There really is no excuse for the Republicans refusing to appear at the CNN/Youtube debate, and Patrick Ruffini is right that the GOP is making a huge tactical mistake if they skip it. It is not even remotely surprising that Hugh Hewitt, man of the people, is spearheading the opposition. Hugh has an authoritarian streak about him, and is convinced the media is out to get him and the Republican party.
They really do believe the media is out to get them- never mind that the media, so slavish to the concept of “balance,” often lends credibility to all manner of absurd statements. Hell, here is an example from today in the NY Times:
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.
Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.
Let’s not focus on what was said (a topic for another post), but that it was written in part by Kenneth Pollack, who is, as we speak being billed on CNN as a “war critic.” Kenneth Pollack wrote “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.” Much more from Glenn on this.
So cowed and afraid of being charged as biased, the media often bends over backwards to accommodate people who generally should be ridiculed or ignored. And so it would be with the CNN/Youtube debate. I am completely convinced that CNN would go to extraordinary lengths to make sure that most of the crazy was removed from the questions, lest they be accused of being liberal or out to get Republicans.
On the other hand, if you were to take Captain Ed’s idea and run with it, there would be no one there to sort out the crazy. The American public would actually get to see what concerns the Republican base. Viewers would be subjected to several hours of discussion about intelligent design, Terri Schiavo, gay marriage, the fear of brown people pouring across the border, reasons to invade Iran, etc.
Which do you think will do the Republican candidates more damage- having to seriously answer questions about how they don’t believe in evolution and questions like that and demonstrating to the rest of America what the Republican base REALLY is, or whatever sane and boring and sanitized questions Anderson Cooper picks out of the pool of questions?
Smart Democrats would be encouraging Republicans to skip the debate and to stage their own controlled event. The results would be devastating to the GOP.
*** Update ***\
Re-reading this, I realize I may not have been very clear. My point is this:
Hugh and others have so convinced themselves the media is out to get them, that they think CNN would pick only questions that would make them look bad. In all actuality, the media is so scared and supine that they would go out of their way to weed out the crazy questions (which would be the majority), in order to appear balanced.
On the other hand, if the blogosphere or the right-wing chose the questions, there would be no one there to weed out the questions that Hugh and company think are “good,” but the rest of the country think make the GOP look insane.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
You mean, slavish to giving occasional lip service to some abstract notion of “balance.”
I mean, who’s to say that the media is biased toward the left? Besides the media members themselves and those who study the political leanings of members of the media and those who track the political donations of members of the media.
But besides them, who?
After all, the NYT published an editorial that expressed some positive signals out of Iraq, while citing “the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq.” That proves what a Bushie mouthpiece they are! …In the Bizarro world, at least.
This place is truly BDS Cloudcookooland now. Like DKos with fewer brain cells.
Vatos Locos
It’s probably a smart move for the GOP candidates to pass on this debate. Not because they’re unable to bob and weave when it comes to slipping tough questions. Instead, they desperately don’t want most of America to see what a true conservative GOPer looks and sounds like.
Tom Hilton
Dean Barnett has by far the stupidest (or most dishonest) response to that Pollack/O’Hanlon piece, in which he talks about the “hard left” Brookings Institution and portrays the two as essentially pacifists who have seen the light.
Pb
I think I’ve got it figured out… not only is this debate being run by CNN instead of Fox, it’s also being run by YouTube instead of QubeTV!
Bubblegum Tate
And they probably won’t even use Conservapedia as a reference!
28 Percent
John I do not know why you say that! It would be real good to have a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE finally answer some of the REAL questions that the MSM is to AFRAID to ask. I would ask the candidates that we know that PROSPERITY AND SAFETY ARE GOD’S BLESSINGS that will only come when the Country ACCEPTS JESUS and receives the HOLY SPIRIT so what are they going to do to WIN so they can keep the DEFEATOCRATS from enacting UNGODLY SOCIALIST laws like the GAS TAX and PUNISHING CHILDREN for PRAYING!!1!??>???
I think that is something people would LIKE TO KNOW, especially if they can hear the CAPS.
Zifnab
haha. That’s some good spoof.
Otto Man
I got your point, John, and it’s a good one. CNN wouldn’t dare ask the Republicans a tough question.
conumbdrum
An extremely tired strawman, ‘Chop. The “political leanings” of members of the media” matter far less than the ownership of the media. After all, only a small percentage of “media members” even cover politics in the first place. I submit that the political inclinations of sportswriters, food critics, software reviewers and lifestyle analysts matter but little in the grand scheme of things.
Hell, even a majority Republicans are willing to admit that the performance of BushCo in Iraq has been miserable. The halfway honest ones, at least. Personally, I prefer “miserable and catastrophic.”
Tell you what, Lambchop. Let’s hear why you think that Bush’s handling of Iraq has been such a rousing success… actually, never mind. I can picture your answers already: removed an eeeevil dictater, Iraqi peeps got to have ’em a election, zzzZZZZZ… I’m getting sleepy just imagining it.
physics geek
Hugh is indeed “the distilled essence of the party man.” I find his radio interviews entertaining and informative, but I find his whole head up the GOP leaders collective asses schtick to be annoying.
Wilfred
Lambchop:
Editorial written by 10 times discredited hack Ken Pollack. Similar to the WSJ publishing the recent “The Surge is Working” written by Fred Kagan’s wife, without mentioning the connection of course. Check out Peter Galbreath’s take here
John write:
Constant whine/attack is SOP. They applied the same swarm treatment to Beauchamp over a dead dog and bad manners. Any bets on when the next military whistleblower steps up?
RSA
This hadn’t occurred to me. That would be some excellent TV. Bring on Captain Ed and his crew!
Mr Furious
I just heard a Kenneth Pollack NPR segment where he was touting all the progress in Iraq. He acknowledged four years of colossal fuck-ups but we’re supposed to believe “we’ve gotten with the RIGHT program…now.”
I ain’t buyin’ what your sellin’ Pollack.
jenniebee
Heh. If an audience is going to ask the Republican candidates questions, please Santa please I’ve been very good this year, let that audience be made up of NRO cruisers.
Also, if the debate could be “moderated” by a panel made up of Bork, D’Souza and Podhertz… /drool
chopper
ah, the old ‘most reporters are liberal;’ line. nevermind that reporters don’t decide what gets in the paper, or on the TV. editors do. and editors cut what they’re told to cut by people far more important than they are.
all this ‘the news media is full of liberals’ thing is stupid, when you consider that the overall message a news company pushes isn’t determined as much by the overall leanings of the little guys on the ground, but by the people in charge.
John Cole
You know, before we get too snarky about Pollack, let me say straight up I hope to hell he is right and look forward to being wrong and publicly admitting it repeatedly.
That said, I would bet he is full of shit. Again.
myiq2xu
It must be embarrassing to be a GOP candidate and knowing that your “base” consists of the super-rich, special interests, and a bunch of refugees from the loony bin.
It’s like being in high school and having your mom drive you to school in her robe and curlers.
No wonder Max Blumenthal gets tossed out of their events. He brings a camera with him.
baldilocks
On this, we agree.
PK
Forget Pollack? My question is: has there been one republican who has been right about Iraq? I am honestly curious about this. I was against the Iraq war from the begining. I was for the Afgan war, but Iraq made no sense! The reasoning was weak and arguments foolish. The whole thing was so bizzare that I actually did not believe the war was going to happen. I thought Bush was just trying to get people riled up. Well I was wrong! I stopped listening to the republicans after that and have not missed much apparently! So was any republican right? Or were they all to a man or women complete idiots.
By the way appologies in advance: By republicans I mean the current crop of beings in charge of the country who call themselves republicans. Fascists and thugs may be a better term.
conumbdrum
Amazing, isn’t it… no matter how wrong these gasbags have been on Iraq (10 times out of 10, most of them), there are still mainstream media outlets more than willing to let them bloviate and expel hot air to their hearts’ content, billing them as “experts” in the bargain. (Required reading: Glenn Greenwald’s takedown of liberal hawks Ken Pollack and Mike O’Hanlon, for their latest “We’re really winning in Iraq now! No, really!” dribble in the NY Times.)
I think that Joe Wilson’s big mistake, in terms of his own prosperity and financial success, was that he didn’t come back from Niger claiming that the intel behind the Saddam yellowcake deal was 100% accurate.
Sure, he’d have been completely wrong… but then he could become one of those “experts” himself, with a nice cushy job drawing wingnut welfare at any of a dozen right-wing think tanks.
TenguPhule
Sometimes I wonder if the human race deserves to survive when the ones least fit to survive end up being the ones always in the spotlight as ‘serious’ people.
zzyzx
Hey John, you forgot the highlight of the debate – Seeing how Iran is the most dangerous country in the history of the universe, should we invade it or bomb it first?
Tim F.
Ron Paul, if only in the stopped clock way.
Rome Again
Lambchop, you don’t know what media bias is until you’ve been on this side of the fence. Your guys get a hell of a lot more cookies than ours do.
Case in point: During the 2004 election, CNN had Bob Dole on as special guest to dismantle the talking points of the speeches at the DNC. Bob Dole was also invited back to be the special guest explain the talking points of the RNC. The entire thing was staged both times. If CNN had been fair, they would have either had a Dem explaining Dem Speeches and Repub explaining Repub speeches, or else have Repub dismantle Dem speeches and Dem dismantle Repub speeches. Not the same partisan asshole for both of them.
I’ve been watching the conservative bias on television for years. You have NO FUCKING CLUE what you’re talking about.
Blue
Just read that Tom Cole even feels his republican counterparts should attend the cnn-youtube debates. Anyways, Garling Gauge has a funny take on it:
http://garlinggauge.wordpress.com/2007/08/01/tom-cole-urges-gop-candidates-to-youtube-with-snowmen/