Powered by TypePad

« Bill Clinton "Opposed Iraq From The Beginning" But Not In Dec 2002 | Main | The NY Times v. Giuliani [versus me, and I lose] »

November 28, 2007



Can I say something snarky? OK

Huckabee had a good debate,

but he has a terrible last name and needs new teeth.



The Freepers have it all documented - a CNN transcript of the gay officer from two years ago. They know who he is. Liars they are. Probably supposed to be a set up, but I imagine they all knew to expect something like this. After all, CNN is so predictable.


Kim is cracking me up tonight. :D


I don't think it was pandering by Romney on the Bible question. One of the Articles of Faith of the LDS church is: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."


Anyone who believes the Bible should be taken word for word literally is a fool.


Nice job Jane and Elliot. Entertaining.

You folks are quick with your takedowns of the CNN plants. Thanks!


Taking the Bible literally is a far cry from believing it is the Word of God.


On sanctuary cities I wish they'd all just shut up.

All that was before 9/11. It was a different time and the liberal view was ascendant.

Just forgive Rudy and Romney for any policies they supported or looked the other way on, and forget it.



"Taking the Bible literally is a far cry from believing it is the Word of God."

Correct and quite a difference I might add... Too many tend to make much out of what they know too little about...


Sanctuary cities were wrong before 9-11 and they are even more wrong today (liberal views be damned as they likely will be).


Commeter at ace's left this (can't vouch or if it matters, just passing along)

*24* The Log Cabin Republican Youtuber is an Obama plant.
Posted by: Brian McMurphy at November 29, 2007 01:49 AM (FtrZk)


david cercone



OT, re: the Vet suicide rate. The NYT Science section has this, to me, shocker:

Suicide is more common among older Americans than any other age group. The statistics are daunting. While people 65 and older account for 12 percent of the population, they represent 16 percent to 25 percent of the suicides. Four out of five suicides in older adults are men. And among white men over 85, the suicide rate — 50 per 100,000 men — is six times that of the general population.

A Common Casualty of Old Age: The Will to Live

When someone says life isn’t worth living, pay attention.

I saw it with my Mother and a couple of her friends. The loss of independence and pain and their feeling of having nothing left to contribute. And they tend to reinforce each other with things like not wanting to be a burden, the fear of outliving one's financces, etc, etc.


Here is the question...

David Cercone from Pompano Beach, Florida asks: Do you accept the support of the Log Cabin Republicans? Why should the Log Cabin Republicans support your candidacy?

Doesn't actually say he's a Log Cabin Republican, but certainly gives the impression he's one when after asking if they support LCR, he asks "Why should the Log Cabin Republicans support your candidacy? Additionally, since he's a declared Obama supporter his question wasn't of an "undecided" voter or even that of an interested, leaning voter looking for a pivotal answer.
Geez. CNN's so dumb.

They found a bunch of questioners affiliated with he Democratic organization to stand in as "undecided" voters at the Dem debate to lob lovelies at Hill and then a bunch more to lob silly gotcha's at Republicans...MSM's rolodex is pretty small.


New coins coming out. Most succesful in history.

Nothing to do with the falling dollar.


Via Pattirico's site...commenter poitns out the girl who asked the abortion question is an Edwards supporter


You realize the questioner who asked an abortion question is a John Edwards supporter, right? The link is her in a John Edwards T-shirt discussing the question she asked tonight.

Incidentally, I agree with her logic.

Comment by Christoph — 11/28/2007 @ 11:05 pm

Left by a lefty, at Pat's - I think.


Clinton was asked questions by Hillary supporters, so isn't it a simple matter of equal treatment that the Republicans also be asked questions by Hillary supporters? FOX News claims to be fair and balanced, but when CNN busts its hump to treat the candidates the same, everyone gripes.


So...Bill clinton can't handle a measly softball question on Fox by Chris Wallace and the leftnutroots pee their collective pants that a Fox news reporter would dare make Bill "BIGGEST CRY BABY" Clinton answer to his own record....

the nutroots pee their collective pants that democrat Tim Russert asked a pertinent question of the most china glass fragile woman on the face of the earth...

CNN is constructing Hillary friendly debates, stacking the audience with peculiar "undecidedness" ---and her staff is feeding co-eds with questions all over the map, on the trail.

Then CNN took those same obscurities - Gee, the General we flew to be in our live UTube Debate is a Swiftboat Against Republicans? Ooops. And all the other questioners of a PRIMARY republican debate happen to be dem campaign operatives? Shucks. CNN, really has the "primary" part down, no?

It's been officially demonstrated by the lame ass proxies. CNN and the MSM are dumber than you, but they think they are smarter than you.

Bloggers know google - MSM doesn't, apparently. Jefro in the hicks does. Gramma in the flyover states does. CNN doesn't


And for my own little personal vendetta


you people suck and you are also dumb

you don't know history or even current "stuff like that"

you are Parris Hilton's of the "wider DC press corp" HEH-- there is a reason people hate you more than lawyers.


Well, no surprise to anyone, I liked the gay question. Of course I'm more afraid of the professionalism people like Scott Beauchamp in the military than I am the professionalism of gays.

I thought the CNN analysis was really dumb - at least what I watched. I thought Bennett was pandering to Romney, and everyone else was so anti GOP that they made no sense. But I will say, the debate was not as bad as I expected. Even the "plants" weren't as bad as the democrat plants because rather than pander, the questions highlighted some interesting differences between the left and the right.


Here is the latest from Glenn:

HORTICULTURE JOURNALISM 101 -- a gallery of CNN/YouTube plants. "Abortion questioner is declared Edwards supporter . . . Log Cabin Republican questioner is declared Obama supporter; lead toy questioner is a prominent union activist for the Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers."

Other than that, they were just "ordinary Americans."


Good Morning and thanks again to Jane and Elliot.

CNN is just doing what comes naturally to them, only now seconds afterward the curtain is pulled back and all is revealed on the world wide web. So much effort to make the candidates squirm, look bad and in the end, it is THEY who are exposed.

To me the best part of these last two debates has been the wonderful exposure it has given to "the most trusted name in news."



You did a great job last night. Thanks

I liked the question too, but Mr. Kerr added a new twist to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

In Politics, "Ask the Question, Don't Tell Who You Work For." :)

I wish Elliott would post more, like him alot.



I agree, Hillary, Bill, CNN, Kerry, Plames are all exposed. The question seems: Does anyone care?

The difference in the questions between the two debates and who asked the questions, tells you more about the prejudice at CNN.

Rick Ballard

"I wish Elliott would post more, like him alot."

I'll second that. I can't actually watch the Dems "debate", delicate stomach, so I especially appreciate Jane and Elliot risking severe nausea while doing a great job.


Your point about the questions selected not being pap is excellent. CNN was looking for wedges (as I noted earlier) and managed, through sheer supidity, to highlight points on which the Republicans can win.

I still think that Romney had a poor showing. Way too many "defer to my advisor" answers and while Rudy may have come off as "mean", he didn't back down. Both of them were spinning like tops concerning immigration, 2nd amendment and abortion.

Fred probably has more substantive and complete positions up on his website than any of the others. His responses were measured and more complete but the venue doesn't reward that type of response.

The 'Huckabee surge' isn't going to last. The organization and money just aren't there.


"Does anyone care?"

Yeah - quite a lot of people care. No, not all. Maybe even not enough.

The more people know, the more they care. In that regard, CNN and their cohorts in the Media are truly doing a public service every time they try to flim flam their viewers/readers/listeners and end up in the spotlight themselves with their pants down.

I couldn't be more thrilled that pretense is being stripped away - and much more rapidly than ever before.


Scrappleface says it best:"CNN to Team with Google for Next GOP Debate by Scott Ott for ScrappleFace (2007-11-29) — After the success of last night’s CNN/YouTube debate, the Cable News Network today announced that for the next Republican presidential debate it would also team with YouTube’s parent company, Google, to do background research on the questioners. “We were excited to learn about Google this morning,” said the CNN source. “We want to introduce this amazing service to the rest of America. Our viewers will be stunned to learn that you can just enter a name in a little box and press a button... "


Last night I was fuming at the way CNN handled this debate--it's really a leap to describe it as such. But it was obvious that the forum was designed to emabarress and humiliate the Republican candidates. Far too much time was spent on the retired general. Who cares about what the candidates think about homosexuality.
Here's a good wrap of the debate.


You know, every day a new Hillary corruption story surfaces, with not a peep from the left. Perhaps the strategy is to become inured to all of it, and decide "everyone does it" so it's okay. I believe the whole "Bush lied" meme was a response by the Hillary types so they could paint all politicians corrupt in order to excuse the Clintons. And of course the lack of press makes people think that it can't be that big a deal which is the worst disservice of all.

At any rate, you have to imagine that for every Hillary corruption story a few people say - "enough" and decide that she is too much for them. What I would like to see is a projection of how many people she loses with each subsequent scandal, and where the tipping point is, if there is one.


I agree,Jane. It's always "old news, let's move on", everybody does it, and it's just mean stuff by the VRWC. But something has to stick.

From glasater's WS link this doozy:
[quote]What a depressing debate. CNN's long slide into mediocrity accelerates. Is this what running for president of the greatest democracy in the world has become? Standing in front of CNN's corporate logo in a hall full of yowling Ron Paul loons and enduring clumsy webcam questions from Unabomber look-a-likes in murky basements?

I feel lucky to be from an earlier century where your own founding fathers knew that the secret to government is to protect it from the daily mob. Clearly the boundless paranoia of middle-aged media executives about the kids and their mysterious "Internet" has led them to stoop to this kind of pandering foolishness. They should feel shame tonight.

So, a good night for for the lowest denominator, a bad night for the GOP. America got to see a vaguely threatening parade of gun fetishists, flat worlders, Mars Explorers, Confederate flag lovers and zombie-eyed-Bible-wavers as well as various one issue activists hammering their pet causes. My cheers went to a listless Fred Thompson who easily qualified himself to be president in my book by looking all night like he would cheerfully trade his left arm for an early exit off the stage to a waiting Scotch and good Cuban cigar. The media will probably award a win to Mike Huckabee, the easy listening music candidate at home in any crowd, fluent in simpleton speak and the one man on the stage tonight who led the audience to roaring cheers by boasting that he had a special qualification to be president that none of the second-raters on the stage could match: A degree in Bible Studies from Ouachita Baptist University of Arkadelphia, Arkansas.[/quote]



"protect it from the daily mob", a meme to rememeber.


The next step is to google them when they pose the question and flash that on the stage, complete with links to youtubes for context, and, of course, ridicule.


Thanks, Ann. The feeling is mutual. Also, now is a good time to mention I'm very glad Porchlight has come out of the shadows and taken advantage of TM's comprehensive commenting reform.

Just to correct a mistake from my debate blogging last night: Jane correctly described the Brigadier general's statement that members of the military are professional enough to serve with openly gays and lesbians, while my account was incorrect. A good example of the benefits of multiple debate bloggers, I think.

BTW, the black on black crime question seems to missing from the debate page at YouTube.


Wow Clarice, that really says it doesn't it.

Not as good, but I like this from Stephen Green at Pajamasmedia:

For the future, I’d like to propose what I call the Algonquin Round Table Debate. No moderator, no stopwatches, no buzzers or red lights, no YouTube, and, please, no Anderson Cooper or Chris Matthews. Instead, put all the candidates around a big table, ply them with first-rate food and liquor, and just let them talk and argue with one another until—or beyond—last call. Now that, for Democrats or Republicans, would be an event worth watching.


Yes, Clarice - I thought "Richelieu" (sp?) absolutely nailed it!


Ann--perhaps jom could get Hit and Run to moderate the "Algonquin Round Table Debate".


ann, Thompson has proposed that very idea.


Thanks, Elliott. Amnesty rocks! And thanks also to you and Jane for the superior debate coverage. Forcing oneself to watch CNN for that long is quite a feat.


I love the Algonquin Round Table idea. As long as Hillary doesn't try to style herself as Dorothy Parker. Can you imagine?

Other Tom

PaulL, I believe that certain provisions of the Geneva Conventions do provide that persons taken into custody must be treated humanely, and that would include unlawful combatants.

They are, however, not entitled to the protections and privileges afforded by the Conventions to prisoners of war.


Where is Hit? Marvelous idea. How and who do we rally at Fox,
because it cannot be on CNN or MSNBC

Maybe Hannity or Glenn Beck would do it?

Rush would be a great moderator.


The GOP has some blame in these debates format problems.

This isn't the first time that the debates have been "drug" down by a bad media format so they were well aware that they were going to get bushwhacked. (maybe that should be "demwhacked").

If the GOP doesn't come up with some credible work-arounds for the debate formats, one where candidates get a chance to speak unprompted, then the debates after the primaries are going to be grim.

Any argument that good orators should be able to overcome even the worst format is bogus. Few are Ronald Reagan, and even he in his media-thwarting prime was sneered at the by media as being the "teflon president".

If the GOP doesn't stop lolling around, they are going to be shoved back once again.


And, by the way, I am steamed at the GOP...


Thanks, Other Tom.

The point that is obvious is that al-Qaeda does not show any respect for life, period, let alone adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Does a dull knife cutting through a bound hostage's neck, does that register on Saint McCain?

McCain claims that this is not about them, this is about us. But that completely argues against his argument that we must abide by the Genevas if we expect others to as well.

At least Hillary wouldn't show any reserve when it came to torturing an al-Qaeda member if necessary.

McCain's POW years seriously warped him on this issue.


Just saw this, sorry if it's been discussed already - according to Michael Graham at the Corner, CNN erased Col. Kerr from the re-broadcast of the debate:

Hillary's General [Michael Graham]

I watched the CNN re-broadcast of the debate this morning from 3-5am (the joys of morning drive radio), and I kept waiting for Col. Keith Kerr's question. He never showed up. CNN apparently deleted his entire appearance from the re-broadcast.

Thumbs up for the nod to jouralistic integrity, but a big thumbs down for the incredible journalistic incompetence. CNN gave Hillary Clinton's campaign five minutes of the GOP's presidential debate. Will they give Lt. Col. (ret.) Ralph Peters five minutes of the Democratic debate?


Speaking of Clarice/American Thinker - Just saw a "Fark" link to them....nice!


Of course this would never be described as dirty tricks. I assume CNN, the Clinton campaign, and You Tube were all complicit in this. The damage is done in the original to the few watching, did Ray Donovan ever recover his reputation back, I think not

But I say let all the plants in. Let them ask their questions, the mistake was giving Hillary's general a chance to respond. I thought it was wrong when Wolf responded. Follow up yes but no point by point response by a non-candidate. The ex-General isnt running for anything except maybe an attrctive young private.

You also need to have lived long anoungh to remember how Barry Goldwater was treated by professionals like the Kalbs, Sandy Vanocher (sic), John Chancellor, and Mike Wallace. These plants are silly compared to those professionals.


Oh hell give em General Petreaus, altho he would be far too gracious.

Cecil Turner

I believe that certain provisions of the Geneva Conventions do provide that persons taken into custody must be treated humanely, and that would include unlawful combatants.

Yeah, the provisions of common article 3 are generally held to be applicable to all detainees. Specifically prohibited is:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
Personally I don't find that argument particularly persuasive, nor would I read anything in Geneva sympathetically when applying them to Al Qaeda types. As far as I'm concerned, they are entitled to the bare minimum protections of the treaty, interpreted in our favor in every gray area. And that wouldn't prohibit any sort of coercive interrogation technique that's been discussed so far (specifically including waterboarding, which is as much "torture" as I am a "peacenik").

I'm also unsure what to make of his surge support and charges of mismanagement directed at Rumsfeld. He in fact supported more troops all along, along with a change in mission. But he seems focused on increased numbers of troops rather than mission (which is no more correct than those who call for drawdowns with no regard to the effect on the mission). And the critics of Rumsfeld almost all claim (unpersuasively) he failed to listen to subordinates. That presents a special challenge to surge supporters, since the previous combatant commander was apparently more worried about sustainability of troop rotations (and troop reductions) than mission accomplishment, and vocally resisted troop increases until he was replaced:

He will replace General Casey, whose plan for troop reductions in Iraq faltered last year in the face of escalating sectarian strife and who initially expressed public wariness about any short-term increase in troops in Iraq, a move that is now a leading option under consideration by the White House.
A case he continued to make even after the surge was well under way. And in any event, that sort of criticism would seem to me to be better directed at the military men making the actual plans, rather than their civilian overseers (a far less attractive target for political criticism, however).

And none of this inclines me personally toward McCain. For one thing, his big issues tend to be awfully politically convenient (e.g., campaign finance reform in the wake of his "Keating Five" participation; "torture" and "swiftboating" that covers his own collaboration as a POW). And for another, he seems to get the big picture stuff right, but is obnoxiously unworkable on the details. Bottom line is that I don't trust him, and won't vote for him (unless the alternative is abhorrent).


BTW The farm subsidy question was asked by an intern in Jane Harman's office.


his big issues tend to be awfully politically convenient (e.g., campaign finance reform in the wake of his "Keating Five" participation; "torture" and "swiftboating" that covers his own collaboration as a POW)

For McCain and supporters his abosolute moral authority to be wrong is somehow just as good as (or better than) being right.


Republicans look to be nominating another Bob Dole. Lovable but not electable. I truly hope I'm wrong, but I foresee a Hillary presidency if we (republicans) put Huckabee at the top of our ticket.



RUSH didn't endorse Fred but he plugged him as the only non-moderate on the stage at the top of the first hour. That's good news for Fred.


Elliott and Jane! Thank you so much. I was busy during the debates, getting lost driving around greater LA. I find myself much preferring your liveblogs to the actual debates, anyway.
Thanks, guys.

AND thanks for all the follow up on the questioners. How funny. The Democratic CNN debate had undecided Democrats in the audience to answer questions, and the Republican CNN debate had decided Democrats in the audience. Bah on them. But it sounds like it was illuminating.


Elliot mentioned Frank Luntz last night - well, Hot Air has a Luntz focus group clip and guess who got one of the highest ratings all night on the subject of illegal immigration - FRED!


I heard that, Ann. Well , we know why the msms is promoting Huckabee, don't we?

Fred's position statements on real issues beats everyone else's.He'd chew Hill alive in a (n honest) debate.

Other Tom

Cecil, I have very direct, personal, first-hand knowledge (source: one of the Joint Chiefs) that the chiefs felt very strongly that Rumsfeld would not listen to them. This included specific mention of his clearing the room of people in uniform before taking vital decisions.

I also know that his recalling that SpecOps general from retirement and appointing him COS of the Army was understood to be an insulting rebuke to every serving general officer at the time. Rumsfeld cannot have failed to know that his action would be understood that way.


Noticed this on Captain Ed:

CNN deserves the brickbats it will receive for its atrocious research skills. However, Republicans should be prepared to answer the questions the candidates received in this debate. At some point, this will cease being an intramural fight and we will have to convince all of America to vote for our nominee. That won't happen if we can't handle fastballs, with a couple of curveballs in the mix.

Don't agree. There was no attempt to cue in the audience that the questions were coming from unfriendlies, plus there were very few questions of right-leaning types.

Wouldn't it have been great if someone had asked a question like: "Aren't the terrorists in Iraq nearly erased and doesn't that justify all efforts in Iraq for world peace?" Just for balance, and what boos that would have brought.

I agree that the candidates should be able to handle "curve balls" but why start with a format that beforehand handicaps the entire debate?

The CNN debate, like the others, gave an air of what's "normal" popular curiosity, to set a conventional wisdom prior to the debate that makes the whole thing nearly worthless.

These candidates are not that bad and their views are getting throttled by slick packaging. If Mike Huckabee knows these debates are not that consequential and doesn't takes them lightly, then why shouldn't the others?! Good googley moogley.

The candidates are not well vetted either. Fred at least looked disgusted the whole time and that goes a long way for me if he can at least recognize where he is and what's going on around him.


...Huckabee takes them lightly


Sky News reports there's a new Osama tape out--just one day too late to be a pick in the CNN debate.
< a href=http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1295057,00.html?f=rss>OBL


ha! clarice!

Appalled Moderate

Would Osama's question been for Huckabee?

Cecil Turner

the chiefs felt very strongly that Rumsfeld would not listen to them.

That's as may be. But one cannot convincingly argue Rumsfeld is to blame for not listening to his subordinates on Iraq troop levels (the primary one of which was advocating strongly for a reduction, and claiming a surge was unworkable), and simultaneously support the surge they advocated against.

As to the debate format, I TIVO'd that program and just watched the highlights this morning. I immediately pegged that Ted Faturos guy as a plant, and FEC'd him (no mention). Now I see that's just the tip of the iceberg. Hugh Hewitt has a well-deserved snoopy dance up.


In all due respect to Jane and any other gay or lesbian supporters, I'm sure that the military leadership is plenty professional to handle a platoon full of gays. But, it isn't the mature leaders who are the problem, it is those 18 and 19 year old young guys, who don't want to live and shower with an openly gay man next to them.

I'm all for gay rights, but I'm sick of having the gay lifestyle thrust in my face again and again as if being gay is somehow superior and we should all embrace it. Most of the female career military types I've known were lesbians, but women have not near the anathema to lesbians as young straight males have to their gay counterparts. It is a matter of unit cohesion and morale. I really resent using the military as a platform to advance an alternative lifestyle that puts that lifestyle above the needs of the military. If a gay or lesbian wants to serve, then serve by the military rules. Stop being so selfish and self-centered to want the military to change to suit your agenda. The military is no place for social experimentation. Besides, who really wants to know what someone else's sexual proclivities might be? Keep it private.


Maybe CNN's debate motto ought to be "Don't Ask,Don't Tell" as far as their questioners go.


The chiefs felt very strongly that Rumsfeld would not listen to them.

OT - so what is your source's analysis? Is Rumsfeld just an ass? Arrogant? Un-trusting of the military? What on earth was his reasoning?

As to the debate, I actually was surprised that it hit on both the war and Immigration as those are decidedly Righty issues. It was almost as if CNN was trying to get cover for it's actions. But I get too Machiavellian on occasion.


OT: A link about journalism as practiced today.

Associated Press president Tom Curley's defense of AP stringer photographer Bilal Hussein does nothing to defend AP. We value the Associated Press, which makes it all the more important to call AP to task when it strays from journalism. We make Our call on the Associated Press.


I think the point was Sara, that in the military there is no "gay lifestyle" nor should they be. The whole "gay lifestyle" think is very '80's, when it hurt to be out of the closet.

When I was in Australia a few years back I was pleasantly surprised that a straight 20 year old guy could hang out with a bunch of gay men and never feel uncomfortable. That's what happens when being gay is not a big deal - everyone gets over it.

And I promise not to get in a big gay harangue about it.


The military is no place for social experimentation.

Don't tell the http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org/>Tuskegee Airmen that.


Still, Jane--here's the irony..CNN gave about 5 minutes time (video and live question) to a Hill Shill about a policy that Bill promulgated; CNN surely knew but didn't disclose his ties to Hill--had they, any of the candidates might well have suggested the man ask HIS candidate first.

Rick Ballard

"But I get too Machiavellian on occasion."

Switch to Vizzinian, it's more fun and the tin foil is useful for leftovers.


nor should they be

If openly gay = gay lifestyle then don't ask don't tell is basically "nor should they be".


But, it isn't the mature leaders who are the problem, it is those 18 and 19 year old young guys, who don't want to live and shower with an openly gay man next to them.

I agree with most others that they could get over it pretty quickly. Although I'm not sure what the Larry Craig arrest tells me about men in general being able to handle being in a bathroom with openly gay men.

Rick Ballard

"Independent of Bilal Hussein, who shall have his own day in court, the verdict on AP is in. AP does not know the bounds of journalism, and may not know enough to care. And as punishment, we get to laugh at AP's pretense."

SBW - Bravo. A really excellent piece. Could you explicate "including those decisions that assure the minimums of society of benefit to all individuals"?


SBW--That is a great article. I don't know if it'll run, but I blogged it.

Appalled Moderate


I really don't care about sexual preference. But if I am going to a public restroom, I really don't want to walk in on somebody having sex.


Jane, Maybee, others. Why should they have to "get over it?" Why can't the gays "get over it?" Why does their political/social agenda come above the good order and discipline of the military? I can tell you from first hand experience that the majority might stay quiet, but they don't "get over it." Have any of you been on a ship where there is one common shower for dozens and dozens of men? Where sleeping quarters are like sardines in a can? Where combat training requires very close physical contact? We aren't talking about an office or an academic setting here where nice metrosexual men can work without being a problem for their coworkers. It is very selfish and naive to say they should just "get over it." And all you need is one or two good men who can't get over it, to wreck havoc in a unit.

I have good friends who are gay. They became my friends because I liked them and respected their work or their ideas not because they were gay or straight. But, to be honest, I haven't met a gay in the last few years I would call likable. They come at you with a giant 2x4 chip on their shoulder, daring you to say something they can immediately jump on as being anti-gay. It is tiresome to be around. I don't like gay militants anymore than I like militant feminists.


I really don't care about sexual preference. But if I am going to a public restroom, I really don't want to walk in on somebody having sex.

Neither do I. But I can certainly handle a little finger-wave under the divider. Which is what Craig was charged for, to the applause of many.
Many of those that applauded, in fact, are currently outraged that some in the military think they couldn't handle a little finger-wave in the bathroom, either.


Jane, Maybee, others. Why should they have to "get over it?" Why can't the gays "get over it?"

ISTM a big part of military training is getting over things and learning to focus on your job.
I do understand that having known gay men (or women) in the showers would be very different for a straight person. You know, it would be really uncomfortable for me if I suddenly had to start showering in a room with a bunch of men. Similarly, I imagine it would create a very sexually charged atmosphere for anyone to shower every day with a group of physically fit people of the gender to which he is attracted.
But I think it can be done, and more than that I think it always has been done. I would rather spend my time in the military with a bunch of gay women than a straight, dim-witted trollop like Lynndie England.

Rick Ballard

The purpose of having the Gay Brigadier is being perfectly illustrated right here. A nice little wedge - Saul Alinsky would be so proud of Anderson Cooper.

This ain't pouring water on the Red Witch folks - ten minutes after being sworn in she'll sign an executive order mandating unisex training with bonus points for advancement awarded to every LGBT who signs up.

Fox needs to let her chew on an answer to Briggy's question. Just to see what kind of lie she'll tell.


Funny, Rick. I think one of the candidates should have asked Anderson Cooper if CNN is a don't ask/don't tell employer. Or if gays should be able to serve openly in the moderator position.

Appalled Moderate


If Craig didn't plead guilty, I'd be with you. But his attempt to hide this (rather than fight) as well as the rumors that have followed him for years suggest guilty as charged.


I mean, what next? Tom Cruise starring in The Brig Gen. Keith Kerr Story?


His plea has nothing to do with it, AM. His intent doesn't really either. The officer arrested him BEFORE Craig pleaded guilty.

The fact is, it is common practice to arrest men who seem to want to engage in sex in restrooms. Not men having sex, not men exposing themselves, and not men explicitly saying they want sex, but men seeming to want to have sex with other men can get arrested.

Yet we scoff that the military is full of yahoos because they aren't sure they want to share a bathroom with men that might seem to want to have sex with them.

What would be ok and what would be brig-worthy in the Army showers or barracks? A finger-wiggle? A lingering glance? A foot moving a bit closer than you'd expect?


What a lot of people don't understand about the military is that generally speaking one does not get punished for breaking the rules or doing something wrong.

One gets punished for getting CAUGHT breaking the rules or doing something wrong.

Kind of eliminates the whole "well so and so did it too" defense. So and so didn't get caught and by the way tattling doubles your punishment!

Dunno myself but doubt that the shower thing is the sticky wicket. Perhaps not getting caught is just one way of demonstrating adequate discipline. Why anybody would require gay males to demonstrate adequate discipline is the part I have no clue on.


Changing gears. I have to tout this amazing One in a Million Photo or as one family member called it, "The smile of God."

Rick Ballard

Tom Maguire,

Could you put the issues pages from the candidates websites on the top left sidebar? That way we might actually be able to discuss issue differences without feeding the Google monster.

Issues pages:

Fred Thompson

Mitt Romney

Rudy Giuliani

Mike Huckabee

John Whatshisname

BTW - Not one has chosen to add the Clinton established "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a policy issue.


Personally, I think the whole thing is stupid. Everyone knows who is gay and who isn't anyway. And there are gays in the military right now. I don't know what the right answer is. But I'll bet you everything I own right now that the discrimination suits will fly fast and furious if open gays are disciplined for any infraction. And that is the crux of the matter. How do you maintain the discipline required if you are constantly concerned about the appearance of being overly harsh on someone who deserves it for other reasons but is openly gay? Damned if I know.

Bill Arnold

Stop being so selfish and self-centered to want the military to change to suit your agenda. The military is no place for social experimentation.
In addition to the Tuskegee Airmen, it's hard to argue that Integration of the Armed Forces was not a social experiment of sorts.

On 26 July 1948, President Harry S Truman signed Executive Order 9981, establishing the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services.

Rick Ballard

Some good news (via AT). An incumbent scoring 38 a year out, as Landrieu does, is going to have problems holding the seat.


Okay, last gay post. First Clarice, I know, I have to keep reminding democrats that "Don't Ask don't tell" was Clinton's signature legislation. The latest meme is that he was forced into it - apparently by the democrat congress.

why don't gays get over it Believe me I think they should. They shoot themselves in the foot daily. But remember, lots of gays are over it. My partner and her wife went to my golf tournament this year. They are very well known among all those people. At the end of dinner Sue commented that she felt normal - they were no longer 'the lesbians' but rather Sue and Gail. They spend each day striving for "normal". Their biggest complaint about gays is that many strive to be exactly the opposite. It reminds me a bit of all the adverse effect of affirmative action.

And finally, there are gays in the military and they take Don't ask Don't tell seriously. They never ever talk about their families, don't declare their kids as beneficiaries in the event of their deaths if a new one is born in the course of their service and they live in daily fear of anyone finding out. I'm pretty sure their spare time is not spent gawking in the shower.



Cool picture. ::grin::



The point that is obvious is that al-Qaeda does not show any respect for life, period, let alone adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Does a dull knife cutting through a bound hostage's neck, does that register on Saint McCain?

The question goes beyond the identity of a specific enemy, though. Who knows what the future brings in terms of adversaries.

That said, I'm getting a little tired of this argument from McCain. I'd like to ask him if he would trade all those years of torture for 90 seconds of waterboarding.

Perhaps that's unfair, but there's something disingenuous to me about the automatic conflation of waterboarding with life-threatening extremely painful torture that continues without end. Anyway, to me, sleep deprivation would be torture, but I certainly don't personally chuck that in the legal definition of torture bucket.


I'm pretty sure their spare time is not spent gawking in the shower.

Perhaps I'm just projecting, because I know that if I were in the shower room with a bunch of young male marines, I would definitely be gawking.


Well, I don't know how you legislate against a gut reaction.

I consider myself a tolerant person and I'm absolutely of the mind that what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their business. But, no matter what my intellect says, I still feel uncomfortable when I see 2 males playing kissy face and being all lovey dovey. It is a gut reaction because its creepy to a person who would never consider a same sex relationship. It has nothing to do with their professionalism or whether they are good guys. Just keep it out of my face. Keep it private.

Don't ask, don't tell is a way for the military to keep it out of the faces of those who would be offended. We're talking, primarily, about young testosterone loaded guys at the height of their sexual abilities and whose world revolves around having their manhood tested and wanting to prove their manhood, especially in front of their peers. It is a recipe for disaster and the military knows it, even if the college professors, gay activists, and p.c. crowd don't.


Seriously, I don't think it's a necessary part of the issue to pretend that the whole shower thing would never be an issue. Of course it is going to happen that people are going to be attracted to naked people of their preferred gender. It's human.
But the issues you mention, Jane, the families and the benefits, are more important. It's much less stressful to deal with the occasional sexual attraction than to fear leaving your kids with no benefactors, or having to deny yourself an appropriate relationship forever.


Bill Arnold, you beat me to it. Truman did more for integration with that single stroke of a pen.A major bit of social engineering at the time. Truth be told he was apparently a very prejudiced man, but having known that Black soldiers were dying for their country on the battlefields, he thought the morality of a segregated military was unjustifiable. Oh, these dead White males.Oh, that horrid Christian religion.


I doubt the military would recognize a gay spouse, but natural or adopted children of a service member would not be denied benefits. A birth certificate is going to show a female as the mother, so there would be no reason to explain any circumstances beyond proving the natural or adopted relationship with proper documentation, the same as all family members do. We had to present a birth certificate and a certified copy of the adoption order to have our daughter's ID card issued. Military hospitals do invitro, so even if that is how conception took place, there would be no reason not to recognize the offspring.



You are wrong. My partner just had dinner with a lesbian couple. One is in the military. The other just had their second child. They are legally married in MA. There is no way she can declare that second child because it would reveal that she is gay. If she dies in Iraq the second child gets no benefits.


The desegregation of blacks in the military is not a valid analogy to the gay issue. Blacks weren't excluded, they were segregated. Gays are in violation of the UCMJ the moment they sign on the dotted line. The military has already conceded to them and agreed to the principle that what we don't know, we won't punish. Why do they want to push it further than that? When they keep pushing that point, it becomes political and not a burning desire to serve the country.


Why do they want to push it further than that? When they keep pushing that point, it becomes political and not a burning desire to serve the country.

I think it shows a huge devotion to country to be willing to deny your committed relationship so you can serve the country.
IMHO, that's a really big sacrifice.


Jane, why would she have to reveal she was gay? Is there something on the child's birth certificate that says born to a lesbian mother? I seriously doubt it. If it is her child, then the child is eligible for benefits.

The comments to this entry are closed.