The YouTube Debate: Will Romney Log On?

The CNN/YouTube debate for Republicans is back on, rescheduled for Nov. 28. Or at least the YouTube debate for some Republicans: Mitt Romney, reportedly, is still holding out, having said–in reference to the Democratic debate last month–that “the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman.”

Oh, spare me. If any candidate wants to get that sniffy about the indignity of fielding questions from actual voters in a debate, I had better not see him holding a pancake spatula or barbecue tongs between now and Election Day. It’s bogus, anyway, to claim that the question he refers to came “from a snowman”; it was a highly produced–if corny–question from a potential voter, packaged with the same slickness and humor you see all the time in political ads. In other words, Romney’s objection is to taking questions from the American people, armed with the kind of resources once available only to the major media and to big campaign organizations.

Anyone want to lay odds, by the way, on the possibility of a YouTube debate in the general election? Obviously those are traditionally more stingily allocated, and more furiously negotiated over, than primary debates. But if Romney ends up nominated, I could see his reluctance becoming a harped-upon issue–the equivalent of the campaign worker in the chicken suit dogging a debate-shy rival. And candidate Romney could be surprised how quickly chickens can multiply on YouTube.

http://www.rottenindenmark.vox.com Rottin’ in Denmark

Wow, the best Romney takedown I’ve read shows up on a TV blog. Awesome, James.
Theresa Coruthers

Romney’s right. Let’s put the process that frames the presidential dialogue back in the hands of adults. It’s bad enough adults can’t go to the movie theaters anymore because Hollywood markets to teens and tweens. Let’s get educated questions about real issues, like: the effects of Medicare policy shifts on private oncology practices (b/c many are closing); the fact the toothless Americans with Disabilities Act contains a clause that prevents disabled Americans from winning any financial compensation in a lawsuit against their employer; and the fact federal legislation protects Google and other “conduits” from any responsibility for the effects their business may have on individuals who are being cyberstalked vis-a-vis defamation. Lots of great questions, but instead, the YouTube idiots and the mainstream journalists will focus on the gay issue, the War in Iraq, and John Edward’s $400 haircut. Pfft.
Karma

Theresa Coruthers, what to you is a meaningless issue may be the only issue to someone else. I would like to see fewer softball questions though.

Even the Youtube debate is just a bunch of prepackaged questions that the candidates get in advance. That’s why Romney can make “funny” jokes given to him by his comedic team.

Going, going, pointless.
Jim

Theresa, first of all, there are plenty of movies that cater to adults. They’re called independent films. I think you’re right that a lot of important issues are pushed to the side in debates that focus on a few key topics. But it’s just foolish to claim that the candidates spend too much time on the Iraq war. And I’m certain there are more pressing healthcare issues than the demise of private oncology practices.

No matter where the questions are coming from, these Republican debates always end up the same: arguing about who loves Jesus and Ronald Reagan the most, or who hates Muslims and immigrants the most.

Romney came off pretty well in the couple debates I saw, mostly because his best quality is that he looks like an actor who could play the president on television, even more so than Fred Thompson. I think Mitt’s just afraid of the random questions that he can’t prepare for, like when someone asked him a few months ago what was his favorite novel. His answer? L. Ron Hubbard’s Battlefield Earth.
Keith

I guess the American people either do not understand the term “debate” or they use it very loosly. What we see are not debates. For the most part, we can thank 24 hour cable news networks and talk radio for lowering the bar. Like virtually everything else in America today, CNN and FOX are now considered by many as part of the partisan environment and Dems don’t want to go on Fox and Repubs don’t want to go on CNN. Here is a novel idea, have organizations sponsor debates like they used to and just let the networks who are willing cover them. But lets make them true debates again instead of different rules for every venue.

My fear is that a true substantive debate would put most Americans alseep today. They want the razzle dazzle, gotcha, sound bite debates they have been trained to respond to.
Michael

Agreed, Keith. And Theresa had a good point too about how certain issues hog the spotlight every election cycle. There are a lot of mid-level issues (not unlike the ones Teresa) listed that affect the way we live our lives, but you get called a “technicrat” if you try to build an issues-driven campaign. There was a forum last week, I believe, where the Democrats debated before an audience of largely (if not entirely) gay persons.
Karma

You have to remember that these people are running a campaign and trying to win over 50 million + voters. The less you know about them, the less likely it is you’ll dislike them.

If all Republicans talk about is Terrorists and Immigrants than it’s very likely that you’ll agree with them and like them. I know I certainly don’t want to be blown up or have my job picking fruit taken by an immigrant!