There’s a pretty heated debate brewing on the right side of the political blogosphere about whether or not the Republican candidates should submit themselves to the obvious indignity of the CNN/YouTube debate. Folks like Sister Toldjah, Mark Steyn, John Podhoretz, Michelle Malkin, Bryan Preston, and Patrick Ruffini basically say they’d be foolish not to. Kathryn Jean Lopez is a lukewarm “no” while Hugh Hewitt and Don Surber throw up a full-throated negatory.
Ed Morrissey has a suggestion that seems to split the difference: do the debate, but remove the biggest objection by taking away the question selection process from the obviously-biased CNN and giving it to bloggers. Here’s the meat of his idea:
CNN would ask bloggers to form a committee to review the YouTube entries. Since this debate is a Republican primary event, the bloggers should probably represent that segment of the electorate — primarily Republicans, but perhaps with independent/centrist representation as well. The committee would review all of the YouTube entries and narrow them down to around 20, through whatever process and criteria to which these bloggers agree. They would also agree to the order in which the questions would be asked.
How does this solve the argument? It removes CNN from any responsibility for the question selection, shielding them from bias allegations. It puts the onus on the New Media to act responsibly in its question selection. This mechanism truly would make the candidates accountable directly to the people who will vote for them in the primary races. The candidates would have no excuses to avoid this debate, either.
I don’t think that really solves the problem. Yes, it engages the “new media” in a way it’s never been engaged before, but it doesn’t quite dispel the problem mostly because there’s absolutely no chance that CNN will relinquish control to the unwashed masses of the right-side blogosphere. It may well absolve them of responsibility, but it also forces them to admit that the right has a point about CNN’s bias. That’s something CNN simply can’t do. We all know that. So while it’s a good idea, it’s also a huge pipe dream.
I’ve been pondering this a bit and I think I have a way for one campaign to get in front of the issue boldly, to embrace the new technology of YouTube, and to sidestep the craven “they’re afraid to take questions from the people” insinuations. Here’s what I’d suggest if I were advising a candidate whose name might rhyme with “Froody Frooliani” or “Red Rompson”.
Have a couple staffers comb through the questions that have been submitted so far and pull out about 40 of them. Then pick the best 10 of those but don’t be shy about fielding a couple that aren’t solidly in your wheelhouse. That means, Candidate “Frooliani”, you shouldn’t take 15 questions about national security, lower taxes, and 9/11. Take three or four on the social issues. And Candidate “Rompson”, you might want to take a couple on special interests and the power of lobbyists.
Next, sit down and watch the questions carefully three or four times. Make sure you know what the questioner is asking. But don’t write anything down. Watch the questions and get a good idea where you want your answer to go. You want to leave enough room to actually be candid without getting blindsided.
Once you’re ready, find a place that looks dignified but a little bit laid back – comfortable for you yet with an overall Presidential vibe. Maybe a study – a real one, not the fake ones you see on late-night law firm commercials – or a big front porch. It should be a place where you obviously belong but that’s not tarted up for what you’re about to to.
When you have all that, make your own video. Start with an opening statement that says something like this:
I saw the recent CNN/YouTube Democratic debate and I wasn’t thrilled with it. It seemed that CNN was a lot more interested in finding goofy presentations than they were taking real questions from real people. Some folks on my side of the political debate have suggested that I not take part in the debate. They say that there isn’t much chance that I and my fellow candidates are going to get a fair sample of serious questions that reflect the issues we all care about. They say that CNN is more interested in turning what should be a dignified and substantive debate into a partisan and crass ratings stunt.
I’m inclined to agree with them. It doesn’t do us much good, though, if I just stay home. I know that you have issues that do matter to you. They aren’t being addressed by media outlets that are more interested in making their own political points or advancing their own causes. You have questions that matter and they’re just not being asked. So, I’ve decided to take what I believe is a better route. I’m not going to rely on media gatekeepers to decide which of your questions are worthy of my attention. I and my staff have looked over hundreds of questions you’ve submitted to YouTube and we’ve pulled out ten that we feel most deserve a real answer. That’s not to say we won’t answer more questions in time. It’s likely that we will, in later videos.
So let’s get to the questions.
Play the video question, then answer it without using notes or taking a huge amount of time to think about it. Put yourself on a timer (maybe three minutes per answer). Be informal if you want to. Be candid. Remember, the whole notion that’s been pushed on us is that the debate is supposed to be a “conversation” with the people. So be conversational. Every answer should be one take, unless you screw up the shot royally (say if you sneezed or let out a string of curse words or said you’d meet with folks who have sworn to destroy us in the first year of your Presidency without conditions).
Let your team edit the video to put the actual question in the corner of the screen so we can see and hear it clearly, but don’t let it cover you up. It’s important that we see how you listen to the question.
When that’s all done – and it shouldn’t take longer than four days – post it on YouTube with as many press releases as you can dispatch. Make sure it gets into the hands of as many bloggers as possible, especially the folks who I linked at the very beginning of this post. Put out a statement that encapsulates your opening statement – that this is your way of answering America’s questions without relying on biased media gatekeepers who have a greater interest in ratings than they do the election process.
In two weeks, do it again. And again in another two weeks, right up to the day of the debate.
I believe if a candidate did that, they’d suck all the oxygen from the “they won’t answer America’s questions” folks as well as get way out in front of everyone else in the race. It’d be very difficult for anyone to say they were avoiding the tough questions or weren’t interested in a “conversation” with the people. Most importantly, they’d be taking the debate and putting it right back inn the laps of the voters, where I really think it belongs.
So what do you say, Mr “Frooliani”? Mr. “Rompson”? Feel like being bold and grabbing the initiative here?
