Call me a political masochist, but I really enjoyed the recent YouTube Republican debate.  The debate itself was not particularly exceptional, although it did yield some items of interest.  The real excitement was provided by the post debate revelations and subsequent political spin.

The whole concept of a “YouTube” debate is a gimmick.  Even though “real” people submit questions it is hardly some type of populist free for all since the CNN producers still hand pick the video questions presented to the candidates.  Theoretically, the network could attempt indemnify itself from claims of biased questions by claiming that the questions are from “real” people – never mind how they are vetted.  Instead, as we’ve all heard by now, the network stubbed its toe by not conducting due diligence into the background of the questioners.

As usual, the debate was little more than a platform for front running candidates while the others scrap for precious air time.  The most annoying part of it for me is how the moderators treat the front runners with kid gloves when they overshoot their time.  Instead of treating the candidates equitably they pander in order to avoid offending a potential future president who might bear a grudge and restrict access.  If I were running the debate each candidate would be sitting in one of the soundproof booths like game shows use.  When it was a candidate’s turn to answer a question a mic in his booth would be turned on.  If the candidate ran out of time or strayed off topic the mic would turn off, protecting the listening audience from the remaining babbling response, and the booth’s lights would turn off.  After a preset “penalty time” the light would be turned back on.

I would be remiss if I delved into the content of the debate without discussing the controversy surrounding the “planted” questioners.  Most notable was a retired brigadier general who stated that he was gay and wanted to know what the candidates thought about don’t ask, don’t tell.  CNN even flew the man to the debate so that the candidates had to answer his question to his face.  The man turned out to be an advisor to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign.  One of the other questioners, a girl named Journey, is an Obama supporter.  Yet another questioner is a labor union activist.  These were hardly individuals interested in determining who they were going to vote for in the Republican primary.

Many have criticized CNN – calling them the Clinton News Network or Corrupt News Network – for not rooting out the partisan Dems beforehand.  It’s hard to say whether or not CNN exercised due diligence.  They should have “outed” the gay general as a Clinton supporter before flying him into the debate.  It’s one thing to use his question, but exerting the time and money to bring him to the debate justifies increased scrutiny.  The other two faithful Democrats would have been difficult for CNN to check out.  The situation shows the true power of the internet.  Within minutes of the debates conclusion countless people around the world were using their time to investigate the questioners.  Those individuals represented more investigative resources than CNN could have cost effectively brought to bear.

Unfortunately the power of the internet was also on display afterward in a more sinister form when numerous people choose to excoriate one of the questioners, a young Muslim woman from here in Huntsville.  The nature of the attacks against her are beyond shameful.

I personally think the response to the planted questions has been significantly over the top for two reasons.  One, it isn’t terribly surprising that CNN might show bias against Republican candidates.  They just got caught with their pants down here.  Two, whoever wins the republican nomination better be ready to take questions from any and all Americans in the general election.  That includes partisan supporters of their adversaries.  The biggest complaint one could lodge is that the questions wasted valuable time that should have been devoted to Republican interests in order to assist primary voters.

To some extent, what do you expect?  The people who would take the time to video themselves asking a question for a presidential debate are people who are interested in politics.  Most of America would prefer to watch American Idol.  Those that do care about politics and are willing to create a goofy video are probably not going to be uncommitted individuals who are soliciciting information critical to making their decision.  Instead they are going to ask specifically worded, loaded questions with the express goal of helping their preferred candidate.

Actually, I thought the planted questions yielded the most compelling content of the debate.  If a Democrat asks a Democrat slanted question in a Republican debate in front of a Republican audience it gives the candidates a chance to really belt a home run by showing that their position is firm and that they won’t kowtow to a question from the opposition just because that questioner is in the audience.  That is where Mitt Romney utterly failed.

When Anderson Cooper directed the gays in the military question to Romney he was kind enough to read a quote from 1994 where Romney said that he looked forward to a day when gays could serve openly in the military.  Romney could have taken a courageous, although probably unpopular with the GOP crowd, stance and said that he stands by his previous statement.  He could have reversed his previous statement and said that he now opposes allowing gays to serve openly.  Instead he showed a complete lack of leadership and flim flammed around with the question and ultimately said he would ask the military.  That was a complete non answer to the question, which was what is Romney’s opinion.  Romney essentially demonstrated that he didn’t have the courage of his convictions, whatever they may be, to honestly and forthrightly answer the question.

Romney’s evasiveness on that question wasn’t his only problem that evening.  Romney’s biggest fault was on full display for all to see.  I have no doubt that Romney is a fine corporate executive and knows how to manage complicated operations.  But I just don’t get the “feeling” when I listen to him that he really believes what he says.  I think his focus groups have told him what things to say to certain crowds to elicit support – and he stays on script.  The problem is that when Romney butts heads with another candidate who has passionate and honest beliefs Romney looks really, really bad.  The opening segment of the debate featured he and Giuliani bickering like school children over who was the biggest aider and abettor of illegal aliens.  Neither have in the way of substance on this issue that would placate many GOP voters, but Romney tries to make you think otherwise.  I personally believe he is pragmatic and would support crafting a practical solution to illegal immigration even if it meant some degree of amnesty. But he knows he can’t say that.  So he pretends to be stridently opposed to illegal immigration.

When Romney and Huckabee went back and forth about Huckabee allowing children of illegal aliens to qualify for merit based college scholarships Romney came out on the losing end on what should have easily been a victory.  Given the outcry against anything pertaining to illegal immigration in the GOP Huckabee’s position was perilous.  But he clearly has a strong belief that his position is morally just and his conviction on the matter allowed him to get the best of Romney in the exchange.  Huckabee came across as pragmatic and caring, whereas Romney seemed rigidly indifferent to the plight of children.

Giuliani and Romney were given the lions share of time in the debate, but they both delivered less than stellar performances – with Romney coming out the worst.  Huckabee is far and away the best debater in the bunch.  McCain isn’t exciting and often seems exasperated, but is starting to rekindle the perception as a straight talker.  I appreciate politicians being honest even if I disagree with them.  Paul gave a good performance.  Thompson still isn’t doing anything to excite people and choose to use his campaign ad to attack others rather than tout his own qualifications.  It gives the impression that there isn’t a compelling reason to vote FOR him.  Have you heard that Duncan Hunter built a fence in San Diego and that Tom Tancredo is not a big fan of Mexicans?  I had no idea!

Related content:

This entry was posted by Brian on Wednesday, December 5th, 2007 at 9:10 pm and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Please note the copyright policy.