Republicans Are Afraid

It turns out not everyone enjoyed the YouTube debate as much as I did. In fact, it down right frightened some people because, I guess, too many regular people were allowed to participate. Unfortunately, it seems to have frightened the very people we need to be unafraid to listen and respond to the concerns of real Americans - like those people that want to be President of the United States. Apparently, Giuliani, Romney and McCain have become a little leery of having to deal with some originality and context when being asked questions during a debate, so they may not attend the GOP version of the YouTube debate on September 17th.

If presidential hopefuls are too busy to answer questions from real Americans, that's their choice. However, the fact that this is even an issue for those seeking the Republican nomination speaks volumes about Republicans' ability and desire to address those issues that are most important to young Americans. The last YouTube debate featured more young people than traditional town hall debates. As such, Giuliani, Romney, and McCain are implicitly sending the message that the concerns of young Americans are not important to them and do not figure in to their presidential aspirations. Perhaps, even worse, Giuliani, Romney, and McCain simply realize that they don't have answers to the problems that worry us most such as global warming, health care, sustainable energy policies, and the war in Iraq.

Democrats, on the other hand, fully embraced the opportunity to engage in a new forum that utilized some of today's most popular technology and gave regular Americans, many of them young, the chance to exercise their right to question those that would hold the highest office in the land. Unlike Republicans, the Democratic candidates recognize that we have legitimate concerns about the future of this country, and that successfully addressing those issues is key not only to electoral success but to the future well being of this country.

Ritter and Iraq

Every time I see Governor Ritter he impresses just a little more. Last night ProgressNow hosted an event with the Governor at Vinyl. Among other things, the Governor briefly touched on the disaster in Iraq. Two things stood out for me. First, Governor Ritter makes an effort to attend the funeral of every Colorado solider that has been killed in Iraq. Unlike the President, who refuses to allow the public to see the flag-draped coffins of fallen soldiers as they return home, the Governor is willing to acknowledge the human cost of this war, and is willing to actually honor the sacrifice that our soldiers are making rather than pay lip service to the price paid by so many brave men and women. Second, the Governor addressed the impact that the war has had on the states. He pointed out that the war, as we all know, is a costly endeavor. However, the burden of that expense is not borne the federal government alone. Rather, the money being spent in Iraq is money that previously was being spent on programs that assisted Colorado in providing critical services such as health care, education, and transportation. The resulting shortfalls will have long lasting consequences, consequences that our generation will have to face and overcome. For the vast majority of America, this war has been one that has asked of nothing from us. Yet, as the Governor notes, our generation will soon begin paying for the President's misadventure as a we grow up with inadequate health care for the poor, an under educated workforce, and a failing infrastructure.

People Trust Us

As Rasmussen reports, the country as a whole trust Democrats to do the people's business. These numbers can only go up in the coming days in light of the revelation that the Attorney General has no problem lying to the Senate. Here's the report:


When it comes to National Security, Democrats are now trusted more by 42% of likely voters, Republicans by 40%. This means that Democrats now enjoy at least a nominal edge on all ten issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports to gauge voters' trust of the two major parties.
In late June Democrats had the edge on nine of ten issues. At that time, the GOP had a single point advantage of the National Security issue.
Republicans had enjoyed an historic advantage on National Security for several decades but are burdened by the unpopular War in Iraq. Last year’s Dubai Ports debacle also hurt perceptions of the GOP on national security.
The Democrats have also gained a little ground this month when it comes to the War in Iraq. Harry Reid’s party moved from a ten-point advantage in late June to a twelve-point lead of 47% to 35% in the new survey.
On another hot-button issue, Immigration, Democrats are now trusted more by 40%, versus 30% who trust Republicans more. This ten-point disparity is the second-largest we've seen all year. But another 29% don't find either party trustworthy.
Only Government Ethics and Corruption inspires higher levels of bipartisan distaste. Thirty-seven percent (37%) don’t notice any difference between the parties on the ethics front--among unaffiliated voters, that percentage mushrooms to 58%. Overall, Democrats are now favored by 38%, Republicans by 25%.
The GOP also lost ground on the Economy this month with Democrats now trusted more 47% to 38%. In June,the Democrats’ advantage was 47% to 40%.
Forty-three percent (43%) now trust Democrats more on Taxes, 41% trust Republicans more.
On domestic issues, Democrats enjoy the biggest advantage on Health Care and Social Security. Fifty percent (50%) trust Democrats more on Health Care, 33% trust Republicans more. On Social Security, 47% trust Democrats more while 34% prefer the GOP.
On Education, Democrats now have a four point advantage; on Abortion, a five-point advantage.

YouTube Debate

This blog is subject to all the same rules that CYD is subject to in terms of endorsements and communications, so I am not going to try to talk about the substance of the debate last night for fear of not giving equal time or forgetting a candidate entirely. So, I'll just say that I thought all the candidates did well.

The performance of the candidates aside, I thought last night's debate was one of the best I've ever seen because of the questions that were asked. For those of you that didn't see it, all of the questions were asked via YouTube submissions from regular people all over the country. Obviously, we've all seen town halls where citizens are able to ask questions to the candidates, but for some reason those all strike me as wholly inauthentic. In contrast, the questions asked last night seemed to genuinely reflect the concerns of individuals across the country, and in many cases the questioners were able to put their own unique spin on the question to give their concerns true context and meaning.

My personal favorites, for vastly different reasons, were the guy with the largest semiautomatic weapon I've ever seen asking if his gun, aka his "baby," would be safe if the candidates became president; the lesbian couple sitting next to each other asking why they couldn't get married; and the snowman who was concerned about the future of his snowchild in light of global warming. I also appreciated that a few questioners appeared to be outright hostile to the Democratic Party. That's not something that you would get at a typical primary debate

Not to be lost in all of this is the fact that the YouTube medium gives young people an advantage in terms of having their concerns addressed. Although there was a wide disparity in the age of the questioners, it seemed to me that many more of the questioners were under 30 - far more than there would have been in a traditional debate format. As such, we should make a concerted effort to take advantage of these opportunities when they arise. CNN and YouTube are holding a similar debate for the Republicans on September 17th, so here's your chance to let the Republican candidates know what's on your mind (go ahead, they don't know you're a Democrat).

Fine, I'll Say It

Keith Olbermann is the man.

Paris Likes Voting

A few weeks ago I suggested that young people are more engaged than many give us credit for. Of course, I don't think any of us are as involved as Paris Hilton. Apparently, Paris is so involved that she is able to vote for President when there isn't even a presidential election. Now that's involvement.

How To Value A Life

Just a quick thought. Lots of things annoy me about the President's well-worn line of reasoning that we need to continue the fight in Iraq so that we don't have to fight the enemy at home. For one, my guess is that the victims of the bombings in London and Spain would argue that we are, in fact, fighting them at home.

That's not what bothers me the most, however. The most disturbing thing about this line of reasoning is that the President is implicitly acknowledging that American lives are, in his view, more valuable than Iraqi or Afghan lives. It is a point that I think should be discussed more not only for its moral implications, but as a matter of strategy in the "Global War on Terror."

Obviously, I don't want open war erupting on the Sixteenth Street Mall, but neither the Iraqi or Afghan people were the targets of the 9/11 attacks. Yet, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans are being asked to sacrifice their lives so that more Americans do not have to do so. In a struggle that will likely span our lifetimes and beyond, those that can win the hearts and minds of the Islamic world will likely prevail. By articulating to the Islamic world that we believe that American lives have more intrinsic worth than the lives of those living in the Middle East, we likely seal our fate as the vanquished in this war.