Thumbs Down On The GOP YouTube
Debate<http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/6e4d34e6-d229-4f38-819d-1da28c299665>
 *Posted by Hugh Hewitt*  | 7:29 PM
The YouTube debate was a silly, and at times absurd exercise in giving air
time to many idiots separated by an occasional responsible speaker, and the
question selection by CNN demonstrated a huge left-wing bias which will
inevitably appear in any subsequent YouTube debate organized by the MSM
which is overwhelmingly staffed by the left.

When journalists ask questions, they have to at least try to balance the
questions (unless it is Chris Matthews). Asking really dumb, offensive, or
inappropriate questions usually doesn't happen as a result.

But as we saw with the "insufficiently black" question, the CNN team used
the device of the third party video to inject a question that would have
embarrassed any anchor posing it.

If the GOP candidates agree to this format, expect a series of cheap shots
about all of the top tier candidates. Patrick worries that the Republicans
will appear behind the times if they take a
pass<http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/58ec7731-bb85-4486-9f0b-d4ee0ba7052b>.
Perhaps, but if that means skipping a no win set-up where MSM agenda
journalists work for weeks to put a video shiv into one or more of the Big
Three, I am for it. The second tier folks will no doubt show up hoping for a
Hail mary moment, but Giuliani, Romney and Thompson ought to say no thanks.

To illustrate,take a look at this story
<http://www.telegram.com/article/20070722/NEWS/707220489/1116>--a bit of
agenda journalism that Jonathan Martin at Politico.com told me on air today
is built on a story that has been floating around for months. Imagine some
YouTube video asking Rudy why he's defending a suspected pedophile. No MSMer
would dare ask such a loaded question, but imagine what the gang at CNN
would do. They covered for the Dems with a series of overwhelmingly
left-biased questions at the first YouTube debate, with a very few tough,
serious questions thrown in. That dynamic would change completely in a GOP
YouTube debate --they or their counterparts at a different network will be
gunning for the Republicans, and the question set will be designed to
embarrass or ridicule.

Go to all the networks and talk to all the journalists, yes. It was cowardly
for the Dems to refuse to debate on Fox with folks like Brit Hume and Chris
Wallace asking the questions. It was a good move to let Chris Matthews
moderate the first debate, and also for the device of read questions to be
introduced there (especially since the Politico team was far more interested
in serious questions than CNN was.)

But skip the set-ups. Not only is it ridiculously bad politics, the format
diminishes the importance of the presidency, at least as it was managed by
CNN.

No Sale, Patrick<http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/9f51a0da-91c5-4888-aaa1-9caeb96c5ec1>
 *Posted by Hugh Hewitt*  | 11:27 PM
Patrick really want the GOP candidates to do a YouTube
debate.<http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/d4be63eb-4b7e-4b60-8f9e-0c33d861cf12>Why
not have them go in barrels over Niagara Falls --that would get a lot
of
interest as well?

What Patrick fails to see is that it isn't about talking to people or being
willing to connect with voters through new media. Both Giuliani and Romney
--less so Thompson-- have been very, very available to all sorts of people
at stop after stop, and both do all sorts of media without preconditions.
They answer all the questions.

What they are wise to avoid is a set-up ambush using gimmicks that separate
the ambush from the planner. See my post below, but the YouTube formay
allows nameless, faceless MSM lefties to hit below the belt and then shrug
their shoulders and say "It wasn't my question."

The CNN YouTube debate was orchestrated by MSMers with no names and no
accountability for the buffoonery that ensured. The GOP candidates skipping
such a circus is not the same as the Democrats passing on a Fox News Channel
debate moderated by Brit Hume and Chris Wallace, and I'd blast the GOPers if
they skipped an MSNBC debate. In fact I'm all for letting Keith Olbermann
moderate a debate of the GOPers because poor old Keith wouldn't know what
hit him. It isn't about being willing to go anywhere and answer anything, it
is about refusing to walk into a media box canyon where the anonymous MSMers
will have had a few days to pick the best thirty body slams from tens of
thousand of moonbat-generated videos. Would Patrick recommend the GOP
candidates attend a YearlyKos sponsored and nutter-moderated debate? That's
what the YouTube Debate, GOP edition will be.

Running for president is supposed to show us that candidates are prudent,
and the wise choice here is to say yes to every MSM debate, and no to
gimmicks, no matter how appealing they are to the slackers and snowmen
demographic.

If you are feeling ambitious this weekend, develop a YouTube hit question of
the sort I am writing about here and send the link to me at
h...@hughhewitt.com. Perhaps a few examples will spell it out for Patrick.

*UPDATE*: Josh Marshall is
fulminating<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015889.php>:
"But if they can't face Youtube how can they defeat the terrorists?" Yeah,
yeah, that's the ticket. Being stupid about media is a qualification to
fight the war on terror. And tackling snowman videos measures leadership.
Sheesh.<http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/10/h...>