This came to Dan and I last night from a reader who has been hostile to us since GayPatriot was born:
I am rather puzzled by the amount of outrage. I would not have minded if the youtube questioners from the democratic version were Republicans. Or even republican plants for that matter. I have heard [Gen.] Kerr speak in person, he also works with SLDN, and he seems like a decent guy.
What alternative exactly would you propose? That questions can only be asked of Republican candidates by loyal Republican questioners? We are electing the President of the United States, not the President of the GOP. So long as the questions asked were fair and were not biased in of themselves I really don’t think you have much to complain about. If you can provide examples to the contrary please do so. CNN should
have vetted better though.Besides which, as a general principle I think its better that candidates answer questions from hostile audiences. The answers they give are usually much more illuminating of a candidates views than the organized PR pablum that campaign stops are.
And now Bruce apparently wants to excommunicate Kerr from Log Cabin or the GOP or both.,. Its never much of a surprise anymore how swiftly Bruce turns on someone once they doesn’t pass his particular idealogical fatwa. Kerr republicanism doesn’t fit Bruce’s idea of ideological purity. But Bruce’s idea of a GOP Big Tent is increasingly looking about the size of a handkerchief.
Never mind that Kerr spoke only about DADT and that as a retired General he has more practical knowledge of DADT than Bruce ever will. Next thing you know Bruce will be trying to send people to jail for naming their
teddy bears Hillary. I should send him a Hillary Care Bear. That ought to give him some doozy nightmares.
My response:
You are so tunnel-visioned and clueless…
I could care less if Democrats questioned Republicans and vice versa. It is probably a good thing.
But in the DEMOCRAT YouTube debate… all of the questioners reinforced the Democrat/liberal point of view…. they were affirmations.
In the GOP YouTube debate… they were planted Democratic party operatives, sympathizers and volunteers and were not identified as such…. and were challenging the candidates, not affirming their positions as in the Democrat debate.
[Critic’s Name Withheld] — I know you can’t possibly understand this… but it is a question of simple fairness and fair play.
YOU think the news operations of NYT CNN MSNBC NBC ABC etc, etc are NOT tainted in their reporting with a liberal perspective. The CNN/YouTube debate put the truth to that lie in your head. But you are too myopic to see it.
Do you really think the Stonewall Democrats would allow a person on the steering committee of Mitt Romney to stay affiliated with their DEMOCRAT political organization?
If you do, you are not only clueless, myopic, partisan and ignorant…. you are insane and a danger to yourself.
Dan is welcome to add his response…. I didn’t feel it was appropriate for me to post it.
One editorial side note on my part…. is Kerr’s conduct of withholding information, being a plant, and supporting Clinton & Kerry while being a member of Log Cabin (Republicans) consistent with the ethics & values he learned in the US military? Or did coming out as a gay man somehow trash all of that teaching about respect, honor and dignity?
Finally, GP Community Terms of Conduct are null and void when emails are sent to me directly…. in this particular case by an individual I’ve repeatedly asked to stop emailing me. Just so ya know.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
OK, Bruce: is there any way the issue of DADT could be brought up at the debate without you considering it as “challenging the candidates?” If so, I’d like to hear it.
I agree with you that CNN screwed up on this one. By allowing Democrats to ask questions they made the story about the questioners and not about the answers to the questions. It’s hard enough to have a substantive debate about actual issues without all this BS. I do think it’s being made into a bigger deal than it was but I agree that it ought not to have happened. Surely there are registered Republicans who served in the armed forces who could ask the DADT question. Some of them probably submitted their question and weren’t chosen. Instead we have another round of personality politics instead of issues.
Interesting that DADT wasn’t brought up at the Democrat “debate,” considering that it was a Democrat policy, signed by a Democrat President.
Isn’t that odd, rightwingprof? You’d think the Democrats would want to show off their support for its repeal.
Maybe it doesn’t jibe well with their pandering to homophobes.
#3:
Actually, it was brought up at at least one Dem debate if not the You Tube one. Furthermore, same-sex marriage was brought up at the Dem You Tube debate but oddly missing from the Republick You Tube debate.
#2: I’ll bet there were Reublicks asking questions at the Dem debate – we’re just not so whiny about such things. I guess the Republicks got too used to the Bushies preventing anyone but true believers from attending Bush events.
Democrats don’t whine about debate questions? Someone should inform Hillary of that..
(I know, Ian just has to toe the party line that Democrats are perfect.)
Of course, Democrats also (childishly? cowardishly?) refuse to debate on FoxNews, which is also a form of whining.
Hmm, G.. r.. y…… ? 🙂
And Bruce, good answer. The simple reality is this: The Democratic operatives misrepresented themselves, and CNN allowed them to. That was plain sleazy. Yes, the questions were fine. Yes, it’s always good to see politicians asked tough questions. Now, to even things out, can CNN please have Republicans with some tough, “strongly premised” or biased questions in the next Democrats’ debate?
I believe DADT has been brought up in a Democratic debate this year with all the candidates vowing to get rid of it. There’s not much to debate when all the candidates agree on an issue and no need to revisit it.
Bruce, I gather that you’ve kind of, sort of “had it” with this commenter. Maybe it’s that he/she’s provoked you repeatedly in the past or clearly demonstrated a healthy unwillingness to comprehend your position without belittling, reducing to absurdities, or spinning your posting. Hey, I know what that’s like –not from you or the other blog authors of course. I can empathize with you on all that. It is frustrating. Sometimes it feels like they simply want to call names and pick apart your corollary or tertiary points and miss the big picture.
I also think that the time, energy and effort you and the others put into this blog is worthy of our respect and the collective appreciation of even those who don’t agree with your “ideological fatwa” (I think he/she meant philosophies not fatwa) –those energies are expended in a solidly honest way to engage in debate on great issues and (maybe a little) try to redress the wrongs you see evident in the press, politics, and our community and culture.
Probably, the better choice for you in this case, though, would have been to ignore his/her email and simply delete it. Nothing in the email is any different than is routinely commented upon in the threads… it’s the same kind of non-debate cliché dragging we’ve read just in the prior few threads.
Sometimes it makes sense for someone with your kind of public responsibilities to manage the frustration and ignore the guy/gal. I hope he/she doesn’t continue to irritate you because it should be clear that it’s a waste of their time… but that’s a tough lesson to learn.
Maybe a better course is to NOT publish those redacted and non-identifying comments because I would guess that person feels like they’ve now had the “public” or community voice they think you’ve denied him/her in the past. So of like negotiating with terrorists… it never works out for the benefit of situation or for the long term.
One thing that IS good though is you’ve allowed us to better understand the crap you put up to keep the blog community here vibrant. I’m not sure other readers here appreciate that perspective.
JMHO.
that should read “crap you put up with…”
MM-
Just for your future reference…. calling anyone involved with blogging a “terrorist” is simply not allowed by the Leftist Blogosphere.
🙂
And on topic, I’d like to note the latest spin about this CNN “Dan Rather” moment is that the comparison between WH managed invitations only townhall meetings and a presidential contender debate is false.
The WH managed events are intended to bring forth supportive PR opportunities for press coverage in advancing the President’s agenda. They aren’t public townhall Q&A sessions to hold the Prez accountable.
W didn’t start these, bwt. RR and MikeDeaver did… brilliantly, too. And SlickWilly raised them to a snake-oil salesman huckster at the carne level of self-promotion.
What I’ve liked about W’s few townhall events is that it isn’t about him… it’s about moving his Administration’s agenda forward. And no one in the press is misses that they are staged events, carefully orchestrated and participants are vetted long before entering the venue.
The comparsion your emailer and others here raised about excusing CNN’s Dan Rather Moment because the same thing happens at WH managed press events is false.
The entire premise of the debate was that it was to address the questions and concerns of undecided republican and republican leaning independent voters. By planting their shills, and by CNN choosing the questins that they felt best mocked Republicans they insured the stated goal of the format was sabotaged. What the numerous Democrat operative plants and the hacks at CNN did was akin to vote fraud.
…In other words, standard Democrat operating procedure
ILC, you’re welcome. And it’s nice to see you not nitpick comments to death and spin them out of context like a whirling Dirvish on crystal meth. Does this mean you’ll stop channeling DeeDeeMyers’ spirit now? Have a good weekend!
Whoops. You had me, then you lost me. Back to the ugly MM trademark personal attacks.
We are electing the President of the United States, not the President of the GOP.
Actually, that’s exactly what we’re doing here.
This guy needs to familiarize himself with how a Primary works.
The two letters remind me of Dan Ackroid’s mantra:
“Jane you ignorant slut!”
Anyway Bruce is correct, we need a straight . . . I mean gayly forward jacket and heavy sedatives. Electroshock theory may be in order!