UPDATED: CNN expunged "don't ask, don't tell" question and answers in rebroadcasts of debate -- without disclosure
SUMMARY: Rebroadcasts of the CNN/YouTube debate for Republican presidential candidates omitted a question from a retired brigadier general
about the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, as well as the candidates'
answers to the question. CNN did not note the
omission.
In rebroadcasts of the November 28 CNN/YouTube debate for Republican presidential candidates, CNN expunged, without disclosure, a segment in which retired Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr asked the candidates to address "why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians." Kerr is 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 rebroadcasts of the debate at midnight ET and 3 a.m. ET on November 29, CNN omitted the Kerr question, as well as the candidates' answers to his question.
University of Southern California professor Marty Kaplan noted the omission in a blog entry on The Huffington Post, writing:
MORNING AFTER PILL UPDATE V: When CNN rebroadcast the debate, according to commenter AdamDek, the don't-ask-don't-tell question from Brig. Gen. (ret.) Keith Kerr was edited out of the program. Gone! Just like that.
In a statement published in a November 29 post on CNN's Political Ticker blog, CNN senior vice president David Bohrman, the executive producer of the debate, apologized for selecting Kerr's question, given his 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."
On the November 29 edition of American Morning, co-host John Roberts interviewed Kerr and asked, "Now, did anyone from Hillary Clinton's campaign or from the steering committee or anyone else associated with a political organization put you up to the idea of asking this question?" Kerr responded: "Absolutely not. This was a private initiative on my own."
From the November 29 edition of CNN's American Morning:
ROBERTS: There were questions this morning about one of last night's questioners. It turns out that a retired general had links to the Clinton campaign. Here's his question, as submitted on YouTube.
KERR [video clip]: My name is Keith Kerr, of Santa Rosa, California. 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.
ROBERTS: So there's the question, and retired Army Brigadier General Keith Kerr joins me now this morning. We discovered after the debate last night that you are, in fact, a member of Hillary Clinton's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered steering committee. We did not -- we did a background check, and we found that you have not made any campaign contributions to any candidate. Does that still stand?
KERR: That's correct.
ROBERTS: OK. Well, let me ask you about your position on this steering committee. What does that entail, and have you, in fact, done any work for Hillary Clinton's campaign?
KERR: I have not done any work. Several friends asked me if I would allow my name to be listed, and I agreed because she is such a strong advocate of gay and lesbian rights.
ROBERTS: So this really hasn't required anything on your part other than lending your name to it?
KERR: Correct.
ROBERTS: Now, did anyone from Hillary Clinton's campaign or from the steering committee or anyone else associated with a political organization put you up to the idea of asking this question?
KERR: Absolutely not. This was a private initiative on my own.
From the original airing of the November 28 CNN/YouTube Republican presidential candidates debate:
KERR: My name is Keith Kerr, of Santa Rosa, California. 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.
COOPER: I want to point out that Brigadier General Keith Kerr is here with us tonight. Glad you're here. Again, the question to Congressman [Duncan] Hunter [CA].
HUNTER: Yeah. General, thanks for your service, but I believe in what [former Secretary of State and retired Army Gen.] Colin Powell said when he said that having openly homosexual people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion. And the reason for that, even though people point to the Israelis and point to the Brits and point to other people as having homosexuals serve, is that most Americans, most kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives. And they have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values. And to force those people to work in a small, tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual, who goes against what they believe to be their principles -- and it is their principles -- is I think a disservice to them. And I agree with Colin Powell that it would be bad for unit cohesion.
COOPER: I want to direct this to [former Arkansas] Governor [Mike] Huckabee. Thirty seconds.
HUCKABEE: The Uniform Code of Military Justice is probably the best rule, and it has to do with conduct. People have a right to have whatever feelings, whatever attitudes they wish, but when their conduct could put at risk the morale, or put at risk even the cohesion that Duncan Hunter spoke of, I think that's what is at issue. And that's why our policy is what it is.
COOPER: [Former Massachusetts] Governor [Mitt] Romney, you said in 1994 that you looked forward to the day when gays and lesbians could serve, and I quote, "openly and honestly in our nation's military." Do you stand by that?
ROMNEY: This isn't that time. This is not that time. We're in the middle of a war. The people who have watched --
COOPER: Do you look forward to that time, though, one day?
ROMNEY: I'm going to listen to the people who run the military to see what the circumstances are like, and my view is that, at this stage, this is not the time for us to make that kind of a change.
COOPER: Is that a change in your position from --
ROMNEY: Yeah, I didn't think it would work. I didn't think "don't ask, don't tell" would work. That was my -- I didn't think that would work. I thought that was a policy -- when I heard about it, I laughed. I said, "That doesn't make any sense to me." And you know what? It's been there now for, what, 15 years? It seems to have worked.
COOPER: So, just so I'm clear, at this point, do you still look forward to a day when gays can serve openly in the military or no longer?
ROMNEY: I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops, and I'll listen to what they have to say.
COOPER: All right. General Kerr is -- as I said, is here. Please stand up, General. Thank you very much for being with us. Did you feel you got an answer to your question?
KERR: With all due respect, I did not get an answer from the candidates.
COOPER: What do you -- what do you feel you did not --
KERR: American men and women in the military are professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians. For 42 years, I wore the Army uniform on active duty, in the Reserve, and also for the state of California. I revealed I was a gay man after I retired. Today, "don't ask, don't tell" is destructive to our military policy. Every day, the Department of Defense discharges two people, not for misconduct, not for the unit cohesion --
COOPER: Wait, the mike is -- you've lost -- is the microphone not working? All right. Please, just finish your -- what is your question?
KERR: Not for the unit cohesion that Congressman Hunter is talking about, but simply because they happen to be gay.
COOPER: OK. Senator [John] McCain [AZ].
KERR: And we're talking about doctors, nurses, pilots, and the surgeon who sews somebody up when they're taken from the battlefield.
COOPER: I appreciate your comment. Senator McCain, I want to give you 30 seconds. You served in the military.
McCAIN: General, I thank you for your service to our nation. I respect it. All the time, I talk to our military leaders, beginning with our joint chiefs of staff and the leaders in the field, such as General [David] Petraeus and General [Raymond] Odierno and others who are designated leaders with the responsibility of the safety of the men and women under their command and their security and protect them as best they can. Almost unanimously, they tell me that this present policy is working, that we have the best military in history, that we have the bravest, most professional, best prepared, and that this policy ought to be continued because it's working.
COOPER: All right. We've got another question. Let's listen.
***
UPDATE: Before Marty Kaplan's post, which Media Matters referenced above, Huffington Post media editor Rachel Sklar noted CNN's omission of Kerr's question in a blog entry on The Huffington Post's live-blogging of the debate, writing:
UPDATE (Rachel): There has been some controversy about Gen. Kerr since it was revealed post-show that he has previousy been associated with Hillary Clinton's gay-issues steering committee. I watched the debate re-run and I could have dozed off, but I am almost positive that they cut Gen. Kerr's question and the subsequent responses out of the replay.
UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: No, they definitely cut that question out. Without disclosure.
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check:
CNN admits that they were wrong -
[LAT]
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."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a member of the liberal MSM admits that is was WRONG to put a partisan hack up to ask a question without noting that he was a Clintonista.
This case is closed!
You really need to rename yourself "Injustice and Lies." You never have clue number one what you are ignorantly posting about.
I think Criminals for Liars Lie uncheck fits it better.
Sounds like just a fair question to me. But in the theocratic world of GOPolitics, Democrats must lack the basic right to ask questions.
Ol Russ, and that thigh rubbing Matthews get paid millions to think up gotcha questions on Democrats, and then Russ asks Bush why he traded Sosa.
And if they can't handle a fair question like this, how are they going to handle Al Qaeda?
It's not that the questions weren't fair or valid questions. The point is it's a Republican primary with republican voters. One would think that the questions asked would be ones that are framed within that context.
And for Republican voters, the gays in the military question, and many other questions were simply not appropriate from the standpoint that frankly, we really don't care that much about this issue. democrats care about this issue and thus, the Democratic debate was the place for this and the other questions. If it was a bi-partisan presidential debate some or most of the debate surrounding these questions would dissapear.
The way the general's question was phrased was also poor and frankly, inflammatory.
Bottom line? In primary debates there's no good reason to have opposition party members asking candidates questions. The debate isn't for them. And neither is the primary.
Wrong. The fact that gay and lesbian soldiers are being kicked out of our armed services just because they are gay is neither a Democratic nor a Republican issue. It is an American issue.
1. Our military is stretched way too far to meet its current needs. 2. Proof of that is that the military has lowered the bar to allow people who don't meet requirements pertaining to IQ, fitness, and lack of a criminal record to serve. 3. The United States spends a lot of money, well into the hundreds of millions of dollars, training soldiers and then kicking them out when it is found out they are gay. 4. Despite what some of the GOP candidates said, unit cohesion is much worse because of Don't Ask, Don't Tell as compared to other countries like the UK where their military allows openly gay soldiers.
Once soldiers are allowed to serve as themselves without hiding part of who they are, this becomes a non-issue. And losing highly-skilled soldiers at a time of war is also an issue of national security. So this type of question is very relevant and must be asked at both Democratic and Republican debates.
in other words, fluff piled on fluff.
Says the guy who has more than likely called the Dems cowards for telling the terminally biased fox news to take a hike on the debates.
How many times have cons, even thoughful ones, come on these very threads and chided us that the candidates need to answer the questions asked of them. How many times has it been asked that if they can't deal with the fox debates, how can they be expected to handle hostile foreign leaders?
No, lolo. Your appeal doesn't merit consideration.
Consider the Repubs fielding left framed questions day in and day out. Limbaugh's head would pop like a zit from raging against the perceived sleight.
Think about it. Questions about the occupation of Iraq. National heallthcare. Living wages. Market fundamentalism. Economic justice. Undocumented citizens. Warrantless wiretaps. Domestic spying. Torture. Affirmative action. Global warming. Labor rights. Gay rights. Broad prosperity. Mutual responsibility. Have we even heard Pogressive framed questions for the Dem candidates? (I mean besides here: [link to www.communitychange.org] but media ignored the people today)
They would do as any savvy Progressive would, they would reframe. They would reject the premise and riff on their own core values in their own terms. Nothing wrong with that. Just be honest about it.
So just stop being such a phony, lolo. You know as well as I do that Dems are being asked questions premised on conservative perspectives. War on terror, tax cuts, illegal immigration, coercive interrogation, death tax, values voters, free market , free trade etc. These are Republican terms and it's all I've heard at the Dem debates and the con debates.
Injustice and Falsehoods in Right Wing Wacky World - Reality Check:
Yes, genius, we all know they admitted to it, ON A BLOG.
Go back and read the item again and give your wealth of ignorance one last chance to grasp the issue.
Oh, now I get it. Any question that Republicans don't like is considered to be a Democratic "gotcha" question, and we need to apologize to them for it.
That makes sense.
I think the troll believes that only Republicans should be allowed to ask questions at a Republican debate.
Allowed isn't the correct way to say it. A better question is "why" should democrats ask republicans questions in primary debates? And vice versa? Who are these debates and primarys for?
Don't say for everyone. We all know the answer to the above question already.
an even better question is "why not"?
Uh oh, the truth rears its liberal head.
Kerr was a registered Republican (now registered Independent), a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, and has contributed no money to the Clinton campaign.
link
I think we can all safely ignore this wingnut from now on.
Hey, Truth & Justice. You think the "liberal" MSM made the correction. I say more proof that the MSM will do anything the right wants. If they were so liberal why did they cave in? Thanks for voting for Bush twice by the way. Good Job. Go stick your head in the toilet bowl. Case Closed!
"Liberal" means open-minded. I think CNN is liberal in that sense at least in this instance. CNN listened to the conservatives objection and could see their point of view. I would think conservatives would praise CNN's liberality and open-mindedness here, but JustUs apparently still despises them. There is no pleasing some folks.
We are all better off with an open-minded/liberal media than we would ever be with a (by contrast) closed-minded/conservative media.
Does anyone kid themselves that if the media were filled with conservative thinking people, they would ever be as open-minded as CNN just was to a supposed different point of view? I personally doubt it. Conservative narrow-minded thinking just doesn't apply itself to a profession that calles for open-minded liberality as personality trait.
LOL...nice try, Truthy. Maybe on Planet Wingnut you get to dictate the terms of the debate.
Not here.
Do you think it was a "gotcha" question? Was it unfair?
Personally, I think it shouldn't matter who asks the questions as long as they are fair.
What do you object to in the question? If you object, why would it harm any of the candidates to answer the question and note their objections (if they have them) as well?
1. The question itself was fair.
2. The questioner has the credentials to ask any question he wishes (indeed, ANY citizen should be allowed to ask questions of presidential candidates), but somehow our "free press" has been perverted into believing (serving) Republicans by asserting that Republican candidates can only be questioned by, we must conclude, OTHER Republicans.
3. The American People are entitled to the Republican Candidates' answers to this question.
4. Russert (among many other so-called "reporters"), have no problem asking their questions to Democratic presidential candidates using Rightwing talking points, rightwing "gotcha" framing, false premises promoted by the Republican party, and asking "loaded" questions which presuppose the rightwing world view to be factual and normal.
5. The fact that the Democrats are subjected to all the "tough" questions, while the networks feel compelled to apologize for letting a tough question "slip through" to the Republicans, only emphasizes the BIG LIE that the Media is "liberal". The media in general is in attack mode today against Democrats (in particular Hillary), and are doing everything they can to prop up and promote the Republican candidates. This includes repeating their campaign's self-serving "praises" as if factual, and ignoring contradictions and character issues (examples of which MMFA works hard to present).
6. If CNN had indeed "caught" that this general had allowed an association between his organization and a Democratic Presidential candidate's campaign, they would have "never allowed" the question. This shows the American people how protected the Republicans are by the Media, and should raise a tremendous question about HOW MUCH the Media is working with Republicans to make sure that the American People hear ONLY those sound bites that the Republicans wish them to hear, and NONE of the questioning that makes them uncomfortable.
In short, the Republicans are in a full court press to DECEIVE the American People, and the "MEDIA" is openly complicit in this goal.
How much more clear could this PRO-Rightwing bias be?
Mark this as the day CNN became Fox News Light.
CNN has been headed that way sadly for a long time now. I do not trust CNN. I barely trust MSN NBC or any of the cable news. KO on Countdown is the only reason why I watch MSN NBC.
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
He shouldn't have been there in the first place. It''s a YouTube debate: not a YouTube debate, and a Brig. Gen (Ret.) with an agenda. I have sympathy for the man, but it was handled totally inappropriately, IMO.
CNN is vilified by both the left and right, they must be somewhere in the middle. The posters at Human Events call it the Clinton News Network. By the way, if you want to get some good laughs, the comments there are quite humourous, at least the ones that are close to being intelligible.
Pit, an old friend of mine, and real funny guy, got me on the Human Events list, and I love it. The insane writing of Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich rival anything at The Onion for pure comedy.
But a warning; don't link to Human Events here- I did , and was blasted for getting everybody spammed with Republican emails. Mostly trying to give away those "best-selling" books that are bought in bulk by the GOP and given away like refrigerator magnets.
Un-friggin-believable. These guys just don't care about bias, do they?
Could the real reason for CNN removing Kerr's question and apologizing to Republicans be because of the half a** answers coming from the party that is suppose to "support the troops"?. Did anyone tell the men and women in uniforms that they were conservatives with Judeo-Christian values? Or even better "it would put morale at risk"if they were around gays? And lets not leave out that flip flopping weasel Mitt, I have to ask someone, anyone before I can answer any question. Do the Republicans realize that the answers they gave are the same answers given when blacks were not allowed to serve? It would lower morale if whites had to be around blacks. Each and every time a Republican candidates speaks I find another reason why I'm a Democratic and never a Republican. They still have many of the bigoted beliefs of the past but yet they call themselves Christians. Oh and Judy, when the young man from Los Angeles ask you why more blacks don't vote Republican when they share a lot of the same social values, discussing welfare reduction and crime reduction statistics of New York is not an answer it's just a reaffirmation of the reasons blacks don't and won't vote for Republicans. Oh and Bill Bennett, having a "dark skinned one" his words not mine, is not an example of Republican diversity.
Thank you pearlene, your accurate and well reasoned comment will save me alot of typing. The only caution i would offer is that blacks and latinos and lower income caucasions are still voting rebublican, contrary to their personal wellbeing. I really hate mindless wedge issues.
Could the real reason for CNN removing Kerr's question and apologizing to Republicans be because of the half a** answers
I strongly suspect that the reason the question was deleted was that CNN was - gasp! - criticized by the wingnuts and network execs went "Oh NO! We must immediately give obeisance lest we be - oh the horror - criticized again by a bunch of knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers masquerading as columnists and talk-show hosts!"
What about the way this man was treated. He gave his life to the military and get comments from Hunter like his existence is "bad for unit cohesion" and from Huckaby like "conduct could put at risk morale" I can't believe that there are still people like this out there.
I live in a red state. My extended is full of good ol boys and girls like you would expect from a small southern town BUT when a family member came out a few years ago as openly gay, nothing changed, everyone accepted him.
I felt very sorry for the questioner. I could see the hurt in his face for the responses that he was given to his question. I hope he and others like him live to see the day when this kind of thing is a thing of the past
The questioner was cheered when he said that he was a retired military man, then booed when he said that he was gay. As far as I'm concerned, that means CNN did a great job putting together a crowd representative of the Republican party.
I'd love to know what relevance there is in the fact that this guy gave money to the Clinton campaign. What does that have to do with the validity of his question? I thought the question was perfectly legitimate, since all those guys on stage are always pontificating about "supporting the troops."
Once again, its Operation Shoot the Messenger. The question? That made the Republican troglodytes uneasy, so it's been forgotten. Not only that, but CNN has apologized for allowing it to be asked. Mission Accomplished.
Actually this man is still living and could have very well sat still in his seat while the debate was going. It was obnoxious for him to goad the candidates like that, they merely responded to his statement, and no, he did not pose a real question, he just told his life story in a grandiose spiel. What did you expect the candidates to do? go contrary to their opinion just so this fellow in the audience won't have a bruised ego? did you want them to wipe his tears? That was a debate, not a social discourse.
"go contrary to their opinion just so this fellow in the audience won't have a bruised ego? did you want them to wipe his tears? That was a debate, not a social discourse."--finarfin
You have to be joking. This is a Republican debate. The candidates have to know what the audience (the American public) expects is much more important than the questioner's feelings. I expect an honest answer no matter what.
Are you saying the American people shouldn't know how the candidates feel about this issue, because some people will be turned off or someone's feelings might be hurt? That response is so naive, I have to ask if you even understand the reason we have debates in the first place.
It was a fair question and we as Americans should know where the candidates stand on the issue.
OpenMind, Before you shoot your mouth off you should probably determine whether or not I was answering to another poster's statement. this would clear a whole lot up for you if you read Failedbelle's comment a little up the thread.
I was actually mocking Failedbelle's comments of how she felt sorry for that Schmuler Kerr when the candidates did not agree with him. I thought that they where correct to give their belief on the issue rather than be delicate with the fellow's feelings which is what she implied they should have done.
Fair enough. I apologize. I misread your statements as suggesting the question was not fair.
However, I did read failed_belle's comments and did not see any suggestion that the Republicans change their comments to suit the general. I just saw disappointment that such a man could be shown that kind of disrespect. I believe the difference is significant.
Pearlene, at this time in our history having gays serve openly in the military is a bad idea. It would be disruptive and dangerous and the problems it would cause would far outweigh any benefit received. We could debate wether is right or wrong but it's the way things are. I believe the military is far more important then the sexual "rights" of some gays. They don't have to serve if they can't abide by the policy
BG Kerr:
"Now, did anyone from Hillary Clinton's campaign or from the steering committee or anyone else associated with a political organization put you up to the idea of asking this question?" Kerr responded: "Absolutely not. This was a private initiative on my own."
__________________________________________________
His own initiative?!
So let me get this straight. A retired BG decides to post a YouTube video question ( I bet the good General is an everyday YOUTUBER!) for a Re pub debate.
Miraculously his question gets picked by 'Ol Anderson out of thousands of entries.
He then FLYS to FLA from Cali and then get the microphone to rebut the answers from said candidates for close to five minutes.
Then when the jig is up and 'Ol Anderson gives the mea culpa, it turns out he's a plant from the Billary campaign. Classic!
CNN has a LONG history of giving cover to the Clinton's, especially during campaign time. Look no further than Stephanopoulos' ambush of HW Bush on Larry King live.
I did have hopes for online debates, but I think this will be a setback especially if this gets any traction on MS media.
Isn't is possible that they selected Kerr because of his military status ? I mean how many generals do you think posted questions ?
How many people over 70 use youtube? Now, how many retired gay generals over 70 use youtube? Get the picture?
it really doesn't matter if these people and questions were plants. The underlying point is that the republican primary debate wasn't the place or time FOR these questions. The reason is simple. We DON'T CARE (much) about this issue. Out of all the things republican voters would list as important the generals question probably wouldn't make the top 50.
You seem to think uniqueness is some sort of handicap. I would think CNN was looking for uniqueness from the whole experience. I don't see where your pointing out how rare the general's characteristics are would in any way discount his question from ultimately being chosen. On the contrary, I think such a question would tend to stand out from the rest of the more ordinary ones.
Your rant might make sense if there were something for Hillary to gain by this question being asked. If the question was answered well, it could backfire. Her campaign is too smart to pull that type of stunt.
Her campaign is too smart to pull that type of stunt.
(snicker) Yeah, what a bunch of fraggin' geniuses they are.
waaaaah. my poor little republicans got asked a question from a democrat who supports hillary. our boys must be protected from this outrageous behavior because....uh....because.....
Not a Democrat. Former Republican, now registered Independent.
See my post above.
i wasn't replying to you, but to hogprint.
So let me get this straight. A retired BG decides to post a YouTube video question ( I bet the good General is an everyday YOUTUBER!) for a Re pub debate.
Old people know about youtube, too. especially when it's the forum for a presidential debate, I'd guess.
Miraculously his question gets picked by 'Ol Anderson out of thousands of entries.
Many questions got picked out of thousands. Do you have stats on how many were about gays in the military, or how many were from retired military, or how many were from people who were not undecided as to a candidate? If not, your bar for miracles is set pretty low.
He then FLYS to FLA from Cali and then get the microphone to rebut the answers from said candidates for close to five minutes.
I didn't watch the debate.Coast to coast airline flights aren't considered miracles by most modern civilizations, and I can't verify thet he got 5 minutes of air time, so I'll assume you're telling the truth, although that does seem strange.
Then when the jig is up and 'Ol Anderson gives the mea culpa, it turns out he's a plant from the Billary campaign. Classic!
I've seen several claims of it by wingnuts, but no evidence of Kerr being "planted" by the Clintons. You got something you're keeping a secret?
Your entire post was pretty much moot. Who cares who he is or what motive you want to speculate about. The only thing that should really matter is whether the question was fair or not.
If you could make a good argument that the question was unfair or was some sort of "gotcha" - unanswerable question, then I might go along with you. Personally, I think the question was fair and answerable and that the public should know the answer to the question as well.
I AM ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED THAT THEY WOULD CENSOR ANY PART OF THE DEBATE !!! STUNNED. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE !
I AM ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED
Yes. That is the issue. It was, as Fawltylogic said, a valid question. (As an old saying has it, "if it's the truth, what does it matter who said it?") The issue is not the identity of the questioner, it's the shameful cowardice of CNN in excising the question because it displeased the fanatics and to do so without even the minimal guts to acknowledge having done it.
Even if the question had been a gotcha (which it was not) planted by the opposite party (which has been specifically denied), the fact remains that it was asked and answered and for CNN to fail to include it in what was presented as a "rebroadcast" of the debate is beyond shameful, beyond craven, going straight into old Soviet Union-style revisionist history.
There is simply no excuse, no justification, and no explanation beyond boot-licking.
This is shameful. The question was valid, no matter who asked it.
The debate was just a competition between these old white fogies about who could be the most intolerant anyway - wouldn't they want to keep these answers in the reruns, so their voters will know for sure that they hate gays?
It seems to me that if the "unit cohesion" argument against gays serving as suggested by Rep. Hunter is valid, then perhaps it would be best to discharge the soldiers whose "principles" and "Judeo-Christian values" make it so difficult for them to serve alongside gays. Using his argument, their "conservative values" are the problem, NOT the sexuality of anyone else in the unit.
"..then perhaps it would be best to discharge the soldiers whose "principles" and "Judeo-Christian values" make it so difficult for them to serve alongside gays."-Computersaysno
Yes why don't you discharge all of the judeo Christians from the military, we shall then see who will be there to protect your [insert adjective here] behind.
on the greater picture, people here have no idea of the implications of such a move, you just have no idea what it means to be in a unit and to fight a war. those who do have judeo-christian values or just may scorn the homosexuals will most definitely be untrusting and unconfident in a possibly homosexual soldier. If homosexuals want to enter the military so badly then let them do it like that Schwuler Kerr, by not disclosing or lying about their sexuality. To be in a closely knit military unit it is not a question of being "professional" it is about trust. A homosexual soldier would from the start be unexpected and scorned, violence also may be perpetrated against them.
"Yes why don't you discharge all of the judeo Christians from the military, we shall then see who will be there to protect your [insert adjective here] behind."--finarfin
He didn't suggest all of the Judeo-Christians, just the ones that are so feeble and obsessive about everyone else's sex lives that they can't function effectively.
Are you suggesting all Judeo-Christians are so weak as that?
This is just one in a long line of manufactured "outrages" from the Neanderthal Party, and it won't be the last. They can't win on the issues, so they have to keep their base lathered up about nitpickery like this. I don't hear anyone complaining about the idiotic question posed about believing every word of the Bible. This question was much more inappropriate, given the fact that the Constitution specifically forbids ANY religious test for holding public office.
Since when in our "democracy" can ONLY supporters of a political party ask them questions?
This is just new millenium madness ... this man has said that he submitted the question on his own accord ... which is his right as a US Citizen to ask questions of fellow citizens (not rulers - not princes) asking to hold a leadership position.
There is too much at stake to continue this fallacy that only supporters of a political party can ask it's candidates question in an OPEN public debate where CITIZENS are asked to submit questions.
I think the question was creditable.. If you can't fire someone for being gay in the work place.. then exactly why is the military different?
The military is different because humans lives depend on the respect and trust of soldiers for one another, this "unit cohesion" is actually very important in a modern military especially since most operations are conducted in units. There is more to fighting a war than just work that needs to be done, Lives hang in an often slim balance, and the slightest factors could determine whether people lived or died. The military must not involve itself in political issues such as this, they breed conflict among soldiers, and as history shows us, outcomes of wars can depend on the relationships between generals or soldiers (take the french Indian war for ex).
"The military is different because humans lives depend on the respect and trust of soldiers for one another, this "unit cohesion" is actually very important in a modern military especially since most operations are conducted in units."--finarfin
Why do you think it is so hard to respect or trust homosexuals? I think you are still living in the 1950's. I don't think our government should ever appease senseless bigotry.
If we had listened to your brand of wisdom 40 years ago, blacks would still be living under Jim Crowe - not that you would seem to mind.
I admit that there would not be so great a downfall in morale if homosexuals are enlisted, yet even a slight fall and a slightly weakened unit can mean the difference between life and death.
Off the topic, I do think that equal segregation in education would be mutually beneficial for both blacks and whites.
Seems like CNN is being responsible by pulling the Mrs. Clinton/gay agenda plant from the rebroadcast.
An organization like MMFA, claiming to represent journalistic integrity, should be pleased by such a gesture unless, of course, you're simply a propaganda outfit shilling for Mrs. Clinton and the gay agenda, like, say... MMFA.
You must be from the equally insideous heterosexual agenda.
I love words like "agenda". Pure propagandistic use of language ironically used here to deride supposed propaganda. Makes my head hurt. :P
It has been proven that the man was a plant from the Clinton campaign. And it is rather convenient, don't you think, that he flew in for the debate and got a front row seat, where he could easily be handed a microphone? Sounds to me like CNN was in on it too.
Do you think the Clinton media machine would put up with that? They couldn't even handle an honest question about illegal licenses. Sure, she didn't say "She thought it was a good idea" before Russert implied it, but she did spend about a minute dancing around the question by trying to justify the NY Gov's actions. And then she did say it was a good idea...and then she said it wasn't. If she couldn't take an easy question from an honest journalist, how do you thin she would respond to O'Reily in disguise?
That's all nice, but do you think the question was unfair? How?
Nice job posting Romney's mealy mouthed answer, also ... It's fun to see him run away from all his moderate positions now that he has to appease the mouth-breathing Republican base to get the nomination.
What a phony.
Welcome to the CNN/YouTube Republican debates, where YOU get to ask the questions!
Well, okay, maybe not THAT question. Or THAT one (it makes the candidates uncomfortable). And please don't ask THAT question (it sounds difficult). Oh, and YOU can ask a question, but not the one you wanted about nuclear waste disposal. How about THIS one, it's about what kind of jewelry people like: diamonds or pearls? But YOU do get to personally ask it! So what are you complaining about?
Don't forget, that's the CNN/Youtube Republican debates, where YOU get to ask the questions! Be sure to tune in!
Oh, but while we're on the subject, maybe YOU-- yeah, you over there-- shouldn't ask a question. Or YOU. Or THAT guy. And YOU can't ask a question, even if it's relevant, because you're associated with someone else in another party. Maybe you could ask a question at THAT debate (but I wouldn't hold my breath). Oh, look, here's Grover Nordquist! Hey, Mr. Nordquist, step right this way! Well, ta for now.
Remember: be sure to watch the CNN/YouTube Republican debates, where YOU get to ask the questions!
I think it would be great to get questions from everywhere.
What people don't seem to realize is that as long as the question is fair (and CNN should be able to judge that pretty easily), the responding person has all of the power and the last word.
All this stuff about the who's and the why's of the question are ad hominem and have nothing to do with the legitimacy of the question itself.
This is much ado about nothing. As many posters have suggested, what's the big deal about who asked the question? Was it indicated anywhere -- by anyone -- that ONLY -- registered republicans could ask questions? If not there was no violation -- journalistically or otherwise.
What this does highlight -- yet again -- is GOP hypocrisy with a capital HYP(E). They all defended Jeff Gannon (up until he was outed) although he was a real "plant" and asked a question that outright said the opposition was "crazy.' This in their very warped reality constitutes journalism (even though he worked for non-legitimate and defunct news organization Talon News). Selective outrage is a hallmark of the wingnuts.
CNN has not shown any backbone since Ted Turner left and turned over the organization to corporate interests. They were a once great network and now they're just so middling as is their milquetoast wimpy anchor "Woof" Blitzer.
G'night, and Good luck!
They were unwilling to show one of the most important questions during the debate: This is the kind of question they don't want asked
and Cooper is dishonest.
Hitlery and CNN get busted...again. It's comedy gold watching these clowns trying to pass off their childish lies and excuses.
It's time for both to go away
Why do you relish the idea of silencing supposed dissent? What is so fundamentally wrong with people today? Sorry, but that seems pretty fascist and deeply unAmerican to me. I genuinely and sincerely pity you, but I don't care one bit - one way or the other - if you go away or not.
Eric Boehlert, my name is Brian Beach. I attended the event. I met the general and he clearly explained the answer. Although Hillary Rodham Clinton's goal is to repeal the controversial Don't Ask - Don't Tell policy, she in no way was involved in this "controversy"! Retired Brigador General Keith Kerr was there as one of the members of our group, and he was explaining he was a member of the Log Cabin Republicans. His question was picked just like Grover Norquiest. Even Chris Dodd, and many prominent conservatives and progressives posted videos on YouTube. I am totally disappointed in the partisanship that both CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. They (Fox News) are completely jealous of CNN. One they blew the Democratic debate, and they passed on the YouTube debate. CNN and MSNBC both were given the opportunity to have the Democrats and the Republicans. Fox News only got what their news is slanted too. Anyways please visit http://youtube.com/LILVOKA. There are videos posted after the CNN/YouTube Debate. Overall the show was great, and Fox News is jealous and as always trying to bring "controversy" not focus on the issues that Americans face.
The Pig in a Pants Suit is gonna be pissed. How dare they mess with her propaganda.
Man- too bad we just can't get to the enlightened stage where we have just one party. Then LOLO's resistance would evaporate- we'd all be voters and issues important to us would be legitimate.
FWIW - asking the potential commander in chief about personnel issues in the DOD seems legitimate to me, even if the prevailing perception is that it's ni important to the Republican party.