CNN's Bohrman apologized to Republican candidates over question in YouTube debate, but has yet to apologize to Democrats
Since the CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate on November 28, much coverage has been devoted to CNN's selection of a video question by retired Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr, a member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Americans for Hillary Clinton steering committee and a co-chairman of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) Veterans and Military Retirees for Hillary Committee. In a statement published in a November 29 post to CNN's "Political Ticker" blog, CNN senior vice president David Bohrman, the executive producer of the debate, apologized for allowing the question to have aired, given Kerr's campaign affiliation: "We regret this, and apologize to the Republican candidates. We never would have used the General's question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate." But CNN has yet to apologize for questions it selected for airing during the Democrats' YouTube debate on July 23. As Media Matters for America noted, in anticipation of the Republican debate, Bohrman reportedly pledged to weed out questions that "you might describe as Democratic 'gotchas' " from those asked of the Republican candidates. But as Media Matters also noted, CNN gave no indication that it applied that standard to the Democrats' debate and, indeed, selected possible Republican "gotchas" such as the following, in which the questioner echoed the enduring Republican myth that Democrats are taxers and spenders: "I'd like to know, if the Democrats come into office, are my taxes going to rise like usually they do when a Democrat gets into office?" The Boston Herald reported in a July 25 article that Bohrman said of the debate: "I think it worked. The questions were really good. The feeling and the energy of the program felt really good."
In addition to the question about taxes, the Democratic candidates were asked the following other possible Republican "gotchas" at the July 23 CNN/YouTube debate, as Media Matters for America documented:
- To all the candidates: Tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe. This is my baby, purchased under the 1994 gun ban.
- My question for all the candidates: How do we pull out now? And the follow-up: Are we watching the same blankin' war? I certainly wasn't a big fan of the invasion/liberation. It sickens me to hear about soldiers wounded and getting killed daily, not to mention innocent Iraqis, but how do we pull out now? Government's shaky; bombs daily.
Don't you think if we pulled out now that it would open it up for Iran and Syria, God knows who -- Russia -- how do we pull out now? And isn't it our responsibility to get these people up on their feet? I mean, do you leave a newborn baby to take care of himself? How do we pull out now?
- My question is for Mike Gravel. In one of the previous debates, you said something along the lines of, "The entire deaths of Vietnam died in vain."
How do you expect to win in a country where probably a pretty large chunk of the people voting disagree with that statement and might very well be offended by it? I'd like to know if you plan to defend that statement, or if you're just going to flip-flop. Thanks.
- I'm a proud serving member of the United States military. I'm serving overseas.
This question is to Senator Hillary Clinton. The Arab states, Muslim nations, believe its women as being second-class citizens. If you're president of the United States, how do you feel that you would be even be taken seriously by these states in any kind of talks, negotiations, or any other diplomatic relations? I feel that's a legitimate question.
I would like to see a Republican debate with questions exclusively from Democrats, and a Democratic debate fielding ones from nothing but Republicans.
I would like to see one thread at MMFA where you stay on topic.
Please, please, feel free to ignore any posts you consider off topic.
I have thought the same thing, Tommy.Just 2 debates where the questions are asked from the other party.
It would be interesting, at least.
Interesting and the candidates would be forced to steer away from their scripted messages and soundbites - and squirm a little.
Actually Tommy, I like your idea !
I'd like to see it called whatever it is. It's not a debate to me. Also, let the people vote on which questions to ask. If the questions were selected by a democratic method, then I'd say its ok to let the canidates view the questions ahead of time. ...and , if the dem candidates were really smart, they'd post their own answers to every one of those questions that were asked of the repubs, on thier websites, showing how they differ.
Questions Republicans would ask Democrats:
1. "Why do you hate America?"
2. "Mr Obama, as a former Muslim terrorist, how would your Presidency improve American Security?
3. "Mrs Clinton, as Lesbian, how would you reduce taxes?"
4. "Why do you hate America?"
5. "Considering that America's Mayor may be your opponent, how can you match his unprecedented National Security Experience?"
6. "What would you do to protect the lives of helpless unborn babies?"
7. "Why do you hate Religious people in General, and Jesus in particular?"
8. "Would you surrender our nation to Obama, I mean Osama, Bin Laden your first year in office, or would you wait until your second?"
9. "How many illegal immigrants will you have in your cabinet? Will they bring their own bombs or will you provide those?"
10. "Will you allow homosexual coconut-oil orgies in the Lincoln Bedroom only, or will they be going on throughout the White House?"
11. "Why do you hate America?"
My question is for Hillary - When you are President, and you have the full power of warrentless wiretaps, will you be more responsible with this power than George W Bush has been? Or will you use this power to find and crush your political enemies as he has?
I would like to hear all of the candidates compare/contrast their own views of the privacy/security debate with the current state of affairs (vis-a-vis the Bush Administration/Courts/Congress as the candidates view it.
Now, it will probably bore most people to tears, but I want to know. As a compromise, we could have the candidates wrestle in a steel cage match after the debate to give the Red-Staters a reason to watch as well.
BTW, what was the question from Kerr? If it's in the item above, I missed it.
I beleive it was on gays in the military. Mitt got in a flipflop. TheYoung Turks web site has some details, possibly via Air America.
OK, I found it. sounds like a reasonable question.Better than many asked by the "professional moderators" at both the GOP and Dem debates.
Kerr:"I’m a 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"
It's a good question but a complete "gotcha" setup. The way he asks the question assumes that someone in favor of "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" believes that military members are incapable of professional behavior if they are working with homosexuals. This is the same problem as in the questions listed in the article, the addition of context and opinion around what could be a simple and good question that makes it a political trap.
"Gotcha" questions aren't simply questions that make a candidate have to think hard and state an opinion that might be politically unfavorable to certain people, they are questions that can't be answered without buying into a fallacy or unintentionally admitting to something you don't believe in.
"Are you still beating your wife?" is the simplest form of a "gotcha" question. It immediately puts forward your supposed wife beating as an accepted fact and forces you into defensive mode.
I'd love for all the candidates to have to answer hard questions, but "gotcha" questions are just stupid political games that serve nobody in the end.
Good points, Moonbat. I get the "gotcha" thing, but will point out a major difference between Kerr's question and the much-discussed Hillary driver's license question; Kerr's question, while admittedly loaded, asked "why", allowing explanation or denial of the premise. The media has been criticizing Clinton, and some of the other Dems, for refusing to answer complicated questions with a "yes" or "no".
He should have asked Hills...it was her husband and herself that implemented that rule.
None of the candidates on that stage save McCain had anything to do with it.
They all agree that merely being with gays in the course of their jobs will hurt thre delicate, flower-like sensitivity of our country's well-trained fighting men and women to the point that they will be unable to do their jobs.
All the GOP believes that.
They're stupidly wrong.
No, you're stupidly wrong. As far as I can tell, none of the candidates have advocated reversing "don't ask don't tell".
If you have info contrary to that, then please post it for all.
All of the Democratic candidates signed on to a statement urging the repeal of the poilicy:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/342956/democratic_presidential_candidates.html
Further, the Edwards campaign issued a statement against the policy back in Feb 2007:
http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070227-dontask/
Good enough for you?
Hey Moonbatubetcha...I'm gonna clue ya into a little secret...
You posted the dems position...
We're talking about what the Republican position is...
I'll make it a little easier for you...What is the REPUBLICAN position on "don't ask..."
It hasn't come up in the debates because it's not a top tier issue.
The next question is if Slicky's "don't ask" policy was so BAD, then why sign it into law? In fact I think it was the first hot button issue he/she (Hills ) tackled and passed. Now it's horrible...of course they didn't say WHY it was horrible, just it's horrible.
I think you are being disingenuous. Clinton campaigned to end the complete ban on homosexuals in the military. After he was elected, he tried to implement it and the conservatives went apesh*t. "Don't ask don't tell" is the result of a compromise with the conservatives. For all of its faults, it was an improvement over the previous position, but you cannot blame Clinton entirely as his own position was rejected.
Let's argue this honestly.
Hogprint, don't ask don't tell was a compromise policy, as an alternative to gays being excluded from the military.Bill Clinton didn't propose a restriction, he was doing what he could against your fellow conservative pinheads, with a centrist position.
McCain is all for it as policy.
Uh...I think that's what I said. Read my first post again.
Some more outhouse reading for you:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/03/note_to_congress_ask_but_be_pr.html
I read your post. Here is what you said:
"He should have asked Hills...it was her husband and herself that implemented that rule."--hogprint
If you weren't trying to blame Clinton wrongly for "Don't ask don't tell" then you did a pretty lousy job of that. It seems you are suggesting that policy was what Clinton wanted, which obviously wasn't the case at all.
And maybe we could find a true independent, with no axe to grind, to control a taser device connected to each candidates seat.
Whenever a candidate from any party starts to dance around a question instead of giving a concise, to the point answer, he gets a jolt.
The debate would look like "Riverdance" in seconds.
I'd pay to see that.
Obviously the only tongue-in-cheek remarks you recognize are your own.
You are ignored...
So I guess Johnny is on topic as well, ho hum.
Tommy I agree with you 100% . It would be nice but the two parties will not allow it.
I would like to see a Republican debate with questions exclusively from Democrats, and a Democratic debate fielding ones from nothing but Republicans.
Great idea Tommy! I would love to get an honest answer instead the standard lines that they've memorized. I wonder how we could get that format?.
Actually, Tommy, I think for the very first time, I agree with you.
I agree 100%, tommy. Great idea.
Just like a BCS playoff, it is probably what most people want, but the candidates and especially the parties will never go for it. They want everything very predictable and more importantly controlable. I think it is a big reason why we have pretty lousy leaders all the way around.
I really hope that someday it will happen though.
I especially like that last one. I wonder how he feels about Condi flashing her legs in front of all those A-rabs?
So, did these questions come from Republican campaign workers and operatives? I'm sure MMFA would be shouting from the rooftops if they did.
Meanwhile at least 4 of the questions last night came from Democrat plants.
Another instance of this site throwing things against the wall hoping that something sticks.
Plants?
American citizens exercising their inalienable right to free speech is a plant?
Nice.
When "undecided" voters are revealed to be anything but that, yes, those are plants.
The abortion questioner is a John Edwards supporter. The guy who asked the Log Cabin Republican question is an Obama supporter. The lead in toy paint Mom is a union activist and Edwards supporter, and of course Mr. Kerr is a Hillary activist.
I agree there should have been full disclosure, but ultimately that is pretty minor. What is really important is whether the questions were fair or not. Did these people ask unfair questions, because I haven't seen anyone make good case for that as yet.
Exactly. I'm not sure what the big deal is, on either side. Do they think they can throw it open to the public and not have campaign operatives try to get in on the fun? If the moderators aren't smart enough to cull out the "gotcha" questions...they need to find another profession.
Johnny,
It's a GOP PRIMARY debate!!!!!!!!! Democrats have their own debates to ask questions right now. The man tried to sabatoge this debate. Tried to make them look like fools. I imagine they have an easy enough time of that on their own. Your defense of this is illogical at best.
Maybe an loyalty oath should be given before a question is allowed to be asked.
Funny you should mention that...
Snoopy, totally unreal the lengths Republicans will go to retain power and they call us UN-American.
I understand your point, but how is it possible to sabotage the debate? I watched for 30 minutes last night and no one answered any of the questions!!
I think sabotage is a pretty strong word here. I think the question was mildly leading, but it would seem to be an easy question to answer. I think we - as Americans - are entitled to an answer to the question from each of the candidates.
You obviously don't feel that ALL americans have the right to ask questions from candidates and don't realise that the MODERATORS at CNN and YOU-TUBE chose the questions...But weeded out as many "got-chas" as thy could...but you don't want to READ the entire article where CNN apologised.
Is anyone going to argue that it was not a legitimate question? Wouldn't any rational person agree that that should be the standard here, not the messenger. Seriously, what would it matter if HRC herself stood up and asked the question? It was a valid question.
But, of course, the repubs can do nothing but attack the messenger, and the media is incapable of scrating past the surface of any issue, so here we are with a huge "scandal"
Well let's have Rush Limbaugh moderate the next Democrat debate.
After all, it doesn't really matter who the questioner is.
Good question. Or why do the Dems shun the Fox debate then, if the "messenger" is irrelevant?
The "messenger" is not the issue with a dem fox debate. The issue there is that fox has a proven track record of asking misleading questions, and more importantly, spinning, distorting, and outright lying about someone's statement after the fact. They also are likely to put in propoganda questions along the banner during the debate. "Obama a secret Muslim?" If they had a track record of asking decent, honest questions and reporting honestly about the response, then there would be no issue.
The issue is that each party is trying to nominate their person. It's primarily an internal election. It would be just as appalling if some GOP supporter asked "gotcha" questions at a Democratic debate. Plenty of time for what you want durng the general election. Jeez@!!!!
Are you implying Reagan Democrats Russert and Williams didn't do just that?
Huh???????? Look, it's a REPUBLICAN PRIMARY DEBATE. That means REPUBLICANS are choosing their nominee. It is not a platform for political operatives from another party to come and empassionately try to sway public opinion. As for your Russert and Mathews stuff, if you can't see the difference than so be it, but this "they did, so we should to" attitude is nothing more than shallow.
I suppose since I am an Independent, my opinion is a little skewed, but I would like to see which candidate can handle talking to people with an opposing viewpoint the best. But then, I like people who can build bridges and get things done across party lines. I am not a partisan.
Your comment would be apt if only you substituted CNN for Fox. The lamness of the MediaMatters true believers' comments shows that they are at a loss to cover up for a CNN's performance which was either very biased or very poorly researched.
Excuse me, Sir, are you lost?
What questions do you think were unfair from CNN and why were they unfair?
Considering everything I have seen on Fox, I am not confident their moderators would give Democrats a fair shake.
If Republicans were able to demonstrate a similar track record for CNN then I would respect their objection(s). The problem is that CNN is not at all comparable to Fox in that way. Case in point would be CNN's apology for overlooking this General's connection to Hillary. Do you think Fox would apologize if the shoe were on the other foot? Did Wallace apologize to Bill Clinton? Did O'Reilly apologize to anyone while being much more blatantly unfair? Gibson, Hume, Hannity have all been extremely unfair and yet seemingly never is a retraction made or an apology forthcoming.
Fair enough...if you let Mike Malloy moderate the next Republican debate.
I would absolutely microwave some popcorn and find the easiest chair in the house for both of those debates.
That would be true political theater Nerzog. Mike'd have to be locked in his seat, else he'd be fighting pretty hard not to leap up to punch some lights out. ;-)
If Rush asked an honest, legitimate question without any spin, why would anyone care if he asked the question? His track record points to the fact that he is incapable of that, so I think it would be appropriate if he were not allowed to ask a question unless it was pre-taped.
Ah ok. So the left will decide who is capable of asking fair and honest questions. Gotcha.
Where in my comment do I mention dems deciding who asks a question?
Bottom line, do you think the question was legitimate or not? And if it was, why is it important who asked it?
What about this don't you understand????? It's how the question was posed and the manner in which it was done. You don't overtly present an agenda with our questions in a Primary debate, it turns them into "gotcha" questions. Each party is trying to nominate their own. Partisan sniping and policy disagreements will be addressed during the general election. I for one don't want any Republicans destroying the intergrity of the nominating process with childish tricks such as was done last night.
Yeah, I'm guessing all references to Hillary Clinton should have been edited out of the Republican debates then.
I just don't get this schoolyard logic you are using. Referencing Hillary Clinton should be expected in a REPUBLICAN PRiMARY DEBATE. Are you implying that it would be o.k for a member of Focus On The Family to come to a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY DEBATE and present a clearly biased question on abortion to the candidates??? I don't see where you get off insinuating that you can tell the GOP what is and what is not acceptable at their debates.
I just don't get this schoolyard logic you are using. Referencing Hillary Clinton should be expected in a REPUBLICAN PRiMARY DEBATE. Are you implying that it would be o.k for a member of Focus On The Family to come to a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY DEBATE and present a clearly biased question on abortion to the candidates??? I don't see where you get off insinuating that you can tell the GOP what is and what is not acceptable at their debates
The problem with that example is it would not be a problem. Most Democratic candidates have no problem stating their view on abortion. The problem here is Republicans who are clearly a homophobic party but very pro military. They would rather draw attention to Kerr's affiliation with the Hillary's campaign rather than addressing the conflict they have with Kerr being a fine military soldier as well as an openly gay man. It is they who would have to explain and they who are uncomfortable so please folks, look the other way. While the identity of Kerr should have been acknowledged the question still needs to be addressed by Republicans especially since they are SO pro military but yet SO anti gay anything. You may not like the questioner but the question was legit and Republican candidates owe other Republicans in the party who don't share the same homophobic views as well as the public an answer
That has nothing to do with the overall point here. This is a question of right or wrong. It is wrong to have political operatives pose gotcha questions in a forum like this. It was a debate of likeminded candidates debating for the nomination to be given to them by likeminded constituients. Your parsing of my example is in and of itself shallow as it totally negates the real question here. If that is how you like then fine, just insert something else besides abortion in my example. Once you have done that please don't try to tell me that you would not be livid if a GOP operative did this at a Democratic debate under false pretenses. Again, right or wrong?
While I do agree to a degree with what you are saying, I think the overall point is being missed. It's not that potential "gotcha" questions weren't asked at both debates -- they were. The point is that CNN is cowering from the Republicans and apologizing for it, while the Dems just have to take the hit and keep going.
It's as if the MSM feels the need to tilt the playing field for Repubs so that they will have enough campaign "stories" to take them to the election. The Repubs are a sorry lot, and CNN has a lot of space to fill.
Chris, if your main point is that it’s wrong to have political operatives pose “gotcha” questions in a forum like a debate then yes you are correct. However CNN ask the public if they had questions for the Republican candidates to send them in. They did not say only Republicans can send in questions to Republican candidates. Should CNN have not selected Kerr’s question? IMO, no it was a legitimate question ask by someone who had a vested interest in the answer regardless of which candidate he's supporting. Should they have made public his association with the Clinton campaign? In all fairness, yes. You have to assume by using this format you are going to get a lot of “gotcha” questions. CNN allowed this question "I'd like to know, if the Democrats come into office, are my taxes going to rise like usually they do when a Democrat gets into office?" during the Democratic debate. Was that a “gotcha” question?. IMO, yeah. Have you ever heard Democrats refer to other Democrats as “tax and spenders”? And what’s with the phrase “like they usually do”. Sounds a lot more like a question posed by a Republican and we don’t know if he was or was not an operative nor was there an apology from CNN. The reason for the uproar by Republicans has very little to do with Kerr's role in Hillary's campaign and a lot more to do with their homophobic stance on gays and their so called "total support" for the military.
Are you implying that it would be o.k for a member of Focus On The Family to come to a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY DEBATE and present a clearly biased question on abortion to the candidates???
Yes, I see nothing in the Constitution that prohibits free speech.
Might be a bit problematic for Rush, though...Seeing as he made himself deaf with the Hillbilly-Heroin and all. I don't think he could have Snerdly and closed captioning to aid him with his implants.
Regardless, I believe that it is demonstrably the reich-wing in this country who goes out of their way not to have their views challenged. Especially someone like Rush. When and if someone actually gets through with a question that he doesn't have a talking point for, he starts stammering like the Pres trying to pronounce the names of world leaders! Those of us with a liberal bent love to 'mix it up' with the cons because we can actually think and not just repeat talking points. Check out the Thom Hartmann Program some time if you want to hear a liberal take on the reich-wing. He has one of the 'tools' of the right on almost daily.
No, the right wing will continue to attack the messenger and avoid the question like they usually do.
It's definitely a legitimate question, and it doesn't matter who asked it.
Anderson Cooper was soft on the Republicans last night and nothing compared to how the Democratic candidates have been treated by the likes of Russert .
No surprise there. Did you see any of his softball love-fest with Glenn Beck the other night? I'm surprised he didn't have Glenn sitting in his lap.
The controversy is over who asked the question, not its contents (a man on a "Hillary Clinton steering committee")
Indeed, but why is it a controversy ? Are questions only allowed from certain types of people ? Is this only a controversy because it was a chance to harangue Hillary ?
If it doesn't matter who asked the question, then why would they make sure that an openly homosexual ex-military man asked it? They even made sure he specifically was there in the live audience. Why, if it doesn't matter who asks the question?
"...then why would they make sure that an openly homosexual ex-military man asked it? "
Why would who make sure of that?
CNN.
Ripper, do you have any sources to back up all of these things that CNN "made sure" of?
Do you think an openly gay ex-military man who asked a you tube question for the debate also just happened to wander in off the street to be there at the live event?
CNN picked the question. Do you think out of all the thousands of submissions they got, he was the only one to ask something like that? But of course "It doesn't matter who asks the question."
Did he sneak into the event or did CNN ask him to be there? Hmm. Seems like a big mystery.
I'll research it and make sure to source my work with links. Either that or you could just use some common sense instead of demanding proof for things that are known facts.
A simple "no" would have been fine. Trying to pass off what you've arrived at with your "common sense" as "known facts" doesn't really cut it.
So you don't think CNN picked the question? You don't think CNN asked him to be in the audience?
I have no idea. I've seen no evidence to back that up, nor to prove that CNN didn't set it up.That's why I asked if you had anything.
If you want to call CNN and Kerr liars based on your feelings, that's up to you. I like to deal a bit more in facts.
Remember, you wrote that CNN "made sure" that Kerr was there and asked his question.
So CNN didn't select which questions would be asked? Is that what you're trying to say? They choose the man and his question, and then wanted him in the audience to follow up after they candidates answered. Did you miss the part where they cut to Kerr in the audience and asked him if he felt his question got answered? You think that just happened with no forethought on the part of the producers at CNN?
there you go letting your common sense get in the way of perfectly plotted facts. don't you know that you have to back up your reasoning with stuff other people put on the internet? how dare you think for yourself and come to conclusions without consulting with the webgod... no one ever puts false facts on the web.
on the other hand- it was probably a huge coincidence that the fellow was right there... and he brought his own microphone. funny- i did't see tax and spend and gun baby man in the dem debate audience.
Ripper, I didn't watch the debate, so I can't tell you anything about what I think about cameras cutting to Kerr or anything else that was on TV.
That's why I asked about your statement that CNN "made sure" that everything happened the way it did. You're implying a very calculated series of actions, and assigning a lot of motives, i was only asking if you had any evidence of this.
Apparently you don't. Yeah, CNN obviously chose the questions, I'm guessing all of them. Do you think every ones of them had some complicated plan behind them? Or that a certain range of questions were chosen to mix it up?
You didn't watch the debate yet you question things that those who did watch it know to be true? CNN flew him to the debate. He got several minutes of air time to rebutt the candidates responses to his initial question. That is not normal and it doesn't just happen.
"You didn't watch the debate yet you question things that those who did watch it know to be true?"
Now you're getting it (sort of). I didn't see the debate, but found a quote of the question on the net. I wasn't calling you a liar, just asking if you had any evidence to back up your accusations (since I didn't see the debate, and had seen no evidence myself of a concerted effort by CNN to highlight a particular question or questioner)
Your evidence is that Kerr was picked out of thousands,as , logically, every question/video was.
He flew from Ca. to Fla. I don't know what that has to do with your conspiracy.
Kerr was given time to respond. If that was unusual, you have a point. But maybe it was a good question that deserved some follow-up.
Sorry to put you on the defensive. I was really trying to get some info. I couldn't find. I just didn't find your assumptions compelling enough to agree with you.But thanks for taking the time.
HBL,
You should know by now that asking a conservative to backup their assertions only makes them mad.
Maybe I'm approaching this the wrong way, in assuming that you actually know what happened last night. Instead it seems your info on this is only from this piece on MMFA.
People submitted thousands of questions in the form of Youtube videos, months ago. CNN went through them and selected which video questions would be shown at the debate. They showed Mr. Kerr's question, the candidates responded. Then Anderson Cooper went to Mr. Kerr, who just so happened to be in the audience (He lives in California, the debate was in Florida). Cooper asked Kerr if he thought the candidates answered his question. He then got to rebut the candidates for several minutes.
Yeah, that was totally spontaneous...
Oh yeah. It's a televised political show. Very little is spontaneous.
CNN apologized this morning for letting this happen. They indicated that they ensured none of the questioners gave money to any candidate. They realized that the integrity of this debate was compromised with this little trick.
Integrity is caving in to the howling right wing mob?
No, this is a GOP debate, get it????? CNN put forth the notion that political operatives from the Democrats would not be allowed to pose questions. Hence their apology. I guess Democrats should not be given equal airtime at the GOP convention according to your logic.
According to your logic anybody who isn't a card carrying republican or eligible to vote in the republican primaries should have turned off CNN during the debate.
Are you sure this is what they had in mind?
Chris,
I am an Independent in a state with an open primary. I have voted in the Republican primary many times. Am I not allowed to ask a Republican what he thinks in a Republican debate, because I am an Independent?
Are you being intentionally dense to not realize that a man who served for 40 years and rose to the rank of Brigadere General, who is now openly gay, would be the one who cares the most about a question like that? Did you also have a problem with the gun owner asking about gun ownership? Should a non-gun owner have asked it to be fair?
But it doesn't matter who asks the questions, right???
Besides that, Mr. Kerr violated his oath and lied when he enlisted and while he served. Too bad nobody called him on it.
Yeah, and Mr. Bush violated his oath and lied...when will somebody call him on it? I would speculate that Mr. Bush's transgression has done much more harm than Mr. Kerr's. You disagree?
Way to shift gears so you can get your boogey man Bush into the conversation. Sadly for you, Bush isn't running this time.
No he isn't. I'm glad someone pointed that out.
But many of the candidates are running on his policies.
If a candidate wishes to continue those policies GW becomes pertinent to the discusion.
No he isn't. I'm glad someone pointed that out.
But many of the candidates are running on his policies.
If a candidate wishes to continue those policies GW becomes pertinent to the discussion.
"Bush isn't running this time"
No, and neither is Kerr. So, what's your point?
Nerz, I think the point is that Bush is a boogeyman.
That is, the failed president who has spent the last 7+ years as the (official) top dog of the party involved in these debates, and this topic, is an imaginary monster, and not pertinent to this topic. ;0).
Man, you're like debating a seven year old. Nobody said it mattered that he asked it, I said it made sense that he asked it because he was interested in that topic AS A GAY GENERAL. He chose a question he was interested in and asked it, just like the gun owner chose a question he was interested in and asked it.
Seriously, acting like a moron is not the way to win an argument. Unless it isn't an act, in which case I am sorry for you.
Maybe he wasn't gay when he enlisted. Maybe he was celibate for 40 years.
Maybe the Gay Agenders recruited him in the barracks shower...
Look. It's not o.k. for political operatives to sneak into the oppositions nominating process through their debates and attempt "gotcha" questions. Imagine how you wold see this if this happenned the other way around. Come on!!!
Archie, you're handwringing on this issue is disingenuous. If the Regurgicons can't handle a pointed question, they shouldn't be up there. In any case, it doesn't hurt the process any more than letting a snowman ask questions.
Edith,
You just don't get it. You are blinded by your partisanship. Fooling yourself into believing that if GOP operatives did the same under disguise at a Democratic debate you wouldn't hold a different opinion is beneath you, Nerzog.
Under disguise? Was Kerr wearing a fake moustache or something? Republican operatives have done far worse things than "crashing" a debate. I think I'd survive if they snuck a question into a Democratic debate about raising taxes or gun control...DOH! Somebody already did! Guess I better get pissed off....
Oh please, the man was disingenious from the beginning. Your attempt to allocate this to sophmore hijinks is rather pitiful. He was a political operative who posed a gotcha question in a forum in which he was not welcome. It's not as if he was going to vote GOP. He posed that question in the manner in which he did to put those guys on the spot. You only have no problem with it because it was the GOP and not the Democrats. I guess he was actually trying to change the minds of the GOP folks in the audience. Riiiiight.
Thanks for voting for Bush, twice. Good job. Go stick your head in a toilet bowl. Loser.
"in which he was not welcome"
Oh? No Democrats were allowed in the audience? If his question was so devastating, so debilitating, so difficult to answer...why did the moderators let it in? If, on the other hand, this is the fault of the moderators, how is this any worse than Russert asking the Dems about drivers licenses for illegal aliens?
Somehow, I think our electoral process will survive this assault.
Or, even better, what about Timmy's "favorite Bible verse" question? Should I be outraged about that? Is that any less ridiculous than asking the Troglodytes about their attitude toward gays in the military?
I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. If a political operative from the opposition asks a "gotcha" question (which, this certainly was not) then the candidate has a right to say "I won't answer that, its a stupid question". But they don't do this: they hem and haw out of fear of looking stupid instead of taking a stand.
If a GOP plant in a Democratic debate asked a pro-choice candidate "Do you think it is ok to slaughter innocent babies in the womb?" that candidate would have a unique opportunity to express their views or display their fortitude. They could say "that isn't a fair question, because I don't condider abortion slaughtering a baby", or they could say "I'm not going to answer that question because it is obviously a trick".
By the way it is not about handling a pointed question. It is about a questioner disingeniously attacking the integrity of the debate. It would be totally different if tis were a general elcetion debate. But it wasn't. That is why CNN apologized. You are wrong.
The point that everyone is missing is Mr. Kerr IS a Log Cabin Republican...Who Mr. Bush and Co. will accept thier money and support in the last election and then Say he doesn't agree w/ thier lifestyle.
What you're suggesting is how the system worked in communist Russia or Saddam's Iraq.
Oh really, when were you in the Soviet Union and Iraq????
I have never been either place, but that doesn't seem to preclude me from knowing such things through news articles, documentaries and history books.
Regardless of where a question comes from, isn't the President supposed to be the president of ALL the people? So shouldn't he/she have to answer any and all the peoples questions?
Yes, lets just have Faux News do Republican debates from now on - and only have <put your favorite "liberal-biased" news organization here> handle Democratic debates. Surely we don't want a candidate to have to answer to a question they weren't expecting!
Get real - until that question came up I was falling asleep! Apology Smology - what a bunch of crap!
I'm wondering why nobody is up in arms about the "Bible" question. I thought it was much more inappropriate than Kerr's question.
I thought the gun nut's question in the Democratic debate was the creepiest.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anything about gun control, or the 2nd Amendment, or people who own guns, just that anyone who call his guns his "babies" is deranged.
What was the question about the bible? I didn't see the Republican debate.
Some guy asked the candidates if they believed EVERY word in the Bible.
"....the enduring Republican myth that Democrats are taxers and spenders".
Next thing you know, Repubs will start a rumor that Dems favor abortion and gun control.
Thanks MM, funniest line of the day.
Nice try! No democrat or liberal that I know "favors" abortion. It should be “safe, legal, and rare”. There’s a bit of a difference. Clowns on the right act as if there was no such thing as abortion before 1973. I can't decide what you meant by the 'gun control' comment but perhaps you can call and ask America's Mayor about that one? Assuming, of course, that he isn't on the other line telling his (3rd) wife how much he loves her!
As far as the “tax and spend” label goes, the biggest spenders in the last 20 years were 2 republicans. Reagan spent more than all of his predecessors combined and GW outspent Reagan in extraordinary fashion. The shrub did cut taxes in a time of war and no president has ever done that. No worries though, our children and grandchildren will bear that burden so we can have our wars of choice now.7Years, you're presenting facts to one of those who allow these enduring myths to endure.
They don't do that by paying attention to facts.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go have some unprotected sex to meet my abortion quota this year. And control some guns. ;0)
I'm certain all of you who were outraged by the audacity of this question were even more outraged by any question posed to Bush by Jeff Gannon. A gay male prostitute who 'poses' as a White House correspondent and asks softball questions during press conferences is no big deal, right?
Some other reasons why Kerr might have been motivated to ask the question.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/29/175241/61
Excerpt
You report that David Bohrman has not apologized to Democrats. What has he got to apologize to Democrats for? The questions Democrats were asked at the CNN/You Tube debate were all supportive. There were reportedly plants in the audience. The questions Democrats asked the Republicans were all of a "stick it to 'em" sort. I have not noticed any reporting today on Republican plants in the audience last night. It is so clear that there is a double standard at CNN and it is reprehensible.
The story says that CNN tried to be fair to the republicans, but did not give the same courtesy to the democrats. Give one example of one of the people at the CNN democratic debate that was shown to work for or had worked for a republican or the republican party??? If you can then your article is fair, if not, your article is whining up the wrong tree
You seem to think that whether the person is affiliated with a campaign in some way is more important than the actual questions themselves. I think you have it backwards.
You'd be surprised how small a deal that is to them. Or the hand picked crowds that get to see shrub in the flesh, much less get to ask him a real question. Never seen a winghead even acknowledge that it means anything except the that questioner undoubtedly has a crippling hatred of shrubykins.
If anyone want to know the facts...over5000 questions were submitted and chosen by CNN and you-tube...Not by any candidate...And even still, I have every right as a voter to ask ANY legitimate question I chose...That's what a debate is about.
Once again I'll try to state this clearly...Mr. Kerr IS a Log Cabin Republican...And even though he now supports another candidate has every, EVERY, right to ask his party, to which he is registered, Why they will take thier money but don't feel they are not profetional enough to serve openly...as we have done for many years...But we constantly have to worry if a straight guy gets pissed off, he can report us and "BOOM" a dis-honorable or general discgharge is submitted. Is that a " fair and balanced" result... ask yourself that one repugs.
Bohrman should apologize for doing this to us. (see video)
Not only a planted question, but from a fake "Brigadier General."
“there is no such thing as the California National Reserve of which Kerr claimed to be a former member."
Campenni told HUMAN EVENTS that Kerr is not even a retired Army General.
He retired as a California Army National Guard colonel,” said Campenni. “It is common at Guard retirement ceremonies to give an honorary promotion to colonels to the STATE rank of Brigadier General…[but] it has no meaning other than a fancy certificate for the wall and use of the title at local Guard functions.”
Campenni said the rank of general is not federally recognized and the title can not be used or the rank worn outside the state.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23698