Retired gay general at GOP debate: Clinton backer: The Swamp
The Swamp
Posted November 29, 2007 8:55 AM
The Swamp

(AP Photo/CNN)

by Mark Silva

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. -- It turns out that the retired brigadier general who is "an openly gay man'' and who stood here last night to press the Republican candidates for president about their policies toward gays and lesbians in the military - and who declared that he wasn't satisfied with the answers -- also has served the campaign of Democrat Hillary Clinton.

" Following the debate, CNN learned that retired Brigadier Gen. Keith Kerr served on Clinton's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender steering committee,'' the sponsors of the debate here said in a statement issued today. David Bohman, senior vice president and executive producer of the debate, added: "We regret this incident. CNN would not have used the general's question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate."

The sponsors had verified Kerr's military service and found that he had not contributed money to any of the presidential candidates. And Kerr, who said he has done no work for the Clinton campaign, said he is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and was representing no one other than himself. Kerr said in an interview here this morning that he had allowed his name to be used on Clinton committees because she "is such a strong advocate'' for gay rights.

Yet the old general's question was germane to this presidential debate, and one of the candidates had some trouble with it.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, said he had opposed former President Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy toward gays serving in the military, but some 15 years later, he said, it appears to him that the policy is working. Yet he could not answer a question about his once-stated hope that homosexuals might openly serve some day.

Romney and Sen. John McCain agreed on one thing, however: The current military policy of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' -- a product of the Clinton administration -- appears to be working.

"My name's Keith Kerr, from Santa Rosa, California. I'm a retired brigadier general with 43 years of service,'' Kerr told the candidates in the video that he submitted to the YouTube debate. "I'm a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Course, the Commanding General Staff Course and the Army War College. And I'm an openly gay man.

"I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.''

Rep. Duncan Hunter of California said: "General, thanks for your service, but I believe in what Colin Powell said when he said that having openly homosexual people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion.

"The reason for that, even though people point to the Israelis and point to the Brits and point to other people as having homosexuals serve, is that most Americans, most kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives,'' Hunter said.

"They have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values. To force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual goes against what they believe to be their principles, and it is their principles, is I think a disservice to them. I agree with Colin Powell that it would be bad for unit cohesion.''

Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas: "The Uniform Code of Military Justice is probably the best rule, and it has to do with conduct. People have a right to have whatever feelings, whatever attitudes they wish, but when their conduct could put at risk the morale, or put at risk even the cohesion that Duncan Hunter spoke of, I think that's what is at issue. And
that's why our policy is what it is.

Romney was reminded by moderator Anderson Cooper that, in 1994, he had said he looked forward to the forward to the day when gays and lesbians could serve -- "and I quote, 'Openly and honestly in our nation's military." Do you stand by that?''

"This isn't that time,'' Romney said. "This is not that time. We're in the middle of a war. The people who have...

"Do you look forward to that time, though, one day?'' Cooper interjected.

"I'm going to listen to the people who run the military to see what the circumstances are like. And my view is that, at this stage, this is not the time for us to make that kind of...

"Is that a change in your position?'' Cooper asked.

"Yes, I didn't think it would work,'' Romney said. "I didn't think don't ask, don't tel would work. That was my -- I didn't think that would work. I thought that was a policy, when I heard about it, I laughed. I said that doesn't make any sense to me.... And you know what? It's been there now for, what, 15 years? It seems to have worked.''

"So, just so I'm clear, at this point, do you still look forward to a day when gays can serve openly in the military or no longer?'' Cooper asked.

"I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops and I listen to what they have to say,'' said Romney, drawing some boos from the audience here in St. Petersburg at this point.

At this point, Cooper introduced Kerr, who was in the hall.

" With all due respect, I did not get an answer from the candidates,'' Kerr said.

"American men and women in the military are professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians,'' he said. "For 42 years, I wore the army uniform on active duty, in the Reserve, and also for the state of California. I revealed I was a gay man after I retired.

"Today, "don't ask, don't tell" is destructive to our military policy,'' he said. "Every day, the Department of Defense discharges two people, not for misconduct, not for the unit cohesion... that Congressman Hunter is talking about, but simply because they happen to be gay.''

Sen. John McCain, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, was asked about the issue.

"General, I thank you for your service to our nation,'' McCain said. "I respect it. All the time, I talk to our military leaders, beginning with our joint chiefs of staff and the leaders in the field, such as General Petraeus and General Odierno and others who are designated leaders with the responsibility of the safety of the men and women under their command and their security and protect them as best they can.

"Almost unanimously, they tell me that this present policy is working, that we have the best military in history, that we have the bravest, most professional, best prepared, and that this policy ought to be continued because it's working.'

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo


Mr. Silva isn't up to speed on this story. Keith Kerr was also a member of a Vets for Kerry group. HE'S BEEN INTERVIEWED BY CNN BEFORE! And CNN flew Kerr, special, to the debate.

Yeah, CNN didn't know his connections... Connections a 2 minute google search would reveal.

Several other CNN questioners have outed as Dem activists. The blogosphere is having fun outing these supposedly non-partisan questioners as Dem activists. See
for some examples.

Why do Republicans even bother with the Clinton News Network and their phony debates?


So does that mean the topic brought up by the General were wrong? He is an openly gay ex-military man asking all the candidates about something he knows a little about.

He also says he is a member of the Log Cabin Republican group. I guess gay Republicans don't count in the new GOP.

I thought the best part was another flip-flop by Mitt Romney, and all those holier than thou non-military Republican candidates telling a military man that he is wrong.

Republican Presidential hopefuls can't answer questions from Democrats? Is that what you are saying Bruce? This whole time I thought a President was the leader of and accountable to all Americans. I didn't know your ilk believed that you get to ignore the opposition party and pretend they don't exist. You fascist, nazi-like Republics are a curious bunch.

Who cares who he is affiliated with? He asked a legitimate and important question about gays and lesbians status in the military and the answering candidates fumbled.

This is why I say those that claim to be "great" Americans have no clue what America is about. Bruce claims that a democrat has no "right" to ask legitimate questions to the republican candidates running for PRESIDENT.

This just shows one more time the deceptive Hillary campaign. The drivebys especially the Clinton News Network knew this General was gay and that he worked for Kerry as well as Hil.
The Clinton War room is made up of James Carville, Paul Begala and John Podesta runs the Clinton website Center for Progressive Studies, Media Matters etc.
The whole Clinton family are full of dirty tricks including Hils brother who brokered pardons she knew nothing about.
I'm glad Bill Bennett outed this dirty little secret.
The Clintons have no morality and this just proves it.
Bringing Bill back to the White House will just unleash 4 to 8 years of sleaze. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Its just another "Left wing conspiracy".

Let me see if I can understand this scandal --- a gay serviceman prefers a candidate who is less likely to discriminate against him ?

Shocking - who would have thought it

Not to split hairs, but these men are not running for president. They are running for their parties nomination for president. It is reasonable to expect that the questioners will be non partisan. The actual suggestion of the article is that he was a plant from the Clinton campaign. While they are good at planting questions, in this case it is not true.

Was every questioner a Dem Party plant? See

When CNN pronounces these questioners to be "undecided' or "Republicans", but they are in fact Dem activists--that's fraud. Presentational fraud CNN either knew, or should have known.

And the general's question about "don't ask, don't tell" might better be directed to Hillary Clinton, the candidate he's supporting. It was Bill Clinton who started 'don't ask, don't tell"--not George Bush, who's merely carrying on the Clinton policy.

You'd think after CNN was caught planting Clinton operatives at the Dem debate, and trying to pass them off as "concerned citizens" or "undecided" voters, that CNN would have learned that in the internet age you simply can't get away with this kind of fraud.

But CNN did it again.

And got caught again.

Does this mean you would like the Republican Party to be invited by CNN to plant operatives at Democrat PRIMARY debates. As a Republican it's none of my business who the Marxist Democrat party puts forward as a candidate.

I appreciate Huckabee's bold, clear response. Contrary to popular opinion, we need to distinguish feelings from actions, identity from behavior. From a military perspective, it's OK to be gay, but it's not OK to have sex with someone of the same gender while you are serving.

Bruce, it's true that "don't ask, don't tell" was a policy initiated under Clinton. It's also true that it was a compromise decision (and not one that he was any too enthusiastic about, as I recall) when his recommendation that gays and lesbians be allowed to serve OPENLY in the military was shot down. Your comment of 11/29/07 at 9:52 am made it sound like Clinton took an existing open, embracing policy of non-discrimination and closed it off, and that Bush -- much against his own warm, loving nature -- is merely tolerating that policy because he's powerless to bring about its change. I'm sure that such a nuance wasn't your intention, given your firm commitment to presenting ALL the relevant facts, no matter what party affiliation is benefitted.

OH MY GAWD! They had to answer questions from DemoncRATs! The drive-by media and their socialist agenda has NO sense of decency. Keep you communist ideas out of our faces!

You gotta love gopers like Bruce and Jerry. To them, supporting our troops means calling a general who served our country for 43 years is a fraud and dirty trickster.

The question is how many soldiers will the Demoncrats use so they can strap lies to their belts and push them into crowded arenas? Loony Leftists and the Demoncrats, worse than al-Qaeda, pretty much the worst thing there has ever been in the universe. Worse than one million Hitlers.


Using Michelle Malkin as a source automatically disqualifies you as a sane human being.

Folks, the issue isn't that Democrats asked Republican candidates questions, the issue is that CNN apparently knowingly knew many of the questions they chose were from folks who are Democratic activists and passed them along as regular folks.
CNN/You Tube did a similar debate for the Democratic candidates. Did CNN choose questions from Republican activists? Not to my knowledge.
The issue is journalistic integrity. CNN is now being exposed with its pants down (appropriate since a Clinton is involved).

In regard to the question and issue itself, it is a legitimate question and a legit issue. However, CNN's handling of this, having an activist from an opposing candidate ask the question and then flying that person to the debate has overtaken the issue.

Should gays be allowed to openly serve in the military? Or should we continue with don't ask, don't tell? A part of me says both are the way to go. As to which is better, perhaps there can be a time in this country's future where gays can openly serve and all folks will accept them for who they are. Not sure we are at that point yet.

Hold on a second "anonymous D" Do you really mean to suggest that the Democratic Party is worse than al Qaeda? and Hitler? We're going to give you a chance to think about that one and change your answer. Certainly you can see the difference between politics you don't agree with and genocide or terrorism. For that matter, do you not recognize when members of the Republic Party (yeah, I'm dropping the "can" just like ya'll drop the "ic") trot out military servicemen and women for their own political gain? What about Senator McCain who the Republics can't even give a little bit of respect to regarding hi service, imprisonment and torture.

For that matter how can anyone who claims to support our troops support torture. If we do it, the enemy will do it even more.

From a military perspective, it's OK to be gay, but it's not OK to have sex with someone of the same gender while you are serving.

Posted by: Pistol Pete | November 29, 2007 10:15 AM

Not sure what your point is.

I don't exactly think military commanders would appreciate soldiers having sex with the opposite gender either while they are serving.

So, are you talking about just when they are "on duty" at a military facility, in Irag/Afghanistan, etc?

Because if they are not "on duty" and they are on leave or in the reserves, what they do then is their own business.

Will someone ask the Dems who of them agrees that pulling a 8 1/2 old baby out of the womb and sucking out his or her brain should be legal? I would love to see them squirm. Con Edwards would some how blame President Bush, Obama would some way put his foot in his mouth and Hill would call it a personal attack and refuse to answer. As for General Kerr, he served less than 6 years on active duty! I have 12 on active duty and 3 as a reservist; there's a huge difference. He sounds like a complete narcissist--"accept me because I'm gay." Are there gays in military? Yes. The code of conduct reads, "I am an American fighting man/woman," not "I am a gay Amercian fighting man."

CNN has one goal - to increase profits. They do this by selling as many commercials as possible for the highest price possible. The more viewers they have, the more profit they can make. The more fake "controversy" they can create, the more viewers they will attract.

CNN has been in the pockets of the Republicans ever since President Bush entered the White House in January of 2001. To ever expect "journlistic integrity" from CNN is to delude oneself.

Isn't CNN the Network Larry King works for. The same Larry King who ambushed President Bush 41 with a question from George Stephonopilas during his run against Clinton.

The point is that the BIAS of CNN is excused while FOX News is so evil the Democrats will not even show up.

At least the Republicans have the balls to go into the enemy camp (CNN) while the democrats run and hide like the swarmy little anti everything American they are.

Shame on CNN once again!

Will someone ask the Dems who of them agrees that pulling a 8 1/2 old baby out of the womb and sucking out his or her brain should be legal?

Posted by: Magnum | November 29, 2007 12:10 PM

Maybe if you understood Roe v. Wade you would understand that pregnancys in the 3rd trimester may only be aborted if there is a risk to the health and life of the mother. So I guess the question should be, why would YOU want the mother to die or be seriously wounded giving birth if she did not want to suffer that fate?

I do not see the problem. CNN treats both parties the same. When it is a Democratic debate, they only use Democrats as questioners. Likewise, when it is a Republican debate, they only use Democrats as questioners.

Good for him. A bunch of cowards the Republicans are. He's Gay and he served, more than we can say for our unpopular president George Bush.

Kerr is upset that he couldn't be openly gay while he was serving.

Yet, if he had the moral courage to announce, after becoming a General, but while still serving, that he was gay, he could have brought his cause to the forefront and opened a constructive dialouge. Oh but wait, that might have jeopardized his retirement.

As a military officer, I'm pretty tired of Generals and Admirals who have the "conviction" to stand up to the current administration but not until they retire.

If you don't have the conviction to say something because it may damage your career, then you don't have conviction.

I agree that CNN is owned by TimeWarner. A huge conglomorate that needs it's stock to always go up. Any content in any media format is about ratings\profits aside from PBS. Also, anyone posting extreme comments makes up that 2-3% of the population that no one will ever take seriously. Attempt to run for office somewhere with those views and the masses will out you as crazy. Keep it to right wing radio where they keep you amped up with metal music, yelling, and outlandish blanket statements about people you've never met.

The code of conduct reads, "I am an American fighting man/woman," not "I am a gay Amercian fighting man."

Posted by: Magnum | November 29, 2007 12:10 PM

If this is the case, then why is there a need for a policy - Don't Ask, Don't Tell - thats makes a distinction between homosexual and heterosexual service members private affairs?

What really stinks about this issue is that CNN would NEVER, EVER expose Democratic candidates to questions from Republican plants.

It simply wouldn't happen.

CNN's bias is worse than FOX News, and it's obvious.

I'm glad to see they got caught "Red" handed again!

Even Anderson Cooper admits that CNN failed in its duty to disclose Kerr's connections to the Clinton campaign.

The scorecard so far:

Concerned Young Undecided Person “Journey” = John Edwards supporter “Journey”

Concerned Undecided Log Cabin Republican supporter David Cercone = Obama supporter David Cercone

Concerned Undecided Mom LeeAnn Anderson = Activist for the John Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers union LeeAnn Anderson

Concerned Undecided Gay Military Retiree Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr = Hillary/Kerry supporter and anti-”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” activist Keith H. Kerr

Ironically, during the pre-show an audience member asked Cooper "How many Clinton planted questions here tonight?"

What a bunch of bigots...but then, what do you expect from the states' rights party. I saw McCain say that the GOP is the states' rights party on Charley Rose, if memory serves.

States' rights is the political theory of white male privilege, after all. It's what Strom Turmond named his own third party attempt. Having to compete with gay people on an equal footing, who are only a small fraction of the population, is apparently too scary to contemplate.

You guys are really trying hard to figure out a way to attack this guy so you don't have to acknowledge the reality that Republicans booed a veteran. Ugh.

Kerr is not an activist. Your post is patently false based solely on right wing bloggers from this morning, whose claims have already been debunked:

1) Kerr does not work for Hillary's campaign nor has he ever worked for Hillary's campaign

2) Kerr is a registered independent

3) Kerr has donated ZERO dollars to Hillary's campaign

4) Kerr has not participated at all with the LGBT steering committee, his name is merely listed on the roster

I think we should apply DADT across the board and then see if the candidates feel the policy is working. Gay and Straight could both keep their orientation secret - no mention of their spouses, no mention of their families. Then they can tell everyone how well it's working.

"Using Michelle Malkin as a source automatically disqualifies you as a sane human being."

Why is that Bob? Please explain without resorting to any left wing delusional web sites that I'm sure helped you form that opinion.

I wonder if the General served and led as an openly gay man.

If not, ...then WHY NOT?

I'd like to hear his reasons.

"States' rights is the political theory of white male privilege, "

Ahh , I love getting insight into the liberal mind.

Thanks for the info. This explains a lot of the liberal thought process.

Hey Libs, Do us a favor. Just because you hate yourselves, don't take it out on the rest of us?


It just boggles the mind, that here it is, almost 2008, and we're still discussing the importance of sexual orientation, as if, that could have anything to do with doing one's job, competently and efficiently, as it applies to military service...I am more concerned with sexual abuse and harassment, by heterosexuals, which, seemingly, is prevalent, and underreported. But not surprising that the top brass would take the tack of "boys will be boys", when it comes to accountability. Such double standards and hypocrisy are commonplace for not only the military but the government, as well.

Oh, I have no problem with GOP'ers being upset with a Democratic sympathizer asking questions of GOP candidates.
I have never accepted George Bush as my president. I didn't vote for him, and I couldn't resent him more.
And my sentiments were borne out, apparently, because he hasn't governed as president of the entire American people, but as "King" to his dwindling band of crazy supporters. Anybody, Dem or GOP, would be an improvement. And we all know, it's the Dems race to lose.

This guy was a Clinton plant the same as the last 3 Questioners in Iowa.
It proves Hillary is unfit for command, she can't even control her own campaign people.
It is too bad she is a cheat, I hadn't made my mind up until now....
And now ANYBODY BUT CLINTON... Simple as ABC.

The real problem as I understand it; is not the ability of gay service members to act professionally, but the ability of heterosexual service members to act rationally in the presence of known homosexuals. This is an apparently known and acceptable defect in our American military personnel. I wonder if it makes British solders nervous to be around us, after all some of there fellow service members are gay.

As to the sodomy laws in the UCMJ, lets start a dialog when heterosexual service members can’t stand around and openly discuss breaking those laws with out fear of reprisal.

Typical of the rebubbacans ... no one not agreeing with the "party line" is allowed to pose a legitimate question ... their viewpoint is that anyone disagreeing with the amerikan taliban is unAmerican ... what frigging arrogance !

"nose", apparently a serving officer thinks serving gays in the military are cowards for not "outing" themselves ... please note: this paragon of superiority feels it necessary to keep his identity secret while condemning others with far more reason for doing so ...

I would suggest that those so afraid of gays serving openly look to the changing opinions expressed by such as Wes Clark and others, as well as the military of EVERY member of NATO [apart from the U.S. and Turkey].

Additionally, it may take a few more years, but it will come to pass ... just take a look at the polls among the rising generations who favor removing virtually all restrictions marginalizing gays.

“States' rights is the political theory of white male privilege, after all.”

* * * * *

Posted by: Greg | November 29, 2007 2:00 PM

Greg. If I may, I would suggest that you abstain from writing about something if you are really so palpably ignorant of the subject.

“States’ rights” – although abused as a slogan by some throughout American history – is essentially the correct doctrine that States, in their own sphere of influence, have certain powers which are superior to those of the federal government, and which the federal government cannot override. This doctrine is expressed throughout the Constitution, first by its structure of spelling out all the federal government’s powers, in the second place by making the Executive and Legislative Branches explicitly dependent upon the States and their People to fill its offices, and in the third place by the express language of the 10th Amendment.

In other words, the federal government has only the “limited” powers delegated to it by the States through the Constitution, and the States and their People have all the rest. The resulting system of “dual sovereignty” means that both State and federal governments are co-equal in authority over the matters entrusted to each under the Constitution. Thus, federal laws are the “supreme law of the land” under Article VI of the Constitution, and can override contrary State laws, but only when the federal law is enacted pursuant to one of the powers granted in the Constitution. Otherwise, State law remains supreme, and the States are free to disregard that federal law as though it were a nullity.

Republicans claim to be the party of “States’ Rights,” not because they are the party of white male privilege, but because they still believe in a limited federal government, with the States retaining the power to exercise their traditional governmental functions. Supporting “States Rights” is more of a shorthand way of saying they oppose the “big government” model so prevalent during and after the reign of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and specifically to oppose F.D.R.’s “New Deal” legislation which essentially created a large “Nanny State” out of the federal government. It is, therefore, unfair to lump Republicans like McCain together with all the hate groups that have invoked “States Rights” to support all kinds of unconscionable doctrines – as you have done.

Segregation is all America is about!

Were it the black people in the past, nowadays it are the gays!

Any party that would be honest would know that no society or community functions without the input of ALL people, straights, gays, or whatever origine or lifestyle!

The fact that the retired BrigGen had the courage to stand out and ask republicans (not the most democracy loving bunch) on a topic that IS important to People, is more then brave! It is couragious!

The answers he got show simply that nazis run the country, are doing everything to keep on running the country, and will smuther anyone who opposes their agenda, equal to the period before WW2!

Support the Soldiers, and order them to revolt or desert!

Here is how a pro handles this:


November 29, 2007

Dear Senator Clinton,

Regarding the “plant”, retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr, that you sent to ask me the question at the CNN-YouTube debate last night in Florida …

Send more!!!

Merry Christmas,

Duncan Hunter

"What really stinks about this issue is that CNN would NEVER, EVER expose Democratic candidates to questions from Republican plants.

It simply wouldn't happen."

Oh please go review the democratic youtube debate...that questioner who said..."you won't raise taxes like all democrats do" or the one who said "My gun is my baby, don't take it away"...those were clearly liberals right?

Any American is qualified to ask a politician a question as long as they are respectful, their background should have no bearing whatsoever!

Heck, in my opinion both parties should have to respond to a mix of questions - from Dems, Reps, Greens, and Libertarians. A good mix of questions from different perspectives is probably the best way to find out who the candidates really are.

The idea that only should occur in elections, not primaries, doesn't hold water. Seriously, if it is a question that all of a party's candidates would give the same answer for, it wouldn’t impact the results one bit. The fact that it does make a difference to party voters is precisely why it is a legitimate question.

So, by this same reasoning, Muslims in the military would also be a threat to the cohesion of an army built up of mostly conservative christians right? Buddhists would also pose a threat to this cohesion, as would a man or woman who is serving in the military yet living with his or her girlfriend, unmarried back in the States, that clearly goes against Biblical Law right and would also usurp the cohesion ergo destroying an amazing military right?

I wish these ridiculous republicans would actually think before they speak. Most of our allies who are in Iraq and Afghanistan allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in their military. What fails to make any sort of rational sense is that we want them there to assist us in whatever operations there are at hand, and we applaud their commitment, and we have no problem with their gay and lesbian troops, we just don't want OUR troops to serve openly.

How is this a free nation when you cannot serve freely? How is this a free nation when the rule of law and political leanings are based off of theological beliefs as opposed to the good of the people? The fatal flaw of the republican party is that their alleged religious beliefs are hand in hand with their political ones, infecting them, coloring them, distorting any idea of fair leadership.

J.M. Prater

I think many here are operating on many levels of entrenched bias and therefore aren't seeing what happened.

1. CNN in their agreement with the Republican Party of Florida, assured the state party that they would vet the questions and questioners to exclude Democrat operatives or campaign workers. They failed miserably at this to the point of flying a campaign steering committee member across the country and giving him more uninterrupted airtime than 2 of the Republican candidates combined.

2. Gen. Kerr is not a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, he's the co-chair of VoteVets. There is an article out there by CNN stating that Kerr claimed to be a Log Cabin Republican, but Kerr denies he said that to CNN. He also claims that he disclosed his co-chairmanship of Vote Vets and his committee membership for Hillary Clinton.

2. One of the debate organizers is also involved in another project (a partisan project) with one of the questioners, again, something that could have and should have been vetted out.

3. Of the 9 questioners called into question, 8 of them have direct conflicts of interest which would have been visible with a simple google search for their name, 8 had their conflicts on the first page of google results, 1 you had to click through to the second page.

It's not that Republicans should be or are afraid of answering questions from Democrats, such questions are valid IN THE GENERAL DEBATE.

The primary debate is supposed to be a debate within the party, just as the primary election is within one party.

CNN said one thing and did another. By doing so they advanced an agenda which had no place being aired in a Republican primary debate.

CNN violated their agreement and possibly also violated campaign finance laws, which are currently being investigated by the FEC.

Kerr lied, CNN lied, YouTube and The Politico lied and each attempted to present individuals as "undecided republicans" when these "ur's" were alreadly declared endorsers of Democrat candidates.

It's fine if you're going to ask a "tough question" (although none of them were especially tough) but to misrepresent questioners and to break agreements to advance your networks agenda is simply not appropriate.

Label people for who they are, and stick to your agreements, and everything will be hunky dory, but to intentionally misrepresent and to violate your agreements and you'll be called foul.

Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "w" in the field below:

Latest polls



Democratic Convention

Obama's week

Parade of hats



Campaign trail

Electoral vote map


Test your scenarios

Unauthorized tour


Obama's Chicago

News, but funnier


Walt Handelsman


The Lowe- Down


Editorial cartoons



Know the presidents?


Your McCain IQ


Your Obama IQ


Bush twins

Test assumptions