By now it should be well-known that the recent CNN/YouTube Republican debate featured questions largely from Democratic partisan plants. Ostensibly, CNN claims they didn’t know that the questioners were staffers on various campaigns or left-wing organizations which only goes to show they simply aren’t informed about the subject of their journalism. Shouldn’t a newscaster know what are the likely issues a Republican wants to hear candidates speak on and not rely on what Democrats think the issues are?
If anything, this exercise was a good thing that should end discussion once and for all about the left-wing bias of CNN. Either they colluded with the Democrats or they simply are so steeped in bias they didn’t know the difference. Either way, they’ve become a house organ of the DNC, and whether it is by choice or by ignorance doesn’t matter. YouTube’s anti-conservative bias is well-known and need not be cataloged here. How are we really surprised that this happened?
These debates have largely become programmatic with no new real information being conveyed. Newt Gingrich was right in calling these events “auditions”. There can be no debate when answers are restricted to 40 second sound-bites. That’s called a “campaign commercial”.
More importantly, it is the height of hypocrisy that Erick Erickson and his friends are calling for a “do-over” when they are largely responsible for the train-wreck going forward in the first place. In July, after seeing the Democratic version of the debate that featured an inane talking snowman with a global warming sob story, it was obvious the YouTube debate was nothing but amateur hour.
Some Republicans started pushing back against doing it, when Erickson and his friends started having fits of hysteria. The Save the Debate coalition was born with the fist-pumping rage of a teenager yelling at his parents that he should be treated like a grown-up. Several bloggers got together to send petitions around such as Wizbang! and the aptly-named plagiarizing outfit Hot Air. “You can’t write off the internet!” was the slogan of choice.
So, the candidates, to their discredit, caved in and showed up to the debate and it was exactly as puerile as they’d expected it to be. Even without the problem of bias, the questions were generally as inane as they were in the democrat debate. It should be obvious to anyone that when amateurs write the questions, you get an amateur debate. It’s like expecting Wikipedia to be a professional encyclopedia; it simply defies all logic and reason.
Now that the process has been shown to be flawed not once, but twice, Erickson wants to try again. Sorry, you had your chance and quite frankly you don’t matter that much anyway. You corralled everyone into this event and you get to bear the brunt for its failure because it was obvious to any reasoned thinker that this debate was a joke four months ago.
It is a shame that the most viewed presidential debate up to this point was a deeply flawed “fad” debate that failed to really dig into the issues that matter most to this country in any real significant way. It has only further served to sever the people from the politicians making it almost impossible to corner one of these jokers and get them to really answer a question.
There is plenty of blame to go around. To the Democratic candidates who sent plants to the Republican debate – what is this, a student council race? To CNN for being a willing or ignorant dupe – have we tried journalism lately? To the Republicans for not having the intestinal fortitude to make a stand – how can you stand up to Al Qaeda if you can’t stand up to a few self-important has-been bloggers?
The deep irony that the same bloggers that sped this train towards its impending derailment who are now complaining and wanting a “do over” is astounding. And it shows how far blogging has failed to live up the hype and its promise and simply become an outlet (with few exceptions) for the immature to pretend to be important. You blew it guys, let the pros handle the debates now.Powered by Sidelines