And the fact that it entertaining helps to get more young people involved, which helps the Dems.

I think it speaks volumes that only GOP candidates that have been written off as serious contenders would even try a YouTube debate.

Apparently, the front runners think that being exposed to unscripted questions would do more harm than the exposure would do good.
I guess they have a good feel for what the public thinks of their actual positions.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Or that the frontrunners need to worry more about the base, which in our case doesn't watch youtube!

Have you read this thread, did you watch some of the "debate"?

While I disagree with your position on a number of things, I would be surprised if you found the Demo debate anything but silly. (not the format, the actual questions)

A candidates' willingness or lack of willingness to take part in a YouTube debate will have absolutely zero effect on my vote...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

"Unscripted questions"?!?

Every question that was selected for the Democrat debate dovetailed nicely with their positions. Did you note any particularly difficult questions being asked?

Nice, easy little softballs lofted right over the plate.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Anything that can attract the under 30 set to be interested in electoral politics is a good thing. This group is notoriously under-represented in electoral politics with one of the lowest voter turnout rates.

To hell with youtube "debates."

I want the candidates in front of real people, being asked real, unfiltered, nonpreselected questions.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I wonder how many would turn down that offer. I have to admit, if that offer was turned down, I would be disappointed. Highly. That's what I want to see as well

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

By choice.

It's hard to get people to move beyond their own apathy.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Do you mean literally out on the street taking questions? Or people writting and phoning into a show or office or something?

Believe it or not, it has been the generally agreed view from the 'progressive' blogs that some of the questions posed to the candidates in the Youtube debate were amongst the best or most meaningful questions asked in all the Democratic leadership debates so far.

Though, this probably says more about the poor quality (or loaded) questions from the 'beltway set' than it does about the higher quality of the Youtube questions.

Of course - they were selected to dovetail with the "progressive" worldview. Naturally, the "progressives" liked them.

Note how carefully they selected those few questions from the "opposing" side - the "Red State Review" portrayed folks who didn't vote for the Dems as hillbillies. The gun control question was selected because the questioner was an idiot, and the response was more about disparaging the questioner than addressing the issue.

"Best" and "Most meaningful" don't mean they were difficult questions, nor questions that required any significant consideration to answer. They just happened to dovetail with "progressive" views.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Imagine it. One of our well-spoken conservatives allowed to ask the Dem candidates questions at a publicized debate. Or, vice versa.

Could be fascinating.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Whatever positive results might come from a GOP youtube debate would be outweighed by the discomfort of the format and the general tone.

Democrats are much better at this sort of thing. That's just the way it is.

A positive view: Dems are more flexible and comfortable with changes in the culture, more relaxed in front of a spontaneous audience and far more aware of cultural trends.

A critical view: Dems are far less comfortable with authority and tradition and many are essentially over-grown children.

Bill Clinton played the saxaphone with dark glasses in 1992 and Dems swooned and squealed with delight. Most conservatives were just confused: why would a presidential candidate be indulging in antics like that? He was making a fool of himself - but that is obviously NOT the response he received from libs.

Hillary usually does her prison-matron routine in those situations, but even she relaxes and comes alive (relatively speaking) before an audience.

Obama campaigns without a necktie. Many Dems see that as "free" and "young" and and "unencumbered by convention" and "trendy".

Conservatives (including me) see it as childish nonsense on the part of a man who wants to hold a position of extraordinary power and respect and authority. On this subject I do think the French are correct and we are wrong - dignity and maturity do matter, and so do the symbols.

But on Oprah, no one cares about dignity and maturity and gravitas; they even seem ridiculous. It is personality that sells.

I would assume that the vast majority of youtube viewers would think I was foolish to hold those views. But the differences between conservatives and liberals are highlighted in those situations.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1