Having let the Democrats go first in answering questions from YouTube users, Republicans are now showing reluctance about their own CNN/YouTube debate Sept. 17.
"I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman," said Mitt Romney, who may not participate.
Rudy Giuliani also newly has a "scheduling conflict" (aka fundraising activity).
As of Friday, the only confirmed debaters were Ron Paul and John McCain, despite having said this week, "I just don’t think that questions from snowmen are appropriate in presidential campaigns."
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
73 Comments
OH boo damn hoo. Any excuse to not have to answer to us little people.
They’re scared.
Yes! Wouldn’t want to risk facing a real question from a real constituent. Or the need to face reality. What if someone asked something they didn’t have a prepared answer for? Nope, way too risky!
I don’t blame ‘em for not wanting to risk having to answer questions from morons. Boxers or briefs?
I think presidential candidates should maintain a little dignity as they sling their mud.
Ron Paul has answered all questions asked of him and has answered them clearly and without spin. This is the president America deserves! To read for yourself go to:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
I don’t know what they’re afraid of. All the questions are hand picked by the corporate media hosting the event.
It’s not like someone’s going to be able to ask Rudy to explain the idea of blowback and check if he actually did his reading assignment as prescribed by the good doctor.
I would rather see a website in which people could submit written questions. That might weed out the illiterate.
“I think presidential candidates should maintain a little dignity as they sling their mud.”
Thanks for the laugh.
I was wondering, don’t snowmen, snowwomen, and especially snowchildren deserve answers, too?
Of course republicans shouldn’t have to answer questions from ordinary people since they’ll never represent us. The only ones the republican candidates want to hear from is Big Business, Big Pharma, and rich special interests.
Hats off to Ron Paul for stepping up. Sounds like someone we may want to pay a little more attention to. What a refreshing change from the usual republican greed and dishonesty.
Chickenshit Republicans. They want others to go to wars that they get to direct, and they’re afraid to face the public.
Chickenshit Republicans.
I’m kinda like GMC here, folks; there’s no presidential primary in Kansas, so debates this far from the next election hold no interest for me at all.
However, by the possible “ducking and running” from the YouTube debate, don’t the GOP candidates reinforce the perception that they, and the party of which they wish to be the nominee, really isn’t listening to the public?
Now now CF2K, the truth is that the Grand Ol’ Party doesn’t have a candidate that can carry a tune much less get elected.
Without Bush brother Jeb to commit treason and fix the Florida election in 2000, the Repubes are caught with no panties.
Is it more appropiate for a Republican congressman to like wearing pooped-n diapers or answering a satirical question from a snowman?
Speaking of appropriate…how ’bout a President reading “My Pet Goat” knowing that New York City was just attacked?
Isn’t it funny how the Repukes don’t get how low the bar was lowered so cokehead/drunk Bush could get elected?
Only a worm could crawl under that bar.
A tequila worm
Or a snake…
Seriously though; if a GOP candidate doesn’t think it will help them with Republican voters (and it probably wouldn’t- they are adults you know), then why do a YouTube debate likely featuring stupid un-screened questions? There will be time enough for that in the general election debates.
Of course if you’re a lower tier candidate, you can’t pass up anything.
Problem with your premise, outlander, is that the questions are screened by CNN before being played. Or that’s how I understand it, given that only 39 of the over 2000 submissions (is that right? the number just popped into my head) received.
Of course if you’re a lower tier candidate, you can’t pass up anything.
Posted by: outlander | July 27, 2007 at 02:39 PM
Excuse me but none of the Repukes are a “higher tier” candidate.
Not one of the current bunch has the slightest chance of winning.
If you think otherwise, perhaps you should put on your poopy diapers and read “My Pet Goat”.
Only a worm could crawl under that bar.
Posted by: RD | July 27, 2007 at 02:29 PM
A tequila worm
Posted by: Lobotomies for Republicans (its soon to be the law) | July 27, 2007 at 02:31 PM
Or a snake…
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | July 27, 2007 at 02:37 PM
or a cockaroach….yech!!!!
In all seriousness, do you Republicans really believe that any of the current crop can win the Presidency?
Keep in mind that you are saddled with the 28% “flatearthers” who will simply stay home if they don’t like who’s running (or vote for Sam (the flagellant) Brownback).
Buggman: Normally, I would say no; but for an unbelievable gift the Democrats are going to give.
If Republicans can make hay out of the fact that none of the top three Democrat candidates are qualified by experience to be president, then sure, they can win. Those Dems have little Senate experience, and no executive experience. In fact, none has run anything larger than a lemonade stand. Yet they want the most powerful executive job in the world.
So, thank you Dems for that issue.
But as an American who recognizes the Dems could definitely win, I wish, for our country’s sake, you would nominate a qualified person.
outalnder – better to have run a lemonade stand and maybe made a couple of dollars than to have bank-rupted a series of companies like BushDaBum.
Outlander,Experience being an executive is not the only way to make a peron qualified for President.
So, let me get this right – Republicans do not think questions from a cross-section of weird Americans are worthy of their time. They think it is more appropriate to have questions asked of them after being reviewed and vetted by a moderator from the debate venue.
If Republicans are going to do a town hall forum, they’ll do the bush version. Everyone, and their questions pre-screened. The other way is just too dangerous.
Will any of the Republican candidates be wearing poopy diapers?
GIULIANI is Israel’s first pick for US President and should explain to us if the US will get anything, out whatever is left.
{ maybe forgo the building of one “settlement” to build a little something in New Orleans? }
Thanks ED.
A Levee instead of a “Wall?”
Or better yet: Why did the Israelis pick you as their number one candidate for the Presidency of the United States?
If George W. Bush was considered qualified to run the country, then anybody can do the job obviously.
These latter posts remind me of my concerns about Fred Thompson. He is considered to be extraordinarily lazy – and that is by people who like him and work for him.
Is Fred what we need after record vacation taking Bush?
I think the Capn was right a few days ago, the only Dem candidate who can for sure lose the next election is Hillary. Sorry, p_mom.
I agree that Hillary is the most un-electable of the Dems. I do however, think she would make a good VP-running mate for another candidate.
Actuslly brian, considering the political realities in the primaries, I am thinking more and more about the possibility of a Clinton-Richardson ticket. While Richardson is my preferred choice for #1 I think he would make a good VP choice.
Hillary is Israel’s number one candidate on the democratic side. She is a regular “keynote Speaker” at AIPAC.
The Israelis have their choice for each Party covered, so to speak.
Both Giuliani and Hillary came up through New York City, which the Israeli newspaper ‘Haaretz’ brags as being “their” largest Jewish City. Quite some distinction.
Ed – just as it took Nixon to go to China and Clinton to address welfare; perhaps Hillary can be the one to convince Tel Aviv that their best long-term future lies in finally building the two-state solution we ‘calim’ we support.
Better to be liked by haaretz than by Hatzofeh.
Ben, Zionism only has one direction: World Domination, and there is no talking them out of it.
Period.
Hillary and Giuliani both know that and they are not sharing that with us.
When the demo candidates agree to a debate on Fox news I will write to the repub candidates encouraging them to do the YouTube thing.
What are they afraid of? Couldn’t stand not getting those softballs CNN throws them.
Kind of like all the Dems who chickened out when invitations to Fox News were offered. :)
Kind of like all the Dems who chickened out when invitations to Fox News were offered. :)
Posted by: Kansas | July 27, 2007 at 06:44 PM
Yes just like that only republican chickens
What a bunch of limp wrist liars..I have never seen so many sissies running for President. It’s embarrassing to be a Republican with these cross-dressing queens representing our party.
McCain and Paul have a pair between their legs. I attribute that to having served honorably in the United States Military. My guess is that Duncan Hunter will jump in and join the debates. He served his country as well.
But the rest of them are pansies. Having never served their country. And now when it’s time to answer candid question from the men and women to whom they are courting for the highest office in the world. They tuck their tails (small winkies) beween their legs and hide like bunch of little bizzitches. Take the panties off boys and do your jobs or else get out of the race if you can’t handle reality.
Someone pass the Massengill and the Tampax to these boneheads.
Fox News ought to buy a copy of Monday’s Democrat debate on CNN to play over and over during the general election campaign. For now, the Democratic candidates need to appeal only to their nut-base. So on Monday night, the candidates casually spouted liberal conspiracy theories that would frighten normal Americans, but are guaranteed to warm the hearts of losers blogging from their mother’s basements.
http://news.yahoo.com/i/108
Ann coulter
Ann Coulter even admits that Fox news is a bias organization, note she is not suggesting that the GOP buy a copy and use it. That Fox news would rather give spin than real news.It is the same reason that the Republicans would not debate on “Air America” if they are even still on the air? I really should have agreed with Nathan the other day, the media, almost all of the media is more concerned about the fluff and not the meat. And of course the Candidates but not giving real answers or talking about the important issues does not help. To his credit, the only one I have witness that even attempts to address the real issues is Ron Paul.
I liked this quote from the Obama article. Some Democrats still replay the 2000 Election even though Gore legitimately lost by Electoral College, by Supreme Court Ruling and by actual recount.
Even Hillary Clinton is clueless and the article was in her home state of NY, the New York Times!
“On Nov. 12, 2001, The New York Times ran a front page article that began: “A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.”
Another Times article that day by Richard L. Berke said that the “comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots solidifies George W. Bush’s legal claim on the White House because it concludes that he would have won under the ground rules prescribed by the Democrats.”
On Nov. 18, 2001, notorious pro-abortion zealot Linda Greenhouse wrote in the Times that the media consortium’s count of all the disputed Florida ballots — in which the Times participated — concluded “that George W. Bush would have won the 2000 presidential election even had the court not cut the final recount short.”
Like I said time and time again, the Democrats are a party of history revisionists. If they can’t revise it, they’ll make something up and keep repeating it until people think it is true.
The Republicans are scared to debate because they know they have no good points for the most part.
On 9-11,Bush was visiting an elementary school. He was reading a story to one of the classes when secret service whispered in his ear what had happened. THAT was seen on national news. Even on CNN, the gospel news network for the lefties. You can disagree with Bush, in fact many of you based on your comments hate Bush. And I realize, I’m probably wasting my time with the following comments. What was Bush suppose to do, jump up, leave immediately, and cause great concern to the children? Or, do as he did,finish reading the story and then leave quickly?
Maybe, you all will get the government you desire in the nextelection. But I doubt it. I agree with Ralph Nader, the Dem’s are just as beholden to special interest & big business as the Rep’s. It takes a great deal of money to run a competitive national campaign. When one considers a congressional race alone costs over a million. When it’s a presidental election year, I’ve read, a combine total for federal elections including presidental could reach over a billion dollars! So, as Ralph Nader has said the Dem’s aren’t any different than the Rep’s.
“”On Nov. 12, 2001, The New York Times ran a front page article that began: “A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.”
You know much as I despise Bush, I actually agree with that. If the votes were counted Bush still would have barely won. But if Florida had not used a confusing butterfly ballot that many old folks had problems seeing, Gore would have won. And if Janet Reno (YES she is worse than Gonzales!) had not pissed off all the Cubanos in Miami over that kid Elian, Gore would have won. And if Gore had bothered to win his own state of Tenn, Gore would have won. I do not think however that the Democrat that the GOP will face next time will be as prone to such errors.
“I agree with Ralph Nader, the Dem’s are just as beholden to special interest & big business as the Rep’s”
I don’t agree with that. The Dems certainly are not clean but they come nowhere near crapping on the middle class- the folks that go to work everyday- as does the GOP.
The Democrat debate hosted by CNN with You Tube questions wasn’t the success they were hoping for. Even the host of the debate, Anderson Cooper, said afterward there were things they should’ve done differently. He expressed concern on how the questions were chosen from the pool that was submitted. I bet if Hillary and the rest of the top tier D’s had it to do over again they would reconider that type of format.
I seriously doubt the Republican candidates are “afraid” to answer real people’s questions. They may not be as unfriendly as some of you would like to think!
“”I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman,” said Mitt Romney, who may not participate.”
They don’t think that the snowman was REAL do they? Somebody should tell them that it was merely a human being disguised as a snowman. But then again, these are folks that think man, earth and the sun were created in 6 days, the earth is only 6000 years old and flat. Need I say more?
Kev, by working class do you mean union only? If so, you need to remember, not all unions are in the Dem’s camp. Also, wealth is not exclusively Republican. It’s all perception. I guess big business is in the eye of the beholder. John Edwards pays $200-400.00 for a haircut(what’s a working class person pay?)is worth $50 million and lives in a 20,000 sq ft house. When the Clinton’s entered the White House they were not millionaires, but, by the time they left, had become millionaires. And are worth much more now.
The working class need lower fuel prices. The Dem’s are in power and if they weren’t beholden to big oil they would do more than pass resolutions that sound good. The federal government can do something now,seperate from the oil companies. And would give relief for the working class That is lower federal fuel taxes. I have to drive to work in order to make a paycheck!
Lots of fancy Repuke footwork here in an attempt to downplay the Republican front-runners’ running away from a live, YouTube debate.
Republicans are chickenshits, none more so than their putative “leaders.”
Why are Republicans scared to face the voters in an unscripted, real-time format? CF2K has a pretty good idea.
It seems the Republican candidates are a lot like Bush. They can’t deal with us commoners asking them questions without the safety of the conservative media throwing them softballs. Perhaps they ought to just hide behind soldiers like Bush has to.
There isn’t a candidate in the Republican Presidential Ranks that is afraid of debate.
Perhaps they feel that the YouTube will turn into a shouting and profane “Code Pink” orgy and will provide nothing productive nor do anyone a bit of good.
Youtube is a convenient fad, nothing more.
If the Republicans can’t stand up to YouTube, how can they stand up to the terrorists?
I’m still waiting for someone, anyone, to explain to me how any of the top three Democrat candidates are qualified to be president.
And see if you can do it without the lofty reason that well, they couldn’t do worse than Bush. High qualification indeed.
So, what have they done? What experience qualifies them? Why should they lead the most powerful nation on earth?
The Dems see the reality of the Iraq war, which makes any of them more suited than 99% of the repubs
“There isn’t a candidate in the Republican Presidential Ranks that is afraid of debate.
Perhaps they feel that the YouTube will turn into a shouting and profane “Code Pink” orgy and will provide nothing productive nor do anyone a bit of good.
Youtube is a convenient fad, nothing more.
Posted by: Kansas | July 27, 2007 at 10:29 PM ”
So they are scared of the forum, not the debate itself, is that it?
Yeah, that whole user-generated content thingy is a fad.
Oh.
A fad in the sense as soon as the newest Internet innovation comes out, YouTube will become history.
Didn’t Google buy YouTube?
If I’m not mistaken, Google is supporting Clinton.
That could be another reason.
“So, what have they done? What experience qualifies them? Why should they lead the most powerful nation on earth?Posted by: outlander | July 27, 2007 at 10:43 PM ”
The only qualifications necessary to be President of the US are:1. be a natural born citizen of the united States2. be at least 35 years old3. have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years
Other than that all that matters is who can get the most votes (generally).
outlander,
“Qualified to be President.” What does that mean, exactly?
What were George Bush’s qualifications? Governor of Texas? Big deal. The most powerful man in Texas isn’t the governor. It’s the Speaker of the Texas House.
“As is the trend in many Southern states, the Governor’s power is quite limited. When the office was created by the Texas Constitution of 1876, the authors dispersed much of the power traditionally given to the office of the governor to independently elected officials, creating what some refer to as a “plural executive.” [1] With the exception of the Secretary of State, the remaining members of the Governor’s cabinet are also elected by popular vote. In addition, because the Lieutenant Governor runs on a separate ticket, the Governor and Lieutenant Governor can be (and have been) from different political parties.
Another limitation on gubernatorial power involves the commutation of prisoner sentences, an issue which arises whenever a death penalty sentence is to be carried out. The Governor can only overturn a death sentence upon the positive recommendation of the Texas Board of Pardon and Parole, the Governor can choose to ignore the Board’s clemency recommendation and carry out the execution, but the opposite is not true—the Governor cannot commute or overturn a sentence if the Board does not recommend such. The only unilateral option the Governor has is to issue one 30-day stay of execution.
The governor does have one key power that the Texas Legislature does not have—the governor can call the Legislature into special session for 30 days, as many times as the governor desires (the Legislature cannot call itself into session). These special sessions can only address issues located on the governor’s “call”, which can be changed at any time by the governor.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Texas
George Bush spent five years in this largely ceremonial position–the only elective office he EVER held. So don’t talk to me about who is and isn’t “qualified” to be President. Any one of the three leading Democratic candidates (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) has more experience in elective office than George Bush did upon assuming the Presidency.
As for “what qualifies them,” it’s no different from the Republicans: ambition and vision. And from the looks of things, the most “qualified” Republican candidate (McCain) looks set to drop out of the race.
“A fad in the sense as soon as the newest Internet innovation comes out, YouTube will become history.
Didn’t Google buy YouTube?If I’m not mistaken, Google is supporting Clinton.That could be another reason.Posted by: Kansas | July 27, 2007 at 11:02 PM ”
I cannot find any support for your statement that google supports Clinton; you must be mistaken.
Even if it were true, are you suggesting that the Republican candidates would be afraid to debate on YouTube because it is owned by Google, which may or may not endorse Clinton?
CNN ultimately selects the questions the candidates will ask. So whomever owns Youtube or if there are a barrage of the same questions they’ll get weeded out.
Republicans just can’t take questions from people who are more informed on the issues that the typical conservative shill. The candidates might have to answer real questions that don’t involve subjects like John Edward’s hair.
Well Steven, they said the same thing about Bush.
I think Hillary will do a fantastic job. I just pisses me off to no end that everyone has bought into the reich wing smear propaganda to take her down.
Makes you wonder though why they’re so damn afraid of her, doesn’t it? Even if she did her worst, she couldn’t be even an iota worse than Bush.
“On 9-11,Bush was visiting an elementary school. He was reading a story to one of the classes when secret service whispered in his ear what had happened.”
Uh, no. Bush wasn’t reading anything to the children in that classroom. THEY were reading it. Watching the video might help.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/schoolvideo.html
If you can’t get one, simple fact straight, not impressed, I wonder if you have any straight.
You think his staying in the classroom was the thing to do. Then please explain why, after the reading was finished, he stayed to answer questions. As the CiC, isn’t it his duty to find out what was happening, ASAP? Easy enough to say, “Excuse me, boys and girls, but I have to cut my visit short today. It’s been great.” And then he should have been on the road, not sitting there, wondering what he was supposed to do. If he didn’t know what to do, there were plenty of his people there to give him the nudge needed.
Get a clue. It was more than a simple faux pas. It was handled very badly by the man who runs this country.
RD,
Indeed. The emptiest of suits sat there until someone told him what to do.
I cannot find any support for your statement that google supports Clinton; you must be mistaken.
Even if it were true, are you suggesting that the Republican candidates would be afraid to debate on YouTube because it is owned by Google, which may or may not endorse Clinton?
Posted by: brian | July 27, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Evidently, you haven’t seen the “Google Women for Hillary” on YouTube. The President or CEO of Google (forgot which one) was the moderator/interviewer and the event was sponsored by the “Google Women for Clinton.”
I dunno, but sounds bias to me.
So you are proposing that involvement would create bias in a publicly traded company which would transfer into one of its newly acquired subsidiaries?
Conspiracy theorist are ya?
The Eagle was quite when the Dems chickened out of Foxnews debate, now they are making a noise when Republicans don’t want to go on Youtube. Typical liberal attitude.
Dems. knew there could be no real debate on fox news, any democratic responder would be shouted down by the commentator, or have their mike unplugged. Get Real!
Reposting this, ’cause I’m still waiting.
“I’m still waiting for someone, anyone, to explain to me how any of the top three Democrat candidates are qualified to be president.
And see if you can do it without the lofty reason that well, they couldn’t do worse than Bush. High qualification indeed.
So, what have they done? What experience qualifies them? Why should they lead the most powerful nation on earth?”
Posted by: outlander | July 27, 2007 at 10:43 PM
What I’ve got so far is:
1. They are right on Iraq
Arguable, but hardly anything that separates them from other Dems.
2. Better than Bush
You can’t use that lofty qualification. (See rules)
3. They meet the minimum age and citizen requirements?
Wow.
4. Ambition and vision
That is not executive experience or achievement.
OK. Another chance. Surely they have relevant experience or accomplished something that sets them apart.
The top Republican announced candidates can readily point to those kind of criteria.
Why does the Democrat party not produce extraordinary people??
I’d love to see a modified version of you tube on WEblog. The paper could invite one of our representatives/victims in govt. to participate each week, and we could ask them questions that the media never would.The paper could also state “The invited official declined our invitation.”Would certainly liven things up here in doo dah.
I don’t see what is complicated about this issue.
Mitt and Rudy have always been total wussies when it comes to the debates.
Romney and Rudy have nothing more than empty rhetoric.
Rudy comes out with his “12 BS Commitments.” These are garbage because if you went to his website after he went public with the 12. You would find that he had only completed 3 of the 12 commitments. That alone says everything about Rudy. Well that and he had sex with his cousin and is a closet drag queen.
Romney on the other hand is using a three legged stool as a political prop. He wants more tax cuts for the rich. More Military spending. He wants to invade your privacy and violate your Constitutional rights by way of his plan to “strengthen families.” And he wants to strengthen our economy by way of spending more money than George Bush ever dreamed of. He just wants to print more money as if there were no consequence of runaway inflation.
Who do these morons think they are kidding?