Sonic Youth and the Feelies vs. A Giant Hole of Suck
Why Does the Wilbur Theatre Suck? Better Rock Shows in 5 Steps
Photo of the Day, November 23, 2009: Stark
Photo of the Day, November 24, 2009: Hook, Line, and Sinker
Where Should You Eat? A Fast Food Flowchart
In a move that boggles the mind, Mitt Romney has declared that he won't take part in the Republican version of the CNN/YouTube debate in December. Why? Here's the reason:
Asked about the [YouTube] format, which featured video questions submitted by the public, Romney said "There is a degree of respectfulness that ought to be associated with the process for selecting a nominee. From what I've heard, that level of respectfulness was breached."
But CNN is trying to woo him back to the stage, and he's not exactly saying no. In fact, he'll do it if the debate date is changed.
While we would agree that the CNN/YouTube debate was an overhyped affair, it forced the candidates to interact with people who were distinctly not like themselves. The debate said, "This is America - and some of us are a little different." Campaign commercials are directed toward an imaginary "ordinary American" who has been determined by focus groups and then tilted in either the conservative or liberal direction. But the YouTube debate boldly admitted that some people don't fit that mold. Rejecting the YouTube debate makes Romney look like he doesn't want to mingle with the great unwashed.
As for the "respectfulness" (is that a word?), if Romney were elected president, he would have to govern over plenty of people who didn't respect him. Surely he got used to that in Massachusetts.
Let's step in the shoes of Romney's campaign advisors. Skipping this debate is completely out of character. Despite his clearly conservative stripes, Romney is painting himself as the "not-your-grandparents-Republican-candidate." He has a hip website and the Five Brothers blog. He has his own YouTube channel. He had mini-Mitt. And, obviously, his own campaign staffers, such as Will Ritter, have discovered the joys of Web 2.0.
Image of Mitt Romney interfacing with thoroughly vetted police officers, whom he apparently prefers to the sloppy unwashed who sometimes pop up in YouTube videos.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
It is simple. He see's himself as too good to take questions directly from average American's. All this high and mighty reasoning he gives for the 'lack of proper respect for someone seeking presidential nomination' is pure hogwash. He does not strike me as the kind of person we need as President Of The United States Of America.
If you're gettting information about Prsedential candidates from TouTube, you need to get a life.
PS: respectfulness is a word, how stupid is this reporter?
to the previous comment: "Respectfulness" is a word? When he could have said "respect"? It sounds like a namby-pamby form of esteem. I can see Mitt singing: "find out what it means to me." Maybe it's all he expects to get. Such caviling from a commenter who can't even spell. And complaining about using YouTube as a reference for a story that's, well, about a debate on YouTube seems silly to me. Keep up the good work, Bostonist.
I think a President should be held to a higher standard so Mitt heres a few questions:
1. Pro military and yet you never served, why don't you send YOUR son's to IRAQ?
2. Pro education and yet you cut $277 million form education and $130 million form higher education?
3. Closed the budget deficit by not raising taxes but raising licensing and court filing fees by $500 million?
4.Pro employment and yet while Governor Mass ranked 49th?
5. You complained that John Kerry spent too much time away from office during his Presidential run and yet you have spent half your term as Governor away from office?
6.Why all of the out-of-state trips to promote your own political career?
I can see why you don't want to debate, you have a lot to hide.
--Mitt Romney is NOT afraid of answering regular folks questions. He's smarter than any other candidate out there, fast on his feet and capable of handling even the most liberally-slanted snowman question.
--He has had more townhall meetings throughout the country than any other candidate to date on his "Ask Mitt Anything" tour. Also, just last Friday he answered unscreened calls from C-span callers. He has opened himself up to questions from ordinary citizens more than any other candidate.
--It very simply is 1) a matter of schedule conflict, and 2) a discomfort with the slightly demeaing and Reality TV-like tone of the YouTube debates.
--I am sure if the schedule can be worked out and CNN and Romney agree to some ground rules that will increase the level of decorum and debate befitting that of the Office of the Presidency then he will attend.
All of this over what was yet another play for ratings put on by CNN--a rather shallow debate with bells and whistles that added about as much substance as tensil adds to Christmas--in short, none. I find it wholly disingenous to imply Romney is afraid to take questions from the public when he is the ONLY candidate holding forums across the country where one can literally ask him anything. Further, his website is also home to the most thorough discussion of policy of any canddiate--Democrat or Republican.
As for those who continue to equate educational spending with performance, really, how much longer are you going to ignore the data? The United States spends astronomical amounts of money educating its populace compared to nations who routinely destroy its students on standardized tests. The state of Maine recently ranked highest in reading proficiency in the nation. But its teacher salary was ranked 39th. And if you want to go in the opposite direction, look at California and its abysmal schools. Money is not the answer. Elevated standards are. More focused curriculums. Less social engineering--more training to produce future engineers.