Application of debate skills to the debate about the September 17 CNN/YouTube Debate reveals that the Giuliani and Romney campaigns are making the worst possible argument for dodging the debate.
Mitt Romney's spokesman, Kevin Madden, cited a heavy fund-raising schedule and a Giuliani source was reported saying, "We have serious scheduling issues. That's prime fund-raising time."
The worst argument to make is one that can be easily turned around -- and the argument that the debate would interfere with fund-raising is backwards. Debates can be powerful fund-raising devices, especially if the campaign makes an effort to leverage the high visibility with meet ups, debate watches, and other forms of events and communication that use the debate as a vehicle for solicitation. Plus, free national TV time is "priceless." There is also a very high opportunity cost to ignoring or alienating a source of millions of dollars and volunteers.
The scheduling argument makes even less sense when you consider that the supposed alternative might be December, a month that also falls at the end of a fund raising quarter, is already crowded with holiday activity, and may include a mid-December Iowa caucus. Even a high school novice debater should be quick to say, "Not unique and turn: scheduling difficulties are an ever present fact of campaign life and only increase the closer you get to an election day."
Toss in the basic debate, life and campaign skill of rescheduling less important conflicting events, and the link between schedule problems and the YouTube debate is completely severed.
If application of elementary debate technique reveals that the "reason" these campaigns gave for dodging the debate was actually a pathetic excuse, the question then becomes, "What's the real reason Giuliani and Romney want out?"
The speculation that has filled every nook and cranny of the left and right blogospheres and political debate media the last couple of days has centered around a fear these candidates might have, either of the questioners, the question selection process, or the way the debate would be spun and reported by the "liberal media." Because of the explosion of pixels discussing this angle I will simply refer you to del.icio.us where, if you search for "debatescoop youtube GOP" (if you use del.icio.us please add those tags to any stories on the subject that I have not cataloged) you will find documentation of the following: the debate, even within the GOP blogosphere, is being won by those arguing that, even if there is risk in appearing, the greater risk is in being perceived as afraid to stand up to critics.
There is likely to be at least as much opportunity for rhetorical gain as there is risk in a YouTube debate. The questions in the last Monday's Democratic YouTube debate were no more pointed or difficult than those Britt Hume and the FOX panel asked of the GOP candidates in May. Furthermore, CNN and YouTube have nothing to gain by trashing the GOP candidates. They want their format to be seen as successful and friendly enough that people from both parties participate, watch, submit questions and debate. They have an investment in this approach and they need for it to pay off in the long run. Plus, the chances are that the controversy over GOP participation will have a further "moderating" effect on CNN's question choices. Heck, a week from now ABC will use viewer video questions in the GOP debate from Des Moines and ABC is even letting your vote influence which questions they will use much to the delight of the quite liberal Jeff Jarvis. The YouTube user community is slightly more Republican than Democratic, too. Finally, "liberal" questions, or questions the left would love to ask are just an opportunity for GOP candidates to throw red meat to their primary voters. Candidates who can play along with a "24" episode question set and advocate waterboarding or that we "double Guantanamo" should have no unique problems with a citizen video.
To find the real explanation for Romney and Giuliani's campaign strategy I suggest looking at what is not being said. That brings us right back to scheduling, fund-raising, free media, and fear -- but from a different perspective.
September is end of quarter fund-raising time for Giuliani's and Romney's opponents, too. The two biggest threats, Fred Thompson and John McCain, need a big September. Fred Thomson's campaign has a September launch date. He may make it into the September 5 FOX debate in New Hampshire, but the front runners might prefer that Fred rely more on reruns than on new episodes every couple of weeks. If the McCain campaign turns around, it won't likely be until September since the public and the media are in vacation mode until after Labor Day.
Evidence suggests that the fund-raising boost of debates is relatively greater for "lower tier" candidates, too. Underdogs also get a relatively bigger boost in coverage and stature from free network media than do front runners. Giuliani and Romney get plenty of free media without debates. The media might love the chance to make their narrative "fresh" with the plot twist of a McCain comeback or the storyline of a fast "start" by Fred Thompson. McCain did well in the earlier debates according to the media. It will be easy for them to declare him a winner if they are so inclined. Stories describing how Fred Thomson's debating style is polished by his acting experience also write themselves.
It's fear of falling, not of debating, that usually motivates front runners to dodge debates. Strategically, they may have a good argument. It's just not one they dare make in this debate about the YouTube debate. Instead they point to schedulers and snowmen.