Don’t fear the YouTube

For months, media figures — some conservative, some not — have criticized Democratic presidential candidates for balking at a scheduled debate hosted and sponsored by Fox News. The Dems’ reasoning is fairly obvious — there’s no point in legitimizing a partisan news outlet — but they’ve been blasted anyway. Some have suggested they’re cowardly, others have argued they’re pandering to the Democratic base. Several media personalities (Russert, Ailes, and others) have insisted that Dems can’t be trusted to stand up to foreign enemies if they’re unwilling to stand up to a Fox News debate panel.

It’s all been spectacularly silly, but this week, it’s taken on a new significance. At the end of Monday’s Democratic debate, co-sponsored by CNN and YouTube, Anderson Cooper told the audience, “September 17th is the Republican debate. I want to encourage everyone to submit their questions via YouTube. You can start doing that right away.”

What he didn’t realize is that most of the Republican field apparently doesn’t want to hear these questions and won’t show up for the debate.

Four days after the Democratic debate in Charleston, S.C,. more than 400 questions directed to the GOP presidential field have been uploaded on YouTube — targeted at Republicans scheduled to get their turn at videopopulism on Sept. 17.

But 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.

“Aside from those two candidates, we haven’t heard from anyone else,” said Sam Feist of CNN, who’s co-sponsoring the debate with the popular videosharing site.

A nationally-televised debate in arguably the nation’s biggest swing state, sponsored by the Republican Party of Florida — and most of the GOP field has decided not to bother.

Rudy Giuliani’s campaign complained that the date of the event — a full two weeks before the end of the third quarter — might interfere with fundraising. “We have scheduling issues,” said Giuliani adviser Anthony Carbonetti.

I’m not counting on it, but every blowhard who admonished Dems for daring to avoid the GOP network ought to have equally harsh things to say about the Republican field, right? Josh Marshall facetiously posed the question that we should hear from the talking heads: “[I]f they can’t face Youtube how can they defeat the terrorists?”

To be sure, the Dems’ debate, featuring questions exclusively from regular people who submitted YouTube clips, was far from perfect, but there were plenty of provocative, clever questions that candidates wouldn’t receive in traditional debates.

The question now, of course, is understanding what Republican presidential candidates, who have not missed any debate opportunities thus far, are so afraid of.

* The Bubble must be protected — Josh wondered if “the current Bush Republican party is so beholden to a worldview based on denial and suppression of evidence that exposure to unpredictable questions presents too great a danger.”

* The GOP base is scary, even to the GOPTim F. noted that the Dems’ debate featured questions from the liberal base, but the far-right base is much scarier. “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.” If they’re asking the questions, maybe the candidates don’t want to be there to hear them.

* Democracy, schmocracyAndrew Sullivan suggested that the GOP is “a party uncomfortable with the culture and uncomfortable with democracy,” so a debate with questions from regular people doesn’t suit the party’s worldview.

I’m amazed at the candidates’ cowardice, but I’m undecided on their rationale. My inclination is that these candidates — sans Paul and McCain — just lack confidence in their ability to think quickly on their feet. In townhall meetings on the campaign trail, they can pretty much count on softball questions. In traditional debates, they know media personalities will never stray too far from the political mainstream.

They could take a chance and respond to the concerns of regular people, but why bother? The risks outweigh the potential rewards.

Between nutters on the right (liberterians, bigots, anti-government types, gun-lovers, Christianists) and the outraged conservatives – they do have a right to be afraid. They would pander to the nutters while turning into a pretzle in order to not offend the outraged conservatives and fail miserably at both. None of the GOP candidates has the skill to both.

  • See CB… I told you the Dems balking of the FOX debate would open up a can of worms when it came to candidates’ participation in subsequent debates… The focus is quickly being diluted away from the debate content itself to whether the venue or the host is partisan, why or why not candidates are participating/not participating in debates, etc.

    My, my this slope is getting quite slippery!

  • I think the Bubble Theory is closest. More simply, they are all a bunch of pathological control freaks. They don’t like anything that might be unscripted.

    What I find interesting is that by and large the format got good reviews – from the media and the public. One would think that would raise the risk in skipping out (particularly in the context of the hypocrisy of the right on being “afraid” of debates).

  • Classic question-dodging to the Nth degree from the Reich Wing.

    I’d like to see someone post a YouTube question holding up a sign like Clark Willard “Romney” Griswold was pictured with in Iowa — “NO TO OBAMA OSAMA AND CHELSEA’S MOMA” — and ask all of the candidates if they agree with the message scribbled on the sign.

    I could only imagine how those aircraft carrier shoulders would hunch over. Lighten up slightly, cowards.

  • It’s going to be a whole slew of guy-with-the-automatic-weapon videos…expecting a affirmative.

    The difference between the Fox debate and these is that the Dems had honest concerns then and the Republican just have excuses now.

  • There is, I think, a distinct difference between YouTube questions asked by everyday American voters and a “debate” hosted by what amounts to a propoganda wing of the opposition party. If you want to compare apples to apples then ask yourself if the GOP candidated would participate in a debate hosted by Michael Moore. I bet not.

    Republicanists fear the people. Democrats fear the spin machine. You decide which is worse.

    Can you imagine the ads that will appear running against the GOP candidate(s) where regular people on all sides of the political spectrum attack the carefuly fabricated positions of these candidates? If you were Rudy, would you want a family of 8 southern Jesus-heads on video asking you why you are a baby killer? Or a farmer asking why you want to seal the border and force their farm to be sold to large Ag? Of course not. They are stupid but they are no crazy. Most of them at least.

  • Where are the Democratic blowhards, when you need them?

    Why complain that Republican blowhards and Media whores to the plutocracy are not consistent?

    Where are the Democratic talking heads, who will say what needs to be said, about the callow, cowardly, corrupt Republican field?

    Don’t complain that the usual suspects don’t fire up the Wurlitzer. Strike up the Democratic band. Give ’em heck, Harry! Don’t slander ’em, just tell the truth on ’em.

  • I thought the YouTube debate turned out far better than I had expected. The format made it more difficult for the candidates to talk around the questions. And Cooper did a pretty good job of dragging them back when they tried. In a regular panel style debate, simple decorum makes it more difficult for questioners to insist candidates stick to the question asked.

    As for what terrifies the GOP with this format? A bit of all of the above. If their base shows up, there’s a decent chance it turns into a 2 hour insane-a-thon. Think Pat Buchanan at the ’92 GOP convention, Limbaugh on crack and then think orgy.
    If ordinary people show up with ordinary concerns, it leaves them separated from their prepared barking points. How does Rudy wriggle from a question on higher education to 9/11? Again, they run the risk of the 2 hour insane-a-thon with non-sequitur answers of terror, terror, 9/11, taxes, terror.

    I agree that they have every reason to not trust their ability to think on their feet. This format puts them on a tightrope. They’ll have to speak to the moderate electorate when they need to toss red meat to their base. Appealing to one costs them the other.
    In a way I don’t blame them for chickening out of this debate. They have a stark choice between further depressing their base, or staging the 2 hour insane-a-thon.

  • Don’t fear the YouTube
    The Republican YouTube CNN debate needs more cowbell.
    Comment by JC — 7/27/2007 @ 12:02 pm

    🙂 tuk-tuk-tuk-tuk….

  • CNN filtered out questions from people in chicken suits (no I’m not kidding) and questions levied by obvious partisans (Biden of all people.) so any fear of outlandish questions should be pretty low.

    Huckabee, Brownback, and Duncan can ill afford free press. They’ll be there. And when five show up, Giuliani and Romney start to look pretty weak. Only Romney might pull it off if he claims it’s beneath him but does he really want 7 opponents to have free reign?

    ET @ 1
    It’s a mistake to lump Libertarians in with those others.
    Democrats are socially Libertarian.
    Republicans (pre-Bush) were fiscally Libertarian.
    If either party adopts the missing component to any significant degree, they’ll find a healthy voting block ready to embrace them, especially in the west and southwest where Dems have been turning some red states purplish.

  • I’m trying to imagine the response of any of the Rs to that nutcase in Wisconsin who wanted to protect his “baby”. Bet none of them would say they wondered about the guy’s sanity as Biden did. As a majority of Americans would, I’m sure.

    This R youtube debate could be really, really fun to watch, as they get peppered with questions from the right and the left. Now if they would just show up. Chickens (aside from McCain and Paul).

  • for JRS (#2) – The only slope getting slippery is the one covering your frontal lobe…probably because of the worms…

    There is no comparison between Dem candidates balking at a FOX news debate that would have questions drawn up by and repeated by their talking head department and Repubs balking at a YouTube debate where the questions are posed by everyday Americans, probably most of them from Republican supporters.

  • JRS Jr, are you this moronic on your own, or did it take some kind of training and preparation? As MNProgressive pointed out, there’s a big difference between not wanting to legitimize a political enemy by participating in their farce of a debate, and not having the guts to face an open forum of public questioning.

    Perhaps you should go back to your map of Iran, your signed glossy of Holy Joe Lieberman, and those cool explosion noises I’d guess you make when contemplating the two.

    What I love about this developing situation is that McCain’s so desperate to regain traction that I bet he’ll hang in even if it is just him and Paul (and they’re the two Republicans I find least objectionable by far anyway–even with McCain’s madness on the war). We could get the double benefit of showing the unhinged righty base in all their hate-addled irrationality, *and* exposing Il Rudi, Mittler, and TV’s Fred Thompson as the political cowards they are.

  • Might I suggest another theory? In my experience, the left has much better success with internet-based campaigning and dissemination of information. Maybe they’re worried that a huge number of questions will be from Democrats who’ve banded together to up-vote some pretty hardball questions on torture, civil rights, terror, tax cuts, etc.

    That said, CNN ignored the most popular YouTube question for the Dems (on impeachment), so they may be willing to water it down for the Republicans as well.

  • #12

    Nutcase referred to was from Clio, Michigan.

    We Wisconsin natives have our own baby-protection issues centered on shooting other hunters on purpose.

    Nyuk, nyuk. What fun.

    BANG!

    Oops, sorry.

  • #11 :CNN filtered out questions from people in chicken suits (no I’m not kidding)”

    No, but they aired a question by a snowman and his son.

  • Here is a chance for a Dem candidate to step forward and garner great political theater. Since the Republicans can’t fill out the debate, Hillary (Obama, Edwards) should ask to be included in a very public way.

  • Here is some advice provided the rethuglians on another blog -“I think Republicans ought to pick five or six big items, I would start with English as the official language of government for example, and draw the line sharply with the candidates of the left.’ My question is “will bush be required to speak English?”

  • Bruce@#19, that’s a great idea! Maybe Gravel could go and bring the crazy LOL. But I’d love to hear anyone of the Dems say something like “The leading republican presidential candidates are afraid of the American people, I’d love another chance to face the publics questions. I guess they got the fear from Bush who only allows donors and campaign workers pre-screened into his public forums. And no tough questions allowed!”

    But all that said, yes that debate would be great fun to watch. How uncomfortable the candidates would be when faced with just a normal sentient being.

  • Comments are closed.