made two good points about candidates taking part in this new type of debate. First, only Sen. Biden looked like a fool for insulting the gun owner, but that’s due to Biden’s uncontrollable mouth rather than the debate format. The top three Democratic candidates didn’t look any less Presidential. Second, it will be really hard to attack Democrats for avoiding Fox News if Republicans avoid YouTube. It seems to me the negatives of not participating outweight the discomfort of taking part.

There are plenty of things candidates don’t like about running for President. I’m sure they don’t like the non-stop events, the constant handshaking, the forced smiles even when they’re not feeling 100%, begging people for campaign donations, etc. Yet candidates suck it up knowing that stuff has to be done in order to win the Presidency. Heck, if elected President things won’t get easier. It wasn’t that bad. Romney, et al will survive.

Since YouTube is a democratic (small “d”) website Republican candidates can take advantage by getting their supporters to submit questions of their own. “Flooding the zone” would make it harder for CNN producers to cherry-pick loaded, liberally-biased questions. CNN would have to explain themselves if GOP candidates were given mostly anti-GOP questions where there were so many pro-GOP available.

This isn’t GOP candidates abandoning the internet. All the Republicans will continue to post clips on YouTube and strive to raise money online. What this story tells us is the Republicans are still being reactive to the changing media. They need to use the new tools available. They must go on the attack, be pro-active, be inspired and creative, have fun with this stuff. It’s not going away.

“But Don’t Ask Him on YouTube…” [via memeorandum]

“Some GOP Candidates are Balking at the Idea of a CNN/YouTube Debate”

UPDATE: One of Captain Ed’s commenters, Mr. Lynn, proposed “true one-on-one debates, 90 minutes, free-ranging, with just a moderator to make sure they have equal time.” It’s the Newt Gingrich idea that no one would watch. At least it’s an alternative.

Save and Share:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Diigo

7 Responses to “GOP, Don’t Abandon YouTube Debate”

1

Mitt “The Presidency should be held at a higher level” Romney would be wise to recall the last time a Presidential candidate thought a segment of the population was “beneath” him. George Bush Sr. refused to be interviewed by MTV for months until he realized that he was losing the youth vote badly to the sax-playing, Arsenio Hall-appearing, rock-n-roll Bill Clinton.

2

In the big picture if candidates don’t go to the CNN/YouTube debate it won’t hurt them. Democrats abandoned Fox News with only right-wingers like me calling them “chicken.” If the Republican nominee avoided a YouTube debate next fall that would be a bigger issue (and mistake).

I’m of the camp that you have to go where the voters are. Putting clips on YouTube does that.

Isn’t kissing babies a little “demeaning?” Yet a candidate won’t stop that even if there’s a chance he or she will get puked on (see The War Room). A YouTube debate would be slanted and loaded with hit questions, but a skilled politician could side-step his way through the attacks. A really good politician would turn the stacked deck into an advantage. Imagine Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan in one of these debates?

3

This one’s a tough one – Hugh Hewitt is right about one point – leaving CNN’s left-leaning screeners of the questions could be a recipe for disaster. While there may be a backlash against CNN if they only ask highly loaded, lose-lose type questions, the damage will already be done to most or all the GOP candidates.

At this point, the candidates have to be considering how they can best win the vote of the GOP base that will be involved in the primary. Getting served up “And when did you stop verbally abusing your second ex-wife, Mr. Giulani?” types of questions will be pretty counter-productive.

And let’s not think these types of questions will only come from anti-GOPers. Those who ignore history may be doomed to get hit with a question with the negative impact of the push-polling done to McCain by the Bush campaign in 2000.

4

If CNN producers try to get them with hit questions the candidates should brush it aside. They need to be pro-active instead of reactive. That would look more Presidential than what Biden and Obama did.

5

I agree with Sean on his last point. A candidate should be able to reframe a question to fairly present his or her own point if they are an able debater.

For the R’s to blithely say, “YouTube is a biased medium,” and ignore the debate would be a grave mistake. Calling an open source space like YouTube “liberal” seems a tad disingenuous. If they can walk the line and somehow are willing to write off CNN as the Dems seem willing to write off Fox then they might be able to score a point or two.

Otherwise, they’re writing off a lot of young voters.

6

Please. The Demo UTube “debate” was quite possibly the most inane politcal exercise since… well, I can’t say actually because I can’t possibly know them all. But within memory, it ranks with stuff like Dukakis riding in a tank and Kerry’s “Can I get me a huntn’ license he-ya?”

Good Lord, is this the way we should frame serious discussion?

Mr. Bill Saturday Night Live ‘toons?

And if anyone thinks CNN won’t load the Qs I must suggest that they are either ignorant or already lefties who lap up CNN slant like lunchtime soup.

Did anyone hear a new, never-before asked question?

Sean, I think your analysis and some of others’ which you use to support your position is a mite off. Let’s take a look:

>>> “There were a few video clips that were worthless.

And so a good amount of time was spent for… what? Entertainment (read: CNN ratings) puposes. If I want to be entertained I’ll watch Austin City Limits, thank you. I want straight answers and positions without the slapstick sideshow.

>>>”That’s the wrong way to look at it.”

To the contrary, Romney’s take is exactly the way to look at political discussion.

Is it not true that what we’ve heard over the years is the need to change the political discourse, to take out sound bites and frivolity?

And have not our conservative friends suggested that America has way to much focus on all things Hollywood-ish?

Yet here we are witnessing a whole new gimick. Call it “Politainment”. And it’s not Rush or Michael Moore or Hannity or Geraffalo participating in the schtick.

It’s the pols themselves.

Romney, on this point at least, is quite right.

>>>”… but after every video Anderson Cooper asked the question to help the candidates figure out what the YouTuber was trying to get at.”

So what, exactly, was the purpose of the UTube clips?

>>[Patrick Ruffini] “..only Sen. Biden looked like a fool”

Um, they all looked like fools… just for being there and sitting through it.

>>[Patrick Ruffini]“hard to attack Democrats for avoiding Fox News if Republicans avoid YouTube.”

That’s just silly. Nobody – repeat – NOBODY will care if the repubs don’t show up to do two-hour UTube commerical.

I must say this whole UTube Debate thing strikes me the same way as “educators” who are always clamering for the latest-greatest flashy fad tool “to keep kids engaged”.

The question one might ask is; if there are all these savy young netheads out there, why can’t they just mosey over to the candidate’s websites and compare position statements?

That’d be, like, work or something.

7

If Republicans can’t stand up to YouTube, how can they stand up to Osama?

…not that Chris Matthews would ever actually ask that. I mean, no matter how often Republicans turn out to be idiots who don’t know anything about America’s enemies, their “credentials” are always beyond question, right?

Leave a Reply




You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>