CNN made Fox News look legitimate last week when it co-sponsored the CNN/Youtube Republican debate. It promoted the show with an appeal to populism and it still maintains that we, “the voters” asked the questions. Of course, we know that the voters didn’t participate in the editorial process where CNN narrowed 5,000 Youtube entries to a final 20. Given that those 20 were remarkably freakish and largely without substance, CNN should explain its decisions.
I can't speak to their motivations but it looked like CNN used youtubers to behave obnoxiously in ways that respectable moderators cannot. I also note that something about the videos allude to misconceptions about conservatism. To that end, CNN is not totally at fault. As neoconservatives have become more shrill and confused, misconceptions about the party overall have been justified. But CNN made no effort to understand Republicans and that just made the experience useless for everyone.
Two videos stood out to best demonstrate these failures. One featured a crazed 20-something who bounced the Bible directly in front of the camera and demanded to know if the candidates believe “every word” of it. No doubt the CNN handlers thought this was a legitimate question. Maybe the press suffers from the illusion that religious conservatives never grapple with secularism, else why would they be religious? But any christian who has attended college knew the forthcoming response. “I believe some stories are literally true and some allegories for larger truths.” was the overwhelming refrain from secular-Catholic Giuliani to ordained minister Huckabee.
The second video included a gun enthusiast named Jay Fox who blasted at targets with a 12-guage shotgun before facing the camera to ask his question about gun control. With all the zeal of a Branch Davidian, he threateningly cocked his gun and asked who supported his 2nd Amendment rights.
In one of Duncan Hunter’s few opportunities to speak, he chastised the archetypical militia-man marvelously: “Well, first I've got to inform Jay that, as someone who got his hunting license at age 10, you should never throw a gun to a person. He should have taken that gun handed-off from his fellow hunter. So you have to be safe with guns, Jay.” Thus, Hunter asserted his historical alliance with the 2nd amendment, criticized careless gun ownership, demonstrated that we wasn't afraid of the sound of a pump action, and reminded America that guns are for hunting, not Hollywood-like showmanship all in one fell swoop. It sounds like Hunter knows how to distinguish gun owners from gun nuts, and he'll tell the latter to their faces (well...to their videos, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt since he got snubbed on airtime).
There was also a thread of mock woven throughout the debate. Not just a few of the questioners had badly-faked southern accents. Many sounded needlessly demanding in their questions. Even before the debate, senior political analyst Bill Schneider promoted the debate on the CNN webpage as a circus by channeling the Ringling Brothers’ ‘step-right-up’ theme. That webpage is now removed.
CNN’s biggest failure was not their inability to overcome bad presumptions about Republicans, though. Neither was it their inability to professionally portray a debate among the next possible leaders of the free world. Instead, it was their negligence in tackling topics Republicans want to hear about and not allowing other Republicans to have ample airtime. Even if the polls are accurate such that Romney and Giuliani are shoe-ins for the battle at the Republican convention, CNN must know that it plays a role in securing that finish. More importantly, if so many Republicans have committed to those two candidates, what is the point in giving them all the air time? Are there any undecided Republicans that haven't heard of Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani? This all forced the other candidates to winnow their platforms down to whether or not they agreed with the front runners.
Recap:
Tom Tancredo got a moment to mention that he has been ignored in all of the previous debates and was promptly ignored again.
Ron Paul's questions were mostly substance-less, forcing him to try to pack what was arguably the most elaborate political platform into 2 or 3 minutes, while also answering questions about (1) whether he believes in conspiracies and (2) what he'll do when he loses. Paul responded that the first question cited ideologies, not conspiracies (it wasn't about 9/11 truth). To the second question, he said that he will stop running. Anderson Cooper reminded him to stick to the question when he deviated into something that mattered.
Duncan Hunter gave the aforementioned clever answer to the gun video. While it may have scored some minor points among the base, it scored major points in demonstrating the silliness of the whole debacle. Given his adeptness with that question, perhaps we could have used more Duncan Hunter. Yet other than that, he didn't exist
Mike Huckabee now supports the abolition of the IRS. He doesn't seem to know what the Fair Tax is, but he nods with the people who do. No doubt, If Paul had not gotten thunderous applause for that position in previous debates, Huckabee would find something else to support. In-spite-of/because-of the fact that he is weakest on economic planning, he got some of the best economic questions. He remained weak.
In fact, all of the candidates pledged to fix Social Security, reduce the debt, stop deficit spending, stop borrowing money from China, and fix inflation. All but Paul want to continue the war indefintely. No one bothered to ask them how to achieve these financially impossible reconciliations.
McCain probably 'won', but only because he had both ample time and an opportunity to talk about issues. He attacked Paul for supporting a troop withdrawal by citing his own authority to speak for the troops, since he broke bread with some four-star generals over Thanksgiving. As a former enlistedman, I can imagine what the corporal who served McCain thanksgiving napkins on his only day off says about that. Paul returned that more troops send his campaign money than McCain's, but it was lost in delivery.
Mitt Romney again clarified his changed position on abortion. I thought his answer was satisfactory, but one wonders how many of the other candidates would have achieved satisfactory clearing-ups if they were allowed to have free reign to speak impulsively like Romney.
It seemed like CNN wanted the all the Republicans to come across like George Bush, but they underestimated intelligent, experienced politicians’ ability to look baffled by stupidity. All they achieved was a confused panel candidates responding to an annoying group of pretenders. If CNN wanted delineate the issues, they should have asked John McLaughlin or Pat Buchanan to choose the questions. If they wanted to prove Republicans have no substance, they should have asked substantive questions to see who floundered.
Instead, we came away knowing more about Giuliani’s affiliation with the Red Sox than we did about Tom Tancredo’s fiscal policies. Republicans are getting sick of Giuliani and Romney, yet CNN prompts them to vote for one of the two for sheer exhaustion.
