The Shotgun Blog
« GOP/YouTube Debate Liveblog | Main | SCHREIBER SHOCKER »
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Why is a Member of Hillary's Campaign Asking Questions at the GOP Debate?
So, the fellow who just asked the Republican candidates about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, retired Brigader General Keith Kerr, is a member of Hillary Clinton's campaign for the Presidency.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on November 28, 2007 in International Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54fa3b03a8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why is a Member of Hillary's Campaign Asking Questions at the GOP Debate?:
Comments
A better questions is why are Republicans wrong about this issue?
Posted by: Tom | 2007-11-28 9:16:01 PM
Ah come on! Cooper tried to deny that he nor CNN knew who this guy was or his affiliation in his closing statement. Kerr was a plant and Cooper had to know it because Cooper is gay. You can't expect me to believe that lefty Anderson had no idea?
Hillary has been caught again and this time CNN was complicit. Now let's see how the MSM reports it.
Posted by: Rick | 2007-11-28 9:37:40 PM
Why be surprised? Its CNN. We shouldn't be surprised to learn that many of the questioners and their questions were plants. They certainly sounded like that to me.
Posted by: DML | 2007-11-28 11:18:34 PM
Who cares?
Posted by: Brock | 2007-11-29 1:01:39 AM
"and this time CNN was complicit"
EVERY TIME!
There is a reason CNN has been known for 15 years as the Clinton News Network.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-29 5:52:31 AM
Isn't the real question "What's wrong with a member of Hillary's campaign asking questions at the GOP debate?" Shouldn't debates have tough questions to see which candidates have the right stuff? And so ultimately does it matter what the source of the question is? Isn't the answer to the question about gays in the military the more important issue than the question of who is asking it?
If you want to be President of the US, you better be able to handle all issues. It was a fair question, so the rest is all irrelevant.
Posted by: Dan | 2007-11-29 8:36:32 AM
"Why is a Member of Hillary's Campaign Asking Questions at the GOP Debate?"
Because it's impossible to get any answers at the Democratic debates.
Posted by: John | 2007-11-29 9:52:33 AM
"If you want to be President of the US, you better be able to handle all issues. It was a fair question, so the rest is all irrelevant."
Then explain why all the DemoRats refuse to participate in any debates on FOX NEWS!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-29 11:01:38 AM
It's not honest, it's not news, it's CNN.
Posted by: philanthropist | 2007-11-29 12:07:21 PM
Bill O'Reilly says on his show tonight:
"If FOX NEWS ran a DemoRat debate, and had Rush Limbaugh asked a question of the candidates incognito on the phone, what would have been the reaction of the NY Slimes, CNN, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, MSNBC, et al?"
Like we have to guess! How about 30 straight days of condemnation of FOX NEWS on the front page of the Slimes, for starters?
But no such reaction by these "objective" media outlets against the Clinton News Network.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-29 6:21:17 PM
And CNN has no shame! :
"CNN Defends Its Use of Democratic Supporters in Republican YouTube Debate"
FOX News, by Major Garrett
After spending the day facing accusations it stacked the deck against the Republican presidential contenders by having Democratic backers ask video questions during its debate, CNN on Thursday responded that it doesn't know what the fuss is all about. The cable news network, in collaboration with video Web site YouTube, hosted the Wednesday night debate that had more than 30 voters pose questions to the Republican candidates.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-29 6:35:03 PM
"If you want to be President of the US, you better be able to handle all issues. It was a fair question, so the rest is all irrelevant."
Then explain why all the DemoRats refuse to participate in any debates on FOX NEWS!
Posted by: obc | 29-Nov-07 11:01:38 AM
Where the quiestions asked Leading? Inflammatory? Off topic? Posed in a way that any answer would look bad on the respondent? Did any of the questioners / moderators shout down the Republican candiates?
All of these are behaviour and tactics you can witness on a daily basis on the Fox "News" Network when opinions come up that aren't in line with the Groupthink that exists on that Channel....
Now where else is that the case.........?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-29 7:57:00 PM
Yellow Snow ~
The same can be seen on CNN in discussions and interviews as on FOX - but NOT during any debates of Presidential candidates on FOX where respect was shown to all the candidates - even that loon - Roo Paul.
Idiot!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-29 8:02:03 PM
Idiot!
Posted by: obc | 29-Nov-07 8:02:03 PM
Guess you finally reached your mental limit, you can't even fake creativity anymore when it comes to insulting people. I suggest you step away from the computer, make yourself some herbal tea and listen to some relaxing music.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-29 8:04:56 PM
Of course, Yellow Snow avoids the issue, having been proven wrong.
NUMBSKULL!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-29 8:08:09 PM
WAIT! It gets better! It turns out other questioners were ALSO supporters of John Edwards - the Breck Girl - and Obama-rama:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/digging-out-the-cnnyoutube-plants-abortion-questioner-is-edwards-supporter/
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-29 8:13:30 PM
Of course, Yellow Snow avoids the issue, having been proven wrong.
NUMBSKULL!
Posted by: obc | 29-Nov-07 8:08:09 PM
You haven't proven anything, even if you start behaving like a three year old who was just told by mommy that he can't have that toy he wants and now stomps around in the toystore throwing a tantrum.
You were a one trick pony OBC, your trick consists of insulting people (or rather patheticly trying to) and even that you can't do anymore in an even halfway amusing way.
You're up, now go back to mommy and apologise for being a bad brat.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-29 8:16:18 PM
Still avoiding that Yellow Snow was proven wrong, ranting rather than dealing with FOX's respectful treatment of candidates in their televised debate - without planting any questions.
PLANT TREES - NOT QUESTIONS, CNN!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-29 8:18:42 PM
Still avoiding that Yellow Snow was proven wrong, ranting rather than dealing with FOX's respectful treatment of candidates in their televised debate - without planting any questions.
PLANT TREES - NOT QUESTIONS, CNN!
Posted by: obc | 29-Nov-07 8:18:42 PM
You obviously must be high on something when watching Fox News, that's pretty much the only way how you can claim that they tread interview guests equal.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-29 8:20:38 PM
Who's talking about "interviewed guests"? The FOX NEWS Presidential debate is what is at issue - versus how CNN conducts them.
LEFTOID!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-29 8:23:08 PM
Who's talking about "interviewed guests"? The FOX NEWS Presidential debate is what is at issue - versus how CNN conducts them.
LEFTOID!
Posted by: obc | 29-Nov-07 8:23:08 PM
As the Democrats never attended the debate how do you know how they would have been treated? Did your crystal ball tell you that?
Oh, and stop shouting, makes you look even more stupid then you already look.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-29 9:36:51 PM
obc says:
"LEFTOID!"
"NUMBSKULL!"
"Idiot!"
"DemoRats"
"the Slimes"
"Yellow Snow"
"Roo Paul"
"the Breck Girl"
"Clinton News Network"
"Obama-rama"
My my ... what a high level of political discourse. Why bother to make arguments when you can make insults? Now go ahead. You know you want to. Call me "Fat Chick". Just for old times sake. You can't resist, can you.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-11-30 8:37:06 AM
Fat Chick Fat Chick Fat Chick Fat Chick Fat Chick
Fat Chick Fat Chick Fat Chick Fat Chick Fat Chick
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-30 9:26:15 AM
"Main stream media" are Communists actively engaged in the destruction of individual liberty, beginning with freedom of speech-information.
The supposed "conservative" TV media, e.g. FOX News is really a joke and pretend "alternative" unfortunately. But the new media is working and fortunately the young people live it as an antidote to the rubbish which the "main stream" (aka Teachers Union) government schools doses them with.
The questions regarding homosexuals in the military and the issue of torture were entirely "fair" (having the queer General in the audience was thearter, appropriate for a homosexual anchor "man" to plant).
I thought Romney did proper yeoman's service in answering both of those questions. Please note, I absolutely cannot stand Romney because of his utterly false "conversion" to "Pro-Life" and his forever to be UNDERREPORTED absolutely unique and pivotal and continuous and totally successful CREATION of the "homosexual marriage" issue as an actual FACT of LAW in his Massachusetts State code, which he persistently and deliberately foisted and tricked through that State's legal system and legislative checks and balances, absolutely as an affront to the majority opinion of that VERY liberal State.
I thought McCain was typically phony demagogueing on the torture issue. I think there is no presently serving elected official in America who can even reach the bootstraps of McCain as far as being phony and duplicitous and self serving. He speaks well but he is rubbish as a leader.
Homosexuals should NOT serve in the military. If one does and no one ever knows anything about it, then he has done no harm by his deception (unless in a horrific battle situation his blood infects others, assuming that he contracts HIV as he is uniquely likely to do).
The question about women in the military was not raised, since it is supposedly "settled" or more accurately capitualted to those who wish to destroy the American military effort (and thus the force defending freedom throughout the world).
The addition of each one woman into the American military is an effective reduction in force of two service members, i.e. the salary paid to the woman so employed and the salary paid to the male soldier who will end up "taking care of" her.
The single redeeming aspect of women in the American military forces would become obvious if the program was Code Named: "Bring Your Own Whores."
I think it is probably a good thing that the presence of American military forces in foreign countries today is no longer so obviously a magnet for clusters of local prostitutes around the fringe of the military installation as unfortunately was sometimes commonplace in the past.
There is absolutely nothing that a female can contribute to a military operation (even a "police type" action among civilian populations as is the reason for the high price in life which we have seen in the present War on Terrorism). But there is a great deal of negative (disunity, special treatment, inappropriate affections, duty assignments for other than mission oriented reasons, etc.) aspects and results of having women in American military forces.
Since women are often highly skilled at playing musical instruments, it is entirely appropriate for the military services of Europe to have women members throughout their ranks and bands and orchestras.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-11-30 11:39:39 AM
Conrad ~
"having the queer General in the audience was thearter, appropriate for a homosexual anchor "man" to plant"
This gay general was flown into the debate from California - at CNN's expense.
Right! Just a random questioner - who happens to work for the Clinton campaign.
Turns out 9 of the questioners were plants.
The Clinton News Network strikes again!!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-30 2:32:49 PM
There is absolutely nothing that a female can contribute to a military operation (even a "police type" action among civilian populations as is the reason for the high price in life which we have seen in the present War on Terrorism). But there is a great deal of negative (disunity, special treatment, inappropriate affections, duty assignments for other than mission oriented reasons, etc.) aspects and results of having women in American military forces.
Since women are often highly skilled at playing musical instruments, it is entirely appropriate for the military services of Europe to have women members throughout their ranks and bands and orchestras.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 30-Nov-07 11:39:39 AM
You may want to tell that to the Israeli Government who has every national (regardless of Gender) serve in their Military.
Hey Lady, what's your take on Conrads assumption? Is he right? And if so, does that mean that Israel is doomed (in reality) because of Women in the Military? Did we finally find the REAL reason the West is lost?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-30 3:28:17 PM
Snowrunner -
Thanks for the extra effort. I thought that I had thrown enough blood in the water, but it didn't work. Your tactic about the valiant women of the Israeli Army should have done the trick, if only for the fact that Lady could correct you on factual basis (i.e. I think they stopped enlisting the women because they found that women are actually no good as soldiers) which she loves to do even more than countering somebody's "stupid" (i.e. different from her own) opinion.
It appears that you and I will just have to do this the old fashioned way, e.g. get good jobs, make a lot of money, buy a fancy red convertible sports car and drive around smiling and whistling at the girls, in order to attract their attention. ; - )
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-01 3:43:09 PM
Israeli women are drafted - but are NEVER sent into combat. They are trained as a last line - if there is ever an invasion so mighty that the men alone cannot defend the country, they will THEN and only then be available for defense.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-01 4:21:39 PM
Women are drafted to serve two years, while men serve three. The reason why there are fewer women in combat arms is due to the longer training requirement. Women who do serve in combat arms may do so and have their term changed from two to three years. And, women do opt for three years in combat arms and serve alongside the men on equal terms.
As for reference to combat--that depends on how you define the forward edge of the combat area. If it is defined as where there is danger, then women do indeed serve in combat.
Women in arms have been killed by the terrorists at check-points as well as other suicide bombing locations throughout Israel. I have read about these instances and will not describe the effects any further than to say the killers are total monsters.
The killers--the Arab terrorists--are not afraid of killing women soldiers or men soldiers, and they are not insenced by the killing of civilians. In fact, from the record, they prefer the killing of civilians, as this imparts the greatest terror on the cvommunities.
The Arab terrorists have not hesitated to kill women with babies, and have opened fire on women and children, while looking them directly in the eye, within a couple of meters, whereby the children's bodies have been turned into unrecognizable hamburger.
So, no matter how noble the policies have been, to try to keep women away from the effects of the terrorists, women are at the front lines in Israel, each and every day.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-12-01 4:42:54 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.