Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

Buchanan: Keith Kerr A “Coward”

pat-buchanan-fists-1.jpg
Conservative pundit and failed politico Pat Buchanan took to the boob tube yesterday to criticize Keith Kerr for his controversial CNN/YouTube question.

For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, retired Brigadier General Kerr asked the Republicans about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The Republicans all paid lip service to gay soldiers, yet continue to endorse the anti-gay military measure. Kerr later came under fire for his Hillary Clinton connections, leading many to claim Clinton’s campaign planted him in the audience. Kerr and Clinton denied it, of course.

Not one to miss a national scandal, Buchanan popped into Fox News yesterday to accuse Kerr of “fraud” and cowardice:

There’s an element of fraud here. When the general did not identify himself as a fierce partisan of Hillary Rodham Clinton and presented himself simply as a military man who had served and was gay. And who obviously did not have the courage, frankly, when he was in the military to come out of the closet and say I’m gay. And to attack the Republicans for lacking the courage to take a position he was unable to take, I think makes him look rather bad.

Buchanan’s such a dirty son of a bitch. How’s he going to go on national television and call a soldier a “coward” for abiding by Republican-endorsed laws? Seriously…

By:           Andrew Belonksy
On:           Nov 30, 2007
Tagged: , , , , ,

  • 51 Comments
    • Rt. Rev. Dr. RES
      Rt. Rev. Dr. RES

      Mr. Buchanan had an interview on CBC where he identified himself as a “true Reagan conservative” and did not agree with many neocon positions.

      Mr. Buchanan has never served one day in a military uniform of the Armed Forces of the United States of America – as the majority of neocons mirror that reality.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 10:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dawster
      Dawster

      the actual hypocrisy here is Buchanan… he is a republican supporter, and most republicans (as seen on the YouTube debate) think that DADT is working and should stay in place…

      so, technically speaking, Kerr was doing what republicans would normally want and (and AB mentioned) followed the law as it was implemented… and for that, Buchanan finds Kerr a “fraud”.

      you know… it IS possible for men (and women), both gay and straight, to have a sense of duty, patriotism, and honor when it comes to joining the military. it IS possible for someone to be gay and feel comfortable being a career soldier.

      what is sad is that in order to do that, they are forced to not “tell”. the true fraud is any republican who thinks it’s okay that gay people serve in the military… but they just don’t want to know about it. that’s kinda cruel… “go fight for my rights to be an American, while i cover my eyes to who you are…”

      Nov 30, 2007 at 10:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ajax
      ajax

      I’m so confused by this.

      I thought the purpose of a debate was to tell another person about your point of view. Why is it a “scandal” for someone with a strong viewpoint to ask a debate participant to explain his/her viewpoint? Isn’t another purpose of a debate to show the public how a candidate might behave when faced with potentially “hostile” opponent?

      Nov 30, 2007 at 10:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gregg
      Gregg

      The Repugs were caught with their pants down when this question came at them, so now they are doing what they always do. Shifting attention by attacking someone.

      I don’t know what’s worse: the fact that Repugs continue to use such lame dirty tricks, or the fact that Americans still allow themselves to be deceived by them.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 10:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hells kitchen guy
      hells kitchen guy

      Is the Rt. Rev. back?!?

      Nov 30, 2007 at 10:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mozzer13
      mozzer13

      I love it when Pat Buchanan talks. The crazier that asshole gets, the less likely his candidates are to win. His Hitleresque speech at the 92 Republican convention went a long way toward sealing Bush I’s doom. So keep talking, Pat. Fuck you with something hard and sandpapery, but keep talking.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 11:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scott Berwitz
      Scott Berwitz

      I am sorry – but I don’t understand any of the messages so far regarding this post.

      There are few pundits I dislike as much as Pat Buchanan – but the issue is that CNN was supposed to be providing an open, transparent, unscripted forum. Instead, it has now been revealed, that virtually every question was scripted from Democratic plants (note, not Republican). What you saw was a performance by CNN – long accused of liberal bias – not a real Q&A. It was as unscripted as a Broadway show.

      Whoever you like or will vote for in the upcoming elections, I hope we can all agree that this is nonsense. My father, a full supporter of me and of the homosexual community, rightly pointed out that the Democratic candidates would not debate on Fox becuase they feared there “may” be bias. But here we have CNN actually conducting a fully biased program and since they are biased towards the party most of the gay communityfavor, somehow it’s okay. It isn’t.

      Another quick note…when was the last time a “random” questioner was allowed to launch into a speech directed at the candidates? Though I agree with much of what Kerr said, my position remains the same. If he’s an operative of the Clinton campaign, for crying out loud, he and CNN should have been open about it.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 11:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hells kitchen guy
      hells kitchen guy

      “But here we have CNN actually conducting a fully biased program and since they are biased towards the party most of the gay communityfavor, somehow it’s okay. It isn’t.”

      Unless you’re a plant, boy did you drink the Kool-Aid! The point isn’t the station’s alleged bias (which is bullshit); or whether a questioner gave money to LBJ’s campaign back in 1964 (which is about how relevant these “facts” are).

      The fact is, the question was a good one, posed by someone who had the gravitas and authority and experience to pose it.

      Why does this equal “bias”?

      Nov 30, 2007 at 11:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hells kitchen guy
      hells kitchen guy

      Also to scott: even the ultra-rightwing nutjobs on FreeRepublic are saying that if these candidates can’t take questions from Democrats, they shouldn’t be running.

      If a president can’t take “biased” questioners, how’s he going to respond to Ahmen, Kim, et al.?

      Nov 30, 2007 at 11:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matt
      Matt

      Did CNN ever actually represent that the selected YouTube questioners were nonpartisan or Republican or represented the conservative YouTube community? All I heard L’Anderson say was that the questions were culled from a buncha submissions. (As an aside, if AC had been asking the questions independently, the same accusation of bias would have been made.) Do the neocons really think that a candidate forum should feature only candidate-approved softball questions emanating from the religious right? If one of these yahoos (god forbid) is elected , he’ll theoretically be president of all of us , so questions should be welcomed from all over. These people are utterly without scruple, decency, or honor.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 11:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scott Berwitz
      Scott Berwitz

      Hells Kitchen Guy –

      Despite the fact that Kerr is on an LGBT steering committee for Clinton and was on a steering committee for Kerry’s campaign in’04, he was introduced as simply an undecided voter (and retired general). All this was not only in the public domain but was announced in a press release six months ago. Further, CNN’s protestations that they had no idea are bit hard to believe, given that virtually every “random” “undecided” voter asking questions was, in fact, avowed Democratic supporters and some had even worked on Democratic campaigns. This doesn’t spell bias to you?

      Let me ask you this…if at the Democratic debate the moderator took to the floor and began asking questions from people who were simply identified as “undecided voters” – and they were, in fact, people who openly supported Republican candidates, worked on Republican campaigns and/or have publicly attacked Democratic candidates in the past, would you be so sure that wasn’t bias?

      Come on.

      If you can’t see the bias

      Nov 30, 2007 at 11:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scott Berwitz
      Scott Berwitz

      Also to Hells Kitchen Guy -

      Your point is well-taken… I think all candidates should have to face tough questioning. Then CNN SHOULD have said, “we are going to take some difficult questions from those with opposing points of views” and accurately identified the “random,” “undecided” voters they were approaching. They shouldn’t have said or here’s just some undecided guy when it turns out he’s on a steering committee for the top-running Democratic candidate.

      Wow.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 11:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hells kitchen guy
      hells kitchen guy

      Scott, let’s try this one more time: WHO THE FUCK CARES WHAT THE BACKGROUND IS OF THE PERSON ASKING THE QUESTION? It’s only the QUESTION ITSELF that’s important. (Sorry for the scraming, but you don’t seem to get it.) And BTW, Dem candidates get lots of canned questions from GOP operatives all the time. It’s called “politics.”

      Nov 30, 2007 at 11:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gregg
      Gregg

      And Scott continues the Repug trend of blame and deflection. Instead of focusing on the issues, questions, and poor answers – the Repugs must redirect your attention to some supposed bias that ultimately has no bearing on the fact that the candidates could not answer the question well.

      Sure. He tries to say the real issue here is about CNN. No no no. The real issue here is the next LEADER of our country and how that person can handle tough issues. Personally, I would LOVE it if Dems were also forced to answer questions from conservative voters. I WANT real issues discussed, not simple talking points reiterated over and over.

      But no, in Scott’s simple mind the poor politicians were misled because they had to answer a question from a Democrat rather than from an “undecided”? What the fuck does that even matter? The QUESTION is what matters.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 11:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gregg
      Gregg

      Oops. I guess HKG and I were getting indignant at the exact same time – lol

      Nov 30, 2007 at 11:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scott Berwitz
      Scott Berwitz

      I’ll try this one time and leave this topic alone – and leave HKG and Gregg free to believe I am a “Repug” and of simple mind.

      I can debate with you about the crappy answers the Republicans shot back with – and how much it pushes me toward a Democratic vote (I am an Independent). That’s not the issue in this post.

      The issue is that a man supposedly representing the “undecided” vote was in fact an operative of the front-running candidate. This is particularly upsetting given that the Democratic candidates refused their opportunity at tough questioning over the FEAR of biased questioning. The Republicans, however, conduct a debate on CNN (despite their reservations) and they actually GET the deceptive, underhanded bias the Democrats actively avoided. And it’s not just the candidates who get duped…it’s the entire viewing/voting public. Get it now?

      I would be entirely okay with both sides getting difficult questions from the other side. I think we would get some very revealing answers. All I ask is that I don’t get lied to as a viewer. And we all were. I am sorry you’re ideological biases have clouded your objectivity to such a severe degree. It doesn’t, for a moment, make anything I have said less right or important.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 12:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gregg
      Gregg

      Scott – your problem seems to be that you are more concerned with the ideology of CNN than with the ideology of the candidates.

      CNN’s tactics may or may not have been underhanded. I don’t know. But that in and of itself is a MINOR story. Were the candidates “ganged up on” in some way? No. They were free to answer the questions.

      The Repugs take a MINOR issue, like where CNN may have gotten their questions, and they make that THE issue, rather than what the candidates actually said. And you are falling for it hook line and sinker. Bravo for you.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 12:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scott Berwitz
      Scott Berwitz

      Gregg- you’re ridiculous. The candidates’ answers are out there for everyone to see and discuss – no deception, full transparency. You may like their positions or hate them, but there are no doubts about what they are and who they came from.

      I have already talked to people about their responses (generally upsetting). The fact that there IS a problem with the way CNN handled this doesn’t automatically mean that it obscured what the responses from the candidates were. You make that immediate jump…I don’t.

      I haven’t fallen for everything, despite your talking points and intellectual leaps.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 12:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ProfessorVP
      ProfessorVP

      You can’t have it both ways. Kerr knew he’d be shunned, beaten or killed if he came out during his service, or just put up with the daily fag jokes and locker humor, one miserable day at a time, depending upon which location he was working. Now he’s saying the rubes who serve in the military are “professional enough” not to care. Nevermind his allegiance to Hillary- who certainly worked with Bill on DADT. Does Kerr make sense?

      Nov 30, 2007 at 12:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gregg
      Gregg

      Scott – Except that people are not discussing the candidates’ answers when they are instead focused on this CNN nonsense. But you seem to have no problem with the distraction tactic.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 12:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ajax
      ajax

      Scott–

      You seem to be hung up on the fact that Kerr was introduced as an undecided voter. How do you know that’s a dishonest representation? Perhaps he’s decided there are certain candidates who won’t get his vote, but that doesn’t mean he has absolutely decided who will. He may be working on Hillary’s team, but that doesn’t mean he made an absolute and unwavering decision to vote for her. Whether he decided who gets his vote is irrelevant.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 1:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Leland Frances
      Leland Frances

      The real Leland Frances here [tho I suppose it’s just a matter of time before the fake one tries that opening].

      That sound you heard was my applauding and screaming with praise for the many here who get it, including some I’ve fervently disagreed with about other things.

      Anyone who believes that CNN was stacking the deck for the Democrats was neither paying attention to the debate nor has read the detailed, documented study of the industry rhetorically titled, “WHAT Liberal Media?”

      Eclipsing the inanity of those who suggest that questioners should be pulled from caves on a distant planet; eclipsing the fact that being on a “steering committee” simply means your a passionate activist with credentials and/or influence [versus gun-for-hire PAID political “pros”] is that CNN also took a question from Grover Norquist whose identity I guarantee you both Cooper and CNN know full well. In fact, I would bet that he has been a guest on various of their shows over the years.

      For a greater description of who this man is from ye olde Wikipedia [and I assure you he is much worse than they describe, see below. The shorthand is that he IS both a partisan and someone who has made his living off of pushing extreme right wing, what I call the American Taliban, for decades. He was caught up in the Jack Abramoff scandal. He has compared the estate tax to the Holocaust. As those who have attacked Kerr, buying fully and foolishly into the patented Repug shell game, read what he’s about I hope the Bush Reich dildo you willing shoved up your asses hurts like Hell>

      QUOTE: “Norquist is one of the so-called “Gang of Five” identified in Nina Easton’s 2000 book by that name, which gives a history of leaders of the modern conservative movement. He has been described as “a thumb-in-the-eye radical rightist” (The Nation), and “Tom Paine crossed with Lee Atwater plus just a soupçon of Madame Defarge” (P.J. O’Rourke). Norquist’s page on the web site of Americans for Tax Reform includes a laudatory quote about him from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Indeed, Norquist co-authored the 1994 Contract with America.
      In 1999, he was instrumental in securing early support for then Texas Governor George W. Bush, continuing a decades-long association with Karl Rove (“The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund dubbed him “the Grand Central Station” of conservatism and told The Nation: “It’s not disputable” that Norquist was the key to the Bush campaign’s surprising level of support from movement conservatives in 2000″) After Bush’s election to the White House in 2000, Norquist was the prime architect behind the many Bush tax-cuts (“Grover Norquist: ‘Field Marshal’ of the Bush Plan”)
      Norquist is “adept at media appearances … writes a monthly politics column for the American Spectator magazine, and frequently speaks at regional and state think tanks of the conservative movement,” according to the critical website MediaTransparency.Org.
      Shortly after Bill Clinton was elected president of the United States in 1992, Norquist began hosting a weekly get-together of conservatives in his Washington office to coordinate activities and strategy. “We were sort of like the Mensheviks after the Russian Revolution,” recalls Marshall Wittmann, who attended the first meeting as a representative of the Christian Coalition.
      In 1994 Norquist worked with Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation to draft the Contract with America.
      The “Wednesday Meeting” of Norquist’s Leave Us Alone Coalition has become an important hub of conservative political organizing. George W. Bush began sending a representative to the Wednesday Meeting even before he formally announced his candidacy for president in 1999. “Now a White House aide attends each week,” reported USA Today in June 2001. “Vice President Cheney sends his own representative. So do GOP congressional leaders, right-leaning think tanks, conservative advocacy groups and some like-minded K Street lobbyists. The meeting has been valuable to the White House because it is the political equivalent of one-stop shopping. By making a single pitch, the administration can generate pressure on members of Congress, calls to radio talk shows, and political buzz from dozens of grassroots organizations.”
      Ya know, kinda like submitting a question to some of your own cronies for the debate and having CNN and Cooper go along with your fraud. Where’s the self-righteous outrage from Berwitz and Buchanan about that?

      Nov 30, 2007 at 1:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dawster
      Dawster

      Honestly scott, who really cares? republicans that realize they are backed up against the wall with no real leg to stand on and fleeting American support. people who were embarrassed by the ideas that there was such blatant anti-homosexual sentiment on screen and a total lack of confidence in the professionalism of our military. THOSE are the people who are bitching about Kerr.

      the question was a good question… it needed to be asked – period. i don’t really care if the question was trumpeted out the ass of an elephant, the question was legitimate and was a good considering all the other questions that only played in the republican safety-zone. we want to hear from their own mouthes how much they dislike homosexuals (log cabin or otherwise).

      the fact that they chose a man who knows what he was talking about, is gay, 43 years in the military, and has his shit together bothered republicans SO MUCH… that they are choosing to go after Kerr, CNN, and ANYONE else rather than deal with the fact that no real republican would ever volunteer to ask such a question.

      once again, like most republicans today, they are trying to win an argument by digging down, pointing fingers, and sidestepping the situation rather than deal with the issue at hand.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 1:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hells kitchen guy
      hells kitchen guy

      Agree w/Dawster. Kerr may one of the very few people in this country with the experience, the gravitas, the stature and the wherewithal to ask this question. Because of some obscure committee he’s on, the fact that he asked it is supposed to be an “issue.”

      Scott: the reason why the Dems won’t appear on Fox is because Fox is to CNN what Edward R. Murrow was to Goebbels. If you don’t get that, rent that great documentary, “Fair and Balanced” I think it was called.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 1:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scott Berwitz
      Scott Berwitz

      I have to admit – I am somewhat shocked that not a single person recognizes the sham CNN pulled or the signficance of it. It’s upsetting, really, becuase I garner little doubt that if the tables were turned, we’d be hearing about all this deceptive little “repugs” in the audience who dare not speak their name(s).

      For the record, Norquist was identified as a Republican activist.

      And also, for the record, if you were work on a steering committee for the top running Democratic candidate (one who doesn’t support gay marriage and whose husband approaved it) I think it’s fair to say that his vote will probably be for her. Not many people actively promote a campaign only to vote for a competing candidate. This is all besides the point anyway.

      The most important point is that a supposedly criterion network is supposed to present things objectively, not operate as Democratic operatives. I don’t care who you vote for what party you support – something as fundamental as this should be universally agreed upon.

      I said my peace on this because the “plant” accusation formed the basis of the original post. In other places and with other people, I have discussed the abysmal stances on virtually all of the candidates on either side of the aisle regarding homosexual rights as full citizens. It should also be noted that had CNN been the transparent, objective news source it claims to be (it sometimes lives up this, sometimes doesn’t) – and had identified everyone as accurately as it had identified Norquist, we would not be having this discussion at all.

      I don’t think it much of a response to see something like this and then point a finger at the people who blow the whistle rather than the entity which propagated a well-orchestrated deception in the first place.

      I stand by my assessment that if this were vice-versa, I’d be hearing about all how nasty Republicans are to pull a stunt like this from many on this blog (and they’d be right by the way). Juvenile abbreviatiosn (like Repug)- and all the objective sober analysis their usage implies – does not undercut my larger argument at all. The fact that I am just as disgusted by the answers from the candidates as everyone else seems to be – and that I am not a Republican – does not seem to be seeping in for many who have answered on this blog. That’s another shame.

      Principle, not partisanship, I believe, should drive people’s positions. It’s too bad so many people but ideological commitments above their commitment to the truth.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 1:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Hauslaib, Queerty
      David Hauslaib, Queerty

      From the Washington Post:

      Retired Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr, who asked why gays should not be allowed to serve openly in the military, is a member of Clinton’s steering committee on gay and lesbian issues, something her campaign disclosed in a news release in June.

      “Had we known that, we probably wouldn’t have used the question,” said David Bohrman, CNN’s Washington bureau chief, who produced the debate. He added that “you could spend hours Googling everybody. What we cared about was that he was real.” CNN deleted Kerr’s question from a rebroadcast of the debate.

      The New York senator’s campaign said in a statement that “Gen. Kerr is not a campaign employee and was not acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign.”

      Nov 30, 2007 at 1:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Leland Frances
      Leland Frances

      Simply describing Norquist as a “Republican activist” is like describing AIDS as a bad cold.

      Did CNN delete Norquist’s question from the rebroadcast?

      The shame, Berwitz, is that you don’t see how much you’ve been brainwashed by Republican tactics to divide and conquer, bait and switch. “Principle” my ass! You deride my formulation “Repug” then reflect your own prejudice with hyperbole like ‘well-orchestrated deception.” And factual distortions like asserting that those Repugs are somehow no worse that the Dems on gay issues: “the abysmal stances [of] virtually all of the candidates.” If you genuinely believe that then you have not done your homework.

      As the expression goes, “you can look it up,” but I’ll save you and any seduced by your delusion some time: There is only ONE gay related issue that the leading Dem candidates come close to the Repugs: gay marriage and its relationship to traditional “states rights.” Still NONE of the Dems support a Constitutional amendment barring marriage quality while at least three Repug candidates do and the rest would willingly ask it to dance.

      How is the weather this time of year in Stepford?

      Nov 30, 2007 at 2:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jerry pritikin
      jerry pritikin

      Buchan’s claim to fame is putting “words” into Richard Nixon’s speaches and his foot in his own mouth countless times… his idol was Hitler and it shows. His hate of Gays,Jews and Blacks and self-thinking people is not new… sadly, he is still around, and the media allows him to express
      his bigoted thoughts openly… and much too often!

      Nov 30, 2007 at 2:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Grisha
      Grisha

      Q: What distinguishes Pat from hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian Americans?

      A: Pat has never worn a uniform nor heaerd a shot fired in anger.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 3:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gregg
      Gregg

      Scott – I don’t CARE what your affiliation is. But that doesn’t seem to be “seeping in” to your head. I didn’t say that you are Republican. I said that you are being led by their misdirection, and going along with their continued deflection of real issues.

      This is not a “significant” “sham” as you call it. Unless you are living under a rock, you understand that in the real world there is no truly objective media. It is not possible, especially in today’s corporate climate. So if you are expecting to see an objective utopia on any network, then you’re going to be disappointed every time.

      I at least feel that CNN and other networks TRY harder to be objective than a ludicrous mouthpiece like FOX “News”. If the Dems appeared on Fox, I certainly would expect them to pack the audience with Repugs, but if they gave the candidates adequate time to answer the questions then I wouldn’t have a problem with it. A simple QUESTION should not terrify any candidate.

      But here we are, still talking about this non-issue and NOT discussing what the candidates said. Bravo Republican media machine.

      (and yes, I enjoy the juvenile word Repug. It’s just fun to type and say, and sums up my feelings nicely.)

      Nov 30, 2007 at 3:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gregg
      Gregg

      AND the Repugs succeed in their distraction machine by getting the question DELETED in subsequent broadcasts. THAT is Sickening. Not CNN’s “morality”.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 3:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scott Berwitz
      Scott Berwitz

      Leland –

      YOU may not like Gordon Norquist. I MAY not like Gordon Norquist. But the issue isn’t the severity of how severely he is described as Republican. The issue is that he is described as active in the Republican party – which says to the listener “this is not some undecided random guy.” That’s all I need – or would ask for – from a supposedly criterion media outlet – something that was clearly done with Norquist. That same identification was not given to the numerous other “randoms” who just happened to be plants in the audience.

      It might behoove YOU to note that the issue of plants first became an issue when a student – Muriel Gallo Chasanoff – who said she wanted to ask Clinton an energy-related question, was given a canned question (with a canned response in return). That was BEFORE the Republican debate and it received massive coverage. Clinton’s own campaign said this was “unacceptable” and vowed it wouldn’t happen again. But apparently it’s no longer a problem, as long as it is done against a Republican. Again, principle, not partisanship, should apply.

      Your response re:Repug is equally tangled. I said nothing of equal plane…no sweeping generalization about anyone. I don’t identify either party as generally repugnant. It’s quite difficult to remain objective about the many good people in both parties that you might like if you immediately (and ignorantly) wipe all of them off as “repugs.” And for God’s sake, calling a deception what it is – a deception – is not a bias – it is statement of fact. You can debate with me if you think that it is accurate or not, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with generalizing millions of people in a malicious, condescending way, and is anything but a demonstration of bias. I didn’t say a word about anyone saying this is all part of a right-wing tactic, machine, etc. I may agree or disagree, but I wouldn’t see that as a demonstration of bias. A few weeks ago, the only other time I recall having responded to a post on this very site, was about the radical Michael Savage when I went toe –to – toe with a number of people who, very wrongly in my view, argued that he was not, in fact, homophobic and that his vicious comments were appropriate and defensible. They accused me of being a cog in the Democratic machine. Was I being duped by the Republican machine then? Give me a break.

      You can sit there, Leland, safe in the knowledge that only the Democrats are your savior and everybody to the right is “Repug.” It must be nice to reduce the world so simplistically.

      Gregg –

      From the guy who earlier today said I “continue the Repug trend of blame and deflection”, suggested that I only have a problem with the question because it came from a Democrat, and has generally given the impression that I happily trot along with a Republican distortion campaign, it is somewhat remarkable for you to definitively say you don’t care about party affiliation. True, you never called me a Republican, but to suggest that party designation did not inform your posts is rather incredible.

      This blanket statement of “there’s no truly objective media” is such a cop-out. Fine, not every outlet is truly objective. But not every one of them does something so blatantly biased as this. Any one that does – Fox or CNN – should be held accountable and taken to task for it WHEN THEY DO. And given my earlier comments to Leland about how the plant issue took form well before these debates – and the Clinton campaign themselves called it unacceptable – then if you had a tincture of principle you’d have to admit that, at the very least, the Clinton campaign lied and continued to do something they know is wrong (even if YOU don’t think it’s wrong). And if it happened with any Republican, I’d say the same damn thing. I highly doubt you’d be so willing to dimiss the plant charge if it were in the reverse, however.

      And for the last #$%@#$% time, this post was originally about Buchanan calling Kerr a “coward” and saying “there’s an element of fraud here.” The post highlighted the fact that Kerr came under fire for “Hillary Clinton” connections. THAT is why we’re discussing it. If this specific post was about the lame responses from the Republican candidates, then we’d be talking about THAT. I hope some of this is making sense to you, but I am beginning to wonder.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 5:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Karen Ebert
      Karen Ebert

      Dudes, I think everyone should agree to disagree. Don’t make me turn you over my knee.

      Do you all need to be right so badly that you’ll make yourselves look like raving lunatics so publicly?

      –Karen

      Nov 30, 2007 at 5:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gregg
      Gregg

      Scott – your last paragraph sums up exactly what I am talking about, but you don’t seem to understand. Reread your own words an maybe it will become clear. We are not discussing the candidates because of this distraction.

      You example of a “plant” in an earlier debate is bogus. That plant was given a canned question and a canned response. That is repugnant – and NOT what happened here. In fact, what happened here is pretty much the OPPOSITE of your example. Instead of being able to give a canned response to a canned question, the Repugs had to give spontaneous answers – and poor ones at that.

      You can believe what you want about my affiliations and my thoughts on party designation. I can’t change your mind anyway. But to be clear, I DO think that you are a sheep being led astray by distraction techniques and happily following along, whatever your party affiliation.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 5:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gregg
      Gregg

      Karen – if I didn’t know better, I’d think you were my mom. She always wants us to “all just get along.” Sadly, sometimes we can’t, and fighting can help reveal the truth.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 5:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Rt. Rev. Dr. RES and Professor VP are right. Pigs like Buchanan, Rupert Murdoch and sows like Frau Coulter are the neo in neo-Nazi. They have no right commenting on questions pertaining to elections, even the bogus fixed elections we have in the US. Particularly a chickenshit chickenhawk like Buchanan.

      (It’s not too late for Buchanan to fight. I’m sure that Blackhawk would hire him; they’re probably behind on their torture and murder quotas because of all the scandals. Maybe the Iraqi resistance will get word of his arrival and arrange for a proper welcome. It’ll probably be more ka-boomba than koom-by-yah.)

      I also liked ProfessorVP’s comments contrasting the treatment of Kerr and other by military bigots who Kerr now says are “professional enough” to end the bigotry of the Clinton’s DADT. Some are, but most are not. Bigotry in the military will have to be suppressed by harsh discipline, revocation of rank and time in the military brig in Leavenworth.

      That includes notorious gay bashing bigots like General Peter Pace, until very recently Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hillary Clinton’s pigheaded refusal to condemn Pace even scandalized the gutless wonders in the HRC who called on her and Obama to repudiate his contemptible bigotry. When they finally broke their silence it was a superficial slap on the wrist. Both declined to call for his ouster. Why isn’t he in Leavenworth?

      Prof VP went on to ask “Never mind his (Kerrs) allegiance to Hillary- who certainly worked with Bill on DADT. Does Kerr make sense?” The answer is that generals don’t have much in common with privates. The bigotry of the Clintons DADT didn’t kill generals, but it did kill gay rankers like able seaman Allen Schindler and private Barry Winchell.

      In the same way Clinton, Frank, Pelosi and Feinstein don’t have much in common with GLBT folk or working people.

      Rt. Rev. Dr. RES, our favorite rightwing NAFTA loving twit from NYC ‘hells kitchen guy’ wants to know if you’re back. If he’d read the comments in “http://www.queerty.com/news/homos-love-hillary-20071129/#comments” maybe the twit would have figured things out.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 7:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hells kitchen guy
      hells kitchen guy

      Karen – people disagree. People don’t get along. That’s called “life.” Get over it, not over your knee. If we don’t have discussions, conversations, arguments, we’d might as well be dead. Don’t believe everything you hear in your friendship circle.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 8:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Oscar
      Oscar

      Buchanan is the hipocrite. He has never serve a day in the military even less in combat, he has no right to critize a man that served his country in war, gay or not gay. The fake is Buchanan that advocates a religious lie. Christ, in the Gospels, never condemn gays, and the Gospels are the word of Our Lord. What ever Paul said was Paul’s idea not Christ’s. What ever Levitucus says is some old jew’s word for the jews of his time. Even the President never served in conflict, so even him has no right to critize a man thet served his country honorably whether he’s gay or not.

      Nov 30, 2007 at 8:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scott Berwitz
      Scott Berwitz

      Gregg –

      I do understand what you are saying about what you have deemed a distraction (I disagree that it is). I think there are two stories that came out here – and both deserve attention to be honest. And given that this question has been asked before – maybe not as forcefully – to the candidates on past occasions and it will likely be broached again, I don’t believe their positions will be lost in the shuffle. My point was we are discussing the topic in THIS particular forum because that was the content of the original post. You keep blaming me for being led astray or for being a part of a Republican distortion campaign…failing to realize I was responding to a post on this blog that I did not write. More to the point, had CNN and the people involved had given even a nod to being forthright about who they were, and had not laughably identified everyone as some random, undecided American, we would not be having this discussion. You don’t place any blame there….and I continue to believe that is far more an ideologically-driven stance than a principled one.

      A plant is a plant…in the student’s case, she had asked a question that was not hers and got a response that was not off the cuff but carefully orchestrated. In this case, we got a question from what was supposed to be a random person and instead is a Clinton operative. In both cases, nothing was transparent and the supposedly random question and the supposedly random person were in actuality the opposite. THAT’s the point.

      While the top Republican candidates are extemporaneously answering a question from someone on a steering committee from Clinton (which I think is a good thing…so long as the viewer is TOLD this), Clinton is taking canned questions and providing scripted answers. All I ask is the same standard apply to EVERYONE…if the Republicans are going to take difficult questions from avid Democratic supporters and activists, then the Democrats should be asked to do the same. And the viewer should not be shielded from the truth. Is that too much to ask?

      Dec 1, 2007 at 1:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gregg
      Gregg

      Scott – look, I agree with you that all candidates should play by the same rules, and they ALL should be answering tough questions. I also agree that ideally the viewing public should be given the full story on what is happening.

      What I don’t see here is any real problem with the question being ASKED. If the same question were asked by a different gay veteran, would that somehow change the question? No.

      I understand that you are responding to the post presented here. My point is that I think this entire POST is bogus. This whole story is bogus. The Repugs are taking a minor technicality like a questioner’s political affiliation and making that into some kind of major transgression. I don’t believe that it is.

      I could understand an issue here if this was a debate BETWEEN Dems and Repugs, where a question could give one party an advantage. But that is not the case here. The question was asked of an entirely Repug panel. They were free to answer. What is the complaint, other than the fact that viewers did not know the affiliation of the questioner? And WHY does that matter, given that all the candidates are of the same party?

      You “plant” comparison is still bogus, and the example you give are not comparable in the least.

      I also must now question your true political affiliations if you are so comfortable using the word “operative” to describe Kerr, which would imply some kind of espionage.

      Dec 1, 2007 at 3:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gregg
      Gregg

      oops – “are not comparable” should be “is not comparable”

      Dec 1, 2007 at 3:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • n2mars
      n2mars

      OK first off, an issue/community steering committee for a campaign is a kind of advisory aommittee or community board. These are among the paople most distantly connected to a campaign organization. Historically and at every level of community there are often people on such issues steering committees who don’t actually support the said campaign with money, their vote or time beyond that spent on the steering committee. People are on steering committees to make sure candidates act right. That’s why when the Clinton campaign says Kerr is not campaign staff and not acting on behalf of the campaign they are dead on accurate. Second point, CNN deferred not to any party or campaign affiliation, of which they claim to be unaware, but to Kerr’s loyal service to his country as a brigadier general.

      Dec 1, 2007 at 4:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gregg
      Gregg

      Considering that CNN deleted the question in subsequent broadcasts, and also said that if they had known about Kerr’s affiliations they “wouldn’t have used the question”, I don’t think it can be said that they deferred to his loyal service. It can be said that they caved to right wing pressure. But that happens so often nowadays that it’s really no surprise, sadly.

      I’m still astonished that they are acting like the question itself is invalidated due to any party affiliation. Disgusting.

      Dec 1, 2007 at 9:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scott Berwitz
      Scott Berwitz

      Gregg –

      First thing…I identify Kerr as an operative in the Democratic party because he “operates” in that party. I would use the same word to describe a Republican operative if the situation was the reverse.

      The question is not a problem – though this was a uniquely long question that came with a sort of monologue not typically given to a random questioner. And though I don’t like the answers, I suspect that the candidates have no problem with their answers. You and I see their stances on this issue as a deficit. The sad truth is, much of the country does not…so I am not totally convinced the Republicans are trying to move interest away from answers that will get them votes…as gross as you and I agree those postions are.

      You’re entitled to think that this is all bogus. I repeat…I doubt you would be if this were in reverse. But you won’t see that, will you? The Democratic debate two weeks beforehand did not plant Republican operatives to pretend to be random, undecided voters. And it’s now a done issue…and the end result is that the Republicans faced a stacked group of questions and the Democrats didn’t. For anyone who ever felt there was a tincture of media bias (especially at CNN), this will only confirm it.

      The plant comparison is not “bogus.” The issue is a cannned question or a canned questioner – in both situations, the same party benefitted. Frankly, I like the FACT that the question was asked, and I think it’s important for all of us to know where the candidates stand on it. I don’t like being lied to, and I don’t like a supposedly objective forum working as an extension of the Demcoratic party. That SHOULD bother you too…it’s unfortunate that it doesn’t in my view.

      Gregg – I could give a shit about the affiliation of the questioner – as in, they are a Democrat or a Republican. I care that the questioner in this case works on the campaign of the top-running candidate from the opposing party and nobody – not him, not Clinton, not CNN – chose to tell the Republican panel or the viewer of this very relevant piece of data.

      Truthfully – I respect your opinion. I am glad our correspondence boiled down to respectable. I suspect we may agree on future posts down the line.

      Dec 2, 2007 at 10:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gregg
      Gregg

      Scott – I’m sure we agree on many things as well. But even you say that the Republicans don’t need to distance themselves from their answers – so how exactly does the “canned” questioner benefit the Dems? And I still completely disagree with calling the questioner canned.

      Again, if this were not an all Repug panel, I could see how you could argue bias. But that is not the case, and since all the Repugs got the same questions and were free to answer it still seems like a minor story to me, not a major cover up.

      And, seriously, I would not have been bothered in the least if a Republican leaning voter got to ask a question at the Democratic debate. I would actually LOVE it, because it might force the candidates to give real answers instead of canned responses. I have major distrust for both parties, so I am not favoring the Dems here. I just do not consider the questioner’s party affiliation a major issue here at all.

      Dec 2, 2007 at 10:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gregg
      Gregg

      Scott – I can see how you could be upset because you “don’t like a supposedly objective forum working as an extension of the Democratic party”. I just don’t agree that a Republican debate could be considered an extension of the Dems, considering that all the answers were supplied by Repug candidates.

      Dec 2, 2007 at 11:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Karen Ebert
      Karen Ebert

      I guess y’all answered my question. Raving lunatics it is. Enjoy your anger.

      –Karen

      Dec 3, 2007 at 11:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Truth be told
      Truth be told

      Scott, You claim, “I am somewhat shocked that not a single person recognizes the sham CNN pulled or the signficance of it.”

      We actually DO ‘get’ that CNN fumbled but I wouldn’t call it a “sham”. The “significance” of their lack of due diligence pales by comparison to the significance of kicking well-qulaified, well-trained peeople out of a military that desperately needs both bodies and skills – simply because they are gay.

      Buchanan and you help promulgate the lie that gays cannot (do not) serve their country. Kerr puts the lie to that, regardless of his political affiliations.

      Besides, ALL people, regardless of political affilitation, were invited to submit questions. The fact the Republicans don’t have satisfactory answers to the questions put to them is not the fault of “liberals” or Democrats or even CNN.

      Perhaps it is YOU that does not ‘get’ the significance of this.

      Dec 3, 2007 at 12:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gregg
      Gregg

      Karen – if the comments here strike you as “raving lunacy” then you really need to get out more. This could be called heated debate or emotional discussion, but “lunatic” is far from accurate. And in fact it is a fairly obnoxious and loaded choice of word for someone who wants everyone to get along.

      Dec 3, 2007 at 5:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scott Berwitz
      Scott Berwitz

      Gregg –

      Let’s agree to disagree on this. Largely because the way I would answer your most recent posts is by reitarating a position I have already stated.

      Truth Be Told – I 100% agree with you on gays serving in the military. Trust me, as a gay Jew, I have no love for Pat Buchanan.

      You and I would agree that the answers were unsatisfactory at best, offensive at worst. Their answers are their own fault (or to their own credit – depending on each individual’s stance) – and I don’t know where, in any of my previous posts, I may have suggested otherwise.

      I have tried, in vain, to reveal that I see as a major problem with the way this was handled – from the monologue that Kerr was allowed to give, to him working for Clinton, for crying out loud, while being identified as some random, undecided guy, and on and on. People who actually WERE random and undecided may have been INVITED to ask questions, but that wasn’t who was chosen, so I am unsure of the significance of that assertion.

      Dec 4, 2007 at 10:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dawster
      Dawster

      “agree to disagree”… because two opposite directions can be correct at the same time… only in physics.

      it was “handled” was just fine (see Kerr on Bill O’Reilly). he did nothing wrong, CNN invited him because it was a damn good question.

      you’re bitching at the messenger and ignoring the message, scott. that’s inexcusable behavior. true, it could have been handled better… but it’s handling is HARDLY a reason to complain considering the opportunity to give a REAL question – an honest question. and what were they suppose to do? let the question go unasked just because some people might feel it’s unfair?

      as unfair as ALL republicans declining the Logo Forum? if they won’t come to the gays, the take the gays to them.

      the “handling” was certainly better than the democratic debate where hillary was asked about playing the gender card… then later asked if she likes diamonds or pearls. THAT was horribly hypocritical. if you’re going to get upset… get upset at that… but don’t bitch just because your personal feelings for the messenger has overshadowed the much more important and tragically answered message.

      know the difference between what is handled “wrong” and what was not.

      Dec 4, 2007 at 11:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.