The debate over the CNN/YouTube debate continues. Human Events editor Jed Babbin and RedState.com editor Erick Erickson are now calling for a “do-over debate” to compensate for the number of questions asked by unidentified Democratic operatives and volunteers:
“The blame lies largely with CNN, which wanted Republican voters to meet their Republican candidates but only on Democrats’ terms. They did so by portraying the GOP as women-arresting, gun toting, confederate flag-waving simpletons.”
Babbin and Erickson generously offer to host this do-over debate themselves:
“We have a base of readers who represent the Republican wing of the Republican Party. You – and the Republican Party – deserve to face the questions posed by undecided Republicans, not Democratic activists.”
Their complaints certainly have merit, but do we really need another forum for either party where the candidates are asked comfort food questions they’ve already had ample time to script their answers to? If the candidates truly have a grounded philosophy on the role of government they should be able to handle a broad range of questions that aren’t offered on a silver platter embroidered with Ronald Reagan’s visage.
The more practical solution is to make sure that next time (assuming there is a next time), the debate hosts are held to the highest standards of transparency and accountability. Running away from the institutional media isn't likely to solve the problem. It's far more likely to make the problem worse.
Hat Tip: Blog P.I.
UPDATE: CNN is in fact hosting another Republican debate on 1/30 in Simi Valley, California. It's not a YouTube debate, but still seems like the perfect opportunity for CNN to make amends and enough time for them to understand they need to make amends.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
Man, what a bunch of whiners! Somebody ought to tell these guys that there is no whining in politics - only winners and whiners, uh, er, losers.
Posted by: gatordem
| December 4, 2007 9:25 AM
I appreciate the hat tip. But I must add: Not you, too!
"Their complaints certainly have merit, but do we really need another forum for either party where the candidates are asked comfort food questions they’ve already had ample time to script their answers to?"
As I argued in my post, conservatives can't ask them ALL softball questions. This is especially true now, since there is no leading candidate. They're certainly more likely to ask questions that matter to Republicans than CNN. And their audience is who will have to ultimately decide on a candidate,so I do not share the assumption that the questions would be mere comfort food.
Is it possible that a conservative-sponsored debate could spin a cocoon around their candidates? Surely. But it's worth giving them a chance, because CNN isn't getting the job done.
I also believe it's worth doing at least one debate (and maybe more) where the candidates have had time to think the answer through. Myself, I'm tired of how "gotcha" the questions tend to be. As president, most decisions are made with deliberation -- so it would be useful to see beyond just snap judgements to their considered ones as well.
Posted by: WWB
| December 4, 2007 12:36 PM
Post A Comment