Here's another tidbit of info that makes this entire "story" a non-issue to me, General Kerr (Retired) is a registered Republican and a member of the Log Cabin Republicans. So why wouldn't a Republican who wishes to address gay rights issues ask a question of the Republican candidates? Who gives a shit what candidate he might be affiliated with?

I suspected he was that JC Christian guy because they share the same first name, 'General'.

I was a republican for about 8 years, and this reminds me exactly why I went independent. The GOP loves the troops, yet when a 40 year vet who's gay speaks they decide that his service doesn't mean a damn thing and he deserves being boo'd.

That debate last night was the most hideous thing I have watched in years, and CNN actually came off worse than Fox's attempt at a debate ever did. At least Fox gives times to the other candidates, yet CNN decides that for their debates, Paul and Kucinich shouldn't get even a a quarter of the airtime that Billary or Ghouliani gets.

What a shambles.

The worst thing is now the republicans can just wave off this question for a while. He asked a Very valid question. but now they wont have to answer it by saying "oh thats a plant." Much like el presidente avoided discussing real issues by claiming "partisan politics."

Dumb move on CNN's part, especially to let Mr. Kerr have extra time to hold the candidates feet to the fire. by doing that they only reinforce the image that the whole network is squarely in the clinton camp.

Gary @ 5:

The GOP loves the troops

The GOP loves the troops, well some of them anyway. The ones that agree with the GOP on everything.

What the GOP loves the most is TALKING about how they love the troops.

I am oh so sure that, during the heat of battle, a gay soldier will suddenly come on to one of his comrades. *NOT*

OY VEY the republics are a pathetic lot!

Republican platform as always, gays, guns and God.

google Kay Griggs....

You know, I would think that if there was a group of people I didn't like, I wouldn't mind giving them a job where a big possibility is death.
I guess I just can't think like the Republicans.

rtemp @ 17:

You know, I would think that if there was a group of people I didn't like, I wouldn't mind giving them a job where a big possibility is death.
I guess I just can't think like the Republicans.

Republicans don't like anybody that's not republican.

"But leave it to the wingnuts to ignore the substance because of the messenger."

It's not just the fringe wingnuts who are focusing on Kerr's ties to Clinton rather than his message.

Go check out the top cover story on www.foxnews.com right now.

"CNN Allows Clinton Backer to Question GOP Candidates in YouTube Debate"

Just to clarify, I'm not denying that Foxnews is a wingnut site, but they are too big to be considered "fringe."

According to Kerr, every Soldier is a Republican...

Gotta love the Republicans booing a 42 year veteran.

Matt @ 25:

Gotta love the Republicans booing a 42 year veteran.

When the draft comes back, homosexuals will be looking after their women and kids...

Helena Montana @ 12:

"As it turns out, Gen. Kerr is co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s National Military Veterans Group..."

And I wonder what Gen. Kerr thinks of Hillary's support of DOMA?

HAHA!! thats exactly what I was thinking!! All of our "choices" are nightmares, Clinton is essentially a neocon,, face it. Not a Bolton NC but a Wolfowitz, Pearl type.

Its all bad..

When I heard this question I got worried about my tight unit's cohesion in close quarters...

ohismith @ 30:

I fail to see what is wrong with another candidate's supporter daring to ask a question of the opponents. It's just so unusual in this staged and scripted day and age. Are we really to believe that EVERY other YouTube question at both debates was posed by an undecided voter?

Not only that, but shouldn't they be trying to sway voters from the other side? What if he's a democrat? Perhaps if one of the candidates had given a satisfactory answer he may have changed his mind.

hunter, and most of the guys up there are total homophobes! I have no respect for any candidate (repuke or demoquack) who does not have respect for who or what a person is - whether that person be non-white, non-christian or gay. Too many of our politicians are true bigots in private, while professing to be tolerant in public. They can slip up however. Just look at lott re. strom thurmond and at george allen's macaca moment.

Kudos to the Brigadier General for asking the question.

So we're letting more people into the military with criminal backgrounds, insufficient fitness levels, and others who wouldn't normally meet the requirements in order to even come close to meeting the enlistment targets, but we can't allow openly homosexual people to serve because it would make some troops uncomfortable? I wonder just what "Army strong" is supposed to mean if it's not strong enough in character to serve alongside people who are different from you. That's not just aimed at the Army, by the way, they're just got the convenient slogan.

You have to remember that Republicans think that homosexuality is a choice, like hair style. You can't be part of their America with wild and crazy hair. I have the perfect gift for your Republican relatives: http://www.stanleyfubar.com/

Critical Thinking 101: It makes no difference who asks a question or comment, what matters is the question or comment itself. Democrat, Republican, Ph.D., or high school drop out:

Was the question or comment a good one?

Any other criteria is just noise. Blather. Nonsense.

Did Duncan "Fallujah" Hunter really just say that most of the Military was RepubliNazi??

wow.

The rest of his "answer" didnt even merit a response.

wow, Romney is a backpeddling mofo!

Fanon @ 42:

Samson
I actually don't think it's that trivial of a topic. I consider it to be a civil rights issue. If gay people can be discriminated against in the military, why not at your place of employment? Maybe we should have 'straight only' bathrooms (no foot tapping, please!) and drinking fountains, too.

and for some reason I havent heard about any Dems getting caught snorting meth with male prostitutes.

Gays telling Gays ,"Dont ask Dont Tell"

Maybe it shoud be "They dont ask,We Dont tell"

Bill Hicks back from the dead with a quick pep talk

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3935793611839774577&q=gays+in+...

Is he a 'Retired Gay', or a 'Retired General'?

Because if he's a 'Retired Gay', he can't be a republican anymore, under National Republican Rules. Only 'Active-Closeted Gays' are allowed.

But if he's a 'Retired General', he can belong to any party, unless he was 'retired' by Bush for promoting sanity in Iraq, in which case, once again, under National Republican Rules, he cannot be a republican.

Those republicans are sure restrictive about their membership, and yet they allow in oafs like Giuliani, Moronmy, McCain, Hucklebee, Tancredo, and BUSH! (Bush was 'grandfathered' in, no loyalty oath, no IQ test).

Their country clubs are very restrictive also, you can't be a member if your IQ is higher than your golf score. And they have some real good golfers.

Liberal values are completely at odds with the military's need for people who can be trained to hate and kill.

Flaming homophobes have already proven that they can be easily trained to hate people with intense anger.

Fundamentalist Christians have already proven that they will easily believe anything told to them by strong authority figures.

So homophobic Christians make good soldiers. They can be easily encouraged to hate and kill for Jesus.

Forget for a minute that Jesus was a liberal...

Otherwise we're talking about Liberal worshiping homophobic Christian Republicans...

Fanon @ 28:

Shannon @ 10:

While I applaud anything that makes the weasily Republican field squirm, I have a problem with the General's undisclosed affiliation with a rival presidential campaign.
His questions were valid but, as is inevitable, his position in the Clinton camp blunts the force of his argument where it could have the most effect. Better that the NeoCon/Idiot bloggers should have to base their vitriol on grounds that show their true chickenhawk homophobia.

Why should he have to disclose anything to anyone? Isn't their policy 'don't ask don't tell'? har har. Seriously, though, I disagree that he should have had to disclose his affiliation. I realize it's provided a distraction from what he asked, but they would have found another distraction, anyways.

Bravo! You got me there, Fanon.
When I was in the Army I knew many homosexuals, male and female. They served for the same reason that we all did:
To make sure that Republicans were safe in their public toilets!

America sucks!

Yes, I can hate America when it acts this way.

Fanon @ 42:

Samson
I actually don't think it's that trivial of a topic. I consider it to be a civil rights issue. If gay people can be discriminated against in the military, why not at your place of employment? Maybe we should have 'straight only' bathrooms (no foot tapping, please!) and drinking fountains, too.

you're right fanon

i did not mean to discount the seriousness of the issue, and the fact that there are some in the service who face discrimination just by being who they are. for that, i apologize. no disrespect intended.

what i was trying to say, however ungracefully i did, was that this issue is brought up--not so that it can be "solved"--but to show just how anti-gay the GOP is. and, like flag burning is an important 1st amendment issue, but when the issue of flag burning comes up in GOP discourse it is not to discuss first amendment issues, it is merely to allow the candidates to try to out patriotize each other. "i love the country so much i would burn those that burn the flag!!" "Oh yeah, well i love the country so much i would burn those that watched the flag burn and then smoke their ashes in my pipe!!"

in other words, it is just a way to play to the base, create "good TV" and, imho, make a mockery of the real issue. this is just another way to rehash the so-called "culture" war, which does further divides the country and does nothing to solve the underlying issues.

i would prefer the candidates to be asked questions like:
does neoliberalism (see, clintonian economic imperialism), as practiced by the IMF/World Bank, work?
does military imperialism produce conditions that create terrorist sympathy?
how can you declare war on a tactic?
has our democracy been suvberted by the corporatocracy?
etc....
do you prefer diamonds or pearls? (oh, that is an example of an insulting question)

Well, I don't know if the General was a "plant", though I agree the question was embarassing for the Repubs, and rightly so. However, I then would ask why Grover Norquist was allowed to ask a question. There's absolutely nothing "average citizen" about him. But it did help (as did the General's question) to underscore the hypocrisy of the Republicans: the kneejerk "I'll sign the Norquist no tax pledge"....then shortly thereafter came the question from the guy in Florida about how we'll pay for the much-neeeded, extensive and expensive repairs to our crumbling infrastructure. Silence. It's always fun when Reality bites Ideology. ps - Someone should ask McCain one of these days how he defines "earmark" (since he claims he'll veto them all).

Since it was Hillary's husband Bill who instituted the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that Kerr was criticizing, it's pretty tough to buy into the wingnut conspiracy theory that Kerr's question was designed somehow to help Hillary or even the Democrats. It seemed to me like a pretty heartfelt and personal question.

Oh, mommy. The gay soldier breathed on me today. Am I gay now?

Samson- @ 59:

Fanon @ 42:

Samson
I actually don't think it's that trivial of a topic. I consider it to be a civil rights issue. If gay people can be discriminated against in the military, why not at your place of employment? Maybe we should have 'straight only' bathrooms (no foot tapping, please!) and drinking fountains, too.

you're right fanon

i did not mean to discount the seriousness of the issue, and the fact that there are some in the service who face discrimination just by being who they are. for that, i apologize. no disrespect intended.

what i was trying to say, however ungracefully i did, was that this issue is brought up--not so that it can be "solved"--but to show just how anti-gay the GOP is. and, like flag burning is an important 1st amendment issue, but when the issue of flag burning comes up in GOP discourse it is not to discuss first amendment issues, it is merely to allow the candidates to try to out patriotize each other. "i love the country so much i would burn those that burn the flag!!" "Oh yeah, well i love the country so much i would burn those that watched the flag burn and then smoke their ashes in my pipe!!"

in other words, it is just a way to play to the base, create "good TV" and, imho, make a mockery of the real issue. this is just another way to rehash the so-called "culture" war, which does further divides the country and does nothing to solve the underlying issues.

i would prefer the candidates to be asked questions like:
does neoliberalism (see, clintonian economic imperialism), as practiced by the IMF/World Bank, work?
does military imperialism produce conditions that create terrorist sympathy?
how can you declare war on a tactic?
has our democracy been suvberted by the corporatocracy?
etc....
do you prefer diamonds or pearls? (oh, that is an example of an insulting question)

Don't worry, I didn't think you were being disrespectful. I think your questions are great and should be asked. I don't think they will be however. Like you said, they don't make good tv and are probably over the heads of a lot of the american public/viewers (including the chimp in chief, I would imagine).

As to the diamonds vs. pearls question, it really pissed me off. I am a woman and found that question so demeaning. She might as well have been asked if she used tampons or pads. If I was Hillary I would have said that I wasn't going to answer that question as it was as unimportant as whether or not my opponent was wearing boxers or briefs. Next question, please....

This whole "debate" was ridiculous. Phoenix Justice set the record straight... what matters is the substance of the question, not whether he works for Hillary now.

though I agree the question was embarassing for the Repubs, and rightly so.

why? do you think duncan hunter was embarrassed by his reply? no, it's his platform! it gave him a chance to play to his base! why should he have any objection to the question?

this is the question i had a problem with:

do you believe that every word in [the bible] is the truth?

For those who feel he should have revealed his affiliation prior to being permitted to ask a question, should participants in asking questions at these debates be required to swear an oath the they are republican supporters, or at least independant before they are permitted to ask a question of a republican candidate, and should the same be required of participants to democratic debates? Do you people belong to this camp:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/29/again-with-gop-loyalty-oaths/

Does his affiliation with Clinton somehow negate his rights as a citizen to question those who might, in the event his own candidate loses, be his president? As a gay man and a former member of the military he surely had a right to ask the question on behalf of the gay community and more specifically the gay military community.

Chris H. @ 32:

Mitt Romney got owned by Anderson Cooper.

If I was gay I wouldn't join the military just like right now I am not joining the military. Duncan Hunter, who I have never seen before this debate, is right that a majority of military is conservative. I am 18 right now and about to graduate High School and my friends from football and basketball are joining the military. I like them, but a majority of them are joining to fight for Christianity and are very xenophobic and homophobic. I can play football with them because my life isn't on the line, but I will not fight with them in Iraq.

Look what happened to Patt Tillman. I don't believe he was murdered; however, it is very obvious his fellow soldiers shunned him for having liberal values. Even if the "Don't ask. Don't tell." policy was removed the other soldiers would still bully the gay soldiers. I wish that anyone who wanted to fight for this country could, but it won't happen anytime soon.

As a veteran, I have to say that your perception of the military is not actually true. It is true that there are a lot of overzealous Christian types in the United States military, but there are many who have varying political views. It is also true that, at least until recently, the military was more conservative than liberal. But I served with people that were gay, and I and everyone knew they were gay. We didn't care.
The idea that the military personnel would haze an openly gay person is a b/s argument for the status quo. Don't ask don't tell is wrong and they need to stop asking for the opinions of the officer corp, who is overwhelmingly conservative. They need to ask the rank and file, who are the ones who would actually have to deal with the gays and lesbians. I guarantee if they are asked, don't ask don't tell wouldn't come off as the consensus.
Oh, and as a side note, we also need to crack down on conservative indoctrination of the junior military by their superiors...this happens, I have experienced this.

I was watching this last night, and I can't tell what that racket is after his microphone goes off--are they honestly booing a man who served 40+ years in the Armed Forces for being openly gay?

I suspect that almost every well-thoughtout, legitimate question was asked by someone leaning toward or already supporting the Democratic Party.

And I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the more bug-eyed questioners with the loonier, more laughable questions came from someone leaning toward or already supporting the Republican Party.

On that basis alone, this might have been the most revealing and important debate either Party's candidates have had or will have between now and November, 2008. This was as close to the revelatory Face In The Crowd/Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes moment for today's Republican Party as I've seen.

What if some hapless recruit gets gang raped in the shower by a bunch of gay soldiers? Is that a "don't yell, don't tell policy"?

Bigotry is not a principle.

You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.
Barry Goldwater

How embarrasing was that when the cum buckets in the audience began booing the General. Probably some little rich kids who never had to serve in the military.

Frybread @ 87:

How embarrasing was that when the cum buckets in the audience began booing the General. Probably some little rich kids who never had to serve in the military.

True...if it was a neo-con general praising Bush or some other bullshit and he got booed, you can almost here the manufactured indignation ringing out! how sad that not one of those pieces of shit on stage had the eggs to chastise the douschebags in the audience for booing a United States retired general with over 40 years of service under their belts! This should be a wake up call to ANY gay Republican that still thinks any of these assholes should be President!

Shannon @ 10:

While I applaud anything that makes the weasily Republican field squirm, I have a problem with the General's undisclosed affiliation with a rival presidential campaign.
His questions were valid but, as is inevitable, his position in the Clinton camp blunts the force of his argument where it could have the most effect. Better that the NeoCon/Idiot bloggers should have to base their vitriol on grounds that show their true chickenhawk homophobia.

So what if he's affiliated with the Clinton campaign? He's a gay man who served in the military, so he had EVERY right to ask the question he did! It was amusing seeing Romney literally imploding when confronted by the shit he said when he was actively trying to woo gay voters in Massachusetts! Hopefull, this debate will strip away a few more of the nitwits dumb enough to have supported him in the first place...as for Hunter, my parakeet has a better chance at being elected. Ole Duncan needs to go back to Sunday School circle jerks with Sam Brownback!

Weaseldog @ 27:

Matt @ 25:

Gotta love the Republicans booing a 42 year veteran.

When the draft comes back, homosexuals will be looking after their women and kids...</blockquote>

LOL! When the draft comes back, all these assholes will be saying, "What? Why, we always really thought gays should be allowed to serve...and now that we need fresh fodder for the cannons, get your boots on, girls!"

JerryO @ 90:

moonsha @ 85:

You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.
Barry Goldwater

Exactly. Who you boink in the bedroom has nothing to do with with military service, or anything else for that matter. Besides the military is full of gays and lesbians and has been since there have been civilizations. The 'bad for cohesion' argument is just a cop-out. I never understood this thing about being afraid of gay people. As long as the job is being done and they shoot straight, who cares?

Should ask Hunter is the Spartan or Greek armies had a lack of cohesion due to homosexuality or bisexuality.

Once again coming from the mouths of individuals who have never served in the armed forces. Romney thinks it is alright to be gay in the military as long as we are not at war. What a real piece of shit.

They were booing a distinguished retired General because he is gay. F*&^ them.

I don't get or see that Jesus would have had a problem with gays and lesbian in the new testament teaching. I also don't get how they can call them brave soldier and that they would not be able to be a cohesive unit if they had to be *gasp* next to a gay soldier.

I am for having Gays and Lesbian in the service, because it would get the kind of real brave soldier that would be willing to fight for the freedom of all Americans. The skittish coward redneck that only pay homage to those with the old testament teaching of stoning sinners to death, may not make great soldiers. I would think the effectiveness of winning the hearts and mind of the enemy comes from real compassionate minded soldier that are doing the job to bring peace as far as it depend upon the nation.

Mitt Romney as usual panicked to answer the question. he was sweating and stammering.

Why over the last few years have gays suddenly been catagorized as a minority like blacks or Jews? I'm pretty sure that gays have a choice unlike people born of a certain color, therefore why do we suddenly have to accept it and cater to them as if they don't?

http://www.oohya.net

This is typical Democratic bullshit. This general, who didn't admit he was gay until after he retired and could start sucking off the government tit, is complaining to the Republicans when he should be complaining to Hitlery. After all it was she, and her "co-president" husband, who started the don't ask policy! These debates are a waste of time, with pre-screened plants asking pre-screened questions of the so called candidates. We should fire all the Senators / Representatives and start over, with all the important questions on one ballot. Abortion, gun control, foreign policy - put them all on the ballot. Then we vote for the people we want and they start off with a clear mandate as to what the American public wants. The elections should be 4 years, with the same start/stop time for the President and congress. If things aren't better 4 years later, fire them all and start over. Simple!

I’m pretty sure that gays have a choice unlike people born of a certain color

You're sure, why? Did you "choose" to be straight? I certainly didn't. I never really thought about it, it seemed obvious to me that I was attracted to girls.

I've never talked to even one person, straight or gay, who claimed to "choose" their orientation. The general response from gays is, "Why would anyone choose to be gay and go through all that trouble?"

mrogi @ 81:

What if some hapless recruit gets gang raped in the shower by a bunch of gay soldiers? Is that a "don't yell, don't tell policy"?

On our planet rape is a crime. What is the law on your world?

What Duncan Hunter really meant to say:

Hunter: General, thanks for your service, but I believe in what Colin Powell said when he said that having black people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion.

The reason for that, even though people point to the Israelis and point to the Brits and point to other people as having blacks serve, is that some Americans, some kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, some of them are white.

To force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is black goes against what they believe to be their principles, and it is their principles, is I think a disservice to them. I agree with Colin Powell that it would be bad for unit cohesion.

If they can't handle the democrats how can they handle al-qaeda

These plants and thier ridiculous questions. The best part about general "buttercup" situation was at first he said he was in the military for 43 years and then later he said 42 years. Which is it? The other part that he should be concernedd with is, who is the person who introduced us to the "DON'T ASK DON'T TELL" policy? None other than BILL CLINTON and he is part of the Hilary camp?

Duncan Hunter said, "small, tight unit."

What a bunch of bigoted assholes the Republican party is.

Who cares what people do in their private lives as long as they consenting and adult?

Right wing hate mongers are their finest.

Wow, what an amazing set of comments. As an Aussie I always take an interest in what's going on in America as it seems of recent years (that part is over with a new leader, we hope...) as we have tended to buddy up with Bush, which has not made many Australians happy. Sadly the politics of your country has tainted its people as a whole as well and unfortunately certain sectors of the population (read=GOP=close minded bigots) seem to ruin it for all. I am relieved and pleased to read all the comments. As a woman who for the first part of her life was 'straight' living the 'normal' world (whatever the heck that is) I now as a woman who has lived with my soul mate (woman) for 9 years totally relate to being on 'that side of the fence'. I have never experienced bigotry at all and yet am saddened that we still have it, so clear in plain site. I know it is not only in the States it is worldwide, seemingly wherever religion is the only way of life. Sad as Jesus/Mohammed were pretty cool people and imo very liberal and loving of all (amazing how our perspective of a book of rules can be twisted). How is it that the bible (a book imo that is 2,000 years of out date) seems to keep us going? It is the safety guard to keep out the devil they say and yet I have seen more hatred and death go on BECAUSE OF how the bible is perceived and what it contains. Pathetic how these Republican men (when do you see women?) state this is how it is, I say change is afoot, if we kept doing the same old same old where would we be? No flight, no technology, no progress, nada. And hey us gays are everywhere and you know what? Who cares. I don't give a **** about anyone's sexuality, its a non issue. I applaud all your wonderful comments, I can see the America of tomorrow is a much cooler and hip place than of recent decades, the changes here in Australia are slowly also making me a happier camper than I once was. All we need is more love in the world, I'm sure Jesus would have agreed!

I think it's funny, yes these guys are debating as to who's the best GOP, but the bigger issues addressed in these debates (both sides) should be about the nation as a whole not "I'm going to follow my party and piss on the ideas of the other side." You are running for a position in the end that represents the whole nation. Gay, straight, black, Asiatic, white, Hispanic, veteran, civilian, old, young, Christian, pagan, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc...you are elected to president to represent your country, NOT your party!

Did Duncan Hunter say that most kids make that "corporate" decision to serve? First of all, does he think the military is all run by Halliburton and Blackwater. I didn't know the United States Military and the National Guard were a corporation. And then he says that most kids who join the military or National Guard are conservatives and have strong family values, meaning of course that being born gay is a sign of weakness or low morals. Then he tops it all of by bringing up Jesus (and also Jews) and saying that those who love Jesus would find it gross to be in a room with gays. You know Jesus, the one who hung out with Prostitutes and criminals. What kind of country does Duncan Hunter think he is from? I know. Huckabee world, who thinks that the "conduct" of Gays is the issue. Like they are all giving blow jobs in the shower. FREE ME FROM THESE FREAKS..... Jeff Gannon and Larry Craig

The general's question was fair (though amusing he didn't mention don't ask don't tell was Bill Clinton's solution). The real shame is CNN's credibility takes another hit. Turns out four or five of the questioners have connections to Democratic candidates or labor unions that have endorded Democrats or that openly support a Democrat. Nothing wrong with that either, but the credibility issue for CNN comes to mind when you look back at the Democratic YouTube debate and it's questions and come to find that there weren't a similar number of questions from people connected with Republican campaigns, that support Republicans or that are members of groups that have endorsed Republicans. CNN received thousands of videos for both debates and chose to pepper one with quesitons from "the opposition". CNN should do better, or they are nothing more than the democratic equivalent of Fox.