The Republicans don't like you....Tube.

The Democratic YouTube/CNN debate was somewhat novel, and I said before it didn't totally suck. And the one thing this format provides (whether it's real or just perceived) is a one-on-one communication with actual, everyday people. So while the hillbillies and snowmen were silly, for the audience, it helps shed light on if the potential leader of the free world is able to relate with "down home" folk and have a sense of humor. Remember, there's really only one reason Dubya got as many votes as he did in 2000 -- he was the "guy you could have a beer with".

Now, many of the GOP candidates are possibly NOT going to attend the Republican YouTube/CNN deabates. From Talking Points Memo:

It's looking like there might not be a GOP CNN/Youtube debate. Rudy appears to be opting out and Mitt Romney doesn't seem far behind. And GOP party functionary Hugh Hewitt is already laying down a line of covering fire for the retreat, arguing that CNN and Youtube are biased against Republicans.

In a strange twist of fate, even conservative bloggers realize what a horrible idea skipping this debate would be. From the oh-so-smart Andrew Sullivan:

For my part, the current old white men running for the GOP already seem from some other planet. Ducking YouTube after the Dems did so well will look like a party uncomfortable with the culture and uncomfortable with democracy. But then, we kind of knew that already, I guess, didn't we?

And even a more pragmatic criticism from Hot Air:

“The GOP can’t face the people, the GOP can’t handle unorthodox questions, the GOP has no sense no fun” — it’s a PR disaster in the making. Although I’m not surprised it’s Rudy who’s leading the way. Formats that don’t lend themselves to pat answers aren’t his strong suit.
[...]
In this case, if the frontrunner walks, the rest have every incentive to attend and then bludgeon Rudy with the same no-guts-no-fun talking points the Democrats have on ice.

There's some comparison between the Democrats not participating in the Fox News debates... but the comparison is decidedly weak. Fox News is a conservative outlet -- sure they may be fair and balanced, but they're "fair" coming from a conservative standpoint already. CNN is accused of being "liberal", but only from right-wing people. There are quite a few cases of lefties accusing CNN of being too willing to coddle conservative viewpoints... so obviously the political compass at CNN is not entrenched in one ideology. When was the last time a righty accused Fox News of being too "liberal"? Or when has there been ANY time that ANYONE accused Fox News of being "liberal"? I rest my case.

My prediction: Any GOP candidate that doesn't attend this debate will NOT be the GOP candidate for President.

(Biden == Crazy) while (Dude who calls gun 'baby' == Sane)

Mickey Kaus is about as insightful as a sea otter... and not those cute, holding hands ones either. I'm talking about one of those mean, rabies-filled sea otters.

In his piece about the YouTube Democratic debate, he seems to take issue with Biden speaking his mind:

I agree that the Biden response to the gun-toting You-Tuber was revealing--it showed Biden lacks even moderately calibrated snap judgment--and it was revealing in a way that a) wouldn't have happened with a non-YouTube debate, in which the questioner most likely wouldn't have gotten past security, let alone the screeners, and b) reflected Biden's alleged fatal flaw (or one of his several alleged fatal flaws), namely his cringe-making, unhinged spontaneous reactions.

His "a" part shows exactly why these kinds of debates are so needed, but his "b" part suggests that Kaus want his politicians to dodge and lie in response to questions asked of them. It's possible that he's gotten so used to our Executive branch never giving direct answers, that it scares him when someone actually does. Sadly, Glenn Reynolds, who usually has a decent head about such things, falls in the same camp:

The big news isn't the diminution in Biden's already microscopic chances of becoming President, but the collateral damage to other candidates and the Democrats' brand. It's hard to win swing states if gun owners hate you.

I wonder if anyone of them actually watched the video? The guy isn't holding a shotgun, or a hunting rifle, or even a handgun. He's got a (automatic? semiautomatic?) AR-15 built for military use... and he's calling it his "baby". It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, this guy just has a few screws loose - and yes, I realize he was probably just being a tad facetious. Most of the other candidates would've hemmed-and-hawed around the subject, but Biden told you straight out. And it sucks that people like this idiot Kaus think he should be penalized for being honest and forthright.

The other completely stupid thing that Kaus brings up:

Am I crazy or did Barack Obama just get suckered into saying that as President within a year he'd personally meet with Fidel Castro?

I'll answer both questions with a "yes". The arguments against meeting with "enemy" foreign leaders is insane to me. Just because you meet with them doesn't mean you'll be giving out hand-jobs under their desk... it's just meeting!

Imagine if you had a hostage situation at a bank or on an airplane. Is Kaus suggesting that you shouldn't talk to the hostage-takers? Is he saying the police should just ignore them and hope they go away? Of course, that would be bats**t looney to suggest such a thing. But just because you send in a negotiator, doesn't mean you have to give in to their demands. You talk to them, and see if there's a mutually beneficial road to a peaceful solution. As Obama brought out last night, Reagan met with the Soviet leaders, and no one freaked out about that. So what's the problem with meeting with Iran or Syria? The only difference I can see is the religious one. and that's just sad.

The YouTube/CNN Democratic debates weren't totally horrible.

The gimmicky YouTube/CNN Democratic debate last night could've been the S.O.S. (same ole' s**t) but with some Web 2.0 wrapping paper. Surprisingly, only about 50% of it was the S.O.S. The one thing I picked up on is that almost every question said something to the effect of "we need a change". To me, "change" means a new direction, not just veering a few degrees off the present course. And on that stage, only two people were representing true and honest change... and they were relegated to the far corners, and given very little screen time.

Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are crazy if they think they actually have a chance of winning the nomination. They both offer NEW ideas and a brand new direction... but while the YouTubers may posture about wanting "real" change, they'll never vote for it. What almost all Americans really want is a slight modification to the current policies, but not so much that it becomes scary. The fact is, we're frightened of change. Clinton is ahead in the Democratic polls, and she's a typical obfuscating politician, just like all the other politicians... how is that change? Just because she has boobs? Maybe she won't suck as a much as President Bush, but has that become our standard for electing the next President?

"Hi, I'm Hillary Clinton. I may talk and act just like every other politician in the world, but at least I'm not as bad as Bush."

Don't get me wrong, though. I wouldn't vote for Kucinich or Gravel if they were the only two candidates and a man-eating lion would eat me unless I chose. If they did half the s**t they proposed, it would ruin the country. The same thing goes for the Republican side with Ron Paul. Though, if the choice were voting for Paul or getting eaten by a lion, I'd vote for Paul. How's that for a ringing endorsement?

I really wish people could just be honest. No one want "change", we want "tweaks". And there's nothing wrong with that.