Who's Afraid Of YouTube

Submitted by Chuchundra on Sat, 07/28/2007 - 10:50pm. Tags:

Politics

I didn't think the Democratic YouTube debate was anything particularly groundbreaking. It was, for all intents and purposes, a town hall debate with the questions prerecorded. There were a couple questions you probably wouldn't have seen even in a standard town format, such as whether the candidates had hurt feelings over all the speculation and anticipation about Al Gore getting into the race. I thought that some of the presentations made the questions more interesting, such as this charming couple, a talking snowman and even a song about taxes.

In the end, even though some of it was silly, I liked it. More importantly, I thought it was a positive for the Democrats, showing them being a bit light-hearted, jovial and even friendly to each other, apart from that little Clinton-Obama unpleasantness.

The second CNN/YouTube debate will feature the Republican candidates in St. Petersburg, Florida on September 17. Or it would, if any of them wanted to attend. At this point, only McCain and Ron Paul have signed on. Romney has bailed out. Rudy has another pressing engagement.

The question, of course, is why. Why is the GOP field ducking the YouTubers?

There's been some accusation of bias. CNN is biased. YouTube is biased. The Republicans don't want to answer wacky questions from lefties. Except that you'd think that the GOP candidates would be eager to lay some smack down on the YouTube hippies. It would certainly help with their right-wing street cred.

Tim F speculates that it's not the lefties Romney et al are afraid of, it's their own party. The GOP, the 25% or so of the population who still approve of President Bush are going to want their questions answered and some of those questions could be pretty scary.

Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.

Chuchundra's blog
Login or register to post comments

Dumb as doorknob (#52369)

by Timmy on Sun, 07/29/2007 - 8:59pm

"If I can go out into any state and get the same triple grande, nonfat, no-foam vanilla latte from Starbucks, why can't I go to any state and vote the same way?"

combined with a healthy dose of self-absorbtion. Pretty much sums up the last effort.

“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961

(

)

Really? (#52370)

by Harley on Sun, 07/29/2007 - 9:38pm

Consistent voting standards and practices seems like a fairly good idea. Not sure it's 'self-absorbed' to take notice. And as for doorknobs...

To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard

(

| parent )

Starbucks ain't the only franchise, Bub! (#52372)

by Timmy on Sun, 07/29/2007 - 10:02pm

Carving out state and local control, are you advocating the death of Federalism? You would think voters should be able to navigate a simple vote wouldn't you?

“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961

(

| parent )

I've never seen Federalism invoked... (#52400)

by Punditus Maximus on Mon, 07/30/2007 - 12:31am

...when there wasn't a gay person, member of an ethnic or religious minority, woman, or person of modest means to be injured in some fashion. And I never will.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

(

| parent )

Justice Thomas on Raich (#52403)

by catchy on Mon, 07/30/2007 - 12:37am

(

| parent )

I'll be jiggered. -nt- (#52405)

by Punditus Maximus on Mon, 07/30/2007 - 12:51am

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

(

| parent )

Conservatives Love Federalism (#52399)

by Harley on Mon, 07/30/2007 - 12:05am

When and only when it suits them. This is a fairly straightforward and logical solution to an apparent problem, which may in fact get worse. Sometimes Federal standards are necessary. This is one of those cases.

But go ahead. Give me one salient -- not to mention non-obscure -- reason why it would be a bad idea. I'll wait.

To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard

(

| parent )

You miss the point (#52374)

by Chuchundra on Sun, 07/29/2007 - 10:16pm

Which isn't really surprising. It's nice to see some more disdain for the common man from the right wing.

What he's saying is that Starbucks manages to standardize its customer's experience in every single one of its thousands of locations all over the country. Why can't voting be easy and standardized. If a company that sells four dollar cups of java can do it, why can't the Federal government?

I'm all for federalism, but there's no reason the US Government can't do this the way they always get around federalism, by opening up their checkbook.

Decide on a standard interface and a standard specification for voting equipment, software and processes and then, as long as the individual districts agree, pay for it.

Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.

(

| parent )

Well, Starbucks isn't the evolution (#52470)

by tomsyl on Mon, 07/30/2007 - 3:05pm

of a former network of thousands of affiliated coffee shops without standardization; there was nothing like it when it sprang into existence in the '80's. But there are established voting methods in all of the states, and there's nothing ambiguous or confusing about ours, so why change it?

I don't really care if it's changed, but I don't think this is a very significant issue as compared to many things we have to deal with. And we'd get much more benefit if the $$ were spent on, say, research aimed at solar cell efficiency increases.

Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius

(

| parent )

Nothing ambiguous or confusing. (#52494)

by Punditus Maximus on Mon, 07/30/2007 - 5:29pm

I must respectfully disagree. In particular, persons with disabilities are ill-served by Hawai`i's current system as well as its proposed replacements.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

(

| parent )

The exact same issue was raised with ATM screens (#52469)

by Timmy on Mon, 07/30/2007 - 2:44pm

back in the day. How did that work out?.

The problems is, when Federal elections are run, state (in most) and local (in some) piggyback on. But if you want to write a constitutional amendment on the subject carving out the state and local, feel free.

“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961

(

| parent )

Rudy Scared? (#52357)

by Wagster on Sun, 07/29/2007 - 8:59am

One compelling theory I heard was that Rudy pulled out because he didn't want to give the 9/11 Firemen a clean shot on national TV.

More Wagster!

(

)

He's got to take that punch sooner or later (#52359)

by Chuchundra on Sun, 07/29/2007 - 9:40am

If he manages to duck the firefighters until after he gets the GOP nod, the result will be exponentially worse. Kerry and the Swift Boaters would look like a small tea party spat in comparison.

Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.

(

| parent )

Why would Republicans want to answer (#52355)

by Username on Sun, 07/29/2007 - 3:36am

questions from political junkies with an internet addiction? Those are probably the sort of freaks who'd write and follow up on "diaries" and comments at discussion web sites with cute names.

Dealing with "people," especially those who care about politics, isn't a sign of a republican Dear Leader.

(

)

You Answered. . . (#52349)

by M Scott Eiland on Sun, 07/29/2007 - 12:56am

. . .your own question by noting the similarity to a town hall forum. Those forums almost always include some question from an audience member that amounts to "Why can't the government deal with the fact that I'm incapable of wiping my own @$$ without help?" The Republican treats the question with appropriate contempt, the Democrat (most notably Our Bill) fawns over the lead paint addict in question and assures him/her that the new Democratic Administration will be right on top of providing government assisted @$$-wiping, and the media savages the Republican for not giving the retarded question and questioner sufficient respect. I'd say that the flak that Biden is getting over the gun question (which, in fairness, was asked in a rather idiotic manner) is basically fifteen years of back karma for the benefits that Democrats have gained from such forums in the past--and the Republicans should feel free to tell those pushing this format to take a hike.