Retired Gay General Slams Republicans On Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy
By Logan Murphy Wednesday Nov 28, 2007 11:46am
Download | play 
Download | play
One of the more awkward and disturbing moments from Wednesday's CNN/YouTube Republican sideshow debate was the response from the candidates to a question about the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy from a retired, openly gay Army General named Keith Kerr, who served for 40 years.
Kerr submitted his question via YouTube, but was also in the audience and boy, did he make those Republicans squirm. While Rep. Duncan Hunter's answer was the most offensive, Mitt Romney truly bombed, flubbing and flip flopping through his tortured answer. As you might expect, Kerr was not happy with the non-answers he got.
As it turns out, Gen. Kerr is co-chair of Hillary Clinton's National Military Veterans Group, an affiliation that is making the right wing blogs crazy--the nerve of a Democratic candidate supporter asking questions of Republicans! But Gen. Kerr's question had neither anything to do with Clinton nor was it partisan in nature. But leave it to the wingnuts to ignore the substance because of the messenger.
Thanks to Nicole for her assistance.
Login or Register to post comments.
Here's another tidbit of info that makes this entire "story" a non-issue to me, General Kerr (Retired) is a registered Republican and a member of the Log Cabin Republicans. So why wouldn't a Republican who wishes to address gay rights issues ask a question of the Republican candidates? Who gives a shit what candidate he might be affiliated with?
"As it turns out, Gen. Kerr is co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s National Military Veterans Group, an affiliation that is making the right wing blogs crazy"
He should have disclosed it ahead of time. If an open supporter of Guiliani had asked Clinton a question via YouTube you'd damn sure want that disclosed ahead of time...
I suspected he was that JC Christian guy because they share the same first name, 'General'.
Okay Swashbuckler, who are you supporting? And is that your real name or are you just glad to see me?
I was a republican for about 8 years, and this reminds me exactly why I went independent. The GOP loves the troops, yet when a 40 year vet who's gay speaks they decide that his service doesn't mean a damn thing and he deserves being boo'd.
That debate last night was the most hideous thing I have watched in years, and CNN actually came off worse than Fox's attempt at a debate ever did. At least Fox gives times to the other candidates, yet CNN decides that for their debates, Paul and Kucinich shouldn't get even a a quarter of the airtime that Billary or Ghouliani gets.
What a shambles.
so... based on those ideas it's okay to suppress people.. They have rights, just not those people.... okii.
The worst thing is now the republicans can just wave off this question for a while. He asked a Very valid question. but now they wont have to answer it by saying "oh thats a plant." Much like el presidente avoided discussing real issues by claiming "partisan politics."
Dumb move on CNN's part, especially to let Mr. Kerr have extra time to hold the candidates feet to the fire. by doing that they only reinforce the image that the whole network is squarely in the clinton camp.
Kevin Hayden @ 4:
I don't really support anyone.
I can't see myself voting for any of the Republicans in the general election.
I think the stereotypes of Clinton and Obama are pretty accurate. Clinton IS too calculating and Obama IS too inexperienced - and both have demonstrated such. Can't see any of the other Dems breaking through to win the primaries.
Gary @ 5:
The GOP loves the troops, well some of them anyway. The ones that agree with the GOP on everything.
What the GOP loves the most is TALKING about how they love the troops.
While I applaud anything that makes the weasily Republican field squirm, I have a problem with the General's undisclosed affiliation with a rival presidential campaign.
His questions were valid but, as is inevitable, his position in the Clinton camp blunts the force of his argument where it could have the most effect. Better that the NeoCon/Idiot bloggers should have to base their vitriol on grounds that show their true chickenhawk homophobia.
I am oh so sure that, during the heat of battle, a gay soldier will suddenly come on to one of his comrades. *NOT*
OY VEY the republics are a pathetic lot!
"As it turns out, Gen. Kerr is co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s National Military Veterans Group..."
And I wonder what Gen. Kerr thinks of Hillary's support of DOMA?
Republican platform as always, gays, guns and God.
Following up on Duncan Hunter's answer, killing is also contrary to Judeo-Christian views. Yet, we comfortably send 18 and 19 year-olds to go do that from the same so-called conservative families he referred to.
I guess (well, actually I know) they think that God is more concerned with what you have sex with than if you're killing some living being.
It's just fear. Fear due to ignorance.
google Kay Griggs....
"Tight unit", "small close quarters"?
Sounds like Duncan is getting all hot and bothered, and a little excited.
You know, I would think that if there was a group of people I didn't like, I wouldn't mind giving them a job where a big possibility is death.
I guess I just can't think like the Republicans.
Republicans are raving that a DEMOCRAT asked a question at a republican debate. JUST FOR THEIR INFORMATION. Democrats are the real Americans and they have a right to ask any damn question they please.
After all didn't republicans ask questions at the Democrat debate. And now CNN is apologizing to the republicans that they allowed the question from a Democrat.
Damn it this pretense of the MSM media for even "being the media"has got to stop.
rtemp @ 17:
Republicans don't like anybody that's not republican.
I wish the question could be framed as a constitutional issue, and not a scaredy mcsquirmy-pants one. Anyway, one thing's clear: Duncan Hunter? Gay, gay, gay. And gay some more. The GOP is a haven for the Repressed Homosexual Agenda. Some day, all them barely contained hormones are going to simultaneously explode.
"But leave it to the wingnuts to ignore the substance because of the messenger."
It's not just the fringe wingnuts who are focusing on Kerr's ties to Clinton rather than his message.
Go check out the top cover story on www.foxnews.com right now.
"CNN Allows Clinton Backer to Question GOP Candidates in YouTube Debate"
Just to clarify, I'm not denying that Foxnews is a wingnut site, but they are too big to be considered "fringe."
I'm sure General Kerr is one of the "phony soldiers" to whom Rush Limbaugh was referring.
According to Kerr, every Soldier is a Republican...
as much as america is adamant about how she supports diversity, she is clearly not ready to handle it (sexual orientation, immigration) and the republican candidates know it - i don't blame them for supporting the dadt policy... after all... this campaign is all a game and s(he) with the most points wins, regardless of how they themselves may truly feel about something... (as seen in romney's flip-flopping) - it's all about winning, whatever it takes..
Gotta love the Republicans booing a 42 year veteran.
I like the implication. "Oh he's only asking uncomfortable questions because he works for Hillary!" Uh, yeah, but whose fault is it that they're uncomfortable questions?
Matt @ 25:
When the draft comes back, homosexuals will be looking after their women and kids...
Shannon @ 10:
Why should he have to disclose anything to anyone? Isn't their policy 'don't ask don't tell'? har har. Seriously, though, I disagree that he should have had to disclose his affiliation. I realize it's provided a distraction from what he asked, but they would have found another distraction, anyways.
Helena Montana @ 12:
HAHA!! thats exactly what I was thinking!! All of our "choices" are nightmares, Clinton is essentially a neocon,, face it. Not a Bolton NC but a Wolfowitz, Pearl type.
Its all bad..
I fail to see what is wrong with another candidate's supporter daring to ask a question of the opponents. It's just so unusual in this staged and scripted day and age. Are we really to believe that EVERY other YouTube question at both debates was posed by an undecided voter?
When I heard this question I got worried about my tight unit's cohesion in close quarters...
Mitt Romney got owned by Anderson Cooper.
If I was gay I wouldn't join the military just like right now I am not joining the military. Duncan Hunter, who I have never seen before this debate, is right that a majority of military is conservative. I am 18 right now and about to graduate High School and my friends from football and basketball are joining the military. I like them, but a majority of them are joining to fight for Christianity and are very xenophobic and homophobic. I can play football with them because my life isn't on the line, but I will not fight with them in Iraq.
Look what happened to Patt Tillman. I don't believe he was murdered; however, it is very obvious his fellow soldiers shunned him for having liberal values. Even if the "Don't ask. Don't tell." policy was removed the other soldiers would still bully the gay soldiers. I wish that anyone who wanted to fight for this country could, but it won't happen anytime soon.
ohismith @ 30:
Not only that, but shouldn't they be trying to sway voters from the other side? What if he's a democrat? Perhaps if one of the candidates had given a satisfactory answer he may have changed his mind.
so what if he's a Democrat? if one of these guys wins, they will be the president of everyone in the United States, not just of Republicants...
hunter, and most of the guys up there are total homophobes! I have no respect for any candidate (repuke or demoquack) who does not have respect for who or what a person is - whether that person be non-white, non-christian or gay. Too many of our politicians are true bigots in private, while professing to be tolerant in public. They can slip up however. Just look at lott re. strom thurmond and at george allen's macaca moment.
Kudos to the Brigadier General for asking the question.
hip hip hooray!!!
more minor, tangential issues that enable the candidates to avoid talking about truly important topics!!! yeah!!!
Oooo, can we talk about the crucial and urgent issue of flag burning too! can we? can we?
presidential debates: like The View, except without the coffee.
So we're letting more people into the military with criminal backgrounds, insufficient fitness levels, and others who wouldn't normally meet the requirements in order to even come close to meeting the enlistment targets, but we can't allow openly homosexual people to serve because it would make some troops uncomfortable? I wonder just what "Army strong" is supposed to mean if it's not strong enough in character to serve alongside people who are different from you. That's not just aimed at the Army, by the way, they're just got the convenient slogan.
It's pathetic that none of the candidates express their own views on the issue, deferring to generals or COLIN POWELL to take the spotlight off them. These guys miss the whole point. This is why the GOP will always be the racist homophobe party. If the military said blacks and whites should remain separated because of the fighting soldiers values and beliefs, and that is was working, would they support separate black and white platoons?
You have to remember that Republicans think that homosexuality is a choice, like hair style. You can't be part of their America with wild and crazy hair. I have the perfect gift for your Republican relatives: http://www.stanleyfubar.com/
Duncan Hunter's remark, with a few words changed for some perspective:
Hunter: General, thanks for your service, but I believe in what Colin Powell said when he said that having openly homophobic 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 homophobes serve, is that some Americans, some kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, some of them are homosexuals.
To force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homophobic 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.
Critical Thinking 101: It makes no difference who asks a question or comment, what matters is the question or comment itself. Democrat, Republican, Ph.D., or high school drop out:
Was the question or comment a good one?
Any other criteria is just noise. Blather. Nonsense.
Samson
I actually don't think it's that trivial of a topic. I consider it to be a civil rights issue. If gay people can be discriminated against in the military, why not at your place of employment? Maybe we should have 'straight only' bathrooms (no foot tapping, please!) and drinking fountains, too.
Did Duncan "Fallujah" Hunter really just say that most of the Military was RepubliNazi??
wow.
The rest of his "answer" didnt even merit a response.
Kevin Holsinger @ 40:
Kevin - you hit the nail on the head with your comment. Great post!!!
wow, Romney is a backpeddling mofo!
By the way, me thinks that Romney's gone a little too dark with his "just for men" hair dye
Fanon @ 42:
and for some reason I havent heard about any Dems getting caught snorting meth with male prostitutes.
Gays telling Gays ,"Dont ask Dont Tell"
Maybe it shoud be "They dont ask,We Dont tell"
Pete Bogs @ 45:
And did anyone catch the Cross-dressing Mayor's answer on don't ask don't tell?
Bill Hicks back from the dead with a quick pep talk
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3935793611839774577&q=gays+in+...
What has not been said is that many of those in the military who had been released because of their sexual orientation had also been fluent in Arabic. That huge gap that had been created when those translators were let go has not even come close to being filled, all because of another extremely unnecessary and stupid policy on the part of the United States military and/or government.
Is he a 'Retired Gay', or a 'Retired General'?
Because if he's a 'Retired Gay', he can't be a republican anymore, under National Republican Rules. Only 'Active-Closeted Gays' are allowed.
But if he's a 'Retired General', he can belong to any party, unless he was 'retired' by Bush for promoting sanity in Iraq, in which case, once again, under National Republican Rules, he cannot be a republican.
Those republicans are sure restrictive about their membership, and yet they allow in oafs like Giuliani, Moronmy, McCain, Hucklebee, Tancredo, and BUSH! (Bush was 'grandfathered' in, no loyalty oath, no IQ test).
Their country clubs are very restrictive also, you can't be a member if your IQ is higher than your golf score. And they have some real good golfers.
gee, maybe You Tube should mail out a LOYALTY OATH next time???
what about all the Big, Heavy Republican Sandbags at the Dem's You Tube Debate?
what about Brian Williams asking boneheaded partisan questions at the first MSNBC Dem debate? can you imagine that merry band we saw last night with Olberman or Jack Cafferty? never happen in a million years.
the war bloggers couldn't care LESS about "fair" - they want what they're used to - a comically unbalanced representation of their views with the most tested phrased repeated and repeated and repeated.
crybabies.
Liberal values are completely at odds with the military's need for people who can be trained to hate and kill.
Flaming homophobes have already proven that they can be easily trained to hate people with intense anger.
Fundamentalist Christians have already proven that they will easily believe anything told to them by strong authority figures.
So homophobic Christians make good soldiers. They can be easily encouraged to hate and kill for Jesus.
Forget for a minute that Jesus was a liberal...
Otherwise we're talking about Liberal worshiping homophobic Christian Republicans...
The crowd sounds like a bunch of redneck wrestling and monster trucks fans. Ha Ha!
Fanon @ 28:
Bravo! You got me there, Fanon.
When I was in the Army I knew many homosexuals, male and female. They served for the same reason that we all did:
To make sure that Republicans were safe in their public toilets!
Swashbuckler @ 9:
The GOP loves abstract troops. Real ones can STFU.
America sucks!
Yes, I can hate America when it acts this way.
You could hear the bigots in the crowd talking amongst themselves during the silent parts.
Fanon @ 42:
you're right fanon
i did not mean to discount the seriousness of the issue, and the fact that there are some in the service who face discrimination just by being who they are. for that, i apologize. no disrespect intended.
what i was trying to say, however ungracefully i did, was that this issue is brought up--not so that it can be "solved"--but to show just how anti-gay the GOP is. and, like flag burning is an important 1st amendment issue, but when the issue of flag burning comes up in GOP discourse it is not to discuss first amendment issues, it is merely to allow the candidates to try to out patriotize each other. "i love the country so much i would burn those that burn the flag!!" "Oh yeah, well i love the country so much i would burn those that watched the flag burn and then smoke their ashes in my pipe!!"
in other words, it is just a way to play to the base, create "good TV" and, imho, make a mockery of the real issue. this is just another way to rehash the so-called "culture" war, which does further divides the country and does nothing to solve the underlying issues.
i would prefer the candidates to be asked questions like:
does neoliberalism (see, clintonian economic imperialism), as practiced by the IMF/World Bank, work?
does military imperialism produce conditions that create terrorist sympathy?
how can you declare war on a tactic?
has our democracy been suvberted by the corporatocracy?
etc....
do you prefer diamonds or pearls? (oh, that is an example of an insulting question)
WOW. Duncan Hunter is a moron. Mitt Romney is a moron. I LOVE that Romney and Giuliani get booed more and more often at these debates.
But Hunter's response was ASTOUNDING. We should have DADT because we need to protect bigots from being squeemish? I guess that's why Jim Crow was a good thing, right?
When I hear these guys talk, what do they think DADT is *doing*, per se? McCain says "See we have a good military! We must being doing good!" Well, we have the highest GDP in the world. But we damn sure don't have the highest standard of living. DADT discriminates. That's all. If you want to suspend military personal for fucking each other, that's one thing. If you want to ban intra-service relationships, that's fine. But DADT is discriminatory.
Swashbuckler @ 2:
Exactly. Doesn't discredit his message, but he should have disclosed.
Well, I don't know if the General was a "plant", though I agree the question was embarassing for the Repubs, and rightly so. However, I then would ask why Grover Norquist was allowed to ask a question. There's absolutely nothing "average citizen" about him. But it did help (as did the General's question) to underscore the hypocrisy of the Republicans: the kneejerk "I'll sign the Norquist no tax pledge"....then shortly thereafter came the question from the guy in Florida about how we'll pay for the much-neeeded, extensive and expensive repairs to our crumbling infrastructure. Silence. It's always fun when Reality bites Ideology. ps - Someone should ask McCain one of these days how he defines "earmark" (since he claims he'll veto them all).
Please Stand for the Publican's National Anthem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI&feature=related
Since it was Hillary's husband Bill who instituted the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that Kerr was criticizing, it's pretty tough to buy into the wingnut conspiracy theory that Kerr's question was designed somehow to help Hillary or even the Democrats. It seemed to me like a pretty heartfelt and personal question.
I love the Duncan Hunter answer. "Most of our kids are conservative." Really? Which ones?
I think the revealing thing is just this: he was a Log Cabin Republican, but the Big Denial of the GOP forced him to look elsewhere. Hillary, whose husband created the damn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," policy under huge pressure from his own party and from the military, knows that it was a failure. Don't look for her to simply declare gays eligible on the first day in office, though. I'm sure she'd appoint a commission of some sort and have them report after a year or so.
Oh, mommy. The gay soldier breathed on me today. Am I gay now?
BUSH TO SEND RETIRED GAY GENERAL TO IRAQ — TO PROMOTE ‘SAME SECTS’ MARRIAGE
Samson- @ 59:
Don't worry, I didn't think you were being disrespectful. I think your questions are great and should be asked. I don't think they will be however. Like you said, they don't make good tv and are probably over the heads of a lot of the american public/viewers (including the chimp in chief, I would imagine).
As to the diamonds vs. pearls question, it really pissed me off. I am a woman and found that question so demeaning. She might as well have been asked if she used tampons or pads. If I was Hillary I would have said that I wasn't going to answer that question as it was as unimportant as whether or not my opponent was wearing boxers or briefs. Next question, please....
the Drudgeians are obsessed with the sizzle instead of the steak
This whole "debate" was ridiculous. Phoenix Justice set the record straight... what matters is the substance of the question, not whether he works for Hillary now.
Fanon @ 33:
Ah, you see .. the Republican views on these issues are so unpalatable to the people voting in the Republican primaries and then the general election that merely asking them the questions somehow unfairly favors the Democrats.
According to Fox News. Who charge that CNN was unfairly "stacking the deck" against Republicans by allowing these questions to be asked.
though I agree the question was embarassing for the Repubs, and rightly so.
why? do you think duncan hunter was embarrassed by his reply? no, it's his platform! it gave him a chance to play to his base! why should he have any objection to the question?
this is the question i had a problem with:
do you believe that every word in [the bible] is the truth?
Oh for the love of shit on a shingle!
So, let me get this straight.
When it comes to policing a civil war and routing terror cells out of blasted-out neighborhoods and spending years at a time away from their families, our soldiers are consummate professionals more than capable doing the toughest job in the world.
Fuck yeah!!!
But when it comes to showering next to a Friend of Dorothy, suddenly everyone gets their beans and franks all in a twist?
Run away!!!
Hmmm...you know, if al-Qaeda really wanted to run us out of the country, sounds like all they need to do is put on some Village People and start giving our guys backrubs.
Wocka wocka chicka bow BOW!!!
For those who feel he should have revealed his affiliation prior to being permitted to ask a question, should participants in asking questions at these debates be required to swear an oath the they are republican supporters, or at least independant before they are permitted to ask a question of a republican candidate, and should the same be required of participants to democratic debates? Do you people belong to this camp:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/29/again-with-gop-loyalty-oaths/
Does his affiliation with Clinton somehow negate his rights as a citizen to question those who might, in the event his own candidate loses, be his president? As a gay man and a former member of the military he surely had a right to ask the question on behalf of the gay community and more specifically the gay military community.
Each one of their answers was bullshit. I knew more fags in the Navy and dykes in the Army in San Diego then you can imagine 15 years ago. The armed services use these people up and spit them out. Retard-o-cons; don't ask, they smell.
Chris H. @ 32:
As a veteran, I have to say that your perception of the military is not actually true. It is true that there are a lot of overzealous Christian types in the United States military, but there are many who have varying political views. It is also true that, at least until recently, the military was more conservative than liberal. But I served with people that were gay, and I and everyone knew they were gay. We didn't care.
The idea that the military personnel would haze an openly gay person is a b/s argument for the status quo. Don't ask don't tell is wrong and they need to stop asking for the opinions of the officer corp, who is overwhelmingly conservative. They need to ask the rank and file, who are the ones who would actually have to deal with the gays and lesbians. I guarantee if they are asked, don't ask don't tell wouldn't come off as the consensus.
Oh, and as a side note, we also need to crack down on conservative indoctrination of the junior military by their superiors...this happens, I have experienced this.
That moment of the debate was so revealing of where the Republican party is and there the country is once again heading. It was a legitmate question, regardless of whether the general was gay, a Clinton supporter, or left handed. If a person MUST be openly Republican to ask a question in a nationally televised debate, then the system itself is flawed...and we are heading back down to a red-state, blue-state dilemma. The Republicans want to play the game only if they own the rules and control the message.
In addition, talk about passing the buck?!...I am completely amazed and scared to the death that Mitt Romney is considered a legitmate contender. How many questions last night did he nervously cast off as a decision that was inappropriate for him to answer?? In the question of gays in the military, it revealed just how much of a spineless buffoon he is.
Lastly, what also adds a dimension to this is that the moderator himself is "in the closet". While most of the voters may not know that, I am sure the candidates did. Just the exchange with Romney added another sprinkle of sizzle to what was a very awkward Republican moment and embarrassing chapter in the American electorial process.
I was watching this last night, and I can't tell what that racket is after his microphone goes off--are they honestly booing a man who served 40+ years in the Armed Forces for being openly gay?
Oh, I see, since most of the military are conservatives and are christian their beliefs trump other peoples beliefs. Where does that statistic come from that shows that most are Republicans? Secondly why are learned people not only using the bible to stake their whole anti-gay position on, but some of the oldest parts, parts that need the most liberal interpretation to mean what they want it to mean which is that being gay is a mortal sin. I mean really, get with the 21st centuy people, Leviticus also extoles human sacrifice, burning of prostitutes and stoning of blasphemers, what is their position on those subjects?
I suspect that almost every well-thoughtout, legitimate question was asked by someone leaning toward or already supporting the Democratic Party.
And I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the more bug-eyed questioners with the loonier, more laughable questions came from someone leaning toward or already supporting the Republican Party.
On that basis alone, this might have been the most revealing and important debate either Party's candidates have had or will have between now and November, 2008. This was as close to the revelatory Face In The Crowd/Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes moment for today's Republican Party as I've seen.
"The families of soldiers are generally conservative." I'd like to see a little proof of that! Also, in simple terms of conduct in the two You-Tube debates, the Democrat's audience showed WAAAYYYY more class than that cluster of piglets last night. Patriotic Americans my ass!
What if some hapless recruit gets gang raped in the shower by a bunch of gay soldiers? Is that a "don't yell, don't tell policy"?
CNN's response to Kerr's apparent association with the Clinton campaign:
And yet, Grover Norquist is a perfectly acceptable questioner...
Bigotry is not a principle.
Maybe this is why none of Romney's sons are fighting in Iraq. He doesn't want them associating with any gay soldiers.
Did you know that as the number of sons in a family increases, the probability that the youngest one is gay increases as well?
You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.
Barry Goldwater