. . . on the "Is Huckabee Too Moralistic To Be President?" meme. He makes some good points. Likewise, James makes an important point here about why "retail politics" is different from what we associate with a smoothly running national campaign.

And yet, at the moment, "retail politics" is where it's at. It's like dressing for a job interview: one has to do it. Just the cost of admission. (Or, as the economists would have it, "signalling.")

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:32 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

Chuck Norris doesn't know everything:

Powerline wonders if Huckabee is "too moralistic" to be president. Personally, I think it's a combination of moralism and misguided optimism, with a healthy dose of inexperience in world affairs. Comparisons have been made to a former U.S. president from the south, and I've always thought those comparisons were a bit harsh.

Now I'm not so sure.

Huckabee is bad on taxes and immigration. He's got overly-statist views on the limits of government power and now we find out that he lacks the fortitude to withstand international criticism of our foreign and military policy. The Huckabee boomlet has got to stop.

Personally, I'm waiting until Royce Gracie endorses someone.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:32 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

Mary Katherine Ham on why we should preserve the YouTube debate format:

've never bought into the idea that YouTube debates were a revolutionary format-- different but not revolutionary--mostly because moderators still pick the questions, and technology's transformative only to an extent. I'm not a tech triumphalist.

I've also never bought into the idea that YouTube debates debase politics, partly because they're already plenty debased, and partly because political YouTubers are-- to a great extent-- regular Americans who want to be engaged and get a chance to ask their own questions of a candidate that they wouldn't necessarily otherwise get. That's not debasement, that's democracy.

Jack M. over at Ace's digs deplores what he calls her "hipness uber alles" attitude, and remarks:

Of course YouTube debates debase politics. Their entire premise is based on bringing politics to the level of a carnival freakshow. Talking snowmen don't belong on a stage addressing questions to men and women seeking elected office. It belittles the process. And yet, the talking snowman was picked. Why?

Exactly because he WASN'T one of "the regular Americans" you seem to believe they are. Are there regular Americans who read blogs and create videos for YouTube? Of course there are (present company excluded, of course). But YouTube places a different emphasis on the matter: it becomes not "I want my question to be heard" as much as it becomes "I want my question to be aired/seen."

And why is this an important distinction? Because it allows the "deciders" to set the framing of the issue.

But Jack—that's MKH's point. The problem with the CNN debate wasn't in the format. The problem was with the "deciders." Those who choose the questions have to do so impartially, and have to resist the temptation to choose style over substance. CNN failed, and that must remain our focus.

Jack M. again:

Look...I know you have a lot vested in this internet video thing. And you do a great job. You know I hold you in nothing but the highest regard, both personally and professionally.

But it's disappointing to see Conservatives worshipping at the altar of "cool", as you appear to be doing here. To treasure style and appearance over substance.

For, if college teaches us anything, it is that the Conservatives who do this are the Conservatives who end up on the path that leads to Libertarianism.

Well. Heaven forfend. Personally, I take supplements that are supposed to keep me from turning into a libertarian. I hear that skepticism about the government is the result of a vitamin B deficiency . . .

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:50 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.