None of them are willing to answer questions in a live debate. Are they really afraid of talking off script and hearing from the constituents? What gives?
I was referring to the You tube 'debate', which while having a few oddballs was at least an unscripted conversation. Emotional or not and wackos or no, those are the voters.
Anonymous
Favorite Answer
Because if they answer the questions, you will know that all they want are slaves to do their will.
But then that is my personal opinion.
reardigan
i don't think of they're afraid. they does not % to make the attempt while they're in a position to get an even bigger aim industry on television or in a public section as additionally they gets press there. The schedules for the front runners are very tight. A video may well be detracting from precious time someplace else, the place questions may well be asked on an even bigger scale. I consider White Feather on the viability
?
The YouTube debate was a bigger joke than the previous debates. The questions were emotional personal sob stories instead issues that influence the population as a whole.
We should not be governed by such emotional nonsense, but cold rational examination of the facts. The YouTube debate concept is symbolic of the feelings first culture.
iroteb
If your talking about the next youtube debate(and I use that term lightly), I thought the Dem one was pretty lame...stupid questions and Kuccinich (sp?) trying to get people to text for peace..wha?
I suspect the Repub one would be just as lame and lack just as much substance as the Dem one did!!
BTW, there are too many candidates for a real debate...all any of them do is offer lip service and not much more; hell, they don't have the time to!!
clyde
i think the republican got everything twisted Giuliani probably the worst mayor NYC ever had and his a leading candidate his a guy that divided NYC and the guy really not a great leader but i guess if Bush won a general election why not Giuliani.