About Channel '08  |  Blog Partner: PrezVid.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed  (What's RSS?)

Will the GOP YouTube Debate Be Postponed?

The GOP version of the CNN/YouTube debate is still scheduled for Sept. 17, but may be moved to a later date.

CNN spokeswoman Mara Gassman says CNN's Washington bureau chief and debate executive producer David Bohrman is talking with the Republican presidential campaigns about scheduling issues.

Gassman could not say more beyond issuing a statement from Bohrman: "We're working with the campaigns to resolve any scheduling issues."

Some news Web sites stated this weekend that the debate is being moved to a later date, and Ron Paul's blog says it's being moved to December.

The possible postponement follows an announcement from Mitt Romney this past week that he planned to skip the debate. The former Massachusetts governor told C-SPAN on Friday that he would not attend the debate because the Democratic version did not show proper respect to the presidential selection process. Romney was particulary concerned that one of the user-submitted questions (on the environment) came from a snowman. But now Romney is in discussions with CNN about attending. Rudy Giuliani has expressed similar concerns, and has suggested he may also snub the debate.

Regardless of what the candidates say, the Republican Party of Florida still backs the debate. "This debate is an unprecedented opportunity for people in Florida and across the nation to ask the Republican presidential candidates where they stand on the issues," state party chairman Jim Greer said Friday. "It is also evidence of Florida's growing and prominent role in the 2008 presidential election cycle, and we are excited to partner with the campaigns, CNN, and YouTube to bring the Republican presidential candidates to viewers across America."

Come back to this blog for updates...

-- Ed O'Keefe

By Ed O'Keefe |  July 29, 2007; 11:17 PM ET Debates
Previous: John Edwards On The (Bike) Trail | Next: More On The Potential GOP YouTube Debate Dodge


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Why does Mitt Romney take himself so seriously? President Bush has no problem giving the media a snow job with his Snow man, nearly every day.

Posted by: Frosty | July 29, 2007 11:58 PM

I personally thought the YouTube debate was a kind of silly myself. I'm not a Republican nor am I a fan of Mitt Romney but considering he's in the process of "becoming" the Republican front-runner, doesn't it look terrible for him to skip the debate?

Posted by: Geoffrey Rose | July 30, 2007 1:49 AM

I am not surprised. In the CNN/Youtube format, common people, and not multimillionaire TV personalities, ask the questions. Republicans feel uncomfortable around the common folks. They despise Youtube because it's the best example of free speech. Republicans have successfully intimidated the mainstream media by calling them "liberal media." But they can't pull the same trick against us. Long live You-tubers. Long live America. Long live the Democratic Party.
A rich TV anchor would not ask Giuliani about the priest accused of child molestation. I would. Regular people would.

Posted by: Andrew | July 30, 2007 1:54 AM

I'm not surprised that the GOP candidates are running away from the debate with both feet. Republicans are singularly disinterested in what we commoners think or care about. We can't make them rich; we can only make them uncomfortable by asking the kinds of questions they don't want to answer, at least not on record so they can be held accountable for their words. Just more stone-age mentality from a party that abandoned its principles long ago.

Posted by: windrider | July 30, 2007 5:20 AM

If Dems can be afraid of questions from non-sycophants and cancel a debate on Fox where they might be asked difficult questions, why can't the Reps skip out on one on CNN (although cancelling on MSNBC would be more of a tit-for-tat).

Posted by: willyxdc | July 30, 2007 5:45 AM

As a seventy plus year old I was skeptical of the YouTuber's asking questions until I saw how a politician could get some hardball questions. It was great. The snowman was a great simple way to bring up the serious problem of global warming. As soon as I saw this new format I wondered if the Republicans would have enough guts to stand in the bright sunshine and answer the hard question from common people. I think we have our answer. Gutless pansies.

Posted by: John Monroe | July 30, 2007 5:52 AM

As a seventy plus year old I was skeptical of the YouTuber's asking questions until I saw how a politician could get some hardball questions. It was great. The snowman was a great simple way to bring up the serious problem of global warming. As soon as I saw this new format I wondered if the Republicans would have enough guts to stand in the bright sunshine and answer the hard question from common people. I think we have our answer. Gutless pansies.

Posted by: John Monroe | July 30, 2007 5:52 AM

The only thing you have to know about Republicans is that Romney noticed the snowman, but managed to miss the lady with cancer.

Yeah, the YouTubes questions were surely undignified, compared to a campaign video of the family dog on the roof, taking a crap down the back window.

I have no problem whatsoever with Democrats showing utter distain and disrespect to both Fox and to Fox viewers. I have utter distain and disrespect for them myself.

And I consider it typical that Republicans would then, in turn, show utter distain and disrespect to voters with cancer who are in need of healthcare.

Posted by: Jan | July 30, 2007 6:11 AM

Mitt supports a Constitutional amendment to ban snowmen, because (1) None of the Apostles were snowmen. (2) Jesus never built a snowman. (3) The Lord God is a jealous god. (4) If snowmen aren't what God meant by graven images, then what? (5) Melting is onanism.

Posted by: jhbyer | July 30, 2007 6:20 AM

Why are two jews (Gassedman and Bohrman) running the debates? There should be a debate about whether so many jews in the media affects our middle east policy.

Posted by: Pablo | July 30, 2007 6:25 AM

Typical response from the republikans. Sure 'ol Mitt would want to forego the you-tube debates where questions aren't carefully screened, plotted and reduced to dribble... They're SCARED to be held accountable for answers to real questions, not stupid slogan-based issues they dream up. Yup... how typical.

Posted by: Bill | July 30, 2007 7:28 AM

I can't imagine that republicans would do particularly well with questions picked from a random audience of "common Americans". They have an awful lot of failures to answer for these last 6-10 years. And besides, their policies really don't jive well with what the majority of Americans want from their govt. They can really want to talk about is terrorism and war. Their platform is really quite simple-more war, less taxes, help the rich, dump on the poor, "you're on your own" jack, decreased funding for things like homeland security, education, infrastructure, or a decent national healthcare system that covers all Americans.

Posted by: spicegal | July 30, 2007 7:47 AM

As far as Fox News and the Democratic debate. There's really no comparison. Fox news has a partisan agenda that they're quite proud to promote. They're not fair and balanced, nor are they a legitimate news source. They mislead, distort, and cherry pick to promote their agenda. They typically bring on Democrats just to denigrate them. Given their history and reputation, they certainly can't be trusted to run a fair debate. Unlike the average American, they have highly paid spin miesters who would surely taint the debate with commentary and questions carefully worded to present the Dems in the worst possible light.

Posted by: ggwalt | July 30, 2007 8:01 AM

As far as Fox News and the Democratic debate. There's really no comparison. Fox news has a partisan agenda that they're quite proud to promote. They're not fair and balanced, nor are they a legitimate news source. They mislead, distort, and cherry pick to promote their agenda. They typically bring on Democrats just to denigrate them. Given their history and reputation, they certainly can't be trusted to run a fair debate. Unlike the average American, they have highly paid spin miesters who would surely taint the debate with commentary and questions carefully worded to present the Dems in the worst possible light.

Posted by: ggwalt | July 30, 2007 8:05 AM

As far as Fox News and the Democratic debate. There's really no comparison. Fox news has a partisan agenda that they're quite proud to promote. They're not fair and balanced, nor are they a legitimate news source. They mislead, distort, and cherry pick to promote their agenda. They typically bring on Democrats just to denigrate them. Given their history and reputation, they certainly can't be trusted to run a fair debate. Unlike the average American, they have highly paid spin miesters who would surely taint the debate with commentary and questions carefully worded to present the Dems in the worst possible light.

Posted by: spicegal | July 30, 2007 8:07 AM

I'd like to see the Democrats' response to this farse. So far we've only seen them punch at themselves and the current administration with any effect. What's wrong with my Republican party?

Posted by: eperson | July 30, 2007 8:08 AM

Just imagine how "Dr. No" would perform...

Posted by: onelaw | July 30, 2007 8:09 AM

The youtube debates turn the process of electing a President into a big joke. A bunch of one-liners. And the people here think the you-tubers ask better questions than a professional interviewer? It takes politics to a new and lower level. The Internet is not always the best forum for everything. Why not poll the people who submitted questions and find out how many have or will actually vote! It is easy to sit home and sling barbs. Another entirely to really show up and vote.

Posted by: tnagel | July 30, 2007 8:12 AM

NONE of the YouTube democratic debate questions came from a "snowman."

ALL of the questions came from U.S. citizens.

Perhaps Mister Romney doesn't think he has to answer to U.S. citizens, as a Presidential candidate, and more importantly, as President.

Please visit my anti-war website, http://www.shockedandawful.com

Posted by: Del Wasso | July 30, 2007 8:14 AM

The democrats must be laughing all the way to the bank over this. America's fearless mayor is frightened to answer questions from ordinary Americans while a weak and feeble woman was quite happy to. All the postings making excuses for the Republicans dodging this all stink of spin and don't really fool anyone. In truth I couldn't believe this when I first heard about it because it's surely clear that to anyone who uses the internet and has the slightest interest in politics this is going to look like running scared. Maybe Romney and Giuliani think they can get through this campaign with hand picked audiences as Bush does but if so they've lost already.

Posted by: John | July 30, 2007 8:18 AM

Hey ggwalt, I wonder if what you say is true why Foxnews has the highest ratings by far? Hmm maybe most Americans disagree with your fanatical position.

As to the youtube debates, I agree with Romney though I won't ever vote for him. A presidential election should be a serious thing. I'm all for questions from real people - I think the moderator questions usually suck. But have real people in the audience to ask questions.

I also think people from both parties should be allowed to ask questions at the other party's debates - ask Republicans tough questions on Iraq, ask Democrats tough questions on their vision for a near Socialist economic plan. That kind of debate is needed instead of the softball questions CNN puts out.

Of course none of this will ever happen as the two party system is crushing our democracy. Sad.

Posted by: papoh | July 30, 2007 8:19 AM

They will come to the debate once they get the permission to pre-screen and pre-select the questions. Then they can make it look like they are answering to the American people when once again they will be playing to a room full of their supporters.

Posted by: Jason | July 30, 2007 8:20 AM

I think It's pretty funny to watch the republicans vieing for the majority of the 30percent that would actually vote for them. They are working so hard to out conservative each other, apparently and typically, oblivious to the fact that most americans have had more than enough of conservatives. They keep trying to find a way to spin public opinion to make it look like it's against democrats. They don't seem to notice that they're peeing in the wind and getting a face full.

Posted by: Hank | July 30, 2007 8:22 AM

of course they don't want to answer real questions. i think windrider and andrew are totally correct in stating that they don't want to hear what we want answered. they would rather have the predescribed format that allows them to utilize their staff to answer those questions in a republican type way...which means
no real answer but spin, spin and more spin. i would be that the only reason the dems said yes is because they are inclusive and they just might have more of a conscience than those stiff necked idiots that are in the white house today...

time to go george.

Posted by: hemnebob | July 30, 2007 8:24 AM

Nothing frightens the "professional politician" like common folks. This is great news, now we know who NOT to vote for. Don't re-schedule the debates either, let the politicians show what they are really made of. It's time to flush BOTH parties down the toilet; Democrat or Republican, it's all the same thing; neither cares about America or the average American.

Posted by: Doug | July 30, 2007 8:25 AM

They should hold the Utube debate regardless of who declines to, or not, to participate. Ron Paul is the most successful Pres candidate on UTube so he would attend that debate.

And that would be the event of the year - a single candidate representing the Reps - Ron Paul - honestly answering every straight question put to him and Americans receiving a non politico straight reality check.

Of course, Fox should also announce a Democrat debate and see who shows up. One or two might - just not the leading pretenders.

Posted by: Tom Jefferson | July 30, 2007 8:25 AM

Tom - you're right about Ron Paul. I give the man credit for giving a straight answer to any question asked him. Most of the others are so scripted it's sad.

Whether or not the youtube crowd is asking the question, most politicians on both sides just use it as a segway into a canned response anyway. The only way these questions work is if you get the chance for the average guy to say "no, that's not what I asked - try again" until they get a true answer to the actual question.

Ron Paul is about the only guy I've seen who actually answers the question asked every time. All the front runners from both parties are masters at avoiding questions and giving their preconceived answers.

Posted by: papoh | July 30, 2007 8:33 AM

Romney is a flip-flopping liar and a pompous ass. This is the man who wants to expand Gitmo and put anyone who disagrees with him there.

Posted by: AZJIM | July 30, 2007 8:40 AM

I hate the GOP

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 8:51 AM

The only thing "silly" about the YouTube debate was the fact that the MSM needs to shield themselves in the "common man" to ask direct, hard questions of the candidates.

Posted by: jsled | July 30, 2007 8:53 AM

This is a gang of cowards. They'll try to "postpone" until the whole thing is dropped. The last thing they want to do is take questions from the American people.

Posted by: ArchiesBoy | July 30, 2007 8:55 AM

I too get undignified, indignant, and indigent confused. There ought to be a law about those similar sounding words.

Posted by: Sam's Uncle | July 30, 2007 9:09 AM

The once proud US Republican party is running scared of the American electorate. It has started to realise what damage the NeoConMen have done but far too late.

The US Republican Party has lost its conservative roots and has been acting like a bunch of commies for years.

It is the US Republicommie party now; that is why real conservatives are leaving it in droves.

Conservatives only hope is new conservative party under Michael Bloomberg.

It was the NeoConMen that dragged the GOP into communist policies. You have only to look into the background of this ideology to realise these were the people and philosophy were so communist that the US Democrats rejected them.

I Call them NeoConMen to allude to their being conmen or flimflam men. I point to their ideological roots in the writings of Leo Strauss and the so called Straussian text, which is a piece of writing that is deliberately written so that the average reader will understand it as saying one "exoteric" thing but the special few for whom it is intended will grasp its real "esoteric" meaning, in other words a flimflam, "A Con." Such an embracing of conning the electorate as a core ideological ideal inevitably leads to corruption and it is that that Americans at the last election voted against.

That is why the Republicommie party is running scared of the American electorate and of the electorate's questions

The NeoConMen have used Bolshevik entryist techniques to gain control of the US Republican party. A search of the ideological history of the NeoConMen will show they started out under different names as Democrats where they tried out their Trotskyite entryist techniques but the Democrats believe in healthy debate which made entryist techniques impossible. The GOP does not like internal debate; as it looks too much like a split and traditional GOP strategy is to focus on splits or "wedge issues" hence the insistence on a unified party to prevent such a weakness, but of course so often is the case you make your self strong in one way at the cost of weakness in another. It made the once proud US Republican Party a fat juicy target for the NeoConMen.

So the NeoConMen shifted targets from the Democrats to the GOP as their interest as entryists is in power. A Republican Party, where dissension is often treated as treachery rather than debate, were ripe for entryist techniques.

I refer to the Trotskyite roots of the NeoConMen: do a search on Trotskyism, and their continuing attack on individual freedom in the guise of homeland defence. I also point once again to Leo Strauss and his concept of a Bolshevik ruling elite for whom the "esoteric" text is intended as well as the Marxist continuous revolution that Rove and his NeoConMen promote, they also say there is an "End of History" a Marxist concept and why I started to notice the NeoConMen's communist tendencies.

And that ruling elite a concept straight out of Marx.

You just need to consider the Republicommies anti conservative Tax and Spend policy.

What the Republicommies managed to con you into believing they have not been spending your future Tax Dollars? It is called TAX DEBT and you have been NeoConned.

The Republicommies just practice credit card economics with massive foreign debt that HAS TO BE PAID BACK in US Citizens taxes. Everyone of us knows we have to pay our credit cards but not apparently these Republicommies under George Bush Junior.

The Republicommie TAX DEBT under George Bush junior is the equivalent of a second mortgage on every US family. The US TAX DEBT now stands at nearly 9 trillion dollars the equivalent of 30,000 dollars for every US citizen or 70,000 to 90,000 dollars on an average family per household and MORE FOR LARGE FAMILIES!


Most of this debt is owned by China who now tell George Bush Junior and the rest of his Republicommie buddies what to do on trade. The Chinese are making money hand over fist on the interest every US TAX PAYER has to pay China. Do you think they just lend money and don't want interest? Get real; you have been NeoConned.

This bunch of NeoConMen entryests conned their way into power in the once proud US Republican Party, they conned conservatives with their Straussian texts and as to American Christians the Republicommies consider evangelicals to be: "boorish," "ridiculous," "goofy," "nuts," according to David Kuo, a conservative Christian, former assistant to President Bush and Deputy Director of Bush's Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program, in his book Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction.

As David Kuo points out NeoConMen are "cynically hijacking the faith-based initiatives idea for electoral gain," ignoring issues such as poverty, and limiting faith-based grants to organizations that are "politically friendly to the administration." For those who became part of the Republicommie NeoConMen team 8 billion dollars was promised but only about 21 million was paid out. And all the recipients of the 21 million made a big fuss about how good Bush was to the Christian evangelicals and used the cash for their bid for control of their particular church group.

The main people the Republicommies gave money to, were people like Rev. Ted Haggard who was there to run the Republicommie owned church. Of course he was more interested in paying 200 NeoConMen Republicommie dollars a go by cash in envelopes to give a gay rent boy oral sex and snort methamphetamine.

Interestingly the NeoConMen removed this budget from the oversight by congress to keep anyone from blowing the con.

It is there in black and white from a conservative Christian witness a bunch Republicommie evangelical hating Reds now sleep in the Whitehouse beds. They have been NeoConned

In the mean time American Conservatives know America needs a Real Conservative to put America's economy back on the straight and narrow; it needs A Real Conservative like Michael Bloomberg.

Posted by: walker | July 30, 2007 9:12 AM

Republicans do not connect with average Americans and free speech, so that's why they do not welcome the You Tube format. They do not have control.

Look at the very definition of "conservative", narrow minded and unforgiving.
Romney is too stiff and sterile. I don't expect him to feel comfortable with average, everyday Americans.

Posted by: Cheryl | July 30, 2007 9:15 AM

It is not surprising that liberals do not mind if their candidate for president is being asked questions from lunatics dressed like snowmen. Liberals have no respect for the office, itself. They had no problem with Clinton being asked "boxers or briefs", which pretty much summed up his entire presidency.

I love the fact that the Republican candidates are raising questions about the format of the debate. I think the concept of the debate is great; let ordinary Americans ask questions directly to their would-be candidates. But do it in a way that shows a little dignity to the office (I know, a foreign concept to you liberals that believe anything and everything goes)

Posted by: MD | July 30, 2007 9:17 AM

The real reason Romney and Giuliani can't be bothered to show up is that they are afraid to be humiliated by Ron Paul. Every time they go up against Dr. Paul, he embarrasses them by telling the truth. They are hoping to glide through to the elections without having to face him again, because every single time they do, he absolutely trounces them in the post-debate opinion polls.

If anyone really cares about the direction this country is taking, let them email CNN and demand the debates be held as planned. Romney and Giuliani need to be held accountable, and if they choose not to be, they must not be allowed a chance to lead this country.

Posted by: Patrick | July 30, 2007 9:21 AM

In their comments, people are criticizing Republicans for not want to confront the "common man." While there might be an element of truth to that, I don't think the YouTube questions should be seen as the prol's opportunity to grill the Man.

Hundreds of questions were screened by Anderson Cooper and, honestly, were basically chosen to reflect mainstream dialog. None of the questions asked at the debate were very different from a question you might have heard at the formal debates.

Posted by: azmat | July 30, 2007 9:24 AM

A wise precaution for the Republicans to not plan a big gathering in Florida at the peak of hurricane season.

Posted by: Jim S | July 30, 2007 9:30 AM

Having to defend a discredited leadership and their own complicity in its moral corruption would be tantamount to endorsing their own hangman's pay voucher. No wonder the republicans are scattering in terror of a questioning public. Impeachment procedings would be deserved, but probably an exercize in futility. We'll just have to hold our noses and wait until 2008. This too shall pass ! Henry Landis

Posted by: henry landis | July 30, 2007 9:32 AM

Mitt doesn't have the "snowballs" to show up at an event where he has to answer honest questions from us folks.

Posted by: John Neighbors | July 30, 2007 9:38 AM

As a former Republican myself, all I can say is that the GOP frontrunners are cowards when it comes to facing the People. Obviously viewer-generated questions aren't going to be as "dignified" as the paid-for softball questions they are normally asked by the establishment media filters.

Posted by: jeremiah | July 30, 2007 9:42 AM

Our current republican president only appears before handpicked audiences. So why is it a surprise that the republican contenders for 2008 would ignore the populace? George W Bush is still ignoring the 70% of us who want an end to the Iraq debacle he got us into.

Posted by: Joy2 | July 30, 2007 9:50 AM

I am not surprised by the snubbing of the debate - if they cannot control they do not want to play! OMG suppose a soldiers widow or mother should send a question about the war - would they fell compelled to answer or side step on national TV?

Posted by: Lynn | July 30, 2007 10:00 AM

The problem with the YouTube debate has nothing to do with the people asking the questions. The reason the Republicans don't want to go is because CNN picked the questions. Not a single question asked of the Dems put them on the spot. They were all dem leaning softballs that supported the democratic position. Where was the question "You claim to be for the children yet how can you support the killing of an 8 or 9 month fetus via partial birth abortion?"

You can bet CNN will pick plenty of tough ones for the repubs.

Posted by: Ken Hellewell | July 30, 2007 10:03 AM

Hey Mitt, this is the 21st Century. Get with the times.

Posted by: Webbster | July 30, 2007 10:11 AM

If you thought the YouTube questions were great, then you are a liberal. Excepting the just plain stupid ones, they were left leaning.

Posted by: Truth 101 | July 30, 2007 10:16 AM

I guess Romney and Giuliani are afraid that the YouTubers will ask them to explain their numerous flip-flops.....

Posted by: wzwriter | July 30, 2007 10:21 AM

"and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles..."

Oh my goodness? Challenge the tome of logic and fairness? BS

Anyway, why would anyone other than a dem trust cnn to format a debate? It was certainly a social engineering effort to choose the queer twins for an "important" queery to the field.

Can't blame the repubs for not wanting to stand all night waiting for an inane query from the cnn squad.

Right now: Joe Biden and Mitt Romney are the only two people that don't make my dork meter hit overload when they speak.

Considering modern journalisms penchant for semantics, spinning, and outright lying; these days I have a higher opinion of Bush and Cheney. I mean, if the media and the dems hate 'em, then they must be doing something right!

As for Hillary being, bush-cheney light: Obama's half white, does that make him, "afro light?"

multi ethnic
independent voter

Posted by: tradamerica | July 30, 2007 10:24 AM

wow, Romney thought it was a REAL snowman?? i guess that's not too far-fetched considering what he believes as part of the Mormon religion. but someone should tell him it was special video effects and not really a live talking snowman. those silly Republicans :-)

Posted by: millionea7 | July 30, 2007 10:53 AM

Why would anyone but the dems trust cnn to hold a debate? Uhh I don't know, because cnn is an actual news network. This is different from Fox News, which is clearly a thinly veiled propaganda outlet. If you can't see the difference then you are just where they want you.

Why would you want homosequals to ask a question about institutionalized descrimination against their sexual orientation? Who knows. Why do they ask black people about Jim Crow?

I would say that attempting to skip the debate which for the Democrats was the highest rated in cable debate history should make me think less of the Republicans. But frankly at the rate that these guys are killing people, lying to the the voters about why, and turning the government against its own people, my opinion of Republicans simply can not sink any lower.

Posted by: theyhatefreedom | July 30, 2007 11:00 AM

Good Lord, what has become of the republican party? What amazes me is these men(and I use that term losely) dont have a clue how this makes them look. If the dems can show up in force for this kind of debate then the repubs can and should as well! Jeeze...who advises this people. Baffled in Baltimore

Posted by: ilg | July 30, 2007 11:06 AM

The Republican debate has been cancelled due to a lack of serious candidates. News at 11.

Posted by: George | July 30, 2007 11:11 AM

Who cares, really? Nobody gives a rat's ass about the Republican nominees... they don't have a chance of winning in 2008 because of Bush. It's as simple as that. And Romney will never win a thing, because the religious right does not fully accept Mormons as Christians. Whether he shows up at the debates or not, he has no chance of winning the GOP nomination.

Posted by: ErrinF | July 30, 2007 11:13 AM

The Republicans continued hostiltity to the internet risks the entire party being labled "grandma and grandpa's political party." Young voters are deserting the GOP in droves. They're becoming a party of nutty baby boomers. They only way to reverse that is by nominating Ron Paul.

Posted by: Sean Scallon | July 30, 2007 11:22 AM

"Hey ggwalt, I wonder if what you say is true why Foxnews has the highest ratings by far? Hmm maybe most Americans disagree with your fanatical position."

Ya, that extra .000001% of audience that FOXnews has really makes them a giant. Highest ratings so far does not equate to high ratings. In fact, all the cable news channels have so-so ratings, even FOXnews.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:25 AM

The nerve of some Americans. They think they have the right to use humor when posing questions to presidential candidates when everyone knows the correct way to address them is with cash.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:26 AM

Someone compared the refusal of front-running GOP candidates to participate in the CNN/YouTube debate to Democrats refusing to participate in a Fox News sponsored debate. There is a remarkable difference, however. Fox News is a Republican stronghold, while CNN and YouTube are non-partisan despite ridiculous accusations of their being part of the "liberal media."

For more information, you can watch "Outfoxed" on Google video for free. It exposes their organization as a shameless mouthpiece for the GOP beyond any shadow of doubt.

And lest anyone accuse me of being a "liberal", I'll let you know right now that I'm not. I am registered Independent, voted for Bush in 2000, and for Kerry in 2004 (as he was the lesser of two evils), and plan on voting for Ron Paul if he gets the nomination.

Posted by: cdoc77 | July 30, 2007 11:27 AM

This is all just silliness. Were the YouTube debates any good? not by a long shot--however, I guarantee you anyone not showing up is committing suicide because "the people" will view it as a weakness.

Frankly, I don't know why this wasn't done by email...I mean really, the technology has been there for about a decade. There is no reason why we need "journalists" asking questions if there were a method of picking "good" questions--maybe letting "the people" vote which questions to ask..?

Anyone not attending this debate is telling us they don't care about our concerns--whether you liked the format or not.

Posted by: geeDub | July 30, 2007 11:32 AM

That's an excellent point about Fox News. Democrats don't want to have to answer questions from the Republicans' base (Rupert Murdoch and huge corporations), and Republicans don't want to have to answer questions from the Democrats' base (the American people). Plus, I think Romney was afraid the dog might not survive the trip.

Posted by: David Conrad | July 30, 2007 11:44 AM

CNN wants this YouTube debate for ratings. It is a dog and pony show to draw a new crowd (YouTubers) who normally would never waste their time with a sorry broadcast like CNN. It is time we move pass the fluff and pomposity and move towards substance, policy and procedures. Some people are whining about Mitt Romney's comment about the "snowman". If individuals (may not be US citizens) are determined to hid behind an alias, are our country's leadership required to answer any derogatory question shouted by anonymous persons? Mitt Romney and the other GOP candidates do answer any question, face-to-face, in Iowa and they have done the same in Florida. I would dare say that all those questions/answers are captured and posted on YouTube already. CNN wants a "reality show" question/answer followed by a vote of a candidate "off the island". I want a "debate" of issues. I want candidates to compare and contrast their positions. If CNN must have their YouTube format, then let all candidates argue each question, explaining clearly why they differ from each other. Make the issue the debate and not the person(s) asking the question.

Posted by: Norm | July 30, 2007 11:44 AM

youtube please do not cancel or postpone the debates.romney and the g-man are afraid and rightly so to face the people they would serve if God- forbid they won another election. it's like ol man bush going shopping and not knowing the price of a gallon of milk. they are so far removed from ordinary life, they would dissolve in a big puddle of you know what, if they actually had to respond to real americans.

Posted by: dee kuhlmann | July 30, 2007 11:48 AM

It's OKAY to be a Republican if you vote for RON PAUL
listen to the man speak at his website- he is the ONLY politician who is honest...

Posted by: a patriot | July 30, 2007 11:50 AM

What a couple of cowards and sissy boys.

How are we to believe that Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney are fit to be President when they are afraid of the American People and Snowmen?

Neither of the men have the moral courage or character to lead our Nation.

Posted by: Granny Miller | July 30, 2007 11:55 AM

It would be good to hear the GOP debate on issues like Global Poverty and what they plan to do about it. There are countless realistic methods to solve poverty such as: water harvesting techniques, enriching crop soils, agriculture extension programs, and just education for those impoverished that can make a world of difference (Borgen Project). I would also like to see their stances on the Global Poverty Bill and the Global Child Survival act that are being discussed in The Senate/ House as we speak.

Posted by: Erica | July 30, 2007 12:20 PM

I'm really dissappointed Romney is saying he's skipping the debate. I hope he reconsiders, this is making him look cowardly.

Posted by: kc | July 30, 2007 12:26 PM

They should hold the debate when originally scheduled even if Ron Paul is the only candidate to participate. That should show America which of the Republican candidates truly deserves the nomination. Besides, it would do America good to hear Dr. Paul answering all of the questions, providing his honest and candid answers.

Of all the presidential hopefuls in either party, he is the only one you can TRUST to bring our young men and women home from foreign soils where they do not belong. America should only send its children to war when that is the ABSOLUTE LAST option to confront a CLEAR, present and immediate danger. Dr. Paul opposed sending our citizens to Iraq since the beginning, this is not a new position.

Posted by: todd | July 30, 2007 12:29 PM

Ya know, even silly "snowmen" are included in that troublesome "We the People."

Posted by: Franco | July 30, 2007 12:49 PM

The purpose of debates is to a)inform the electorate by asking candidates to answer questions on the top issues of the election and b) Allow the candidates to choose the forum that will let them best manipulate the questions. Since there are no neutral media companies in this election there is zero chance that a) will be accomplished.

The Democrats bailed on the Fox debates because they knew those who chose the questions would not pander to them and the CNN stupidity with You Tube is tit for tat with the Republicans.

We face loss of global power because we don't produce anything and an enemy determined to exterminate us and we are supposed to think a question from a Sock Puppet is not insulting to the whole process. And those of us who are supposed to be controlling the process, the voters, are sitting idly by and letting these media types get away with blantant lies and gross exaggerations.

Every one who has the sense to vote knows for certain that there are lies being told both for and against those who are trying to hold the most important post in the land. And we know that our legislators, instead of doing their jobs, are using their important offices to run a political campaign. It was done by Republicans under the last President and it is absolutely being done right now by our Democratic Congress.

As for me, I would not vote for any candidate who doesn't laugh uncontrollably and refuse to answer a question posed on a television entertainment program with the digity of "American Idol". So CNN, you got away with it once and showed only that the candidates will put up with any degredation just to get some air time -- It ain't gonna happen again.

Posted by: Tom Mariner | July 30, 2007 12:50 PM

It's weird that the Republicans have a scheduling conflict with an, as yet, unscheduled event.

Here, they finally have the chance to give the unofficial, unsworn testimony that they've been promising us - and they turn it down?

That doesnt' make any sense - unless they are lying about the scheduling conflicts and the desire to give unsworn testimony.

It makes me wonder what else they've lied to us about.

Posted by: Sanders Kaufman | July 30, 2007 12:58 PM

Do all debates have to be run using the same format? If yes, then the youtube debate should probably be judged a failure. If not, then the youtube debate can be judged a success on two grounds: (a) allowing citizens a voice; and (b) increasing interest among young voters in particular. I don't understand why people are so opposed to a little variety. Until you drop the number of contenders from 8 or so down to 2 or 3 candidates, then these are probably best considered "forums," not "debates," irrespective of who's asking the questions.

Posted by: Thin Slicer | July 30, 2007 1:56 PM

if you have a myspace profile, change your name and picture to a snowman.
THEN ask Mitt to be your friend!
Show him how big an idiot he really is!!

Posted by: snowman | July 30, 2007 2:05 PM

So according to Mitt Romney a snowman is disrespectful to the Presidential selection process?

Ohh, and having the election of Al Gore as president of the United States overturned by the Supreme Court is respectful of the selection process? Electronic voting machines with no paper trail are respectful?

After 6 years of the criminal, immoral, and deadly actions that the Bush administration has dragged the American government through I can see how you wouldn't want to see a snowman asking a question about global warming. I mean, what do you expect Romney to say, "You will melt. Your children will melt. Those of you who are not snowmen will have your health worsened as I roll back environmental protections."

Mitt Romney (or Rudy Giuliani) would be the perfect successor to President Bush. He will wear his 'morality' on his sleave and kill lots of people. And he won't let the facts get in the way of his killing spree.

I guess in the end it doesn't really matter. The Republicans have as much chance of keeping the White House as we have of all the people who currently resist the occupation of Iraq deciding that its OK to have Americans occupying their contry.

Posted by: youmustbejoking | July 30, 2007 2:59 PM

Have you guys forgotten that Fred Thompson has been using youtube all along? As for Mitt Romney, he most likely is avoiding an ambush which is what it will be.

Posted by: Sure | July 30, 2007 3:24 PM

Why doesnt this article mention the 2 candidates who have eagerly embraced the CNN GOP debate since day 1?

Ron Paul http://www.ronpaul2008.com and
John McCain (whom Im not a fan of, but Ill still give him credit for this.)

These two men apparently do not fear the American public. That in itself should be a story.

Posted by: Van | July 30, 2007 3:27 PM

WOW... you never cease to amaze me, so-called liberal democrats, that is. Call me what you will... I have voted for Democrats and Republicans, and quite frankly, I would like to hear what both parties have to say! I do not like that the GOP seems to be snubbing America's interests. I just have to point out that those of you who have nothing intelligent to say, but continue to bash the GOP party entirely... Please keep your ignorance to a minimum.

I don't think that, perhaps, some of the questions chosen were the best choice, but I think it was an excellent idea. At least most of the Democrats stood up and took America's questions seriously no matter how rediculously they were delivered.

Posted by: Steele | July 30, 2007 3:46 PM

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Republicans backed out of the Y tube debates. They have never been the open and honest party that there "Religious right" would seem to indicate. The fact is the Democrats are a more caring honest and open bunch. The self interest tax cuts for the rich restriction of self expression i.e. only seeing the world through the religious right binoculars won't play well with the y tube crowd. You have to earn respect Mr. Romney. Go ahead Republicans hide.

Posted by: anonomous | July 30, 2007 3:51 PM

Why can't they have REAL debates, with REAL people, asking REAL questions?

Both sides want to be able to script questions, along with picking and choosing which quesitons they will answer.

The Democrats didn't even MENTION terrorism in the last debate. Are you telling me that of ALL the questions submitted, they couldn't find ONE on terrorism?

Posted by: Vince | July 30, 2007 4:15 PM

Why have so many of us automatically assumed that the GOP is trying to "dodge" the debate? Clearly, we ought to have a better sense of propriety, instead of asking our political leaders questions from a snowman. Either way, it seems like several of you have already made your decision about the GOP candidates, so what good would a debate from the GOP do for you anyway?

Mitt Romney may not be my first pick, but I don't believe we should be scared of him (or his religious beliefs). I don't think the Mormons are going to take over if Romney is elected. Giuliani is nothing to be scared of either. I think both candidates are trying to keep a level of professionalism in the debates, which is something that every politician understands - regardless of party affiliations.

The fact that they don't see YouTube, or questions from snowmen as professional does not surprise me or disappoint me in any way. In fact, I find it respectable that they are trying to maintain an atmosphere of professionalism and dignity.

Our Democratic candidates have also done a fine job of keeping a professional atmosphere, but I do admit that I have been disappointed in this whole YouTube/snowman thing, etc. Reaching out to people and representing them does not mean that you have to be unprofessional.

Posted by: Jake Forrey | July 30, 2007 4:25 PM

Well considering that we haven't had a major terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 terrorism is not exactly an issue that impacts most Americans lives.

I con only hope that Americans have relegated terrorism to its rightful place next to lightning strikes and shark attacks as unlikely events that should not dictate the way we run our lives.

We just need to take a few safety precautions and move on people. Please. I'm sick of being surrounded by fearful people who are easily suckered into doing really aweful things.

We are far more likely to die of a car accident than of a terrorist attacks. I guess nobody thought to ask about improving car safety standards either.

Of course the Faux News debates (and 'news' coverage) treat terrorism like it was something that we all face on our way to work every morning.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
~FDR - a truly great President

Posted by: heh | July 30, 2007 4:41 PM

HEH - good point. Terrorism seems to be a bit over rated. However, what message would we be sending to the world if we stood idly by and did nothing? The attacks would continue. So, if for nothing else, it is necessary for us to at least show the world that we are not going to put up with terrorism and its effects.

Posted by: JP | July 30, 2007 4:51 PM

Screw "debating" and "voting!" Our voices will never be heard by these greedy, war mongering bastards! How many times do we Americans have to be raped in the rear before we revolt!? Last time it just took a few taxes... now how many taxes do we have? Wake up America. We are being used, lied to, and enslaved more and more every day. Ask yourself whats wrong with this country, and act accordingly.

Posted by: Angry American | July 30, 2007 5:02 PM

Screw "debating" and "voting!" Our voices will never be heard by these greedy, war mongering bastards! How many times do we Americans have to be raped in the rear before we revolt!? Last time it just took a few taxes... now how many taxes do we have? Wake up America. We are being used, lied to, and enslaved more and more every day. Ask yourself whats wrong with this country, and act accordingly.

Posted by: Angry American | July 30, 2007 5:02 PM

Screw "debating" and "voting!" Our voices will never be heard by these greedy, war mongering bastards! How many times do we Americans have to be raped in the rear before we revolt!? Last time it just took a few taxes... now how many taxes do we have? Wake up America. We are being used, lied to, and enslaved more and more every day. Ask yourself whats wrong with this country, and act accordingly.

Posted by: Angry American | July 30, 2007 5:02 PM

I believe they are dodging the debate because they feel it is unfair that Fred Thompson is not participating. We don't have much information on Fred Thompson's views and yet he is leading the GOP field. Romney and Giuliani both want Thompson in the debate so that he can be scrutinized just like the rest of the field.

Posted by: Jake | July 30, 2007 5:16 PM

Hey Mitt
Since you won't face us at the debate here's a few questions:
1. Pro-military yet you NEVER served and your sons are NOT serving.
2. Didn't raise taxes yet you did raise legal fees and license fee while at the same time you cut $277 million from education and another $130 million form higher education.
3. Mass ranks 49th in job growth?
4. You said that John Kerry spent too much time away from office and yet you spent half your term away from office.
I can see why you don't want to debate, you have too much to hide.

Posted by: your40ha | July 30, 2007 5:22 PM

Where was the question "You claim to be for the children yet how can you support the killing of an 8 or 9 month fetus via partial birth abortion?"

Idiot. Those procedures are only performed when the fetus is severely deformed, not viable or already dead in utero. If you truly believe a woman would wake up one day during her third trimester and say "hmm...I think I'm gonna abort after all" then you're delusional and an ass.

GOP is full of cowards. The YouTube format is new, and as such has a lot of room to improve. But it is a GREAT concept. Naturally, republicans won't have anything to do with it.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 5:24 PM

I'm glad we have at least one candidate who wants to keep some dignity in the election process. CNN selected videos not because of their substance but because of their entertainment potential. I'm glad Romney has the backbone to stand tall, and props to Giuliani too. They know they don't need to degrade themselves to win over the American people. And for the person who says the Republicans feel uncomfortable with the average American people and that's why they're avoiding the debate, don't say ignorant things you know nothing about. Mitt Romney spends several days a week with letting average Americans, regardless of their political views, financial status, or ideological views, question him about whatever in his "Ask Mitt Anything" sessions.

Posted by: Joseph Antley | July 30, 2007 5:42 PM

I am not at all suprised some GOP candidates would run away from the youtube format - it is too 'unconventional' for their starched stuffed shirt character. The format is different, but is innovative. I'm glad McCain and Paul have the guts to embrace the technology rather than criticizing it as not being high-brow enough for them. The standard debate format is old, tired, and BORING. Though not perfect, the youtube format adds something these candidates lack - ENERGY. They are as animated as an Al Gore suit on a hanger most of the time. I don't think the candidates are comfortable with the format because it is technologically advanced - it kind of is frightenly similar to a young Richard Nixon going before the marvel of TV during the Kennedy/Nixon debates. I for one would be very interested to see and hear Guliani's answer to a Snowman's question. I expect he'd become all indignant, stomp his feet, and go crying home to mommy that the bad Snowman made him look bad. I don't want an allufe President - we have one now. I want a President who can take an answer from a Snowman, give an intelligent answer, and not be arrogant that he's too good to youtube it.

Posted by: Mike | July 30, 2007 5:49 PM

Rudy is afraid that Republicans will find out how liberal he is on social issues.

Mitt is worried that everyone will see how fake he is (he's the best the Republicans got- Democrats are licking their chops)

McCain isn't hiding- he'll go down with the ship (actually he is)

Thompson is afraid that people will find out that he's actually running

Huckabee and Brownback are afraid that someone will bring up how they have no chance of winning

Newt is afraid people will forget about him

The NAACP held a debate and Tom Tancredo was the only Republican to show up. CNN should do what they did and have all the podiums up their empty with the missing person's name on it. Let America see that.

Posted by: Joseph | July 30, 2007 5:57 PM

Desbic say to support Romney because he's a lesser degenerate than all the tally hoes enzyme sepulcher competitors, that Anti'-christ B. They shouldn't avoid debating in a timely manor, (now asap), and fleeing from an opportunities for all outwardly seated sin, shouldn't ought t remember how you's forgot 'bouts when it was issue to disappearments of fuel rods losing stamina to see us through too...precedence Capitals I seek.

Posted by: Desbic | July 30, 2007 6:10 PM

Desbic say to support Romney because he's a lesser degenerate than all the tally hoes enzyme sepulcher competitors, that Anti'-christ B. They shouldn't avoid debating in a timely manor, (now asap), and fleeing from an opportunities for all outwardly seated sin, shouldn't ought t remember how you's forgot 'bouts when it was issue to disappearments of fuel rods losing stamina to see us through too...precedence Capitals I seek.

Posted by: Desbic | July 30, 2007 6:10 PM

Anyone else feel like there are a bunch of junk comments being posted to lessen the impact of what is being said here?

Posted by: conspiracy | July 30, 2007 6:33 PM

The Mormns believe that they will become gods in the next life to be worshiped. What more does one need to know about Mitt Romney? The Mormons are more in line with Scientology than with main stream christianity. Maybe Romney is afraid to be confronted with a question about his belief that he will one day be at the same level as God The Father.

Posted by: David | July 30, 2007 6:38 PM

The republican candidates, all of them are afraid to answer straight forward questions. They can't withstand sunlight shining on them out in open forum.

Posted by: David | July 30, 2007 6:43 PM

By not accepting to show up to the U tube debate, A onlooker has a Uncomortable feeling that the Republicans are AVOIDING a Situation that they have NO CONTROL OVER--Wecome to the REAL WORLD !!!!!

Posted by: Raymond | July 30, 2007 6:49 PM

Mitt and Rudy want to drop out of the debate? Let 'em. The fewer Republican propaganda artists, the better. In fact, cancel the whole debate. The world doesnt want or need to hear any more Republican spin or rhetoric. Over all it matters very little. The White House won't have another Republican in it for a long, long time after Bush and his underlings leave (and become nothing but a bad memory with a trail of blood to be cleaned up by someone with a moral compass).

Posted by: Brian | July 30, 2007 6:57 PM

David - What does Mitt Romney's religious belief have to do with his ability to be a good president? JFK was a magnificent president, but many people feared his connection with the Catholic church. If Mitt Romney really believes strongly in those things, I seriously doubt he is afraid to answer any questions about his beliefs. even still, I'm confused about how those beliefs have anything to do with his abilities as president. It seems to me that our country was founded on the basis of freedom of religion...names such as Mayflower and Plymouth Rock come to mind...the pilgrims were considered religious radicals for their time also, but, thanks to them, you and I can believe what we want. I guess we should probably try to leave religious beliefs out of the picture and try to focus on political issues.

Posted by: jf | July 30, 2007 7:49 PM

I agree that religion shouldn't be a part of the debates. mormons are nice anyway. but, that is not the point of this blog, now is it? the candidates seem to be running from the spotlight, and it may not be good for their chances to be pres.

Posted by: donny | July 30, 2007 7:53 PM

They're all backing out because they're afraid of Ron Paul. So are the Dems so you can't really blame them.

Posted by: BrianC | July 30, 2007 8:40 PM

The YouTube debate allowed for questions to be asked that would otherwise not be asked by most news reporters. I appreciated the candor in which the questions were asked and the candor in which they were answered.

The fact of the matter is the format allowed me to gain greater insight into the candidates, their views and how they handle themselves in unknown situations. Whether or not the format or the candidates were more liberal or conservative doesn't matter. What does matter is that we are presented with their positions on race, healthcare, same sex marriage,war, peace and everything else under the sun. The format felt as though we the public were interviewing the candidates for their job in office. Seeing how "we the people" are deciding our next president I thought it to be a very appropriate format.

It is most upsetting, disrespectful, elitist and discouraging to hear candidates state that the format is beneath them. The perception is that I as a constituent am beneath them, somehow less important than they are. Seeing how they wish to become my president I believe it is only fair that they answer some questions as the democrats did.

Posted by: CynthiaHabeeb | July 30, 2007 8:56 PM

I did an informal poll on another liberal blog (that's what this is right?), and found out that most of the FOX haters "never" watched it -- so they said. This seems to be a common scenario for the cowardly left.

IMO FOX is the ONLY network that asks tough questions to both sides.

BTW, I suggest you America haters can show your support for Islam by measuring your daughter for their new burkas:

-----RIYADH, April 1 -- A new splinter group of Muslims in Saudi Arabia has declared that the Wahabbi sect, considered strict by many people, is actually promoting lasciviousness and immoral Western values.

Though the customary burkas worn by women in these countries cover all of the body except for the eyes, a new group of imams have decried the garment for showing too much.

"Women were found to be winking!" said Sheikh Fahd.

They have ruled that in order to prevent "immodesty" and winking, women will have to wear new burkas that cover all but one eye. "This way, if they wink, it will look like a blink," the Imam declared.----

Posted by: tradamerica | July 30, 2007 9:14 PM

""Women were found to be winking!" said Sheikh Fahd."

The real terrorists are traitors who hate bush so much they are willing to hand the land of milk and honey over to the "wink" Nazis.

You folks in the big cities will get all you want of the over blown terrorist threat soon enough.

multi ethnic

Posted by: tradamerica | July 30, 2007 9:18 PM

Its funny how naive so many people are about the YouTube debate.

Everyone here is talking about how the questions were "hardball" and from "the common man". Saying how the democrats had to face "normal people's" questions.

I ask you, out of the thousands of video questions submitted who chose the ones to be asked? What separates the nature and content of those questions from a card written by the same CNN censor?

Nothing other than entertainment. CNN picked the questions THEY wanted asked under THEIR premise and agenda. No regular joe off the street had any say into what was asked... period.

Posted by: Brainplay | July 30, 2007 10:12 PM

Good grief. Not a single one of those old white men had the nerve to admit they actually believe in evolution! You think they are going to get up in front of their base and answer questions? Like, "When are we gonna kill all the "Libs"? "When are we going to nuke Mexico to stop the illegals?" "When are we sending teh gays to hell?" "How do we ramp up the suffering of the poor, hungry and diseased so we can speed up the Rapture?"

Folks, you get this all wrong. They aren't afraid of tough questions from CNN, or silly questions from the public. They are afraid of the rest of us, the 70% of us who are for sanity in policy and humanity in government, seeing the freeze-dried-whackaloons who make up their base. Good old Fred Phelps will come with his family, along with James Dobson and good ol' Pat Robertson, and the rest of the country will see for themselves who these guys pander to.

These men aren't even serious. "I would double the size of Gitmo!!" "I would hire an army of Jack Bauers to make sure we torture all those stinkin' 'citizens' who don't think like us!!!"

What a bunch of would be emporers. Crazy fruit loop inbred neo-monarchists who hate everything about real freedom and liberty and are doing their very best to stomp it dead and return the rest of us to serfdom where they figure we belong.

These are losers who will steal, cheat and lie their way into power so they can loot the treasury. Don't kid yourselves, these guys are GW Bush in a slightly less mussed wrapper. Lock Rove up before he tries to make sure the vote is suppressed all over the country, cuz I see a landslide ahead.

Posted by: LiberalTarian | July 30, 2007 10:18 PM

The bought and paid for Democrats and Republicans and the Goofy mainstream media still don't understand what is happening on the Internet and YouTube and the power it holds.
It's not the media, its the message.
Just like I wouldn't call the candidates normal 'debate' forum a 'debate', neither is what happened with YouTube. It's not a debate. It was a 'selection' or filtered questions from a minority of people who took the time to post a question, some even got a little carried away with costumes and such so they would get picked.
(pick me! pick me!)
Same old questions. Same old answers.
Ho hum.
If any of them want to really 'harness' the power of the media, they will have to start listening to the topics going around the net and start responding.
Ron Paul has if figured out.
Up until a month or so ago, both parites were saying that only polls Ron Paul was placing any double digits were on internet polls, (and bloggers aren't real you know) so it didn't matter. Now all of a sudden they all want a piece of the action.
Again, its not the media (internet), its the MESSAGE.

Posted by: Twisted | July 30, 2007 10:42 PM

The GOP candidates needs questions from lobbyists. They are the only ones they listen to.

Posted by: Glen Parker | July 31, 2007 2:11 AM

The Post had an appropriate political cartoon last Saturday: What's next, the My Space debate?

The You Tube "debate" was ridiculous.

The snowman was accompanied by the lesbians, the guy playing the guitar, the guy with the assault weapon, and the request to say something nice about another candidate.

Maybe if CNN selected serious questions from normal people, the "debate" would be OK.

Republicans should receive assurance from CNN that You Tube questions will not be another circus.

Posted by: Art Kelly | July 31, 2007 3:22 PM

The debate certainly won't be postponed, the candidates can't afford to miss it.

Garling Gauge has a funny take on it -


Posted by: Tony H. | August 1, 2007 3:49 AM

So tradamerica, you better watch what you say about the Saudis. You could be wire tapped! el Presidente seems to think that they are just swell. O that's right, that's where most of his money comes from.
O, and I do watch FOX on rare occaisons, until I just can't stand it anymore. They are about as fair and balanced as that comedian.. what's his name? O yea, Rush Limbaugh. Polls show that 26% of Americans are still drinking the Kool-aide.

Posted by: Bill | August 13, 2007 3:21 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2007 The Washington Post Company