November 30, 2007
As news of the planted questioner from Hilary Clinton’s campaign to the CNN YouTube GOP debate on Wednesday night spreads, Republican candidate Duncan Hunter, who bore the brunt of the planted question, sent Mrs. Clinton a personal message today.
If you missed the debates, Hunter was asked a question by an openly gay retired Brigadier General, Keith Kerr,
“My name's Keith Kerr, from 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 Commanding 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.”
Mr. Hunter replied,
“General, thanks for your service, but I believe in what Colin Powell said when he said that having openly homosexual 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 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.”
“They have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values. To force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual 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.”
Dissatisfied with the answer he received from Congressman Hunter, and others, General Kerr stood up and basically started making a speech. He said,
“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 that Congressman Hunter is talking about, but simply because they happen to be gay. And we're talking about doctors, nurses, pilots, and the surgeon who sews somebody up when they're taken from the battlefield.”
General Kerr, receiving heavy boos from the audience, ceased his attempted filibuster and sat down, allowing the debate to continue.
News of Kerr’s affiliation with the Clinton campaign started filtering out and spreading as soon as the debate ended. A spokesman for the Clinton campaign, Phil Singer denied that the campaign had prior knowledge that Kerr was going to appear at the debate. Kerr said he did not inform the campaign of his plans.
Kerr was one of only two people in the audience handed a microphone to directly question the candidates, calling into question any veracity of such an event actually being a coincidence.
Congressman Hunter’s campaign emailed copies of his correspondence to Senator Clinton today. It said,
November 29, 2007
Dear Senator Clinton,
Regarding the "plant", retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr, that you sent to ask me the question at the CNN-YouTube debate last night in Florida …
Send more!!!
Merry Christmas,
Duncan Hunter
Whether Clinton will reply, or apologize for this egregious act, remains to be seen.
Showing the depth of his love for America and that he possesses the qualities needed for a President, when asked by the moderator, Anderson Cooper, “how do you repair the image of America in the Muslim world?,” Hunter replied,
“Cooper, very simply, to the critics of America I would say this. When you were faced with disease and starvation, the Americans brought food and medicine. When you had earthquakes and tsunamis and floods, the Americans came and helped you. And when you were threatened from outside, the Americans left the safety of their own homes to come and defend you.”
“I will never apologize for the United States of America.”
Neither will I, Mr. Hunter.
Lew
Posts
8 comments:
A question is a question is a question. It should not mater if it is planted or not. Any one can ask a question. Is there a rule that only republicans should pose questions to republican candidates? Just answer the question. If the question is not a legitimate one, or not relevant to voters concerned issue then one can argue about it and question the question itself.
This whole thing of planting is silly. Moderatoers are scripted too right.
You couldn't be more wrong, anonymous. This "debate" was billed as "undecideds" querying candidates. Kerr, and others, are clearly not undecided, but plants with statements, more than questions.
Had they billed it as decideds, it might be different, provided they afforded the GOP the same chance to sandbag the DNC at their debates.
Seems I recall Hillary's camp going balisitic when a liberal left moderator tried to pin her down. Perhaps that is why CNN was told they better be careful what they ask of her later on?
The only moderators that might even lean a little right are on Fox News. As I recall, Democrats refuse to be interviewed by them.
Hunter is a class act - I will never understand why his campaign has not gained any traction.
As for the plant - why didn't the General serve openly and why doesn't he ask Hillary the question - her husband instituted the policy.
Good questions, FlagGazer.
I am stymied discussing Hunter and how many say his message is the best and they agree with everything he says, yet won't get behind him because others aren't yet.
As I repeatedly tell them, it is time we told them who we want instead of them telling us who we will get.
"It's Obama!"
A couple of weeks ago, Hillary Clinton's camp let it slip out that they had some dirt on Barack Obama, but they were not going to talk about it in the spirit of maintaining "unity". That kind of reminded me of the old "protection" scheme used by mobsters to protect businesses from....THEM. Well, now the pledge has been broken. Hillary's campaign, seeing Obama take the lead in the Iowa polls, has now "broken" the contract. Howard Wolfson, Clinton's campaign whatever, is now charging that Obama is running a slush fund with his so-called Hopefund-using it to reward local Democrats who give him their endorsement. Of course, if you live in Chicago, you probably know that Obama has had a very questionable financial relationship with local racketeer, Tony Rezco. But the mere fact that Clinton would attack anyone for questionable financial dealings is..well, rather stunning in its hypocrisy.
It doesn't take a political junkie to know that ever since the days of the Clinton administration, the Clintons have had a series of scandals relating to their sources of cold hard cash. If one wants to claim that Charlie Trie, John Huang, Johnnie Chung, the Riadys and all the others were only connected to Bill, go ahead. But what about the Hasidic Jews in New York who were pardoned by Bill as their community delivered almost all of the their votes to Hillary in her Senate campaign, a community that had previously always voted overwhelmingly Republican? What about this Norman Hsu character, who was recently locked up? What about all those cooks and dishwashers in New York's Chinatown who have been donating thousands to Hillary's campaign. Go ahead, Hillary. Throw as mud at Obama as you can-and watch it come flying back.
This may turn out to be the biggest goof by Hillary since the song and dance she put on about drivers licenses for illegal aliens. Anyway, it looks like the Republicans may be able to sit back and watch the fun as voters are reminded what a vicious and corrupt character Hillary Clinton is (as if it were necessary).
gary fouse
fousesquawk
So how is ‘gays in the military supposed to work? Given the [what seems like] regular cuts in military budgets, how are they supposed to provide accommodation?
Barracks for straight men, barracks for straight women, barracks for female orientated gay men, barracks for male orientated gay men, barracks for male orientated gay women, barracks for female orientated gay women.
Maybe they could buy less weapons and ammunition to pay for it all?
Steve Ride.
Last week, at the debate for Republican presidential candidates, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) made the ridiculous claim that U.S. troops and their families are, by their very nature, conservative. “[M]ost Americans, most kids who leave that — that breakfast table and go and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family — most of them are conservatives.”
Even on its face, it was an absurd argument, but the evidence to disprove Hunter’s claim keeps piling up.
Families with ties to the military, long a reliable source of support for wartime presidents, disapprove of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, with a majority concluding the invasion was not worth it, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
The views of the military community, which includes active-duty service members, veterans and their family members, mirror those of the overall adult population, a sign that the strong military endorsement that the administration often pointed to has dwindled in the war’s fifth year.
Specifically, nearly 60% of military families disapprove of the president’s performance and his handling of the war in Iraq. Among those families with members serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, six in 10 say the war has not been worth the cost. In both instances, the opinions of military families are in line with those of the U.S. civilian population.
Perhaps most importantly, a clear majority (58%) of these families “favor a withdrawal within the coming year or ‘right away.’”
I’m of course looking forward to congressional Republicans smearing these families as “cut and runners,” and Limbaugh blasting them for being “phony military families.”
It’s worth remembering that this is a trend that’s been ongoing for a while. Bush and the GOP assume the troops and their families are politically and ideologically in line behind them, but assumptions like these are mistaken. Remember this Military Times poll from a year ago?
Moreover, there’s a partisan shift apparently underway. Brandon Friedman at Vote Vets noted today, “Way back in the day, many of us voted for George W. Bush. Personally, I cast that fateful vote for him in 2000–when I was 22 years old, and just over a month away from being commissioned as an Army officer. I figured I was doing my duty. I thought that Republicans supported the military. But I didn’t make the same mistake in 2004. After one deployment to Afghanistan and another to Iraq, I’d finally learned my lesson.”
It’s a sentiment that’s catching on.
When military families were asked which party could be trusted to do a better job of handling issues related to them, respondents divided almost evenly: 39% said Democrats and 35% chose Republicans. The general population feels similarly: 39% for Democrats and 31% for Republicans.
“The Democrats are not seen as the anti-soldier group anymore,” said Charles C. Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University.
Let’s not brush past that too quickly. Despite the perceived connection between the military and the GOP, and arguments that the troops and their families are necessarily conservative, military families prefer Democrats to Republicans on issues relating to their needs.
It’s a welcome change.
Leave it up a Liberal to rely on a 'sociologist' instead of what the Vets and Active Military say themselves.
Vote Vets is relatively small and makes outrageously misleading claims, not unlike IVAW and VVAW are noted for.
As for the Military being predominantly conservative, that is so, be they Democrat or Republican. Liberals fail to see there is a difference.
Finally, if it were true that the Military wasn't predominantly conservative, Gore would have fought to count he Military absentee ballots in Florida in 2000, not block them as he did.
Nice try, though, I'll give you credit for that much.
Post a Comment