The Debate Debate: It's The "Reason" That Matters

In pondering the current You Tube debate debate, see Hugh Hewitt, Patrick Ruffini and others weighing in here - I'm reminded of a town-hall debate some years back when a man with a pony tail asked a question which eventually sounded very much like, If you're elected President, will you be my Daddy? I cringed, as much for America, as for what I saw as the pathetic nature of the question given the seriousness of the issue at hand - electing a President.

In principle, I'm for a You Tube type debate; however, I'm less comfortable with it in the hands of so called journalists who leave the impression that they will screen questions with all the seriousness of a group of Frat boys sitting around a lunch table trying to come up with catchy bits to impress their friends and any female attendees at their next kegger.

I watched mostly all of the recent Democrat You Tube debate, which was as much if not more schlock, or can we shock TV as it was a discussion of serious national issues. I don't believe skipping the Florida You Tube debate will actually hurt Republicans all that much, frankly as I don't think that significant a portion of the public is deeply engaged right now and, who watches CNN to begin with? Also, outside of political junkies, many already knowing where they stand, I don't anticipate some throng of American citizens hitting the Internet YouTubes to make up their mind on the next President. But if they are going to take a pass, Republicans would do well to make their reasons clear.

The reason should be reason, or reasonableness, if you will - and the culprit for any decline of reason in our now citizen-injected political debates is not your average American, it's your average twenty-something television producer who wouldn't know a serious debate question if it flashed across their monitor in between their trying to stay up on the latest Lindsay Lohan arrest.

We are a representative democracy for a reason and now with so many having electronic access to participate in debates as questioners, the media has an increasingly important role to be representative of the people in managing that debate, especially when presenting questions from the people to those we might wish to consider electing to the Presidency. To date, I've seen little if anything from the media to suggest they're up to the challenge. And that should be the Republican message on this issue. Not all messages are created equal and, in this case, the messenger in the form of the media may indeed be in serious need of taking a shot.

Again, for more discussion: via the WaPo debate debate, also see Hugh Hewitt, Patrick Ruffini and others weighing in here.

Comments

[catcall]

If the Republicans are scared of standing up to the American People's questions in the You-Tube debate, how will they be able to stand up to the Terrorists?

[Phoenix]

Because too many in the American public are frigging idiots.

Why wouldn't the dems do a little discussion on Fox?

[chris]

Fox is not a 'news' channel. It's an unfunny comedy central for rednecks and other backward sorts. On that basis, there is no need to legitimize Fox by allowing them to host a debate.

[Phoenix]

It is not, fool. It is The Missing White Girl channel an don't go tryin to tell me otherwise.

But you know sure as shootin' - gotta have that rednick vote doncha know an them backerds folks whut watch Brit an them othre mens are lernin sum stuff.

Gud lawd. Whut channel kin peoples watch now fer cryin out lowd? Shit.

[wardmd]

Chris,

Are you suggesting that YouTube has more credibility than Fox (even if you don't consider it a "news" channel)?

Perhaps you'd like to see the "debate" be a cross between "Who wants to be the President" and "Weakest Candidate"...

The candidates are presented with multiple choice questions, and can ask the audience for their advice on the "correct" answer, can get half the "wrong" answers eliminated by the computer, and even call their campaign managers for help.

Then, as the "debate" goes on, we can kick off STUPID, POINTLESS (weakest) "candidates" (like Ron Paul, and/or Joe Biden) - freeing up time for REAL candidates to answer more questions.

If you want to call this YouTube stunt a nation-wide "town hall meeting", fine - just don't try to kid yourself into thinking this resembles a "debate".

Until the "primaries" are over, these video conferences are SUPPOSED to show the candidates' prospective voters which candidate should represent their PARTY in the REAL debates/elections.

The Democrats SHOULD do so in a forum which helps highlight the Democrat candidates (if that means NOT appearing on Fox, fine; if that means taking screened questions from YouTube, that's fine too).

Even IF Republicans agree to a YouTube format (assuming that the questions would be similarly screened by a pro-Conservative individual), that's fine; but I sure as heck am not going to base MY choice for President of the United States on the answer to a snowman's question (maybe that's what YOU look for in a President, but I sure as heck don't).

I'm looking for someone who is CONSISTENT and I can trust to DO WHAT HE SAYS he's going to do (not stick his finger in the wind or jump at the latest "public opinion" poll) - AND (most importantly) represents MY political, social and moral beliefs (or as close to them as possible)...

Personally, I do NOT relate to a snowman (but then, I live in Southern California, where Illegal Aliens, not Snowmen, are the biggest problems facing us).

[Fred Beloit]

ward, in the Liberal mind snowmen are people too. Please have some consideration for their feelings by not denigrating snowmen. In fact with our new and so popular Congress in sessions it may soon become illegal to denigrate snowmen. Excuse me, snowpersons.

[wardmd]

Fred,

I should probably check myself into rehab., huh?

Maybe I can get the room next to Ann Coulter.

[IslamoLlama]

"Because too many in the American public are frigging idiots."

Wow. By that logic, what are we doing in a Democracy at all? We should just let the Politibeauro pick our politicians for us and stop working our stupid little heads about it.

Republicans are scared of a little YouTube debate because... the American public is too stupid? I mean, I agree with you guys. I'd much rather let the MSM dictate the questions verbatim rather than pull questions from a larger constituency. Certainly, Wolf Blitzer and Chris Mathews have far keener and more savy minds than the average YouTube user. We know this because they've got sweet broadcasting gigs and YouTubers don't.

Of course, when all the Republicans bail on the net debate, it may throw yet another wrench in the gears of their fundraising efforts. After all, if you're too scared to face the internet when it asks questions, how are you going to have to balls to hit up the internet for money?

[Robert]

Much better to have our media treat the election of the President of the United States like an election of 3rd Grade Class President. Like they did in 2000 and 2004.

[ibfamous]

does it really matter who asks the GOP questions, they're just going to pander to the base and lose in november anyway. how 'bout Alberto for Prez, that way you won't waste your good candidates (like... uh, well, you know what i mean) on this coming landslide.

[wooga]

How about a YouTube debate where the questions were chosen _at_random_? Eliminate the CNN editor role except for screening out obscene and 'joke' questions. That's what I want to see.

As it is, it's just like having Chris Matthews write down his own questions on a piece of paper, and then sifting through thousands of videos to find somebody who asked the same question. The 'youtube' aspect is all superficial - there is no legitimate 'public questioning' going on here.

[IslamoLlama]

"How about a YouTube debate where the questions were chosen _at_random_? Eliminate the CNN editor role except for screening out obscene and 'joke' questions. That's what I want to see."

Except then you play the game of what defines an "obscene or joke question". Are questions about Iraqi casualties "obscene"? Are questions about Republican corruption a "joke"? How about questions regarding Gitmo and Universal Healthcare? If the video isn't suitable insulting / pandering, is it fit for the candidate to respond to?

I agree, when you've got hundreds of questions to choose from, picking the video that suits your needs is just a matter of looking hard enough, but after watching some of the earlier debates I've discovered that there really are some questions so shallow and unimportant that only Wolf Blitzer could ask them.

[bloodrage bob]

politicians are exactly like cops: people who *really wanna be* cops or pols are folks who *should never be allowed to* hold those jobs.

since THAT'll never happen, we should at least find a way to get some fun out of it. maybe make cops & politicians go on live tv and eat bugs? shove disgusting things up their personal orifices? hmmm....

i know! face-slapping contests! and members of the audience get to do the slapping! ("tell me if this hurts, mrs. clinton!")(POW!)

[Rich Casebolt]

Wonder if these questions would make the Dem YouTube debates:

*********

If corporations dominate America, then why do we regularly see people like Sam Walton and Michael Dell come from NOWHERE to steal the customers from established corporations?

*********

Since nearly all the people liberated from tyranny since WWII ... ALL significant reductions in nuclear arms ... and virtually all significant and sustainable reductions in international tensions in the 20th Century... came as the result of combining diplomacy with the CREDIBLE threat of military confrontation ...

... why is it that the Presidents that pursued such courses of action are villified by your party?

... why does your party persist in pursuing "alternatives" to that paragidm?

... and do the leaders of your party persistently work against maintaining the credibility of such a threat?

**********

If a few dozen guys with $1M or less could pull off the attacks of 11 September 2001 ... why does it make ANY sense, in this day and age, to trust someone who has demonstrated that they share Al Quada's lack of respect for life and liberty, with the ABSOLUTE control of a resource-rich, relatively-advanced nation for ANY length of time ...

... and if it does not make any sense, why do so many of you strain at the gnats of "WMD stockpiles" and "operational ties" to Al Quada, when by this calculus it would have been prudent to preemptively and decisively defeat the regime of Saddam & Sons before 11 September 2001?

**********

I have questions ... how about some answers, candidates?

[Phoenix]

Great questions, Rich. I love the first one. God, I get sick of the whining about corporations. Go make one! This is America, folks.

I'd love to see a list of "Just Regular Guys Who Made it Big".

[bill t]

you should have sent in those questions, rich. displaying them after the fact makes no point whatsoever. especially the first question since Dell computers and Wallmart are generally considered to be corporations, in fact has articles of incorporation filed in their name. At least the Dems tried to allow an actual interaction with the public; the smart, the snarky, the dull and the stupid. all of them. The republic party is all about avoided rubbing elbows with the actual people in the streets and towns of this country. they are cowards and disingenuous empty suits. and that makes you ...what?... for worshiping them?

[David]

The pols should have to answer our questions. The Dems were forced to answer some tough questions and the Repubs should have to do the same.

[wardmd]

David,

Who "FORCED" the Democrats to answer "tough" questions? Are those the SAME people who FORCED them to take "tough" questions from Fox News? Oh, that's right, the Democrats REFUSED to participate in a Fox News "debate"...

So, tell us all again WHY should the Republicans participate in a mock-debate taking questions from snowmen and other Liberals?

The PURPOSE of THESE "debates" is NOT to convince Liberals which Republican THEY should vote for, nor to convince Republicans which Democrat THEY should vote for...

The PURPOSE of THESE "debates" is to allow REPUBLICANS to choose which REPUBLICAN candidate will represent THEIR PARTY, and for DEMOCRATS to choose which DEMOCRAT candidate will represent THEIR PARTY (in the ACTUAL Presidental Debates)!

Why is this SO difficult for you to understand?

This is NOT the time for Republicans to be taking questions from Democrats (nor, for that matter, should they be taking questions from Liberal Media spokesholes) - dittos for Democrats...

Do you understand this, David? The two parties are in the process of choosing their PARTY'S candidates - we are NOT electing our president (as a result of these "debates")!

[m]

GO RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!