Let's get something straight here. The reason the Republicans are running from a YouTube debate has nothing to do with embarrassing themselves and everything to do with the horror that is the Republican base (see video above). Imagine a whole two hour debate composed entirely of questions from men lovingly cradling their assault rifles, matronly polyester-swathed frumps of much avoirdupois braying and squawking about abstinence-only education and the danger of Harry Potter in our schools, angry old men taking a break from standing on their porches shouting, "Get the hell out of my yard!" to stare Mike Gravel-like into the camera and demand to know what the candidates plan to do about "th' dayumn Mexicans".

It would be a bloodbath. The Republican base is assuredly Not Ready for Prime Time, and the candidates know it, which is why their "scheduling conflicts" keep floating around to match every date that CNN helpfully supplies them in the network's efforts to keep the dream of a Republican YouTube Debate alive.

Come on Republicans. How are you going to stand up to Al Queda when you can't even stand up to a brace of questions from your own constituents? Crooks and Liars points us to a plan by Righty mainstay Captain Ed:

So what's the solution? How can we engage voters in a national forum through the New Media, while keeping the debate substantive and serious? I have a simple solution: have CNN cede the editorial/selection process to the New Media, in the form of the blogosphere.

CNN would ask bloggers to form a committee to review the YouTube entries. Since this debate is a Republican primary event, the bloggers should probably represent that segment of the electorate -- primarily Republicans, but perhaps with independent/centrist representation as well. The committee would review all of the YouTube entries and narrow them down to around 20, through whatever process and criteria to which these bloggers agree. They would also agree to the order in which the questions would be asked.

Conservative apostate John Cole has offered some very helpful suggestions:

Hugh Hewitt- Mr. Romney, how much worse than Osama bin Laden are the Democrats? A lot, a whole lot, or oodles?

Red State- Mr. Giuliani, if Obama is elected, will he declare defeat in Iraq and withdraw our troops before surrendering to Iran, or will he surrender to Iran first?

Michelle Malkin- Mr. Romney, if Hillary is elected President, how long do you think it will be before she institutes a policy of forced abortions and mandates the Quran be taught in schools?

Dan Riehl- Mr. Thompson, have you always had such strong shoulders and a chiseled jaw? And if elected, will you find out what happened to Natalie Holloway?

K-Lo- Mr. Romney, are you busy this weekend? As a follow up, you are aware Michelle is not the only one with a cheerleader outfit, aren’t you?

Dean Barnett- Mr. Paul, how long have you been a racist? Have you stopped attending anti-Semitic rallies? Why do you challenge George Bush, who is clearly the greatest thinker of our generation?

John Hindraker- Mr. Thompson, in the past I said the following about President Bush:

“It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.”

Demonstrate to me that you possess the same level of brilliance- please spell CAT.

Dude. Is he psychic?