Gay veteran puts Republicans on the spot — gets booed

In last night’s CNN/YouTube debate for Republican presidential candidates, perhaps the most memorable, gripping moment came towards the end, when the face on an elderly gentleman appeared on the screen.

“My name is Keith Kerr, from Santa Rosa, California. I’m retired brigadier general with 43 years of service, and I’m a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Course, the Command and General Staff Course, and the Army War College. And I’m an openly gay man.

“I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.”

Ouch. Gen. Kerr’s question included two subtle points — that a gay person can serve honorably in the military, and that if Republicans trusted the professionalism of our men and women in uniform, they’d want to end the existing ban.

One by one, Republicans took turns trying to defend the indefensible, with responses ranging from offensive to ridiculous. Mike Huckabee said it would put military “morale…at risk.” John McCain, denying reality, said that the status quo “is working.” Duncan Hunter said most of the troops are “conservatives” with “Judeo-Christian values,” whose “principles” should be protected. Mitt Romney said we can’t let gays volunteer for military service because “we’re in a middle of a war.”

CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Gen. Kerr, who was in the audience for the event, whether he was satisfied with the responses. Not surprisingly, he wasn’t.

“With all due respect, I did not get an answer from the candidates,” Kerr said, adding, “We’re talking about doctors, nurses, pilots, and the surgeon who sews somebody up when they’re taken from the battlefield.”

At which point, the Republican audience began booing the 43-year military veteran. It was an interesting contrast — at Democratic debates, veterans get standing ovations. At Republican debates, veterans get booed if they’re gay.

Apparently, the most important angle to the exchange, according to the right, is that Kerr supports Democratic presidential candidates.

The retired general who asked about gays and lesbians serving in the military at the CNN/YouTube Republican debate on Wednesday is a co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s National Military Veterans group.

Retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr was named a co-chair of the group this month, according to a campaign press release. He was also active in John F. Kerry’s 2004 campaign for president.

Far-right blogs are apoplectic about these revelations, calling Kerr, among other things, a “Hillary plant.”

I’m not sure what the fuss is about. Kerr asked a legitimate question about a political issue. Candidates answered it. Kerr defended his position, and the conservative audience booed him. Who cares if he supports a Democratic presidential candidate? It wasn’t a partisan question.

For what it’s worth, CNN is apologizing.

The executive producer of the debate, CNN Vice President David Bohrman, said the cable network had taken some precautions, verifying Kerr’s military background and that he had not contributed to any presidential candidate.

“We regret this, and apologize to the Republican candidates,” Bohrman said. “We never would have used the general’s question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate.”

Whatever. It seems to me the problem here is that Republican presidential candidates want to discriminate against able-bodied, patriotic Americans, who are prepared to put their lives on the line during a war for their country. Conservatives can’t explain why this policy makes any sense at all, so they’re attacking an honorable, 43-year military veteran for daring to raise the subject in the first place.

Booing Kerr isn’t the answer; allowing equality in our ranks is.

“Whatever. It seems to me the problem here is that Republican presidential candidates want to discriminate against able-bodied, patriotic Americans, who are prepared to put their lives on the line during a war for their country. Conservatives can’t explain why this policy makes any sense at all, so they’re attacking an honorable, 43-year military veteran for daring to raise the subject in the first place.”

precisely. what else can they do?

idiots, all of them.

  • I kinda thought the bigger CNN outrage was using another stupid question to end the entire “debate”. Last time around it was, “Senator Clinton, diamonds or pearls?” Inanity.

    Last night, the final question was only slightly less inane when the questioner asked Giuiliani how he could support the BoSox after being a huge Yankee supporter.

    Damn the issues of health care, George Bush, National Security, how dare you root for the evil BoSox.

    Yawn. Double yawn.

  • Two things:

    1) The man’s question is relevant and should be answered.

    2) The fact that he’s “co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s National Military Veterans group” should be made known at the time he speaks. I would expect no less of the Republicans, who of course will gladly tell me to STFU.

  • Huckabee’s response is on the money. For military service, we need distinguish between feelings and actions, thoughts and behavior. To be gay is OK. To have sex with someone of the same gender while in service is not OK.

  • “To be gay is OK. To have sex with someone of the same gender while in service is not OK.”

    wtf? what in hell makes you think having sex with someone of the same gender while in service is not okay, but having sex with someone of the opposite gender while in service is ok?

    do you also believe that gays should not have the right to get married?

  • To have sex with someone of the same gender while in service is not OK. P.P.

    Who said anything about having sex? There was no mention of having sex. There was only mention of serving our country.

  • I can’t bear to watch or listen to any of these phony, sanctimonious candidates–heck, it’s painful to just read about the debates. Man, we are in such deep, deep trouble if any one of these guys somehow manages to steal the White House (again).

  • To be gay is OK. To have sex with someone of the same gender while in service is not OK.

    Wha?

    Do you mean that having sex with another soldier is not OK or what?

    Why is okay for straight soldiers to have sex but not gay soldiers?

    Or are you saying that there should be no sex at all from the time you enlist/get your commission to the time your enlistment is up/your commission ends?

    What a weird attitude.

  • “With all due respect, I did not get an answer from the candidates,” Kerr said, adding, “We’re talking about doctors, nurses, pilots, and the surgeon who sews somebody up when they’re taken from the battlefield.”

    At which point, the Republican audience began booing the 43-year military veteran.

    It’s just amazing that they would boo something like this, and it shows how stupid they all are.

    It would have been really bold + productive if CNN had somebody rebut the Republicans’ answers (they gave Kerr a chance, but he only went so far- from the quotes you have here, there are many other holes in what the Republicans answered) after the event. If they’re so bold and they pin slippery politicians down, why not have somebody give a good account of the other side of this controversial issue, on a spot (like right after the debate was over!) where a large viewing audience will see it?

  • I have a fuzzy recollection of an episode of Northern Exposure, where the crusty old astronaut Maurice is confronted with the fact that two new men in town who share his affinity for gourmet cooking, decor, finer things in life, etc. are a gay couple. He freaks out and does “typical man things” to prove that he’s not gay. The situation is diffused somewhat when one of the men asks Maurice about a famous ancient army, know for their fighting prowess, and reveals that the soldiers were actually gay. I know its a strech and a very dated pop culture reference but it speaks to the understanding that being gay does not equal not being able to honorably serve in the Armed Forces.

    Lots of this is cyclical — we heard similar things said about integration here in the South 50 years ago — and hopefully with future generations the prejudice against the “other” will continue to erode.

  • Because Swan, doing that would make the event dangerously close to an actual (the horrors!) debate.

    Another thing, I don’t think you should have to admit who you support prior to asking a question. It’s a debate. If a legitimate question is asked everyone should be able to answer it. The question Gen. Kerr asked was not unfair or leaning in any direction so that he has a link to Clinton is irrelevant. If the democrats can answer his question, so should the republicans be able to answer.

  • So if a prominent supporter of a Republican candidate had asked a question during the CNN/Democratic debate, that would have been just fine? Yeah, right.

  • At Republican debates, veterans get booed if they’re gay.

    You make it sound worse than it was. They weren’t booing a veteran who happens to be gay; they were booing a gay man who happens to be a veteran!

    Kerr asked a legitimate question about a political issue. Candidates answered it… Who cares if he supports a Democratic presidential candidate? It wasn’t a partisan question.

    Questions asked by partisan people become partisan questions, naturally. And since nobody has to answer any question from anyone they already know they disagree with, CNN had to apologize for letting this question slip through.

    Ben Franklin said America was “A republic, if you can keep it.” Since we obviously don’t have it anymore, I wonder what we’re keeping now.

  • The bigger issue here is what AmeriKa has become. It is not OK anymore for a Democrat to ask a question of a Republican candidate?? /wtf?! Since when?? I used to think we were all Americans, and we were free, and the politicians were accountable to we the People, and as citizens of a free and open country we had the right, and the duty, to ask hard questions of our leaders. And now it is wrong, and CNN has to apologize for not screening out and censoring our questions? This is not the America I knew anymore. And people are just acceptng it like sheep being led to the slaughter. The Neocons and the Republican party have so subtly and yet, paraadoxically also w/ an iron-fist, changed the way we see and frame issues that the bigger picture does not even get questioned anymore.

  • I actually thought this sequence was a highlight of the debate, and shame on CNN for apologizing for the one thing they did well. This was Cooper’s finest moment. He lets Hunter give a wildly Christofascist-centric answer, lets Huckabee give a more measured hairsplitting answer that at least doesn’t sound like he wants to sequester all gays in a concentration camp and then turns to Romney and prefaces his question with a quote from Romney in 1994 saying he “looks forward to the day” gays and lesbians can serve openly and honorably.

    Romney looked like he’d been hit with a 2×4. Romney tried a dodge based on parsing his own quote: “that time isn’t now, in the middle of a war.” To which Cooper smartly asked “but do you still look forward to that day?” Romney tried to duck and again Cooper follow-up, “but do you still look forward to it?”

    Then after the parade of non-answers, Cooper goes live to the General, and asks if he feels he got an answer. It was brilliant moderating. If only all of the media were that insistent in following up, and if only there were always such immediate penalties for dukcing and dissembling political discourse would be much improved. Romney looked like a freakin idiot.

    It does not change one thing that Kerr supports Clinton. Given the Republicans’ own answers (or non-answers) to his question, do people really think he is going to support one of them?

    Kerr may be a senior citizen, but with his special forces training, while he was there he shoulda kicked Chuck Norris’ ass. Just for fun.

  • I’m going to agree with Racerx and superdestroyer that CNN should have at least let people know that he was involved with a Democratic campaign — just checking opensecrets.org and finding out if he donated money isn’t good enough.

    HOWEVER, his question was 100% valid and more than worthy of being asked.

    I’ll also note that I would have absolutely, positively no issues with, say, someone from McCain’s campaign asking a question at a Democratic debate. Like this one, though, the person’s ties should be shared, but if the question is legit I see no issues with it. Making the forum an echo-chamber does no one any good — the candidates should be challenged like this, IMHO.

    (Note: As far as Duncan Hunter’s assertion goes — my company works exclusively with the military and, as such, there are quite a few folks around here who used to serve. We’ve had discussions about this issue numerous times, and we get in some great debates during lunch, even though most are solidly Republican.

    The older ones [50+] don’t like the idea of gays and lesbians serving AT ALL. They think mansechs is icky and that’s good enough.

    What’s interesting, though, is that all but one of the younger ones—those who served in Desert Storm or in Iraq/Afghanistan—see no issues with gays serving, even those who are solidly to the right.

    They could care less because, in their minds, anyone who wants to serve his or her country should be able to do so. Limiting an entire class of people has hurt our military already and it just makes no sense to them.

    I just find that interesting and, as the next generation takes over, I’ll bet the policy gets reversed.)

  • The issue is not serving honorably, obviously gays have, do and will serve honorably. There are at least two issues.
    1. Kerr and the other gays serving honorably do so without being openly gay (letting their personal lives get in the way), like all honorable soldiers. That is what honorable service is, placing the military above all else. It is a 24/7/365 job, not some 40 hr a week job were you do not have to live, shower, eat daily each other. Soliders wear uinforms and shoot at targets shaped like humans because the job is incredibly dangerous. Kerr waited until he retired to be oponely gay, because warfighting has no room for anything but openly being military.

    2. Kerr may have asked a fair question but he is clearly someone with an agenda, an influential person with direct ties to the opposing political party. If I or you asked the question no foul but, he was planted and CNN did correctly but way to late, apologize for their incredible screw-up. They apologized, get it, they admit they were wrong!

  • CNN apologized to the wrong party. CNN should have apologized to gen. kerr for the unruly crowd and admonished the crowd that everyone in a democracy has a right to express an opinion or ask a question in a civil manner. The candidates are also supposed to be big boys and as far as I can tell pretty much managed to duck the questions…so much for our constitution and our vaunted principles…

  • Gary C:

    because warfighting has no room for anything but openly being military

    Absolutely. So I assume everyone can agree on a law that bans openly heterosexual people from serving in the armed forces? I mean, they might see a female soldier, a female civilian (you know, some hot muslim like Huma), or their copy of Penthouse and get all distracted from their primary duty.

    Ban hetrosexuals from the military! (and homosexuals and bisexuals. No sexuals in the military!)

    There’s more than one way to end a war. . .

  • Gary Caudill said:
    The issue is not serving honorably, obviously gays have, do and will serve honorably. There are at least two issues.
    1. Kerr and the other gays serving honorably do so without being openly gay (letting their personal lives get in the way), like all honorable soldiers. That is what honorable service is, placing the military above all else. It is a 24/7/365 job, not some 40 hr a week job were you do not have to live, shower, eat daily each other. Soliders wear uinforms and shoot at targets shaped like humans because the job is incredibly dangerous. Kerr waited until he retired to be oponely gay, because warfighting has no room for anything but openly being military.

    SO, DOES THIS MEAN THAT ANYONE SERVING IN THE MILITARY CANT HAVE HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONS…WOULDNT WANT THEM TO GET IN THE WAY OF BEING OPENLY MILITARY…YOU KNOW, LETTING THEIR PERSONAL LIVES GET IN THE WAY..

  • zeitgeist
    Sex and porn are against regulations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers have been punished for having sex, hetero or homo or merely veiwing porn on the internet. Married couples serving in both theaters are not allowed to have sex either. Yes even married couples! You would be amazed at how some soldiers get bent out of shape when a married couple would sleep in the same room in theater, so even married couple can no longer have sex. Openly military.
    At military costums leaving theater you can be punished if pron is found in your belonings, and EVERYTHING is searched.
    This is why this subject is so important and should be left to the military, most have no clue about what warfighting and life is like.
    Additionally, if I would follow your logic then we should not let soldiers sleep or eat either, costs a lot of money and time to allow soldiers to do that. Can’t gfight a war without food and water.

  • What’s really, really sad to me is that here’s a guy who gave 43-freakin’ years of his life in service to his country, who had to live that life denying who he really was because of antiquated and backward policies – and he gets booed?

    When Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was proposed, these same people thought the end of the world was nigh that we would have such a policy. Now that the world has gone on, all of a sudden, DADT seems like a good policy – I guess because it is all that stands between openly gay people serving their country.

    Duncan Hunter’s response had to have been the most offensive one of the bunch. He said that most of the people who serve our country are conservative Christians, and we owe it to them to respect their beliefs. What? I guess his bigotry is wide and deep – and disgusting.

    Romney was almost as bad – only because he had no answer to whether he still looked forward to the day when whether a person was gay would have no bearing on his or her right or ability to serve. Maybe he should have said that he didn’t want to answer lest he give away all our strategies to the terrorists – which is how he explains why he won’t opine on whether waterboarding is torture.

    Am I the only one who is still unable to comprehend how it is likely that close to half the votes cast in the 2008 election will go to one of these asshats?

  • If republican’ts can’t/won’t answer a question from a gay retired general who happens to be affliated with Hillary Clinton, how can they be expected to answer to the people of the US and the world as President of the United States?

    Buncha pussys, all of them.

  • That serve CNN right for failing to get questioners to sign loyalty oaths. Why can’t an American citizen ask a question of candidates involved with the presidential selection process. Have Republican operatives asked questions of Democrats in the debate process? At least two come to mind: Chris Matthews and Tim Russert. Kerr’s question is very legitimate and goes beyond partisan boundaries. The whole gay issue that mushroomed in past elections is a Republican issue. Why not query Republicans about a signature right wing issue?

    The problem about gayness in American is not that there is gayness about — it is a part of the human condition that has existed throughout human history. The problem of teh gay is in its being repressed. Larry Craig’s gayness only becomes a problem when he’s force to become a tap dancer in public restrooms to be himself and has to get married to a woman to ensure his respectability. The key and unspoken issue about gays in the military that someone should address is that gays are interested in other gays and not in raping hetero men in the showers, unlike some of the hetero men in the military who have been raping an abusing female soldiers serving alongside them in uniform.

  • JC #24: They don’t intend to answer to the American people or the world, like Bush, they intend to answer to their base. And gays are today’s commies (and these folks need “commies”).

  • Petorado #26: The fear these people have is not that they will be raped by a sissy, but that they will be seduced by one.

  • Having served in the military, and still working around them, I can attest that, for a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, it’s pretty damn well known about the various gays and lesbians serving in units– and, except for a few bigots here and there, most people don’t give a damn.

    The problem is, for a gay or lesbian person, they and their partners have no rights whatsoever. So, that long-term committed relationship? Means nothing when it comes to, say, a Soldier being wounded. Their partner, at that point, is shut out of the process. Where a wife or a husband can come into the hospital, engage in decisions about their spouse, engage in the ongoing healthcare of their loved one, a homosexual couple has to suffer in silence.

    If that Soldier dies, their partner has no rights to survivor benefits or anything.

    And then people wonder why gays would enlist, only to ‘out’ themselves later on? These reasons are exactly why.

    For the General, great question, and it’s frankly pathetic that CNN is apologizing for his political involvement with a progressive campaign. Frankly, I don’t see how any self-respecting homosexual person could be a supporter of the republifuck party– so should any question from that community be suspect, and therefore not asked to the bigotted right-wingers?

  • I see no reason why the General’s political affiliation had to be disclosed. He’s a voter and a citizen and that’s all that should matter. The idea that only Republicans could ask questions at the debate makes no sense. The election is for President of the United States, not President of the Republicans. I wouldn’t have given a damn if Republicans had asked questions at the Democratic YouTube debate (and for all we know they did) as long as the questions were relevant and sincere? Who cares who asks the questions as long as they’re good ones?

  • Someone should have revealed his affiliation to the Democratic Party before or after the question.

    OK, this is going to sound crass, but:
    1) What person in their right mind would want to go into the military at a time of war ?
    2) If we ever have a draft, anyone want to bet how many wingers are suddenly gay ?
    3) The wingers hate gays so much they will deny them every right they can, what better right to take away them sending them to the meat grinder. A sexual preference cleansing of sorts.
    4) Since wingers believe gayness is contagious, they are only leaving more here to infect even more straight people, right ??

    I served and I am a veteran and before the ‘don’t ask’ policy there were obviously, but not openly gay people serving. It really wasn’t an issue, sure some people made fun, but it never effected our readiness.

    This non-sense about effecting moral is BS, it’s the exact same arguments made with people of other race and gender, and guess what it was all non-sense. So can you please get past this and quit projecting your own insecurities on the rest of us because the Straw Man is getting tired of getting blamed for everything.

  • Gary–
    I’m really, really trying to understand your point, but it doesn’t seem very clear.

    Is it that you think gays will go around shtooping non-stop, whereas heteros won’t?

    Is it that being gay somehow makes a person less focused on their military duties?

    Is it that gays are unable to put the military above everything else in their lives?

    Seriously. I’m failing to understand what, exactly, your opposition to gays serving is based upon.

  • For the General, great question, and it’s frankly pathetic that CNN is apologizing for his political involvement with a progressive campaign.

    What’s frankly pathetic is that there are so many commenters here who agree that CNN should apologize, that the questioners should be background-checked beforehand, and that the General’s political ties should have been stated beforehand. What the hell?!?! Not a single one of these points should be given any respect. Anyone should be able to ask any legitimate question, period. I suppose all you who agree with CNN’s cowardly stand also feel just fine about “Free Speech Zones” at Bushco events? If Bill Clinton was in the audience, would they not have let him ask a question? Why the hell not? Damn, with attitudes like this I fear for my country’s future.

  • Let those bastards boo all they want. People will remember this incident from here on out, especially when they go to the polls in November 2008.

    The GOP is digging their own grave with remarks like those. This next election is going to be a wash!

  • “Frankly, I don’t see how any self-respecting homosexual person could be a supporter of the republifuck party . . . .”

    Self-respecting person, period.

  • President Lindsay–
    I guess I’m just a big fan of full disclosure. For me, it’s important for people to know — or at least get an idea — of a person’s intentions and background.

    It’s why so many climate change deniers who are scientists can be discounted — most get funding from oil companies or related foundations.

    It’s why a blogger who is working on a campaign should disclose that fact — it could obviously slant their coverage of the candidate.

    To act as though Kerr’s involvement with Hillary doesn’t matter is off base, IMHO, since I’ve seen many of us wonder about the motives of some on the right. Again, it was a totally, 100% valid question, and I don’t think for a second that CNN should have apologized, nor do I think the Clinton camp was trying to plant an operative (with CNN’s help, natch).

    But, again, many of us on the left have asked multiple times for full disclosure from folks on the right during discussions on a number of different issues. I don’t see why expecting the same thing from “our side” is out of line.

  • GOP hypocracy again! CB, you forgot to mention that when the shoe was on the other foot and FoxNews wanted to host a Democratic debate and the Democrats told them to take a hike, they complained about Democrats’ fear of them and their “right” to force Dems to participate in their debates.

    I’m pretty sure I’m forgetting right now another important occasion that illustrates the perfect hypocracy of the GOP.

    Oh yeah, and after that booing of Gen. Kerr, can we please put to rest the myth that the GOP is the party of the military?

  • My favorite conservative quotes:

    “You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.” (About the time GEN Kerr joined, I suspect.)

    “Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. “

  • From the movie Stripes:

    Recruiter: Now, are either of you homosexuals?
    John Winger: You mean like flaming? Or part time?
    Recruiter: Well, it’s a question we have to ask of all our new recruits.
    Russell Ziskey: No, we’re not homosexual, but we are “willing to learn”.

  • Re: #33:

    I’m of mixed feelings about this.

    On the one hand, no, it should not matter at all that Gen. Kerr happens to be a Democrat or work for Clinton. That’s completely beside the point. CNN needs to grow a spine for once and stick to their guns on presenting a substantive, difficult question to the candidates. News organizations need to remember that their purpose is that of the adversarial journalist, not the obsequious courtier. They’re supposed to make all the politicians sweat, not just the Democrats while they fawn over the Republicans.

    On the other hand, this is a GOP primary debate,, the point of which is to win the GOP nomination, so I can see it being reasonably argued that the questions and audience in that context should be limited to Republicans only. If the shoe were on the other foot and I was watching a Democratic primary debate that was full of GOP talking points for questions, I’d be a little upset by that. That’s why the Democrats rightfully rejected FoxNews’ solicitation to host a Democratic primary debate.

    So I hate to say, but I can see it being reasonable for the GOP to expect an apology, but it would be much more satisfying to watch CNN defy the GOP.

  • c’mon, we all know that those judeo christian, conservative, heterosexual soldiers completely give up sex during their enlistment. the real problem is we all know that homos are just out of control sex maniacs. Duncan Hunter is so loyal that he gave up sex forever when he enlisted, and his wife loves him even more for it! i mean my god, can you imagine what might happen if enlistment was open to gays IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR!!!??? how can we even have elections? we’re in the MIIDDLE OF A WAR!!! how could anyone think of sex at a time like this?

  • On the other hand, this is a GOP primary debate,, the point of which is to win the GOP nomination, so I can see it being reasonably argued that the questions and audience in that context should be limited to Republicans only. If the shoe were on the other foot and I was watching a Democratic primary debate that was full of GOP talking points for questions, I’d be a little upset by that. That’s why the Democrats rightfully rejected FoxNews’ solicitation to host a Democratic primary debate.

    First off, great post!

    Secondly, I’m going to have to disagree a bit about the above — while it’s the GOP debate, limiting the questions to nothing but GOP folks creates nothing more than an echo chamber where legitimate, hard questions are never asked.

    My solution is just what I’ve suggested: If someone is actively campaigning for a candidate on the other side — not just donating, but working to get the person elected — that should, by every journalistic standard, be disclosed. Of course, I’m not so sure journalists have any real standards any more, so I could be wrong …

    I’ll also note that I don’t think it’s necessary to disclose everything — it could get absurd by people listing every single affiliation they have. Just pretty important stuff (which, again, IMHO, this one is).

  • I guess I’m just a big fan of full disclosure. For me, it’s important for people to know — or at least get an idea — of a person’s intentions and background. It’s why so many climate change deniers who are scientists can be discounted — most get funding from oil companies or related foundations.

    The two are hardly analagous. The scientists are attempting to influence policy with a financial bias skewing (or potentially skewing) their supposedly scientific objectivity. At a debate where people are allowed to ask questions of candidates, the issue should be solely this: Is it a valid question that can contribute to the purpose of the debate, i.e. to inform voters of the candidates positions on issues. You may be a big fan of disclosure, but in this instance it is completely irrelevant. And to demand it, and apologize for not investigating a questioner, is simply beyond the pale.

  • And to demand it, and apologize for not investigating a questioner, is simply beyond the pale.

    First, I never posted that CNN should apologize.

    Second, you’re right — those two weren’t totally analogous. But the others were, were they not?

    Also, let me ask you this: It’s a Democratic debate, and a questioner asks the candidates if they think … I dunno, gay marriage should be banned by Constitutional amendment. Later, we learn that the questioner was actively campaigning for Huckabee.

    Would you or would you not want to know that? I know I would.

    Again, though, I think full disclosure is important. And, just like your posts, that’s my opinion.

    It’s also kind of secondary to the issue (should gays serve, and the GOP answers), and I’m stunned I’m wasting this much time and bandwidth discussing it.

  • #38: My favorite conservative quotes: “You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”

    I guess that’s what got Cheney out of serving.

  • My #45: Of course I meant the second part of the quote. I assume the veep is straight. If he’s human at all. Of course homosexuality isn’t limited to humans… but I digress.

  • My god folks, it wasn’t an ambush question. The question would have been legit whether asked by R or D or I. The repubs for the most part consider homosexuality a criminial, perverted activity and can’t get their head around the idea that gays can be just like them except with a different sexual preference. All laws and rules governing sexual activity in the military should be the same for everyone regardless of sexual preference. Sexual preference in no way interferes with the ability to preform the functions of their duties. It’s a discriminatory practice that is outdated.

    Cheerleading should not be allowed at political debates. Booing the questioner for the question, or being gay, or being a veteran etc., is still impolite and should not be tolerated. It’s not a basketball game or star search. Next they will be booing if your not Christian enough.

    The issue at stake really is that republicans try to ban gays from everything treating them like second class citizens based on religious beliefs when in fact sexual preference should not even be an issue, in the government, in the military or anywhere else. But these republicans have made it an issue of morality rather than an issue of discrimination.

    I can’t watch these republican candidates talk because on every level they are so distorted and wrong that I just get sick to my stomach when I try to watch them. It’s bad enough to read what they say but to see them, knowing what they have done and are doing to this country I love, go on with their mockery of democracy is more than I can bear to watch. I no longer believe in bipartisanship. They have isolated themselves from our system of democracy and are no longer a part of this democracy. To support them is to support a group dictatorship for the wealthy elite. They are the true terrorists and are in the process of destroying America. Bush and Co. opened the doors and the worst of their party flooded in. They are no longer a political party but a crime org posing as a values party. Thank God, they are in the minority and most Americans aren’t buying into their propaganda anymore.

  • Last I heard the President governs all of us, not just Republicans. If they’re offended they’re welcome to go start their own country. I’m sure the 70% of us who aren’t Republican wouldn’t mind that at all.

    If they’re afraid their candidates can’t answer a straightforward question, how will they be able to stand up to China, Russia, or terrorists?

    [Btw, requiring the anti-spam answer to be capitalized, and then dumping the attempted post when one goes back to try again is f—ing stupid.]

  • I bet if you gave the audience a questionnaire, you’d find all kinds of connections and relationships and what not that someone thought required disclosure. I mean, how far do you want to take this? Should the man who asked about the Bible disclose his religious affiliation, so the audience can decide if he was playing gotcha? Should a woman who asks about abortion disclose whether she’s ever had one, or belongs to any anti- or pro-choice groups? Should the person who asks about taxes tell us a little something about his own tax and employment history? Should the person who asks about whether we should bring the troops home disclose whether he has ever served, and if not, why not?

    Everyone – every single voter – has an agenda, a reason why he or she is asking a particular question. That the general is a member of a group that supports Clinton just means that he has identified the person he thinks will best address the issues that matter to him, but given that the election isn’t in the bag for anyone yet, has a right to know how the other side would address those same issues.

  • This 43 year veteran has indicated that he is openly gay on National TV, so if my calculations are correct he would have served in the military prior to the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. I remember when I entered the military in 1982 you were asked a question “Are you homosexual” if you said yes – you would not get in, if you said no, then you made a leagl statement that you were not a homosexual. So did this veteran lie on an offical military document or did he become gay after he served in the military and when gayness has become popular. Lying on a federal document is a punishable crime. Perhaps one should review his miltary records.

  • Just testing capitalization on the anti-spam answer. I didn’t have to capitalize it. Maybe the problem is that the page tends to timeout, as in you need to post withing a certain amount of time after loading the page or the site thinks your post is spam. It’s effective against really automated spam software but not really against the Paul nuts.

  • And yeah, losing your data when you hit back after getting your post rejected really sucks. I thought CB had a warning about that at one point. Anyway, always copy your post before you submit, in any web-based submission, not just here.

  • Maybe he didn’t know till he was older. There’s still hope for Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, Trent Lott, Richard Curtis, et cetera… but not Jim West — he’s dead.

  • Rian — You could be right. I’d gotten out of the habit of pro-active copying, as most other comment software these days keeps the prospective comment available.

  • Re: #50:

    That is abominable. It is just like the GOP to react to anyone who opposes or questions their positions by attacking or defaming or smearing the person who has drawn their ire, even private citizens. Hell, even children nowadays (remember Graeme Frost?) It’s disgusting and plainly undemocratic. Shame on you.

  • So did this veteran lie on an offical military document or did he become gay after he served in the military and when gayness has become popular. Lying on a federal document is a punishable crime. Perhaps one should review his miltary records.

    Please tell me you were kidding …

  • Mark D.
    My point is that no lifestyle or personal choice should be allowed to identify a person while being a member of the military. You are a service member. As I stated gays have and will serve honoarbly, being gay does not make you unqualified or incapable. Openly gay will. Homosexuality is a choice, like beign a republican, Jewish, Christain, etc. There is absolutely no scientific study that has revealed a direct influence of genetics, biology or any natural reason for gayness. There is none. Look up info on Dean Hamer, Simon LeVay and or Xq28 (the misidentified “gay Gene”) and you will see how studies have been done and failed to find any direct link but have been greatly misrepresented. Hamer and Levay happen to be two of the prominent scientist in the chain of attempts to find the link and fail. Hamer has tried 3 times and failed, his work has never been replicated (required for findings to be legitimized) even though attempts by other have occurred, yet his work is still misrepresented. Anyway, homosexuality is a choice and therefore it should not and can not be that which identifies you if you are a service member. A solider is a soldier not a republican soldier or a Muslim soldier and can not be a homosexual soldier.
    Sex can and will ruin a unit. Soldiers can not hold hands or kiss the opposite sex in public (public display of affection (PDA)) if in uniform, even their own spouses. Fraternization is prohibited in the military. Soldiers can not have the opposite sex in their barracks rooms after certain hours or at all depending on the post. Allowing soldiers to openly be gay is more than heterosexuals are allowed and it is not natural, it is a choice. It will have a profound impact on military morale. Once science proves it is natural the military has no reason to prevent it. Being openly gay will hurt the military, period.

  • let me get this straight,what the repubilkkkans are saying is that our soldier boys and girls will fall apart if they get to close to a homosexual.then all obama ben laden has to do is form an army of gay terrorist and they’ll win the war.how sad

  • I just want to say, I am in the military, and I completely agree with the candidates, and I think Gen. Kerr’s question was inappropriate. Of course, he’s an officer, and retired, so he can be expected to be out of touch with what the majority of the military (and also it’s heart and soul), the enlisted force, feels about this issue. The vast majority of enlisted personnel support the current policy and would be very uncomfortable with openly gay individuals in their units. In other words, as Rep. Hunter stated, it “would be bad for unit cohesion”. And for the record, gays and lesbians CAN serve (I happen to know and greatly admire a Senior NCO who is a lesbian), they just can’t openly profess their feelings, which in many ways is similar to how heterosexuals are forbidden from making any statement, gesture, etc. that can be interpreted as sexual. I just think people need to actually consider how the MILITARY actually feels about this, and not how the civilians think it should be.

  • Hmm, William. Decades ago, people make exactly the same arguments about why we needed to exclude blacks from the military, stating (perhaps accurately) that the existing all-white units were uncomfortable with the idea of serving with blacks, would destroy cohesion, etc. Fortunately, it was decided that bigotry isn’t a justification for segregation.

    Do you believe that blacks shouldn’t have been allowed in the military until all the troops were comfortable with it? If not, why do you think it’s different for gays.

    I know you said that gays who pretend not to be gay can serve, but that’s kind of like saying that only the blacks who could “pass” as white should have been allowed to serve (this sometimes happened before the military was desegregated), or are you saying that soldiers can only be open about their sexual orientation if they are hetero?

  • Point 1: Failure to disclose the complete background and perceived agenda of the questioner was a failure on CNN’s part to properly frame the question. Perception is reality!

    Point 2: The question was a legitimate question for debate.

    Point 3: All these people complaining about the Republicans upset with this event ought to pressure the Democratic candidates and ask them why they are refusing to debate on Fox News.

    Point 4: Get rid of the moderators (who often have their own agenda’s), the time limits for questioning and the planted questions from the audience and let the candidates just go at each other based upon a general topic.

    Point 5: Why don’t we let the military decide how it can best run itself as most of us have no clue as to what it is really like serving in the military. To that extent let the military have a secret ballot to determine what it wants to do or just leave them alone and with time as the younger set takes control the policies will change.

  • The Democratic candidates were happy to take questions from anybody, even Republicans. So why are the Republicans so freaking scared of the rest of the world? Hell, the General’s a registered Republican — and these wimps are scared of him!

  • Gays in the military are a bigger question than just saying that mean old Repbulicans won’t let honorable gays and lesbians serve in the military. No one questions the honor or courage of America’s gays and lesbians as BG Kerr demonstrates and no doubt many others their is no difference in the ability of a gay or straight man or women serving, but there is one thing that seems to be quickly over looked by those who so quickly throw the racist bomb: America does not allow men to take showers with women for any number of reasons. And for those same reasons they should not allow gay men to take showers with hetro men. No, it is not that all hetro men are afraid that the gay “monster” is going to do them harm, but just as women deserve not to have to worry about the indignity of taking a shower with a leering male, and all of the many other reasons why America does not allow men to take showers with women, a hetro male should not be forced to take a shower with a gay male. Yes, I know that in the military gay men are currently taking showers with hetro men as we speak, but the hetro does not know that his gay friend is potentially checking his package out for future sexual pleasure. Now, you can call me crazy, you can and will call me many cruel things, but when the American public allows hetro males to take showers with women in the military, then I guess they can also let gay men take showers with hetro men. Of course, the shower is only one of many up close and very personal reasons why the military system can not allow openly gay and lesbian individuals serve. I will not mention the very close, confined and difficult lives that a tank crew must endure in combat or even in normal field training, that do not allow for broken romance between gunner and driver. We now would have to open for discussion all of the many reasons that America does not allow women into those units that are involved in up close and personal combat, and 99 of them are not because America is concerned that a woman cannot handle herself in a fight. I submit this response knowing that I will not open any eyes nor change any minds, but at least I can say I tried.

  • First of all, the question was NOT a legitimate question. Why? Because this was a Republican debate to decide on the Republican candidate that would compete against the Democrat candidate for the Presidency. It would be a legitimate question during a general election debate, but this is simply NOT a concern for the average Republican.

    Second, the man passed himself off as a Brigadier General, but apparently he only served 7 years of active duty and the rest of his time was in the reserves and apparently the BG rank was entirely symbolic (bestowed by the State of CA, not the US military). His service is not even close to what he tries to pretend. Once again, someone apparently trying to pass himself off as some sort of hero so that his words will carry extra weight.

    Third, in the military we do not have the luxury of a screened blood bank. Even the American Red Cross does not allow donations from active gays (Have you had sex, even once, with another male since 1977?) In combat, WE are our own blood supplies for injuries/wounds – this is a very real reason for not having gays in the millitary (yes, I know that all gays do not have HIV/AIDS but they do have it at a much higher rate than straight males). Besides, when 12 men live in the same amount of space that a normal child (U.S) has as a bedroom, there is no privacy and the last thing that is needed is a feeling of even less privacy. I have known, and gotten along very well with several gays – in civilian life, but it would be completely unacceptable in the military.

  • So Mike, I have to ask. Did you even read what I wrote? Because your response, aside from being somewhat less than accurate historically, and being rather dishonest by omission to boot, really had no bearing on what I said. That, and you put words in my mouth, and I HATE that! First of, whites and blacks have served side-by-side in the US military for nearly 150 years now. More than a few decades. You say that even a few decades ago, people were justifying excluding blacks from the military. Pretty hard to justify something that didn’t happen. If blacks didn’t serve in the military till a few decades ago, we more than likely wouldn’t have beaten the Confederacy, or the Nazis. I would also like to point out that those who argued in favor of first slavery in the 1860s, and then segregated units in the 1950s were Democrats. Just ask Jefferson Davis or Senator Robert “KKK” Byrd. I would also like to point out that many of this country’s finest generals (real generals, not colonels who were made honorary California generals when they retired!) like Sherman and Patton considered black troops under their command to be some of the finest soldiers ever, indespensible to the war effort. Now, you also state that I claimed that to serve, gays have to “pretend not to be gay”. I NEVER SAID THAT! I said that gays can serve as long as they don’t openly profess their homosexuality to others, in the same way that I cannot make comments of a sexual nature to an attractive female servicemember without being disciplined. I said that in my last post, but you chose to ignore it. Please don’t put words in my mouth. And finally, nowhere did you address my main point, that the military should be allowed to decide what is best for itself, not a bunch of civilians who don’t know anything about the military other than what they’ve seen in the media (much of which is shockingly innacurate!). I would just like to remind everyone that, unlike George Looney (oops, I mean Clooney!) and Hollywood, the military really does tend to be ahead of the social curve. We desegregated in 1948. The rest of the country didn’t follow suit til the 1960s.

  • Gary Caudill and Pistol Pete:

    You are both douches. From experience, I know how much it sucks to pretend to be straight in the Army. You have to make up lies to cover up your personal life, because everyone asks about your business. If you are in a relationship, it is very difficult to function in the military. If you are both in the military, you have to worry about not getting stationed at the same place. While at war, you get to worry about your partner who is also downrange… is he alive? dead? Who knows? And you can’t express your worries because no one around you knows your partner exists and if they did you would be kicked out. It is a whole lot of pressure. It takes an better than average soldier to deal with the extra stressors that being in the closet causes.

    So you two please go fuck yourselves with something sharp and jagged.

  • Gay is a choice much like being Caucasian or right-handed. Gary Caudill = dumbass

    Furthermore, when you are in the middle of Iraq, the last thing you are thinking about is doing one of your fellow soldiers. We all are more like brothers, and we reek. If gays were allowed to serve openly, they would be held to the same rules as straights. People who don’t follow the rules get punished. It is actually quite simple. Almost as simple as you are.

  • Mike, Odds are that at least one of those 12 men you were in the little room with were gay. Don’t worry, no one was looking at your ugly ass.

    We are fucking everywhere. EVERYWHERE.

  • Comments are closed.