Back to General

CNN Allows Clinton Supporter to Question Repubs During Debate

Historical capture recovered from the Wayback Machine · captured 2007-12-04 · 9 of 11 pages survived · 181 posts
This thread had 11 pages; 2 pages were never captured by the Wayback Machine — some replies are missing.
CNN Allows Clinton Backer to Question GOP Candidates in YouTube Debate

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313681,00.html


A CNN host acknowledged the participation of a retired Army colonel linked to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in a televised Republican debate Wednesday.

Keith Kerr of Santa Rosa, Calif., who revealed himself as gay, challenged the eight candidates via video message and on stage at the CNN/YouTube debate in Florida on the right of gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military.

The broadcast, however, failed to mention that Kerr, who served as a brigadier general in the reserves, is a member of a gay and lesbian steering committee for Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Read the Clinton campaign release naming Kerr to the steering committee. Clinton spokesman Phil Singer has denied that the campaign had any knowledge ahead of time that Kerr was going to participate in the debate, and Kerr said he did not inform the campaign of his plans.

It turns out Kerr wasn't the only Democratic supporter asking questions. One woman who identified herself as Journey from Texas, and who has a Web page in which she goes by the name Paperserenade asked the candidates about whether they would prosecute women and doctors if abortion were made illegal and the practice continued. After the debate, she posted a Web video wearing a John Edwards '08 T-shirt. In the posting, she said she was disappointed by the responses she got, particularly from Fred Thompson, though it's the answer she expected.
Related

Another questioner, Leeann Anderson, asked about the danger of lead toys from China. Anderson, an activist on the issue, is reportedly an assistant to Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers of America. The union endorsed Edwards earlier this month, and Anderson's question is posted on the steelworkers' YouTube page next to a picture of Edwards.

As for Kerr, he has been an activist against the military's don't-ask-don't-tell policy for years. He appeared on CNN twice in 2003 discussing his opposition to the policy that says service men and women will be dismissed from service for revealing their gay orientation. But as if reading from that policy Wednesday, Kerr told FOX News that CNN "never asked" him if he is a Clinton supporter so he "never told."

Kerr submitted the question for Republican candidates at the video debate "a couple months ago," and said last Saturday CNN called him and said they'd like him to come to the debate. He said the cable news network paid for his flight, his hotel and his transportation to and from the event.

According to the Clinton campaign, members of Clinton's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Steering Committee have endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in their individual capacity and work with the campaign on several areas including political outreach, communications, policy advice and counsel and fundraising.

The retired officer said his activities with the Clinton campaign are minimal. He receives e-mails from the campaign and has been invited to a fundraiser in San Francisco. He said he offered to pay "some token amount like 100 bucks" to attend the fundraiser, but as of yet has given no contribution.

"I have not done any work. Several friends asked me if I would allow my name to be listed and I agreed. She's been such a strong advocate for gay rights," he told CNN on Thursday. He added that he had been a Log Cabin Republican for a long time and recently changed from Republican to independent in California. He said he had supported the GOP but "these guys are just partisanly homophobic."

Following the debate, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper said in a broadcast statement that Kerr's political ties to Clinton were unknown to the network.

"We don't know if he is still on it," said Cooper. "We are trying to find out that information. Certainly, had we had that information we would have acknowledged that in using his question, if we had used it all."

Watch Anderson Cooper's comments regarding the Hillary supporter.

During the debate, Kerr said he wanted to know why the GOP candidates think that "American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians."

Candidates Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and John McCain all answered the question. Hunter said it would be "bad for unit cohesion" for openly homosexual people to serve in the ranks. Huckabee said the the Uniform Code of Military Justice states that such "conduct could put at risk the morale." Romney said that in the midst of a war is not the time to change policy, and he would listen to recommendations from military leaders. McCain said he respects the general's service to the nation but believes the leaders in the field when they say the present policy is working.
___________________

CNN would allow such a thing? Two words: Imagine that.

It's ok!

Finally CNN sees the purpose of Fair and Balanced!

There are no questions a liberal could ask a Republican that he or she wouldn't answer.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711270007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

CNN just keeps shooting themselves in the foot with tactics like this. Its one thing to tell people this guy is affiliated or represents a part and entirely another to keep it hidden.
Originally posted by: [-NM-] Pudd¿nheäd
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711270007


I just briefly read that, I'm not entirely sure what it means.

My opinion is that no questions should ever be off the table!
The funny thing is you whine about CNN and then cite a Fox News article. One is no better than the other.

They are what they are, one has a liberal bias and the other a conservative bias.

They asked legtimate questions, and I'm sure they got legitimate answers.
I don't care what affilation anyone has, what we want to know is their stand.
|HiFi|TotalCarnage
TeamWarfare Commissioner
RadioHiFi
Two words: So what?

I would think a politician would absolutely JUMP at the chance to field a question from another party.
Originally posted by: TotalCarnage
I don't care what affilation anyone has, what we want to know is their stand.


Agreed 100%
The only problem I see is that these Reps were expecting certain questions and got bambozzled. It seems like they all answered despite being caught off guard.

It's a little lame that they would set up a debate that limited questions, unless the debate was to focus on certain topics due to time constraints.

At some point you have to decide what you want to prepare for in a debate. You should have every topic covered personally, but time doesn't allow for that in all instances.
Originally posted by: TotalCarnage
I don't care what affilation anyone has, what we want to know is their stand.


Sure, when they are pertinent issues. Since when is being gay an issue? It isnt relevant in this election in case you havent noticed.

That said, can you honestly sit there and think if the opposite had been done, the media wouldnt be all over this?

There is a reason why conservatives call CNN the Clinton News Network. They were apologists for her husband and now with Wolf Blitzer not even daring to ask her about her stance on illegal drivers licenses to this shit on this debate only reinforces it more. Perhaps you missed that they stacked the last dummycrat debate with alot of Clinton supporters where even Obama was boo'd and was mocked by Blitzer for a simple "yes or no" answer. Yeah great job Wolf, you fucking asshole.

The only person buying into that is you.
It seems to me you are making Mt Everest out of nothing. If Republicans put someone in the crowd to ask Democrat candidates tough questions instead of the nerf tosses their own parties continually lob them, I would be thankful.
Originally posted by: DieselFuel!
It seems to me you are making Mt Everest out of nothing. If Republicans put someone in the crowd to ask Democrat candidates tough questions instead of the nerf tosses their own parties continually lob them, I would be thankful.


Ok, what if you knew I wasnt going to vote for you but went ahead and set you up for failure? Is that acceptable?

I see absolutely nothing wrong with fielding questions, but I find it very fucked up to set people up for failure by manipulating the audience with a diametrically agenda that has no intention of voting for them in the first place.

I dont believe in softball questions, but since time is money, the hard questions should be from the people who are actually considering voting for them -not political hacks from other side. That could even be considered sabotage the debate itself.

See the difference?
Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
Originally posted by: TotalCarnage
I don't care what affilation anyone has, what we want to know is their stand.


Sure, when they are pertinent issues. Since when is being gay an issue? It isnt relevant in this election in case you havent noticed.



the dems were asked two questions in the CNN/You Tube debate on gay issues.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

I don't see the difference. They are legitimate issues to be raised and people decide based on how the candidates respond to the questino not if the person asking the question felt they got a good answer.
Originally posted by: Cocytus
The only problem I see is that these Reps were expecting certain questions and got bambozzled. It seems like they all answered despite being caught off guard.

It's a little lame that they would set up a debate that limited questions, unless the debate was to focus on certain topics due to time constraints.

At some point you have to decide what you want to prepare for in a debate. You should have every topic covered personally, but time doesn't allow for that in all instances.


the questions were lame for one. Is being gay in the military a big and critical issue? Of course not, its a cheap move by both CNN and left.
Originally posted by: Cocytus
The only problem I see is that these Reps were expecting certain questions and got bambozzled. It seems like they all answered despite being caught off guard.

It's a little lame that they would set up a debate that limited questions, unless the debate was to focus on certain topics due to time constraints.

At some point you have to decide what you want to prepare for in a debate. You should have every topic covered personally, but time doesn't allow for that in all instances.


I don't want my politicians ready for anything...I want them to answer my questions for real. Not with some prepared statement...what do they really think.
|HiFi|TotalCarnage
TeamWarfare Commissioner
RadioHiFi
Originally posted by: TotalCarnage
Originally posted by: Cocytus
The only problem I see is that these Reps were expecting certain questions and got bambozzled. It seems like they all answered despite being caught off guard.

It's a little lame that they would set up a debate that limited questions, unless the debate was to focus on certain topics due to time constraints.

At some point you have to decide what you want to prepare for in a debate. You should have every topic covered personally, but time doesn't allow for that in all instances.


I don't want my politicians ready for anything...I want them to answer my questions for real. Not with some prepared statement...what do they really think.


One would hope that they are always telling us what the truly believe prepared or unprepared!

Keyword: Hope
Originally posted by: Gen.ArielSharon
I don't see the difference. They are legitimate issues to be raised and people decide based on how the candidates respond to the questino not if the person asking the question felt they got a good answer.


Agreed 100%. I would prefer they get questions they aren;t prepared for. Any idiot can read from prepared answers.
Originally posted by: Gen.ArielSharon
I don't see the difference. They are legitimate issues to be raised and people decide based on how the candidates respond to the questino not if the person asking the question felt they got a good answer.


Except it seems like outlets like CNN have an agenda. So if the question was asked in good faith thats one thing. CNN is being misleading and dishonest from the start.
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: Cocytus
The only problem I see is that these Reps were expecting certain questions and got bambozzled. It seems like they all answered despite being caught off guard.

It's a little lame that they would set up a debate that limited questions, unless the debate was to focus on certain topics due to time constraints.

At some point you have to decide what you want to prepare for in a debate. You should have every topic covered personally, but time doesn't allow for that in all instances.


the questions were lame for one. Is being gay in the military a big and critical issue? Of course not, its a cheap move by both CNN and left.


they asked gay-related issues to the democratic candidates. i dont see a bias there.

how is gay not an issue. there was a proposal to amend our frickin constitution for crying out loud. now any gay-related question is not fair game?

you are grasping at straws.
Post edited by [-NM-] Pudd¿nheäd at 11/29/2007 2:46:28 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Originally posted by: [-NM-] Pudd¿nheäd
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: Cocytus
The only problem I see is that these Reps were expecting certain questions and got bambozzled. It seems like they all answered despite being caught off guard.

It's a little lame that they would set up a debate that limited questions, unless the debate was to focus on certain topics due to time constraints.

At some point you have to decide what you want to prepare for in a debate. You should have every topic covered personally, but time doesn't allow for that in all instances.


the questions were lame for one. Is being gay in the military a big and critical issue? Of course not, its a cheap move by both CNN and left.


they asked gay-related issues to the democratic candidates. i dont see a bias there.


Im pretty sure we have more to worry about in this world then letting gays be open in the military.
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: [-NM-] Pudd¿nheäd
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: Cocytus
The only problem I see is that these Reps were expecting certain questions and got bambozzled. It seems like they all answered despite being caught off guard.

It's a little lame that they would set up a debate that limited questions, unless the debate was to focus on certain topics due to time constraints.

At some point you have to decide what you want to prepare for in a debate. You should have every topic covered personally, but time doesn't allow for that in all instances.


the questions were lame for one. Is being gay in the military a big and critical issue? Of course not, its a cheap move by both CNN and left.


they asked gay-related issues to the democratic candidates. i dont see a bias there.


Im pretty sure we have more to worry about in this world then letting gays be open in the military.


who said we didnt have more to worry about. you are just creating imaginary scenarios in your head to make your point seem valid.

how is a question or two on this issue a problem. especially considering recently your buddies tried to amend our frickin constitution regarding gays.

if they tried to make such questions the focus of a lot more of the debate, i can see a concern. but again, you are living in la-la land.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Originally posted by: [-NM-] Pudd¿nheäd
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: [-NM-] Pudd¿nheäd
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: Cocytus
The only problem I see is that these Reps were expecting certain questions and got bambozzled. It seems like they all answered despite being caught off guard.

It's a little lame that they would set up a debate that limited questions, unless the debate was to focus on certain topics due to time constraints.

At some point you have to decide what you want to prepare for in a debate. You should have every topic covered personally, but time doesn't allow for that in all instances.


the questions were lame for one. Is being gay in the military a big and critical issue? Of course not, its a cheap move by both CNN and left.


they asked gay-related issues to the democratic candidates. i dont see a bias there.


Im pretty sure we have more to worry about in this world then letting gays be open in the military.


who said we didnt have more to worry about. you are just creating imaginary scenarios in your head to make your point seem valid.

how is a question or two on this issue a problem. especially considering recently your buddies tried to amend our frickin constitution regarding gays.

if they tried to make such questions the focus of a lot more of the debate, i can see a concern. but again, you are living in la-la land.



No my point IS VALID. CNN is trying to use an issue that is so black and white to rile up the liberal CNN viewers on hating gays. Maybe you don't see it because you don't want to see it. But most of us do. CNN started the entire thing off being dishonest. Great way to start things*sarcasm*

And la la land?
Why does there need to be some acknowledgement about ones preference of sexual partners to be openly admitted in a group that conforms to a completely different standard?

I don't see what being gay or straight has to do with being in the military.

Originally posted by: Cocytus
Why does there need to be some acknowledgement about ones preference of sexual partners to be openly admitted in a group that conforms to a completely different standard?

I don't see what being gay or straight has to do with being in the military.



Because gays want to have special treatment like all these special interest groups.
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: Cocytus
Why does there need to be some acknowledgement about ones preference of sexual partners to be openly admitted in a group that conforms to a completely different standard?

I don't see what being gay or straight has to do with being in the military.



Because gays want to have special treatment like all these special interest groups.


Or maybe they want to be free to openly talk about their lives and not be forced to hide who they really are and live a life as a second class citizen.
they asked questions on gay issues to the dems. so please tell me, what issues are only allowed to be asked to dems but not repubs, and vice versa?

you are grasping at failed logic.

first you try to imply that these questions are taking over a debate when there are other more important issues. meanwhile your buddies in the republican party tried to amend our constitution on this issue, but that is of no concern. and in the meantime, these questions hardly took over the debate from what i have read.

secondly, it is a valid issue in the debate. i dont see how it isnt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Originally posted by: Cocytus


I don't see what being gay or straight has to do with being in the military.



Agreed. I would think they would take anyone who will fight. The fact is, though, that the current system facilitates good soldiers being discharged for no other reason than it was found out they are gay.

Kind of goes against what we stand for, no?
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Because gays want to have special treatment like all these special interest groups.


Clearly wanting to be allowed to be themselves is asking for special treatment.
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: Cocytus
Why does there need to be some acknowledgement about ones preference of sexual partners to be openly admitted in a group that conforms to a completely different standard?

I don't see what being gay or straight has to do with being in the military.



Because gays want to have special treatment like all these special interest groups.


Like seperate barracks?

Seriously, you don't get special treatment in the military.

As SS says, "I'll treat you all the same, like shit"
I don't care who is asking questions. I just want answers.
Post edited by Buzzed at 11/29/2007 3:01:03 PM
Originally posted by: ^TweEk^
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: Cocytus
Why does there need to be some acknowledgement about ones preference of sexual partners to be openly admitted in a group that conforms to a completely different standard?

I don't see what being gay or straight has to do with being in the military.



Because gays want to have special treatment like all these special interest groups.


Or maybe they want to be free to openly talk about their lives and not be forced to hide who they really are and live a life as a second class citizen.


So not talking about your sexual preferences makes you a second class citizen? Im pretty sure I would fire anyone that worked for me that talked about banging pussy in the open on the job.
This is a non-issue.
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: ^TweEk^
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: Cocytus
Why does there need to be some acknowledgement about ones preference of sexual partners to be openly admitted in a group that conforms to a completely different standard?

I don't see what being gay or straight has to do with being in the military.



Because gays want to have special treatment like all these special interest groups.


Or maybe they want to be free to openly talk about their lives and not be forced to hide who they really are and live a life as a second class citizen.


So not talking about your sexual preferences makes you a second class citizen? Im pretty sure I would fire anyone that worked for me that talked about banging pussy in the open on the job.


But would you fire someone who was talking about the spectacular dinner he had with his boyfriend last night?
FYI: Here is the entire word-for-word transcript of the CNN YouTube debate last night:

Part 1
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/28/debate.transcript/

Part 2
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/28/debate.transcript.part2/index.html
Post edited by Buzzed at 11/29/2007 3:15:16 PM
Originally posted by: Cocytus
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: Cocytus
Why does there need to be some acknowledgement about ones preference of sexual partners to be openly admitted in a group that conforms to a completely different standard?

I don't see what being gay or straight has to do with being in the military.


Because gays want to have special treatment like all these special interest groups.


Like seperate barracks?

Seriously, you don't get special treatment in the military.

As SS says, "I'll treat you all the same, like shit"


Theyve already weakened the strongest military in the world by letting in females. Lets weaken it somemore by letting gays in straight up.

I come from a long line of military men in my family. Someone has served in every conflict. Since WWI. They all say the same thing. No women and no gays. If you havent served you wouldnt understand. The only thing that belongs in front line in your face combat are alpha males.
Post edited by Andy_187 at 11/29/2007 3:14:32 PM
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: ^TweEk^
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: Cocytus
Why does there need to be some acknowledgement about ones preference of sexual partners to be openly admitted in a group that conforms to a completely different standard?

I don't see what being gay or straight has to do with being in the military.



Because gays want to have special treatment like all these special interest groups.


Or maybe they want to be free to openly talk about their lives and not be forced to hide who they really are and live a life as a second class citizen.


So not talking about your sexual preferences makes you a second class citizen? Im pretty sure I would fire anyone that worked for me that talked about banging pussy in the open on the job.


If it gets you fired from your job or has a good portion of the country try to get legislation passed to prevent you from having the same rights as others then yes it does. And talking about banging chicks and having someone find out your gay are two totally different things. But keep trying to justify.
Typical faux news biased reporting. CNN was not aware that the person was a clinton supporter, and the person did not identify themselves as a clinton supporter.

At worst, cnn did not vet their submissions well enough. I seriously doubt any collusion with the clinton campaign.



VOTE GREEN PARTY FOR REAL POLITICAL REPRESENTATION! http://www.gp.org

Originally posted by: Abaques
If Snake and Cimat agree on something then I think its case closed.
Originally posted by: ^TweEk^
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: ^TweEk^
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: Cocytus
Why does there need to be some acknowledgement about ones preference of sexual partners to be openly admitted in a group that conforms to a completely different standard?

I don't see what being gay or straight has to do with being in the military.



Because gays want to have special treatment like all these special interest groups.


Or maybe they want to be free to openly talk about their lives and not be forced to hide who they really are and live a life as a second class citizen.


So not talking about your sexual preferences makes you a second class citizen? Im pretty sure I would fire anyone that worked for me that talked about banging pussy in the open on the job.


If it gets you fired from your job or has a good portion of the country try to get legislation passed to prevent you from having the same rights as others then yes it does. And talking about banging chicks and having someone find out your gay are two totally different things. But keep trying to justify.


I don't need to justify. The majority of Americans don't support it. Works for me