I cited you as the EXCEPTION to the usual run of conservative gadflies and trolls that frequent this blog.

YOU, at least, have something of substance to say.

Also, what branch of the US Armed Services did you serve in?

Me, Army.

Congratulations Jeff! Unfortunately Rush linked to the Austin American-Statesman instead of Jeff’s BuzzMachine. Audience growth due to Rush touting a given website to his 20 million webcast viewers and radio listeners intrigues me. How many of Rush’s 20 million visit a touted site and how many end up staying?

Mr. Jarvis, you yourself have said that a campaign is about the candidate getting his message across more than having a discussion. I can’t find the post, it’s from eons ago - oh wait.

I think the Republicans should be scared. If “us” are those on the internet/media junkies, we tend to favor fringe candidates, like John Edwards (if a Lefty) or Fred Thompson. We’re out of touch in our ranting and perpetual absorption of media with the special interests that really matter and dominate each party. Some of those special interests are represented on the Internet, but a lot of us are here because we’re reacting to media more than wanting to get involved in politics. Granted, this argument is working off of old numbers, I’m thinking mainly of the Pew Internet Research Report in Jan. 2005 where only 9% of internet users surveyed said they regularly read political blogs. I doubt the number is that small anymore, but I don’t see this place getting any less radical. Huff Po and Juan Cole and Michelle Malkin and LGF represent majority opinion? Really?

Let the Dems and Republicans pick their venues however they like. If they fail, then you can go “I told you so.” But loading how they should approach elections tactically with a populist/futurist vision could backfire. Don’t online polls differ significantly in results from other sorts of polling (I’m not sure, I’m asking)?

You’re right, R - I’ve neglected the fact that the Dems are barely distinguishable, in many instances, from the Republicans, as far as political hypocrisy goes.

There’s been as much bribery and corruption in the Democratic Camp as there has been in the Republican camp, as much accessibility to lobbyists and their vested interests, and as much playing fast’n'loose with the facts…

A few recent events, though, have REALLY brought the Republicans down in most people’s opinions…like this blatantly ILLEGAL and IMMORAL WAR in which we find ourselves embroiled in Iraq - I NEVER, in my LIFETIME, thought I would witness AMERICA acting as a HOSTILE INVADER…for NO GOOD REASON…under FALSE PRETENSES…launching a PREMPTIVE STRIKE against a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY…

All because a pipsqueak who’s never served a decent day’s military service in his LIFE thinks it would be a good idea to try to tie a good oil-resource country run by a petty dictator WE helped back, to an international terrorist organization by utilizing a web of faulty data spun into a tangle of lies…said pipsqueak having been APPOINTED, thanks to a likely jerrymandering of an election (engineered by Rove, Jeb & Co., Ltd.), by a Supreme Court heavily influenced by right-wing conservatives backed by the Religious Right…and a second election once again likely tampered with utilizing mail-culling…

And so, in answer to Bush’s follies, in our last election the Democrats served up John Kerry, a.k.a. ‘Just Another Bonesman,’ a man who was and remains utterly clueless as to just what it takes to survive on an income of $25K per year or less in this country. Truly inspirational.

This year’s lineup is a beauty pageant, once again - on both sides of the aisle. The only difference between the parties is which vested interest is backing WHOM, and with HOW MUCH.

I’m an independent, R - I’d've voted for McCain in 2000, if he’d had the guts to CALL Bush on his BS for smearing his military record. Instead, he must’ve had his SPINE removed. Politics in this country is like that: you seem to have to have a vertebrectomy before you can get elected.

And if you’re wondering where all the nasty names are that right-wingers have called left-wingers, well, they’re not on this thread because right wingers generally avoid this whole BLOG, except when they’re playing TROLL, with a few exceptions like Trevor Carpenter, here. The names are out there, though - just read or watch the news whenever a Republican is speaking about the Democrats - let’s see…’Traitors,’ ‘Soft on Terror,’ ‘Unpatriotic,’ ‘Against our Troops,’ etc. etc. ad nauseum.

It’s possible to be a conservative, OR a liberal, without being a LIAR, R….the problem is, so many of them ARE liars, these days.

And right now, the bulk of the liars appear to be occupying the RIGHT side of the AISLE.

That can easily change, of course. As it has many times in the past. And it’s OUR job to keep an eye on them and make sure we’re getting the truth. And that may be the biggest benefit of the internet - the fact that there are so many voices out here, that sooner or later ONE of them, at least, is bound to be telling the truth. And THAT … SCARES … LIARS.

“…You see these dictators upon their pedastels, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers, and the truncheons of their police. But in their hearts…they are AFRAID…of WORDS, stirring abroad…of THOUGHTS, brewing at home. A little MOUSE…a little MOUSE of DOUBT, enters the room…and even the mightist POTENTATES are thrown into PANIC…” —Winston Churchill

Dems bail on FOX, no problem, YAWN, traditional media barely issues any concern that Dems are not all inclusive.

Repubs bail on CNN, big problem, OH MY GOD, traditional media goes into overdrive spouting how Repubs are not all inclusive.

Somethings never seem to change …

And oh, by the way, YouTube appears to be 50/50 politically, just like the nation. The problem is CNN, not YouTube.

1. Why does it seem that lefties can’t debate something without calling people all sorts of names - “loobbyist-hoes”, “butt monkeys”, “pygmy RINOs”, “rePUKulans “, etc. What are the nasty names righties on this thread have called Democrats?

2. I think Internet progressives sometimes fail to be at all critical in their support for this fantastic medium. There are great innovations being fostered on the internet, including in the political arena. However, the YouTube debate clearly was not one of them. The questions were not new, they were selected by CNN which set the agenda, they did not foster followup and the debate pursued entertainment at the expense of information (I know, I know, information can be transmitted effectively when it is entertaining, but here the priorities were wrong). Knee jerk criticism of the Republicans for rejecting the format is knee-jerk support for a medium that has not proven effective. Perhaps more analysis than “they are afraid” is appropriate.

Harvard Conservative seems an oxymoron best suited to describe a stuffy liberal IMHO.

And, of course, the moment the actual primaries began, he imploded into nothing.

(As we’ve also seen above, Ron Paul is getting similar praise for the similar reasons this time around; the only difference is that his actual chances of winning are, and always will be, zero. Dean at least had the theoretical potential of making it through.)

The YouTube debate is a gimmick, and one that will quickly be forgotten whether it’s held or not. There may be a larger question as to how much of an effect the Internet is destined to have on future political campaigns in general, but the YouTube debate itself is close to irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/27/youtube-and-republicans-get-in-the-game/

The only difference we had, was the snowman and some geeky dudes…I think “you tube” debate was actually making fun of people. Majority of people ( me included) don’t know how to use Utube, so I don’t agree “utube” debates represented average citizens at all.

This is not a Republican issue at all. Didn’t Democrats refuse to debate on FOX, as if FOX audience are not “average American” citizen!

Patrick Ruffini in a new post:

Why am I so worked up about the YouTube debate?

Because I want to win.

This is not an emotional issue for me. It is rather a business decision about whether or not the Republican Party will be able to compete effectively over the next twenty years or so.

New York Times Caucus blog:

“The Republican CNN-YouTube debate, scheduled for Sept. 17 in Florida, may move to another date, given reservations that some of the presidential candidates have expressed about both the date and the format.”

There are better ways to listen to voters, and talk to them, using the internet.