Gay Patriot Header Image

Planted Clinton Staffer Tells CNN: “I’m a Log Cabin Republican”

SAY WHAT?!?

Following the debate, CNN learned that retired brigadier general Keith Kerr served on Clinton’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender steering committee.

CNN Senior Vice President and Executive Producer of the debate, David Bohrman, says, “We regret this incident. CNN would not have used the General’s question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate.”

Prior to the debate, CNN had verified his military background and that he had not contributed any money to any presidential candidate.

Following the debate, Kerr told CNN that he’s done no work for the Clinton campaign. He says he is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and was representing no one other than himself.

Okay… now things are getting interesting for me on this story. How can say you have “done no work” for the Clinton campaign when this press release announces your involvement? What exactly is Gen. Kerr’s definition of “work”, I wonder?

But the real outrage to me is that there is a Log Cabin Republicans member working on a Clinton campaign gay and lesbian steering committee! Are you effing kidding me?

Hey folks… this is supposed to be a GAY REPUBLICAN organization. There are enough gay Democrat organizations to open up a store and sell them off the shelves, for crying out loud.

Patrick Sammon…. you have some explaining to do.

[Related Story:  Digging out more CNN/YouTube plants – Michelle Malkin]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): I expect to have more to say about this later. Kudos to Bruce for covering this.

Let’s hope (for Log Cabin’s sake) that this guy who claims to be a member of the organization is pulling a Clinton not telling the truth. It would, however, not surprise me if he were, given that when I was last at a Log Cabin meeting, several members suggested they might voe for Ms. Hillary if certain Republicans won the nomination.

As to CNN, well, once again, no wonder that some believe that the network’s acronym stands for “Clinton News Network” as I noted in this post.

UP-UPDATE (also from GPW): This looks to be developing into quite an embarrassment for CNN. Non-partisan web-sites have picked this up, with the Politico headlining its piece: ‘Gay question’ general linked to Clinton. Not good for Mrs. Clinton, even worse for her family’s eponymous “news” network.

UP-UP-UPDATE (also from GPW): Hugh Hewitt calls CNN: The Most Busted Names In News.

UP-UP-UP-UPDATE (also from GPW): With each passing hour, bloggers discover more Democratic plants at last night’s debate. Scott of Powerline notes that one questioner works for Democratic Senate Whip Dick Durbin while another works for Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson.

UP-UP-UP-UP-UPDATE (also from GPW): Finding yet another Democratic “plant,” blogger Jason Coleman asks: “Exit question for CNN (although I’ll never get an answer): Did you endeavor to select ANY questions from real Republicans other than Grover’s?” (Via Michelle Malkin).

And the left accuses Fox of being biased. Well, as I said when the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Convention in San Diego, CNN is far more biased to the left than is Fox to the right. The way the network conducted this debate proves my point.

UPDATE (JohnAGJ): I like how Hot Air summed this up:

Just identify the guy, CNN. His question’s perfectly fair. And, apropos of nothing, Hunter’s answer is awful.

Share

100 Comments

  1. Poor LCR: nobody loves them!

    Comment by Ian S — November 29, 2007 @ 11:06 am - November 29, 2007

  2. I have read posts on this site suggesting Anderson Cooper is gay. Normally, that would be a big “yawn” and “so what?” from me. However, if it is so, perhaps it is a part of this strange episode. It would at least be worth a disclaimer from Cooper.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 29, 2007 @ 11:21 am - November 29, 2007

  3. #2: DADT is a legitimate issue and it has certainly come up in the Dem debates. Why shouldn’t it be a topic in the Repub debates? CNN shouldn’t have chosen someone with a connection to Clinton – AverageGayJoe comes to mind – but the question was still a good one.

    Comment by Ian S — November 29, 2007 @ 11:35 am - November 29, 2007

  4. If he lied about one thing (worked for Clinton), perhaps
    he lied about the other (Log Cabin).

    Comment by Bill in New Orleans — November 29, 2007 @ 11:39 am - November 29, 2007

  5. Were the questions answered well or not?

    I agree that CNN should have done better homework and if the spinmeisters hadn’t been allowed to make the topic about the questioner and not the question. Nice way to avoid dealing with real issues, but I’m not impressed.

    Let’s face it, no one in the newsmedia bothers to fact check or research anything any more. That’s hardly surprising, but DADT and “do you seek and welcome support from gays” are valid questions to be asked in a debate.

    Comment by Houndentenor — November 29, 2007 @ 11:48 am - November 29, 2007

  6. Hate to break into your little Hillary Hate-Fest here, but the press release you refer to does nothing more than list Kerr’s name. It does not mention him in any other way, nor verify that he did any actual work. If you know anything about how these types of committee’s actually work you know that there’s typically only a handful of people on any of these supporters lisst who do anything for them that could be described as “work”. The rest did nothing more than allow their name to be used. Is this they type of “work” you conservatives are talking about when you go on and on about all the people who should get off their butts and work?

    Comment by bureaubasher — November 29, 2007 @ 12:04 pm - November 29, 2007

  7. If he lied about one thing (worked for Clinton), perhaps
    he lied about the other (Log Cabin).

    Disagree. I think it’s more likely that Kerr has really done no work for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, except to let his name be used in that release on her web site. And that he honestly views the latter as “not doing work” for her.

    I’m not disagreeing with the thrust of the post. For Kerr to be an LCR member (or to view himself as one) and to still let his name be used on the campaign web site of the very Democratic wife-husband team that gave America DADT to begin with, is ‘out there’.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2007 @ 1:14 pm - November 29, 2007

  8. P.S. But I guess I am saying: Bruce, going so far as to term Kerr a Clinton campaign “staffer” might be a stretch.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2007 @ 1:29 pm - November 29, 2007

  9. A quick look in google does show that Kerr is probably at one time with LCR

    2004 National Convention
    Plus, openly gay Brigadier General Keith Kerr, CSMR (Ret.) shared his experience as a retired high ranking military officer. Log Cabin’s Convention included a panel discussion on …

    http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/2004_convention.html · Cached page

    Comment by Vince P — November 29, 2007 @ 1:30 pm - November 29, 2007

  10. Why shouldn’t it be a topic in the Repub debates?

    Because, Ian, Republicans have better things to do than worry about the rantings of a minority that:

    a) constitutes a single-digit portion of the population

    b) is overwhelmingly anti-military, as evinced by their support of bans on JROTC, bans on allowing the Blue Angels to fly, bans on veterans memorials, endorsement of blatantly-antimilitary groups like Code Pink and International ANSWER, and claims, as you have, that our soldiers are inhuman monsters and murderers

    c) is patently schizophrenic, claiming that DADT supporters are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when said supporters are of one political affiliation, and “antigay” and “hateful” when they are of another

    In short, what Republicans have realized is that gays designate whether or not something or someone is “pro-gay” or “gay-supportive” based solely on party affiliation, not on their actions; as a result, they see no reason to consider the gay community’s take on anything.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2007 @ 1:55 pm - November 29, 2007

  11. GPW, sorry man, but I disagree in part with you too, in your Update.

    It is a scandal (minor) that CNN, while it did check on Kerr’s connections, didn’t Google him quite hard enough to detect his Clinton connection.

    And it is a scandal (minor) that Kerr, while fighting DADT valiantly, would nonetheless link himself to the woman / co-President who had given us DADT in the first place.

    And it is a scandal (not so minor) that LCR has gone so anti-Republican, many of its members would back Hillary Clinton.

    But I don’t believe for a minute that Kerr is “not telling the truth” as you put it. Come on. That’s out of hand. He served the U.S. for 40+ years. Then his name was listed along with 30 other names on some obscure Clinton task force. Does that mean he did work for Clinton? Does that me he was/is a Clinton “staffer”? No and no. Please respect our veterans more.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2007 @ 2:15 pm - November 29, 2007

  12. Because, Ian, Republicans have better things to do than worry about the rantings of a minority

    Tell me again why I should vote Republican? You’ll note that I didn’t ask why I shouldn’t vote Democrat. If the GOP truly holds such a view, with no hope of their changing their own prejudices, why should I bother with them?

    Comment by John — November 29, 2007 @ 2:16 pm - November 29, 2007

  13. #10:

    Republicans have better things to do

    Oh, you mean like having taxpayers help foot the bill for sexual trysts with a mistress. BTW, do you think AverageGayJoe’s posts on the subject of DADT constitute “rantings?”

    Comment by Ian S — November 29, 2007 @ 2:23 pm - November 29, 2007

  14. […] planted general whom Senator Clinton claims as an adviser and whom CNN host Anderson Cooper specifically said he […]

    Pingback by Dinocrat » Blog Archive » The spectre of Eason Jordan — November 29, 2007 @ 2:25 pm - November 29, 2007

  15. Please respect our veterans more.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2007 @ 2:15 pm – November 29, 2007

    Maybe he should have respected us by claiming his affiliation before trying to use his service as a shield from criticism.

    Comment by Vince P — November 29, 2007 @ 2:49 pm - November 29, 2007

  16. I see Ian is unable to answer the question w/o resorting to some moral equivilence.

    Comment by Vince P — November 29, 2007 @ 2:52 pm - November 29, 2007

  17. Tell me again why I should vote Republican?

    Because (or at least I thought) you put things like defense, taxes, business, and border security ahead of your minority status.

    Let me phrase it this way, John; you can have a President who will keep DADT, but take the actions needed to deal with terrorist-supporting states trying to build nuclear arsenals like Iran, or you can have a President who (for now) claims they will repeal DADT, but who thinks dealing with international terrorism and a nuclear-seeking terror state like Iran is “law enforcement”.

    In short, do you want a CIC that is more concerned with using our military to protect our country, or one that is more concerned with using it, not as a fighting force, but as a means of pandering to minorities and meeting diversity quotas?

    And speaking of hypocrisy by Democrats:

    Oh, you mean like having taxpayers help foot the bill for sexual trysts with a mistress.

    Like Barney Frank’s parking tickets and preferential treatment for his prostitute boyfriend, or however much was spent getting Monica Lewinsky an internship, protection, and in and out of the White House, or however much it cost to have New Jersey state troopers accompany Jim McGreevey on his restroom trolling expeditions and to hire at six figures the unqualified person he wanted as a lover?

    Those are facts, Ian. Your party bringing up accusations against Giuliani of that sort looks even more hypocritical in light of them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2007 @ 2:54 pm - November 29, 2007

  18. Bingo, Vince.

    ILC, I have two words: John Kerry.

    And it seems Kerr is doing the same thing, trying to whine and scream that “I’m a veteran” when he is caught doing something unquestionably duplicitous.

    If he had admitted he was a Hillary Clinton supporter, this wouldn’t have been a problem.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2007 @ 2:59 pm - November 29, 2007

  19. Because (or at least I thought) you put things like defense, taxes, business, and border security ahead of your minority status.

    So if he were racist or anti-Catholic I should just ignore that?

    Comment by John — November 29, 2007 @ 3:05 pm - November 29, 2007

  20. So if he were racist or anti-Catholic I should just ignore that?

    If that is more important to you than his other stances, of course not.

    But the problem here is, John, we’re not dealing with someone who’s racist or anti-Catholic; we’re dealing with you having to make the choice between someone who presumably will keep DADT while supporting the military as they fight global war on terror and someone who will allegedly repeal DADT while emasculating the military and ordering them to run away from the terrorists.

    Again, if you choose the latter, don’t worry; you’ll be in the majority of gay people, you’ll be in the majority of gay veterans, as was exemplified by Kerr’s support of Hillary, and you’ll have much more social acceptability. What’s the problem?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2007 @ 3:19 pm - November 29, 2007

  21. Maybe he should have respected us by claiming his affiliation before trying to use his service as a shield from criticism.

    Already answered at #7, Vince. Please see there.

    ILC, I have two words: John Kerry.

    NDT, you know how much I respect and admire you, but that comparison is monstrously out of hand. Kerry served in Vietnam 4 months, then came home and slandered an entire generation of American veterans as baby-killers. While Kerr served America 40 years, then got a little zealous in his campaign against DADT. Absolutely gigantic differences. NDT, please respect our veterans more.

    If he had admitted he was a Hillary Clinton supporter…

    Already answered at #7. Please see there.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2007 @ 3:38 pm - November 29, 2007

  22. Actually, with a hat tip to GPW’s update and its link to Politico, the Kerry comparison is not out of line at all; turns out, Kerr also served on John Kerry’s Veterans National Steering Committee.

    In other words, Kerr, who proudly portrays himself as representing gays and gay veterans, used HIS veteran status to fully support and endorse a man who, as you so eloquently put it, “came home and slandered an entire generation of American veterans as baby-killers”.

    I guess for Kerr, his sexual orientation DOES trump his sense of decency and respect for his fellow veterans. It also makes amusing his blabbering about how American troops are “professionals” when he trumpets candidates like Kerry who claim they’re murderous baby-killers.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2007 @ 3:45 pm - November 29, 2007

  23. If that is more important to you than his other stances, of course not.

    One would think that such tells us much about a candidates’ character.

    But the problem here is, John, we’re not dealing with someone who’s racist or anti-Catholic

    Perhaps not, but you are lending credence to what liberal gays charge: the Republican Party is homophobic and incapable of changing it’s views on gays, or at the very least are unable to do so because it is beholden to the Religious Right. If such is the case it matters not what their stance is on any issue or what goodies they are able to deliver. Trying to divert attention away from this by saying the Dems are worse doesn’t help your case. It matters not if the Dems are Spawns of Satan, because I have no intention of voting for Hillary, nor does this make the Republicans saints by default. Just because I won’t vote for Hillary doesn’t mean the Republicans will automatically get my support without earning it first. So again, why should I vote Republican if as party they cannot stand people like us?

    Comment by John — November 29, 2007 @ 3:48 pm - November 29, 2007

  24. “Planted Clinton Staffer”? Blogger, have you no shame? With no proof whatsoever, you state that the General was “planted” — why would you say that unless you knew that, and where is your proof? Then you call the General a “Clinton Staffer”. That’s really absurd — unless of course you’d call the LA police commish and all those others on the same steering committee “staffers”. Of course, there’s always the possibility that you simply do not understand what a “steering committee” actually is, which would be even sadder.

    Speaking of sad, North Dallas Thirty, do you so despise gay people that you could actually mean it when you write…

    FROM NORTH DALLAS THIRTY…

    “Because, Ian, Republicans have better things to do than worry about the rantings of a minority that:

    a) constitutes a single-digit portion of the population

    b) is overwhelmingly anti-military, as evinced by their support of bans on JROTC, bans on allowing the Blue Angels to fly, bans on veterans memorials, endorsement of blatantly-antimilitary groups like Code Pink and International ANSWER, and claims, as you have, that our soldiers are inhuman monsters and murderers

    c) is patently schizophrenic, claiming that DADT supporters are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when said supporters are of one political affiliation, and “antigay” and “hateful” when they are of another

    In short, what Republicans have realized is that gays designate whether or not something or someone is “pro-gay” or “gay-supportive” based solely on party affiliation, not on their actions; as a result, they see no reason to consider the gay community’s take on anything.”

    Northie, you sound more and more like a National Front kind of guy every day. What’s next? A comment about homosexuality being un-natural, a blasphemy before God? Maybe you’ve already said that and I missed it.

    Comment by KYKid — November 29, 2007 @ 3:53 pm - November 29, 2007

  25. Actually, KY, what I think is funny is that you are so terrified to admit that every single one of those statements is the truth.

    Gays are, at best, a single-digit percent of the population.

    Gays spearheaded the banning of JROTC, the attempt to ban the Blue Angels from performing, and the banning of the USS Iowa from being made into a veteran’s museum — all right here in San Francisco.

    Gays and gay organizations have openly allied with and marched with Code Pink and International ANSWER.

    And gays like yourself, KY, have openly supported and endorsed FMA supporters, DADT supporters, and state constitutional amendment supporters as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” and given them millions of dollars….yet turned right around and called the Republicans who your candidates themselves claimed they had the “same position” as to be antigay, hateful, and evil.

    And every single one of these actions has been justified on the basis of their being gay.

    The reason you’re whining and crying is because having those facts revealed runs directly to your propaganda arguments. It makes much less sense to repeal DADT when it becomes obvious that gays like you are antimilitary bigots of the highest order. It makes your parading “gay veterans” blatantly hypocritical when it is shown that these same “gay veterans” oppose museums to veterans and ally with political candidates like Kerry who called an entire generation of veterans “baby-killers”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2007 @ 4:11 pm - November 29, 2007

  26. KYKid writes: “What’s next (from you, NDT)? A comment about homosexuality being un-natural, a blasphemy before God?” I think that statement comes pretty close to “pure nonsense” as we’ve ever had on this blog –and THAT’s saying a lot.

    NDT, you may not want the support, but I think you’re dead on. Dead on about how quickly Kerr/others pulled out the “I’m a 40+ yr military officer” cover. And you’re dead-dead on about why it matters if we put a pro-military GOP president back in the WH in ’08 over an anti-military Dem president whose hubbie has a track record of slashing and cutting the military to pieces… except for using their jets, golf courses, bands, attaches as Go4’ers and helicopters.

    It does matter. Unlike some here, I’m not willing to hazard the WH just to prove to America that life under a Democrat can get real bad. I thought that was THE lesson we learned with JimmineyCricketCarter?

    You’re right NDT on those two important points!

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 29, 2007 @ 4:23 pm - November 29, 2007

  27. Kerr also served on John Kerry’s Veterans National Steering Committee.

    If (note, big *IF*) it’s true that Kerr is not a Republican at all… then yes, calling himself an LCR member would then be lying. The question deserves follow-up investigation. And, it doesn’t change (i.e., doesn’t invalidate) my points to GP or GPW.

    #24 KY – Please let me stand with NDT on his points (a), (b) and (c) that you quoted. Not NDT’s conclusions, necessarily. But in those 3 specific factual points, NDT is only saying the truth, and I commend him for it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2007 @ 4:42 pm - November 29, 2007

  28. Don’t be too surprised Ian won’t answer a question.

    As to this General, yeah, being on a Kerry Steering commtiie, lending his name to a Clinton really marks him as a hallmark of Republican standards

    Comment by The Livewire — November 29, 2007 @ 4:43 pm - November 29, 2007

  29. KYchild is funny.

    Comment by Vince P — November 29, 2007 @ 4:44 pm - November 29, 2007

  30. Interesting to see how the 3-4 regulars here rush to support that string of anti-gay hate from North Dallas Thirty in #10. It’s beginning to occur to me that this is not a gay blog at all and that many of you are possibly nothing more than plants yourself — pretending to be gay while carrying on 24/7 anti-gay conversations in the hope of damaging gay folk through emulation. How else can one explain North Dallas Thirty’s description of gay people in #10…

    “rantings of a minority”

    “a single-digit portion of the population”

    “overwhelmingly anti-military”

    “claims our soldiers are inhuman monsters and murderers”

    “patently schizophrenic”

    Comment by KYKid — November 29, 2007 @ 5:26 pm - November 29, 2007

  31. So tell me, Dallas, just how large a percentage of the population does a group need to be in order to matter to the Republican party?

    Comment by Houndentenor — November 29, 2007 @ 5:33 pm - November 29, 2007

  32. Again, KY, you don’t address the points or facts involved. You change the subject to an attack on the people on this blog.

    That many Left gays are anti-military – and, that many gays in turn are Left gays – is a fact. Yes, NDT uses sharp language. But if you don’t like the truth of the point being made: then take it up with your anti-military gay friends. Don’t bitch to (or at) the people on this blog.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2007 @ 5:59 pm - November 29, 2007

  33. Considering this is GAYpatriot, you’d think the story here would be Duncan Hunter’s laughable, albeit bigoted, response to the question, not the questioners background.

    …most Americans, most kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military, 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.

    Well, there you have it! From Congressman Hunter’s mouth to your ears. Gays shouldn’t be allowed in the military because conservatives shouldn’t be subjected to the indignity of working next to a gay.

    And people vote for this guy in San Diego? How embarrassing.

    Comment by Chase — November 29, 2007 @ 6:10 pm - November 29, 2007

  34. Chase, I agree but I made my contribution on that point in this other thread where it seemed most topical to me:
    http://gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=2706#comment-848443

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2007 @ 6:14 pm - November 29, 2007

  35. What makes Hunter’s statement even funnier, he started by saying:

    Even though people point to the Israelis and point to the Brits and point to other people as having homosexuals serve…

    And then he says the bit about Judeo-Christian values.

    Hmmmm. The Israelis are not Jews? LOL I think they are the Judeo part of “Judeo-Christian.”

    He is such an idiot.

    Comment by Chase — November 29, 2007 @ 6:23 pm - November 29, 2007

  36. #32, what “facts” in his comments are you talking about?

    Comment by KYKid — November 29, 2007 @ 6:36 pm - November 29, 2007

  37. San Diego has one of the highest military and former-military populations in the United States, Chase.

    Furthermore, people in San Diego know that the lesbian city fire chief forced firefighters who did not want to participate to take part in the city’s gay pride parade, where they were subjected to lewd comments, catcalls, obscene gestures, and public displays of sexual behavior.

    In other words, people know how gays like you behave, and they know that gays like yourself will force people to work in that sort of environment.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2007 @ 7:08 pm - November 29, 2007

  38. And then he says the bit about Judeo-Christian values.

    Hmmmm. The Israelis are not Jews? LOL I think they are the Judeo part of “Judeo-Christian.”

    He is such an idiot.

    No, youre the idiot.

    There’s a country in the Middle East called Israel. That state has a military force.

    Judeo-Christian is a religious/value system derived from the Bible.

    That you would compare them shows how dysfunctional you are.

    Comment by Vince P — November 29, 2007 @ 7:09 pm - November 29, 2007

  39. The fact that the Libs here want to spend their time attacking Hunter just shows how they attack for attacking sake.

    I think the reason why you dont see anyone here talking about Hunter is because he’s completely irrelevent.

    Comment by Vince P — November 29, 2007 @ 7:10 pm - November 29, 2007

  40. What better validation of Tammy Bruce’s theory of The New Thought Police than KY’s screed:

    Interesting to see how the 3-4 regulars here rush to support that string of anti-gay hate from North Dallas Thirty in #10. It’s beginning to occur to me that this is not a gay blog at all and that many of you are possibly nothing more than plants yourself — pretending to be gay while carrying on 24/7 anti-gay conversations in the hope of damaging gay folk through emulation. How else can one explain North Dallas Thirty’s description of gay people in #10…

    Being gay is just one aspect of myself.. the one characterisitic that I have that rises to top is my American nationality. And as an American I dont believe i have to conform to your bigoted ideology at all.

    The US Military has the best policy for gays right now.. the policy of fighting the Jihadis and killing them. It doesnt get any more pro-gay than that.

    I have no opinion on DADT. If the military says it’s ok to get rid of it , fine get rid of it. If they aren’t sure or want to keep it… fine keeep it.

    As long as they go on killing people that want to kill me then I’ll let them decide the best way to keep killing the enemy.

    Meanwhile, why dont you get some porn and pretend you’re a tough marine.

    Comment by Vince P — November 29, 2007 @ 7:15 pm - November 29, 2007

  41. Jeez, Northie, you just recklessly pull crap from all across the Internet and present it as fact. Read your own links man/woman/whatever you are! (And, NorthieLovers here, take the time to read AND THINK ABOUT the SD link Northie just sent our way if you want to see his carelessness — though I doubt you have that much intellectual curiosity.)

    Also, Northie Boy, please tell us more about the “fact” you stated so confidently above — the one about “single digit”. Give us some real — AND RELIABLE — sources for that. And please, something other than the Family Research Institute and something a little more thoughtful than “Census or such and such did a survey ASKING people if they were gay and x%(xx%) responded “yes”. If you have any brains at all, you know that your and anyone else’s % gay figure is un-confirmable.

    Comment by KYKid — November 29, 2007 @ 7:19 pm - November 29, 2007

  42. Oh that Vince, a real bright light.

    Comment by KYKid — November 29, 2007 @ 7:20 pm - November 29, 2007

  43. Typical response , seeing how completely unable you are to address the problems facing us today.

    Such as this… from Amsterdam. The fun reality-free gay zone in the Netherlands is slipping away…

    http://covenantzone.blogspot.com/2007/11/islamophobic-dutch-gays-swing-to-right.html

    Multicultural civil war grows in Holland as “islamophobic” Dutch gays respond to homophobic muslim immigrants, in a contest making strange bedfellows out of “right-wing” politicians and Dutch libertines.

    The picture postcard of an open and tolerant Amsterdam is increasingly fading: a month does not go by without the national gay organization COC not reporting at least one, even two or three homophobic aggressions. According to police statistics, it is already up to 31 since the beginning of the year. And the incidents do not proceed any old place: “When there is violence, or more often still, provocation or intimidation, it is most of the time in the gay districts, on our streets”, explains Frank van Dalen, president of the COC.

    However, in Amsterdam as in other large cities of the Netherlands, it is the young people of arabic-muslim origin, in particular the moroccans of the second or third generation who are singled out. An ethnic dimension which weighs very heavy in the current political climate.

    [Vince: In other words, when there is anti-gay violence in the large cities of Nethlanders, the people doing the attacking are 2nd or 3rd generation Muslims]

    While incivilities, violence and confrontations between young people of foreign origin and the police make the media headlines, the crisis of Dutch identity is also playing out in the background of demographic upheavals. Indeed, according to official projections, the muslim populations should form the majority of the large cities of the country within three years. “All political discussions are centered on these questions of integration of the moroccans and of religions”, summarizes Philippe Esnault, a Genevan long living in Amsterdam.
    All these speeches do not reassure the homosexuals, who are taking refuge in populist rhetoric in order to protect their gains.”

    Now when you read this next part, keep in mind that Frank is the guy who represents the gay commnity center or whatever. You can tell he’s a brain-dead lefty. . Even in the face of Muslim attacks on gays (and in increasing numbers) he still holds onto his self-loathing 1968 worldview where the West must be wrong… in fact he even calls gays who are just trying to protect themselves ISLAMOPHOBES. That’s when you know someone can not think.. when they pull out the -ophobes labels. You can tell the writer of this article is a Lefty as he calls Rita an xenophobe as if it’s fact

    In fact, the massive rallying of homosexuals to the populist right, had just been predicted by a survey of the magazine Gay Krant, which foresees a [political issue?] for the local “iron lady”, Rita Verdonk, ex-minister known for for her xenophobic declarations and her tough stands regarding immigration. The politician has started a new movement baptized Trots op Nederland (“Proud of the Netherlands”). “She is the homosexuals’ diva”, says Laurent Chambon, French sociologist and elected Labour official in Amsterdam, with amusement. “Because of her, homosexuals on the right are coming out of the closet.”

    In a style inaugurated by the gay tribune Pim Fortuyn who was assassinated in 2002, Rita Verdonk and Geert Wilders, the other leader of the populist right-wing, became masters of the art of waving the scarecrow of Islamism after each incident implicating young people of muslim origin. A technique which works on gays at least as well as upon the rest of the population. “There is islamophobia among gays, I would have preferred that it is not the case, but it is a fact”, concedes Frank van Dalen.

    Frank van Dalen is not easily deceived on the motives which push the youths to attack homosexuals: “I believe that islam hardly plays any role in it. In truth, it is a question of social position, lack of education and of group behavior… the young people simply use it [islam] as an excuse.” For Laurent Chambon, the phenomenon is the symptom of a more general malady, which has nothing specific to do with homosexuals. It particularly fits within a territorial dimension, because of the privatization of the municipal real estate, driving out the lower classes from the downtown area. “If the young morrocans come to play the strong arm in the center it is also because themselves, or their close relations, have just been elbowed out of it, sometimes with brutality, in order to make room for white bobos”, he explains. “Gays are the first [targets?] because they are perceived as weak [links?]… In that, they pay the price for their visibility… “

    This rise of insecurity coincides with a fall of vitality in the local gay scene. A decline that many Amsterdam citizens interpret as the sign that a “moral blanket” is falling upon the city, as bars close and restrictions multiply. Some put forth even the hypothesis that the parties in power (Labour and Christian Democrats) would benefit from the current tensions in order to “clean up” the gay scene, and to roll back certain gains of the homosexual community.

    A vision that the COC president contests, for whom there is not any doubt that the authorities support gays, more than ever. “For the first time, the struggle against homophobia has been integrated in the coalition program. We have a minister of State in charge of the dossier and a more important budget to improve measures in education “, explains Frank van Dalen.

    The reinforcement of educational measures for diversity are only a single part of the demands of the Dutch gay movement, which call for draconian measures of repression. It thus obtained an increase on required penalties for offences of a homophobic character. Last June, the COC even proposed the installation of a perimeter prohibiting known delinquents around the gay district. Immediately labeled the “gay ghetto”, the idea caused an outcry. It measures in any case the confusion of the [gay and lesbian] community vis-a-vis this new phenomenon.

    In response to requests from the gay community, the Amsterdam police force innovated by assigning gay and lesbian officers at heart of a special liaison unit, the Homonetwerk, which informs the remainder of the police force about the [gay and lesbian] community and encourages the victims of aggression to come forward with charges. …

    As the Muslims become more and more sure that they own Europe, that will increase their detemrination to attack us here.. which means our govt has to be prepared for this onslaught.

    The Democrats have shown no capacity to understand this.. it’s reckless to elect them at this time.

    Comment by Vince P — November 29, 2007 @ 7:45 pm - November 29, 2007

  44. Also, Northie Boy, please tell us more about the “fact” you stated so confidently above — the one about “single digit”. Give us some real — AND RELIABLE — sources for that.

    Gladly.

    The New York City and northern New Jersey metro area has the largest number of gay residents. An estimated 569,000 gays live there, making that population 4.1 percent gay.

    The San Francisco Bay Area has an estimated 256,000 gay residents, the nation’s fourth largest tally. But the region — which is 8.2 percent gay — is the gayest metropolitan area in the U.S.

    Washington, D.C., and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs have about 192,000 gay residents, making the area’s population 5 percent gay. Alone, the District is 8.1 percent gay with 32,500 gay residents.

    In short, if you couldn’t get the areas with the highest concentrations of gays much above 8% of the population, it is an impossibility that you could get the entire United States over 10%.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2007 @ 7:56 pm - November 29, 2007

  45. The US Military has the best policy for gays right now.. the policy of fighting the Jihadis and killing them. It doesnt get any more pro-gay than that.

    True.

    Well, if they had that policy plus DADT repeal, it would get a little more pro-gay 😉

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2007 @ 8:27 pm - November 29, 2007

  46. Perhaps not, but you are lending credence to what liberal gays charge: the Republican Party is homophobic and incapable of changing it’s views on gays, or at the very least are unable to do so because it is beholden to the Religious Right. If such is the case it matters not what their stance is on any issue or what goodies they are able to deliver.

    Oh, it’s not that they’re beholden per se, John; it’s simply that they know three things:

    — If they piss off the religious right, they won’t get those votes.

    — They won’t get gay votes whether or not they pander to them, because gays only vote for and support Democrats.

    — The national leadership of gay organizations openly supports socialized medicine, raising taxes, unlimited abortion, antimilitary organizations and activities, and antireligious, especially anti-Christian, activity — none of which is going to appeal to Republican voters.

    — Fact of the matter is, the very same actions that those same liberal gays call “homophobic” when Republicans do them, they call “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when Democrats do them. John Kerry got that and more, despite his openly bragging that he had the “same position” as George Bush on gay issues.

    Once you keep all that in mind, the position of the majority of Republicans becomes far more understandable; that is, gay issues are among the lowest of priorities, because they carry no reward.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2007 @ 8:29 pm - November 29, 2007

  47. His mind’s made up NDT, don’t confuse him with the facts.

    Whether you like Hunter’s answer or not (I disagree) at least he’s upfront and honest about who he is and what he believes.

    That puts him ahead of the General, and KY.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 29, 2007 @ 8:32 pm - November 29, 2007

  48. But wait, but wait NDXXX… there’s a store that’s called “Ten Percent” in Chicago and it’s owned and run by a lesbian couple and a gay couple –all four married in Vermont (I know, I was at the wedding… well it was across the border in Massachusetts but they considered themselves to be native Vermonteers -it was before all the civil union stuff started).

    Their store’s name is a reference to the gay population in world… and since America is more creative and fashionable than the rest of the world… except maybe Ibiza or Toronto or Seattle (is Seattle still part of America?)… doesn’t that mean that the US has even more gays than the 10% global figure? And I mean, like Iran doesn’t have any gays –according to its president– so that means we have even more.

    So, were not just a single digit minority anymore! Face the facts. My friends in WindyCityLand but married in Vermont but it was really Massachusetts proved it. We’re as big a minority as the most minorestiness of any of the races… except the Irish and they drink too much. But gay Irish men are uber hot (did you hear that ILC! I said hot. Uber hot. Irish. Put that away for later use).

    And what’s all this ruckess about you being a gay homophobe? Is someone trying to take your GayCard away again for not toeing the GayLeft PC line? Fancy that… again.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 29, 2007 @ 8:45 pm - November 29, 2007

  49. That 10% figure, Matt, is taken from Kinsey….and as numerous parties have shown over the years, his methodology AND the populations from which he collected data were, to put it kindly, a bit inflationary when it came to estimating the number of gays in the universe.

    Meanwhile, the UK’s estimate came back with just about six percent….and I’d say that’s probably a safe guess for how often it actually occurs in the population.

    And while I’m here……

    So tell me, Dallas, just how large a percentage of the population does a group need to be in order to matter to the Republican party?

    Percentage of the population doesn’t quite have as much to do with it as whether or not that group’s votes are really flexible.

    Gays have openly stated that they will never vote for Republicans….and Republicans take them at their word and don’t bother.

    The fact that we constitute such a small portion of the population — and far less than those who are opposed to what our national leaders claim gay rights are all about, like unlimited abortion, higher taxes, socialized medicine, discrimination against whites and males, antimilitary and antireligious bigotry, and so forth — makes that even easier.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2007 @ 8:56 pm - November 29, 2007

  50. Here’s an update on all the Plants at the alledged primary debate for Repubicans:

    http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWRhNDQ4NzVkMmJiMTAxMzkwODE0ZDU1ZGE4NjVkY2Q=

    One Guy Asked a Question At Both Parties’ YouTube Debates?

    My hat is off to Michelle Malkin and all of the conservative bloggers who have uncovered all kinds of fascinating information about last night’s YouTube questioners, using that remarkable, mysterious investigative technique called “Googling.”

    To refresh:

    1. The retired brigadier general is on Hillary Clinton’s gay and lesbian steering committee.

    2. The young woman who asked about jailing women who get abortions has stated on her YouTube profile page that she backs John Edwards.

    3. The “Log Cabin Republican” has written on the web about “why I’m supporting Barack Obama.”

    4. The guy who asked Ron Paul if he would run as an independent also asked a question at the Democratic debate and has told reporters that he “likes Bill Richardson.”

    Is America such a small country that Mark Strauss of Davenport, Iowa gets to ask two questions of candidates?

    Those are the worst; here are the gray areas.

    5. The mom who asked about toys with lead paint from China is an assistant to the American Steel Workers union, which has endorsed Edwards. This doesn’t necessarily mean that this woman has endorsed Edwards or even likes him, but it would have been better if CNN had identified her with that affiliation than portraying her as just another concerned undecided voter.

    6. The young man who asked about corn subsidies interned for Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman back in 2004. I’m not going to go bonkers about that; maybe he just wanted experience working on the Hill. But amongst all the others, it’s just one more log on the fire.

    7. The Powerline guys note that the guy who asked about Social Security reform “is working with a member of [Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick] Durbin’s staff, helping him develop his proposal to submit to the Congressional Budget Office.” However, the same article also noted that he “met with aides of Speaker Dennis Hastert.” Maybe Durbin’s just more helpful to the guy, but again, in light of everybody else, CNN not being able to find this out, much less mention it, doesn’t reflect well on them.

    UPDATE: 8. Jason Coleman notes the guy who asked why Republicans can’t attract more African-American voters has made mocking YouTube videos about “the blind black Republican” and rather lauditory videos attending a John Edwards event.

    CNN stepped in it badly. I don’t know if firing the political director is the right solution; I’d rather the folks who made their mistakes this time learn from them and pledge to do better next time.

    UPDATE: I notice MediaMatters complained about the questions at the Democrats’ YouTube debate:

    several questions asked during that debate could be described as Republican “gotchas,” including one in which the questioner echoed the enduring Republican myth of Democrats as taxers and spenders:

    (Some of us don’t think that’s a myth.) Anyway, I think there’s a significant difference between an unaffiliated voter asking a question that “echoes a Republican” argument and using questions from folks who have already openly endorsed another candidate in the other party. If any of the YouTube questioners in the Democratic debate had already endorsed a Republican candidate, then Media Matters has good reason to complain. But as it is, they’re saying that asking about raising taxes is ipso facto a “Republican gotcha.”

    Comment by Vince P — November 29, 2007 @ 9:19 pm - November 29, 2007

  51. It goes without saying that liberals, gay or otherwise, hate the military. So why the hell do they care about whether DADT exists or not?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 29, 2007 @ 9:51 pm - November 29, 2007

  52. So if he were racist or anti-Catholic I should just ignore that?

    Now you’re being silly.

    So again, why should I vote Republican if as party they cannot stand people like us?

    I refer you to the 06 elections. If not, you wind up with miserable failures running the joint.

    It’s beginning to occur to me that this is not a gay blog at all and that many of you are possibly nothing more than plants yourself

    If by “gay” you mean chronic victims pissing, moaning, loaded down with hate, rage, arrogance, condecension and suckling on Uncle Sugar’s tit constantly, then no, I guess not.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 29, 2007 @ 9:55 pm - November 29, 2007

  53. (Some of us don’t think that’s a myth.)

    There’s one way to end that myth. Stop speding like they do and quite resorting to raising taxes as the answer to every problem. Until then….

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 29, 2007 @ 10:01 pm - November 29, 2007

  54. why should I vote Republican if as party they cannot stand people like us?

    Because they stand for a strong defense of America, freedom, capitalism, individual rights, Western Civilization. Which is the only civilizational system truly tolerant/supportive of gay people.

    To paraphrase Act Up: Caving in to Islam or other ‘traditional’ cultures, equals Death.

    did you hear that ILC! I said hot. Uber hot. Irish. Put that away for later use)

    ???????????????????? Whoo, left field! 🙂 NO idea what hit you are trying to score there, MM. None.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2007 @ 10:28 pm - November 29, 2007

  55. Republicans should boycott CNN in the future.

    One other comment: If Giuliani, McCain, or Thompson does not get the nomination, I will vote Libertarian or for another third party candidate for Pres. I am sick and tired of Bush and his not so conservative agenda.

    Comment by Vienna Conservative — November 29, 2007 @ 11:43 pm - November 29, 2007

  56. I have read all 54 comments and have reached one conclusion about them. I have learned that no one who is a Democrat or has voted for a Democrat in the past, should be allowed to ask a question of any Republican candidate for president. Then it must stand to reason that no Republican should ask any question of a Democrat candidate for President. And that’s supposed to make me a more intelligent voter when I enter the voting booth?

    Comment by Cecil — November 30, 2007 @ 12:02 am - November 30, 2007

  57. Oh, not at all, Cecil.

    All that should happen is that questioners should identify the fact that they work for an opposing candidate’s campaign prior to asking the question.

    But had Kerr done that, it would have been obvious that the whole point of his “question” was to promote his own partisan, anti-Republican agenda.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2007 @ 12:30 am - November 30, 2007

  58. Republicans are too chicken-shit to give honest answers any questions that isn’t carefully run through the right-wing vetting machine.

    Are republicans skeered of questions from democrats?

    Comment by Elais — November 30, 2007 @ 1:05 am - November 30, 2007

  59. Not at all.

    But they happen to think that Democrats who work for a rival campaign and who have openly stated their hostility towards Republicans be required to mention that first prior to asking the question — especially when said Democrats are misrepresenting themselves as Republicans.

    And here’s a question for you and Kerr, Elais; why do you believe that gays should never criticize other gays, and that gay ethics require you to ignore lies and misdeeds perpetrated by other gays?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2007 @ 2:02 am - November 30, 2007

  60. I am sick and tired of Bush and his not so conservative agenda.

    Ummmmmmm………Bush isn’t running.

    I have learned that no one who is a Democrat or has voted for a Democrat in the past, should be allowed to ask a question of any Republican candidate for president…And that’s supposed to make me a more intelligent voter when I enter the voting booth?
    Comment by Cecil

    And then:

    Republicans are too chicken-shit to give honest answers any questions that isn’t carefully run through the right-wing vetting machine.

    Are republicans skeered of questions from democrats?

    Comment by Elais

    The thing you two apparently need to be educated on is the fact that these debates are unofficial. They have more to do with the primaries. As you will find in Wikipedia, it’s an opportunity for Republican voters to see their candidates and for democrat voters to see their candidates “side by side”.

    That tells me, at least, that it’s not for Republicans to ask questions of the democrat candidates and vice versa. That comes later. As far as your asinine comment about Republicans being “skeered of questions from democrats”, by your logic, one would have to conclude that the democrats are “skeered” of questions from Republicans. However, an educated person would know that, due to the format, neither is the case. At least not as far as these debates go.

    Although, it’s become evident that Hillary is “skeered” of answering ANY questions.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 30, 2007 @ 3:40 am - November 30, 2007

  61. Oh, yum-yum. I suspected that Northie would come back with the Census data (which is why I hinted at it for him – yes, look above). Not even the professionals at the Census Bureau believe that piece of data – it (like virtually every gay population estimate ever developed) is based on SELF-REPORTED gay status, with statistical extrapolations from there to estimates of larger pops – e.g., total U.S. As a result, researchers and statisticians blanch at estimates like the one Northie is so sure of. Why? Even when the sampling methodology is probability-based (and thus, at least on the face of it, subject to the laws of statistical probability), these surveys are fatally flawed by an assumption that people everywhere will easily tell strangers that they are gay. Imagine that, and you’ll know how solid is the statistical ground on which Northie has plopped himself/herself. Professor Northie, I know you like to present yourself as a Master of all disciplines (NPI), but you’re no Stalwart Statistician – just as you’re no Eminent Economist, as you were pretending to be the other day. I’m not even sure you’re Genuinely Gay, given the extent to which you berate “fellow” gays, deride their political choices, and hell, even possibly diminish their very incidence within the Universe (though that one, as detailed above, is certainly open to question).

    When you sit in a tiny cubicle each day and pretend-play “gay patriot expert of all things”, you need to at least make sure you’re Googling properly and getting some valid backup. So, start here, little one, and we’ll come back later to determine if “our children IS learning”. Starting point A: http://www.census.gov. See if you can get past the home page.

    Comment by KYKid — November 30, 2007 @ 7:26 am - November 30, 2007

  62. I refer you to the 06 elections. If not, you wind up with miserable failures running the joint.

    And what lesson am I supposed to draw from 06? That one set of miserable failures lost out to another?

    Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 7:31 am - November 30, 2007

  63. Once you keep all that in mind, the position of the majority of Republicans becomes far more understandable; that is, gay issues are among the lowest of priorities, because they carry no reward.

    Then it sounds as if we are going to make any progress on things like repealing DADT we should vote Democrat and once those matters are off the table revert back to the GOP. Are you sure you want to send that message?

    Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 7:35 am - November 30, 2007

  64. Gays have openly stated that they will never vote for Republicans….and Republicans take them at their word and don’t bother.

    American Jews regularly vote at least 2/3’s Democrat, just like gays, yet the GOP is strongly pro-Israel. Then again the beauty of this dichotomy is that God’s Own Party can refer to the Bible for both its views!

    Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 7:40 am - November 30, 2007

  65. If you have no other things of higher importance than DADT…. then by all means, please… be a Democrat. It suits them and their unserious platform.

    Meanwhile the rest of us will continue to languish with the inept Repubicans.

    Comment by Vince P — November 30, 2007 @ 7:44 am - November 30, 2007

  66. Not even the professionals at the Census Bureau believe that piece of data – it (like virtually every gay population estimate ever developed) is based on SELF-REPORTED gay status, with statistical extrapolations from there to estimates of larger pops – e.g., total U.S.

    At least NDT has some reliable data to show the figures he’s citing, while you’ve presented nothing at all.

    Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 7:47 am - November 30, 2007

  67. If you have no other things of higher importance than DADT…. then by all means, please… be a Democrat. It suits them and their unserious platform.

    I believe in this day and age with Independents outnumbering either party, it’s not a matter of “being” one or the other but instead picking one and then the other depending upon what issues matter the most at that time. The GOP is closer to my political leanings than the DNC overall, yet from what I’m hearing the latter is the one to go to for any progress on other issues I care about. Pity. If we weren’t in a war and Hillary wasn’t the presumptive Dem nominee, I’d give it serious consideration.

    Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 7:50 am - November 30, 2007

  68. John, I respect your views, so please re-read the post above before resting on the reliablity of Northie’s regurgitation of something he read in the Washington Blade.

    Comment by KYKid — November 30, 2007 @ 9:13 am - November 30, 2007

  69. I guess Republicans only think it’s okay to plant someone to ask questions when he’s a prostitute.

    Comment by Houndentenor — November 30, 2007 @ 9:47 am - November 30, 2007

  70. Ouch.

    Comment by KYKid — November 30, 2007 @ 10:09 am - November 30, 2007

  71. John, I respect your views, so please re-read the post above before resting on the reliablity of Northie’s regurgitation of something he read in the Washington Blade.

    The Census data may be incomplete, but it is based on real numbers. Stuff based upon the discredited Kinsey study claiming 10% figures are seriously flawed and inaccurate. Numbers and percentages are not a big issue to me, which is why I say that NDT’s use of this is irrelevant, but if you are going to hang your hat on it you’d better come up with something of substance.

    Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 1:07 pm - November 30, 2007

  72. Furthermore, John, the reason I cited the Census data is simple; it’s what KY was most frightened of seeing, as his attempts to stop me from posting it show.

    Why?

    Because it shows that he hasn’t a leg on which to stand. The Census data is by far the most accepted, quantifiable, and rigorous measurement out there; KY can whine and scream about how awful he claims it is, but he provides not one shred of proof or contrary evidence.

    That’s becuase if he did, his own analysis would be subject to the rules he attempted to invoke to smear the Census data, and it would collapse.

    It’s much easier to criticize than to offer proof to the contrary, and as is to be expected, all he is capable of is the easy route.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2007 @ 3:41 pm - November 30, 2007

  73. I guess Republicans only think it’s okay to plant someone to ask questions when he’s a prostitute.

    And I guess Democrats are complete hypocrites, because they claim it’s wrong to plant someone to ask questions unless they’re the ones doing it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2007 @ 3:42 pm - November 30, 2007

  74. I guess Republicans only think it’s okay to plant someone to ask questions when he’s a prostitute.

    I guess liberals only think it’s okay to plant someone to ask questions when they’re a Hillary prostitute. That and apparently it’s okay to threaten Wolfe Blitzer to make damn sure she doesn’t get any tough questions.

    There you go. I fixed it for ya, HT.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 30, 2007 @ 4:18 pm - November 30, 2007

  75. John, ALL Census data and projections are based on relatively small samples of real people, but with extrapolation to larger population estimates — so yes, the numbers are as real as one can get, but in this case they are they’re woefully incomplete (because of the fear of outing oneself to the wrong person) and anyone hanging their hat on those data is, well, there’s no better word — stupid.

    And Northie, much as I suspected based on your past behavior here and your own website, you obviously have no training in sampling, statistical measurement, or any of the multivariate methods used to reach conclusions about populations. Knowledge of human resources forms and filings will only take you so far, kid. However, what you do have plenty of is both naivete and poseur bravado — naivete in accepting ANYONE’s claims about the proportion of gay people (as long as that proportion is suitably low enough for you to use it to diminish gay people) and poseur bravado in making what are outrageous claims with a link to a silly newspaper. Clue to you, little guy: notice that I never make a claim of x% gay? Not because I’m “frightened” of you or anything you might misstate as fact, but because the % gay is, at this point in human development, one of those very unknowable things. But, per usual, that doesn’t stop you from playing an expert on this, along with virtually every other topic ever discussed at gay patriot. Yours is truly fraudulent behavior — and if your partisan pals here accept that without question, then fine with me.

    Comment by KYKid — November 30, 2007 @ 4:20 pm - November 30, 2007

  76. As I said before, I didn’t like it when Hilary had a plant asking her questions either. Plenty of liberal bloggers (Aravosis, et al.) were also appalled when this happened. Don’t act like we don’t care when it was much discussed.

    I’m finding a disturbing trend this week of right-wingers claiming that Democrats or liberals don’t care about a topic that was/is much discussed negatively all over the net. Do you actually do any research before making these grand pronouncements or do you just get your info from Hannity and O’Reilly? These aren’t opinions that you are stating, they are outright lies.

    Comment by Houndentenor — November 30, 2007 @ 4:52 pm - November 30, 2007

  77. It is true that no one knows exactly what percentage of the population is gay or bisexual. Not that it matters. Human rights should not be based on percentages. Should we be entitled to equality once we pass a certain percentage of the population and otherwise not? What kind of morality would that be?

    Comment by Houndentenor — November 30, 2007 @ 4:54 pm - November 30, 2007

  78. JNo, youre the idiot.

    There’s a country in the Middle East called Israel. That state has a military force.

    Judeo-Christian is a religious/value system derived from the Bible.

    That you would compare them shows how dysfunctional you are.

    Hmmm.

    Vince,
    Jews read the Old Testament too. In fact, Jews wrote the Bible. And that guy Jesus Christ? Bigtime Jew.

    So separating core Jewish principles from Christian values… kinda hard to do.

    If Christianity is the house, Judaism is its foundation.

    Comment by Chase — November 30, 2007 @ 4:55 pm - November 30, 2007

  79. So basically, Vince, you agree with Rep. Hunter that if we were a nation of Jews, we could have a military that would include gays, but since we are predominantly Christian, we can’t?

    What then are the British? LOL
    I didn’t know the Anglican Church had parted ways with Christianity.

    Comment by Chase — November 30, 2007 @ 5:04 pm - November 30, 2007

  80. So basically, Vince, you agree with Rep. Hunter that if we were a nation of Jews, we could have a military that would include gays. But since we are predominantly Christian, we can’t?

    What then are the British? LOL
    I didn’t know the Anglican Church had parted ways with Christianity.

    Comment by Chase — November 30, 2007 @ 5:05 pm - November 30, 2007

  81. Chase , you’re so moronically boring, i’m not wasting my time.

    LOL

    Comment by Vince P — November 30, 2007 @ 6:19 pm - November 30, 2007

  82. This is a tempest in a teapot. Embarrasing for CNN, to be sure, but it was a good question

    I’m more concerned by the fact that no GOP candidate can allow those who put their lives on the line to defend ‘freedom’ to have the basic freedom of honesty.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — November 30, 2007 @ 7:23 pm - November 30, 2007

  83. And BTW, I think Hunter’s comments on this issue were insulting to our military. He seemed to imply that they are so afraid of being near openly Gay people that they would run away from the military like little sissies. Even though inappropriate conduct in the barracks, on duty, etc. would still be grounds for disipline.

    Romney appears to be going with the ‘I’m going to go 100% anti-Gay’ route. I’m glad LCR ran the ad against him. I hope they do it again. He looked like a flip-flopping, pandering fool that didn’t have a basic grasp of the issue in question.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — November 30, 2007 @ 7:28 pm - November 30, 2007

  84. Hound’, in 76 — so true. Only Northie doesn’t seem to know it.

    Tom, in 83 — Romney, yes. Total pandering fool. He’s night and day different from anything we ever knew of him before. Yet, he does provide a wonderful complement to the clown car that is the GOP field for ’08. No wonder the GPs and other GOP partisans have been going nuts since their debate — they realize they’re stuck with this bunch the rest of the way.

    Comment by KYKid — November 30, 2007 @ 7:42 pm - November 30, 2007

  85. Mrs. White: Are you a cop?
    Mr. Green: No, I’m a plant.
    Miss Scarlet: A plant? I thought men like you were usually called a fruit.
    Mr. Green: Very funny.

    Comment by Vince P — November 30, 2007 @ 9:24 pm - November 30, 2007

  86. Clue to you, little guy: notice that I never make a claim of x% gay?

    Yes, you do. You claim that it isn’t the numbers I cited, that it is in the double digits, and that you have scientific proof of it.

    Then you fail to provide it.

    In your world of statistics, KY, people can present a perfectly logical, referenceable, and valid figure, and you can arbitrarily dismiss it as wrong without being able to present a single fact, proof, or piece of evidence of it.

    That’s neither statistically or scientifically correct. Furthermore, your ignorance of statistics and inability to correctly read or interpret them has been demonstrated quite nicely elsewhere.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2007 @ 11:25 pm - November 30, 2007

  87. Should we be entitled to equality once we pass a certain percentage of the population and otherwise not? What kind of morality would that be?

    Serving in the military is not a right.

    Furthermore, since it isn’t a right, the military’s need to admit everyone is driven by degree of necessity for their services. In the case of Israel, their need for every available body outweighs everything else; furthermore, unlike liberal American gays, Israeli gays have an imperative to put their country’s needs ahead of their sexual needs, i.e. Palestinian terrorists a stone’s throw away who WILL kill them if they let down their guard or allow themselves to be distracted.

    In short, the US armed forces don’t need gays, and there are far too many issues around it to bother.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2007 @ 11:35 pm - November 30, 2007

  88. And BTW, I think Hunter’s comments on this issue were insulting to our military. He seemed to imply that they are so afraid of being near openly Gay people that they would run away from the military like little sissies.

    Hardly.

    What Hunter was pointing out is that our military certainly deserves the right to not be forced to live with those who find them sexually gratifying and give them unwanted sexual attention. We don’t force women to live in the men’s barracks with people who find them sexually gratifying and give them unwanted sexual attention; furthermore, it is considered unfair, wrong, and harassment to place them in situations where they are forced to undress in front of those who might find them sexually attractive. Why, then, should straight men be forced to do it?

    I’m more concerned by the fact that no GOP candidate can allow those who put their lives on the line to defend ‘freedom’ to have the basic freedom of honesty.

    If they want that, they don’t have to serve. No one is forced to serve in the armed forces and no one is guaranteed the right to serve in the armed forces under their own conditions.

    What you are arguing, Tom, is that gays should be exempt from following the rules because they’re gay. Since you argue that gays should be able to express themselves however they want and that anything less isn’t “honest”, then having sex in the showers would be permissible as “free expression of sexuality”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2007 @ 11:44 pm - November 30, 2007

  89. KY says: “Clue to you, little guy: notice that I never make a claim of x% gay?:

    Little guy Northie replies in 86: “Yes, you do. You claim that it isn’t the numbers I cited, that it is in the double digits, and that you have scientific proof of it. Then you fail to provide it.”

    KY: Do you have no honesty at all? “Double digits”? Linky please, or this becomes more proof of your complete dishonesty.

    North-from-his-tiny-cube-over-there: “Furthermore, your ignorance of statistics and inability to correctly read or interpret them has been demonstrated quite nicely elsewhere.” Then, Northie links to his own dishonest comments in a different thread. That’s how he plays this game.

    Comment by KYKid — December 1, 2007 @ 7:38 am - December 1, 2007

  90. NDT,

    You and I will have to disagree. I think our front line soldiers know that they are serving with Gay men and women and can handle it. I still think that Hunter is implying that our troops are sissies that are scared of Gay people.

    NDT, do you support a repeal of DADT now?

    Comment by Tom in Houston — December 1, 2007 @ 10:51 am - December 1, 2007

  91. the clown car that is the GOP field for ‘08

    As opposed to a Sorocrat slate composed of…

    1. A power-crazed senator who refuses to release the records from her White House years, plants questions in her Q&A’s, has hundreds of thousands in donations from busboys and waiters with no valid addresses, employs an impeached bribe-taker and influence peddler as her campaign co-chair and hired as a security advisor a guy who stole classified documents by stuffing them in his underwear

    2. An affirmative-action hire who, as a senator who has not finished his first term, would not be taken seriously as a candidate except for the color of his skin and who further advocates sex ed for kindergartens, driver’s licenses for illegals, and military invasions of large, nuclear-armed countries one bullet away from Islamic revolution.

    3. An ambulance-chasing metrosexual who was turned out of office after a single term, who rails against “the rich” while living in the largest home East of the Mississippi and who channels dead babies.

    4. Two doddering socialist senators, long past their sell-by dates.

    5. A clueless southwestern governor.

    6. A communist dwarf who communicates with the space people.

    To each his own clown car…

    Comment by V the K — December 1, 2007 @ 2:16 pm - December 1, 2007

  92. By the way..CNN is biased towards the left? I didn’t get that from watching Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs’ shows on CNN. In prime time no less.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — December 1, 2007 @ 2:37 pm - December 1, 2007

  93. They meant CNN the news division.. not CNN the personality opinion shows.

    Comment by Vince P — December 1, 2007 @ 2:57 pm - December 1, 2007

  94. KY: Do you have no honesty at all? “Double digits”? Linky please, or this becomes more proof of your complete dishonesty.

    You claimed that it was antigay hate and completely wrong to say that the gay population was only in the single digit percent in the population.

    Therefore, since you claim it’s not in the single digits and that to say so is antigay hate, you’re saying it’s in the double digits.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 1, 2007 @ 3:57 pm - December 1, 2007

  95. NDT, while were on the subject. Do you support repealing DADT right now?

    Comment by Tom in Houston — December 1, 2007 @ 4:42 pm - December 1, 2007

  96. No, I don’t, Tom.

    For two simple reasons; the military doesn’t want it and there’s no compelling need to do it.

    I figure they do enough for us that they deserve to be able to make their own decisions without being namecalled by gay liberals who don’t want to acknowledge antimilitary bigotry and public sex all being carried out in the name of homosexuality.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 1, 2007 @ 10:34 pm - December 1, 2007

  97. Oh, and Tom; gays who aren’t pushing propaganda think the military and the sacrifices of gay veterans are a waste.

    While I was certainly moved by the sacrifice that Alva and others have made in the armed forces, I couldn’t help but shake my head in utter bewilderment at this entire memorial. Twelve thousand people had dedicated a good portion of their lives to a homophobic institution that not only asked them to risk life and limb, but also asked them to perpetuate cycles of violence in an already violent world.

    When I looked at all those stars-and-stripes planted in the ground, I wondered, “What if all these people had been working for world peace instead? What if every one of these unfairly discharged queer persons was planting gardens, feeding the homeless and saving vanishing habitats?”

    And then they spit on those veterans’ service:

    I really resonate with this sentiment. I don’t want anyone braving the madness of war to “fight for my freedom,” when that fight surrounds the colossal lie that is the Iraq war. We all know there wasn’t any reason to start this insanity other than the empire-clutching schemes of a tyrant and his equally despotic cohorts, so don’t feed me the line that you’re trying to protect me.

    And the denouement of gays believe Eric Alva and other gay veterans should have done:

    This is where queer people really needed to be — putting their efforts into changing the culture of tomorrow, not the destruction of current cultures at the hands of patriarchal, autocratic monsters.

    You hear that? Gays say that serving in the armed forces and fighting terrorists is not good or heroic; instead, it’s “the destruction of current cultures at the hands of patriarchal, autocratic monsters”.

    Now you would think that SLDN and its leftist puppets like Kerr would have something to say about someone who was saying that gay veterans were liars who weren’t protecting freedom, who were wasting their time, and who were nothing but brutal “monsters” destroying helpless peoples’ entire cultures.

    That is, if you didn’t know that SLDN and other such “gay veteran” organizations are nothing but smokescreens for gay antimilitary bigotry, as so beautifully expressed herein.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 2, 2007 @ 2:24 am - December 2, 2007

  98. NDT, thank you for your response to my question.

    you said ‘You hear that? Gays say that serving in the armed forces and fighting terrorists is not good or heroic; instead, it’s “the destruction of current cultures at the hands of patriarchal, autocratic monsters”.’

    Where do you go out on the weekends to get opinions like that? To some PETA meeting in Berkeley? I certainly don’t hear that from Gay people I know. Certainly not here in South Texas. And I know some very liberal people. Me thinks you may be cherry picking. And projecting really heavily.

    The people supporting SLDN and their campaign of honesty are patriotic Americans, many of whom have served and continue to serve in our Armed Forces.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — December 2, 2007 @ 1:02 pm - December 2, 2007

  99. Whoever this Manzullo dude is, he doesn’t appear to be connected to anyone at SLDN and is probably not a part of any mainstream Gay area of thought.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — December 2, 2007 @ 1:14 pm - December 2, 2007

  100. I repeat myself, Tom; you would think that SLDN and its leftist puppets like Kerr would have something to say about someone who was saying that gay veterans were liars who weren’t protecting freedom, who were wasting their time, and who were nothing but brutal “monsters” destroying helpless peoples’ entire cultures.

    That is, if you didn’t know that SLDN and other such “gay veteran” organizations are nothing but smokescreens for gay antimilitary bigotry, as so beautifully expressed herein.

    Real veterans’ organizations do not tolerate this sort of defamation of veterans. The fact that SLDN does demonstrates that they are not one.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 3, 2007 @ 1:01 pm - December 3, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.