Not surprisingly, the GOP contenders in
Wednesday's debate, when called on to answer the "Don't As,
Don't Tell" question posed by Retired Brig. General Keith H. Kerr,
gave exceedingly lame, party line ("unit cohesion must be
perserved") responses. Too bad that under CNN's format only Hunter
(there's some candidate named Hunter-who knew?), Huckabee, Romney
and McCain were asked to answer. I don't honestly know if Rudy
would have been shamed into deviating a bit from the party
lockstep. But at least it was fun to watch Romney, now a DADT
champion, refuse to address his 1994 declaration that he looked
forward to the day when gays and lesbians could serve "openly and
honestly in our nation's military."
Regrettably, CNN couldn't find a high-ranking, openly gay GOP veteran to ask the question, and instead (they claim inadvertently) went with Gen. Kerr (who was quickly identified as a steering committee member of "LGBT Americans for Hillary")- which allows Republicans to further sidestep the issue.
Editor's reminder: Impassioned debate is welcome, but gratuitous insults will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.
25 Comments for “Conduct Unbecoming”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And who also, it turns out, was on John Kerry’s National Veterans Steering Committee.
I wonder how Kerr feels about the antimilitary bigotry his fellow lefties and gays are espousing here in San Francisco, including their ban on JROTC, their attempt to ban the Blue Angels from flying, their support of leftist groups like Code Pink that call military members murderers and baby-killers, and their repudiation of the USS Iowa as a veterans’ museum?
posted by Southern Decency on
His “fellow lefties”? When will you “righties” learn that people to the left of yours are not one homogeneous group that think alike and consider themselves “fellow”s?
posted by Greg on
“CNN couldn’t find a high-ranking, openly gay GOP veteran to ask the question, and instead (they claim inadvertently) went with Gen. Kerr (who was quickly identified as a steering committee member of “LGBT Americans for Hillary”)? which allows Republicans to further sidestep the issue.”
Said general claims to also support the Log Cabin Republicans. He says he is not registered as a democrat or a republican. Didn’t give Hillary any money, but has given a republican group money.
He hardly seems to be a ‘leftie’.
At any rate, Steve’s main point seems to be the lameness of the candidates responses. Which is ,unfortunately, an accurate assessment.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
His “fellow lefties”? When will you “righties” learn that people to the left of yours are not one homogeneous group that think alike and consider themselves “fellow”s?
When they stop acting like one and start protesting the antimilitary bigotry of their fellow lefties.
And Samantha, thank you for bringing up Mary Cheney; let’s show the world the response from gay leftists and Democrats like yourself when she had her baby.
My personal favorite:
I’m praying for SIDS.
Wishing her baby dead…pure class, Samantha. Aren’t you proud of yourself and your fellow Democrat gays and Mary Cheney-bashers?
posted by Jorge on
Too bad I skipped the debate. Now watch I’ll see the next and it’ll be a snooze.
Between the snowman question a while back and the general with Hillary connections I think these YouTube debates are a clutzy way to hold candidates feet to the fire, but it’s a start. These major league biased questions aren’t too bad. From what I’ve heard the questions are much better than the ones that came out of the last general election (undecided independents–yeech!)
posted by Greg on
What happened to the other posts in this thread?
posted by Avee on
See the “editor’s reminder” at the end of the post. And P.S. that’s not censorship; the moderators have a right to insist that at least a minimum of civility be maintained on the forum that they provide.
posted by Samantha on
Ok, I responded in a civil manner to the editorial, and pointed out Miller’s repeated disproportionate criticism of democrats and liberals, amoung others. I also had some criticism of the Republican Party. Is it against the rules to disagree or point out bias?
Also, ND, I never said this:
“I’m praying for SIDS.”
I don’t know who said that, or if anybody actually did, because as of about noon today nothing like that was written. If it was, it’s inappropriate and should be removed.
Attributing it to me is beyond wrong. I would like a prompt apology and an explanation of why it was attributed to me.
posted by Samantha on
To Miller and the Editors:
I would like a removal of the entire post from North Dallas Thirty, since it is a lie, and completly insulting to me personally, and insulting to gay democrats in general. An excerpt from the post is as follows:
My personal favorite:
I’m praying for SIDS.
Wishing her baby dead…pure class, Samantha. Aren’t you proud of yourself and your fellow Democrat gays and Mary Cheney-bashers?
I would appreciate a response.
posted by Another Steve on
I encourage the editors/moderators to ban all comments that are not about the issue in the post. This is not a public bulletin board (at least it never used to be). And Samantha, I can tell by your posts on other items that insulting Miller is your favorite sport. So, he should let you insult him, and ask for your permission to do so.
But see, they have gotten me to engage them in their petty little “everyone look at me” antics. So it’s ok if you delete this, too, and just keep the posts that are on point.
Also, thanks for all your efforts in creating and maintaining this form that Samantha hates so much but demands a right to particpate in.
posted by Jorge on
You’re probably not familiar with the story North Dallas Thirty is referring to, Samantha… but that’s why he posted a link to it. That’s the category he’s lumping you into.
I really doubt the editors had Samantha’s posts in mind. I think she’s just borderline sometimes. But if there was a Mary Cheney reference, well you’ll never see me defend an “uncle Tom” insult.
posted by Samantha on
No Apology.
No Response.
No Surprise.
Oh well, back to the subject at hand.
posted by Samantha on
“Regrettably, CNN couldn’t find a high-ranking, openly gay GOP veteran to ask the question, and instead went with Gen. Kerr [which allows] Republicans to further sidestep the issue.”
Regrettably, Stephen Miller couldn?t muster the courage to stand up for a conservative, gay man who respectfully posed a question we all want the answer to, during a GOP debate. (Or even elaborate on Kerr?s service at all, simply leaving it in the wind as a ?member? of a committee.) This is a conservative gay site, and Kerr is a decorated, conservative, gay brigadier general. What?s the problem?
Here?s Kerr on CNN?s morning program after all the fake outrage. This is a man who has obviously had a long career, spanning several admins, with plenty of credibility to speak on the issue. He never gave money to Hillary, or worked for Hillary. He only lent his name to the committee, which he as every right to do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgEhOzLQeh8
Unfortunately nothing ?allowed? Republicans to sidestep the gay issue. CNN didn?t allow it, and Hillary didn?t allow it. Repubs were upset the question was raised AT ALL, regardless of who asked it. The San Francisco Chronicle points out that allegations of a CNN bias does not hold up, because ?The Democrats encountered similarly pointed questions last summer.?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/02/EDK1TLC48.DTL
When the idea of these Utube debates originally got started, I wondered what exactly the Repubs were going to do, since they are used to busing people in for events and having them sign loyalty statements. CNN said they wouldn?t screen the Utube participants for party affiliation or anything. If a question was reasonable it should stay in.
The Democrats did their part. They handled questions without complaint, even the rudely partisan ones, like asking Hillary how she could be president when muslims don’t respect her, or asking Mike Gravel how he expects to win when people are offended over his Vietnam views, or asking if ?my taxes are going to rise like they usually do when a democrat gets into office.? And with most of the country strongly against furthering the Iraq war, CNN still managed to find a cut and run questioner, too.
Now the Repubs turn. Well?.it?s interesting, because as it turns out, their little hands were fast at work trying to eliminate any questions that might make them uncomfortable. David Bohrman, CNN Executive Producer of the debate, reassured the GOP that Utube videos ?asking the candidates to defend their opposition to gay marriage and abortion” would NOT be asked. Marty Kaplan has more on this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/cnn-flack-sez-im-pretty_b_74505.html
But somehow, the gay question got in, so the GOP had to spin it. But as usual, they took it too far. They called Kerr a coward. They called him a plant. They demanded everyone at CNN be fired. Instead of pointing at CNN, we should be pointing the finger back at the Republican Party, where the responsibility belongs.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah, but you see, Samantha, your attempt to spin for Kerr pointedly ignored this fact; Kerr did the same thing for Kerry.
So what we have here is someone who claims to be a Republican, but attacks Republicans, publicly smears Republicans, and works for multiple and consecutive Democrat campaigns.
Furthermore, Kerr is nowhere to be found when there’s something to be said about the antimilitary bigotry his fellow lefty and Democrat gays are espousing here in San Francisco, including their ban on JROTC, their attempt to ban the Blue Angels from flying, their support of leftist groups like Code Pink that call military members murderers and baby-killers, and their repudiation of the USS Iowa as a veterans’ museum, all of which is just down the Bay from him.
Need another example? Read this lovely editorial, in which a gay liberal claims the service of gay veterans is a waste, that gays who enlist to protect the country are only “feed(ing) us the line”, and that as they fight, they are “autocratic monsters” who are engaged in the “destruction of current cultures”.
One might think Kerr would have something to say about a gay liberal spitting on gay veterans like that…..but that would be assuming against past record that Kerr can put his allegiance to other veterans and his comrades ahead of his sexual orientation.
posted by Samantha on
ND30 That post wasn’t for you. And don’t hold your breath for me to respond, because your posts are all junk, and you’re a troll and an agitator. (And since you slandered me anyway, why bother). Just feel lucky if I ever take the time to read one, because I usually don’t. Nothing you wrote was unexpected or surprising. Forget about your links. I tried a link one day, (only because Jorge mentioned it), and instead of it going to a source of reference it went right to your own blog! I just about laughed my ass off at that point.
Sorry.
posted by Avee on
Samantha calls ND30 a “troll” and an “agitator” — but if the editors delete her post, as they did one of her previous ones for violating their stated policy against “gratuitous insults,” she’ll express shock and demand an apology. Wait for it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…..what I find entertaining, Avee, is the fact that she insults me, then insists that she’s not going to read my links because they never go anywhere.
The problem is that Samantha is blinded by her own prejudices and bigotry. Instead of reading my link, she automatically assumed I was lying and stated so, as this statement demonstrates:
I don’t know who said that, or if anybody actually did, because as of about noon today nothing like that was written.
Then, after Jorge pointed out correctly that I was linking to the story in question, what does she do to maintain her story that I was lying?
I tried a link one day, (only because Jorge mentioned it), and instead of it going to a source of reference it went right to your own blog!
Yes — where it outlines exactly what was said, who said it, where it was posted, and who was supporting it. But she argues, of course, that none of those are valid because it’s my blog.
And again, the “progressives” repeat this pattern with Kerr. Kerr clearly worked for the Kerry campaign. He IS working for the Clinton campaign. He claims to be Republican, but attacks Republicans and endorses and supports Democrats. He claims DADT is antimilitary bigotry and smears veterans, but he (or the rest of SLDN, for that matter) is nowhere to be found when gays espouse flat-out antimilitary bigotry and smear veterans, as in the examples I cited and in the editorial I linked.
What Kerr makes clear is that he and his fellow liberal gays will do anything and say anything, regardless of how true it isn’t, with their sexual orientation as an excuse — and will cover up and not criticize other gays, even if those gays are engaging in things that are contrary to what Kerr supposedly supports. Imagine the disruption this could cause; a gay sergeant, for instance, covering up the fact that a gay private is sexually harassing another soldier, or a gay flight officer passing an incompetent gay pilot to make carrier-deck landings.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
I agree with Stephen that CNN is a bumbling idiocracy of a network and they should be ashamed of their behavior at the glorious Republican Youtube Debate. Why would they seek to defile and ridicule such an honorable institution with questions from unapproved agents? I tuned in for Youtube debates, not the Interestingquestiontube depabates. I mean seriously, come on. I also agree with ND30 that gay Democrats are responsible for the spread of HIV and are among the leading causes of prolapsed colons. I would like to take a moment to apologize to ND30 for calling him names. He did not deserve to be treated like that and I should be ashamed for inhibiting his right to slander and defame others. I am sorry that I offended my IGF overlords with my previous bad behavior…I will not step out of line again and, should you choose to delete this vile and offensive post, I’ll understand.
Yours in Christ,
ColoradoPatriot
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
(shrug) Well, I suppose if he’s going to make imaginary accusations, he probably should make imaginary apologies, too.
posted by Brian Miller on
I don’t see what any of ND=30s posts have to do with the question being asked (other than to utterly divert attention from the core issue).
Also, considering that ND himself is one of those horrendous godless San Francisco homos (at least if you believe his blog), it’s downright hilarious. It’s at least as amusing to watch as “white guilt.”
Anyway. . .
I regret that Giuliani and Ron Paul weren’t tossed the questions about gays serving openly in the military. The bigoted positions of Thompson, Romney, etc. were all well-known. The interesting thing is whether Giuliani (who has never quite answered the question), or Ron Paul (who waffles so much on the question that all he needs is syrup and butter and he’ll be able to make breakfast for an army brigade) will answer the question straightforwardly (lame pun fully intended).
posted by Samantha on
lol, CP.
Hey, here’s an article that Gen. Kerr wrote for the gay military times. It’s excellent. I really love what he said about pluralism and secularism. You may need to refresh the page.
http://www.thegaymilitarytimes.com/060926Kerr.html
This is the kind of writing I respect, because it shows that identifying as gay is about more than where you put your body parts. It means examining your life and taking a good look at the world around you. It creates an awareness. Kerr has a deep understanding of the anti-gay movement, as well as some very interesting sidebar info about this effort specifically within the military. He seems committed to repealing and exposing DADT.
posted by Brian Miller on
I’m disappointed that Kerr hasn’t spent as much time hitting Hillary hard on DADT.
It’s easy to take postshot at the GOP’s assembly of right-wing nuts, kooks, and bigots to score points for Hillary.
It’s a lot harder to confront Hillary in public and ask her (and her Democratic cohorts) why:
1) If they really support an end to DADT, why the Senators amongst them (there are four sitting Senators) haven’t introduced companion legislation for the MREA that would immediately end DADT.
2) Why gay people should take seriously their “commitment to end the anti-gay military policy” as president tomorrow if they’re not doing everything in their power to end it today as US senators.
3) How they would rank Dennis Kucinich’s commitment to end DADT versus their own (as Kucinich is the only candidate in the Democratic primary who has actually sponsored or cosponsored legislation to end DADT on multiple occasions).
posted by etjb on
(1) LGBT political issues are generally not given too much focus in the mainstream media.
(2) Lifting the ban requires more votes then currently exist.
It is not something that is going to magically happen overnight.
(3) Dennis Kucinich says (and does) lots of great things (IMHO). Yet, the man has zero chance of winning the primary or general election.
posted by Brian Miller on
LGBT political issues are generally not given too much focus in the mainstream media.
Wrong. In fact, the mainstream media has quadrupled its spending on LGBT-targeted media efforts in the past two years alone.
Lifting the ban requires more votes then currently exist.
Because Democrats who claim to support repealing the ban have not voted to repeal it.
If the Democratic Party was serious about ending the ban, it would have been tossed out ages ago — just like the Dems forced the rest of their domestic agenda through (including items far less popular with mainstream America than ending the anti-gay ban).
Democrats don’t want to end the ban, or don’t care. The votes don’t “exist” because Democrats aren’t willing to provide them.
Ergo, Democrats who don’t provide them have not earned gay support or dollars, and should suffer at the polls accordingly.
Dennis Kucinich says (and does) lots of great things (IMHO). Yet, the man has zero chance of winning the primary or general election.
Sort of like how, as Barney Frank claimed in 2000, “we have no chance of seeing gay marriage in my lifetime.”
3 years later, he was proven wrong.
Once you’ve decided that something is impossible, you’ve made it so.
And worse, by giving Democrats who haven’t earned your support your “strategic” support, you’re rewarding them for their poor performance.
posted by ETJB on
“Wrong.”
Nope. Based on most stastics, the mainstream media still gives little coverage on LGBT-rights issues. It may have increased, it is still not a major issue.
You said: Because Democrats who claim to support repealing the ban have not voted to repeal it.
No. The bill to repeal the ban would first go to committee, and then (assuming it gets out) gets put on a calendar. I am not sure that such a bill has come to a floor vote in both houses.
The Democratic Party cannot force its legislators to support a position. Both main parties have a degree of pressure and purse strings, but its largely a question of individual-regional House districts.
Politicans in both parties often cringe at voting for a bill that is going to cost them their re-election or subject them to internal or external competitition.
Some Democrats want to end the ban, others do not. More Democrats want to end the ban then Republicans, but that in itself is not enough to get a bill passed.
Dennis is not going to win the party primary and he could not win a general election. This is based on his polling and fund raising abilities.
Either, for that matter, is Ron Paul. In fact neither of these two ‘maverick’ candidates are running to win.
We live in a two-party system and a weak party system. That is the simple reality and I seem to be the only person here who has been actively working on important election law reform issues.