This is from the Republican YouTube debate the other day, and it was removed from the second broadcast because the questioner was thought to be on a committee run by Hillary Clinton (it was later found out that he just lent his name, and wasn't actually doing anything for them--anyway...).

Here's the question:

Quote :

"KERR: My name is Keith Kerr, of Santa Rosa, California. I'm a retired brigadier general with 43 years of service. And I'm a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Course, the Command and 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."

A valid question, I think--one of many valid questions that point out the many flaws, both logically and morally, with Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Romney's response:

Quote :

"COOPER: [Former Massachusetts] Governor [Mitt] Romney, you said in 1994 that you looked 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? ROMNEY: This isn't that time. This is not that time. We're in the middle of a war. The people who have watched -- COOPER: Do you look forward to that time, though, one day? ROMNEY: 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 a change. COOPER: Is that a change in your position from -- ROMNEY: Yeah, I didn't think it would work. I didn't think "don't ask, don't tell" 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. COOPER: 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? ROMNEY: 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'll listen to what they have to say. COOPER: All right. General Kerr is -- as I said, is here. Please stand up, General. Thank you very much for being with us. Did you feel you got an answer to your question? KERR: With all due respect, I did not get an answer from the candidates."

All of the respondents danced around the question and basically said "It works, don't mess with it"--something I and a lot of people strongly disagree with--but Romney's was by far the worst of the bunch.

12/1/2007 12:26:48 PM

Quote :

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

kind of a loaded question if you ask me. its not exclusive to people in the armed services. unfortunately, a lot of professionals in all sorts of jobs are a little weirded out by working closely with a gay man or women.

i understand that there are plenty of gays and lesbians that want to defend the country. if they're willing to go through that just to go get shot at in iraq, i commend them. i sure as hell wouldn't do it if i were gay

as far as romney, well, he's the most disingenuous mofo i've ever seen.


[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 1:11 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2007 12:42:41 PM

Quote :

"honestly, they probably aren't."

I very much disagree with this. I served with several people who were 'openly' gay (as openly as don't-ask-don't-tell allows) with no problems whatsoever.

12/1/2007 12:53:26 PM

i'm glad to hear that. obviously i'm not basing my opinions off actual experience in the military, but through experiences in everyday life. i mean, its not a secret that a large population of america isn't very fond of THE GAYS!!

and i shouldn't have used 'they', so i edited. of course there are many varying opinions on the subject.

[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 1:12 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2007 12:56:41 PM

Quote :

"kind of a loaded question if you ask me. its not exclusive to people in the armed services. unfortunately, a lot of professionals in all sorts of jobs are a little weirded out by working closely with a gay man or women."

no, it's not a loaded question, because the military is an institution that explicitly prohibits (openly) gay people from working for them. Therefore, it's fair to ask why the military specifically has chosen this stance, where as this stance is not practiced (legally) in the private sector.

12/1/2007 1:45:10 PM

Quote :

"t's fair to ask why the military specifically has chosen this stance"

you're right, but that wasn't the question

12/1/2007 1:46:44 PM

do you really want a debate where they softball them the questions and you really don't learn anything about the candidates?

12/1/2007 1:46:50 PM

no, not at all. i think it was a good question, especially when considering his prior statements on the issue.

not sure why out of the thousands of questions CNN screened they decided to go with this one, AND invite the gay dude to the audience, considering that "don't ask, don't tell" has not been that big of topic recently.

[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 1:57 PM. Reason : m]

12/1/2007 1:52:57 PM

Quote :

"you're right, but that wasn't the question"

well maybe the Officer was making the assumption that the reason the policy is in place because people in "uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians". So, maybe it was a false assumption, or maybe not. I guess what you're getting at is, why didn't he just say "should gays be allowed to serve in the military?"

and just because "don't ask, don't tell" is "not that big a topic" lately, i don't think that precludes bringing some focus to it. Personally, i'm tired of hearing only about gay marriage, abortion, how to end the war, etc.

12/1/2007 2:05:28 PM

hey man, i'm on your side. essentially we're just in violent agreement here.

Quote :

"why didn't he just say "should gays be allowed to serve in the military?"

basically, yeah

[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 2:09 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2007 2:09:24 PM

yeah, i know.
and as far as bringing the guy into the audience, that probably should be considered a bit underhanded as far as "normal debate rules" go, or at least as normal rules concerning these circle jerks that are called debates are concerned. It was obviously CNN's intention to corner the candidates into making blatantly anti-gay remarks (which they did), they saying "aha, gotcha! now are you going to say the same thing to this guys face!?". Of course, I don't know if CNN had anticipated that the Republican audience would start to boo the 43-year veteran, simply because he's gay.

12/1/2007 2:23:51 PM

Quote :

"Of course, I don't know if CNN had anticipated that the Republican audience would start to boo the 43-year veteran, simply because he's gay."

youtube link plz

12/1/2007 3:39:58 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-wJkrEnmtg

12/1/2007 3:52:53 PM

Quote :

"start to boo the 43-year veteran, simply because he's gay."

Wow.

There was also booing when Romney was talking, though.
And clapping when General Kerr finished talking.

I really hope Bush takes the religious far-right wing of the Republican Party with him when he leaves.

12/1/2007 4:07:20 PM

This topic always reminds me of Bill Hicks' Gays in the Military standup bit.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=960702

Therefore, I find this topic hilarious.

12/1/2007 4:12:38 PM

^^ yes, having rewatched the video - i'll say that there was "heckling" from the crowd, starting around 4:05 when he lost the mic, then quite audibly around 4:20-4:25. When he finishes, though, around 4:30, there seems to be some polite clapping from the audience.
Of course, the whole time, all the people directly behind Kerr appear to be totally quiet and respectful, which would lead me to the conclusion that CNN filled the audience kind of like how Hollywoods fills award show audiences. They fill the front seats and lower level with rich people and donors, probably older, conservative people who will keep their mouths shut most of the time. Then they opened the floodgates for the upper balconies and let some more raucous people in who make all the noise.

[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 4:19 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2007 4:19:09 PM

Bill Hicks was a fucking moron.

Quote :

" You never see my attitude in the press, that's what bugs me. You never see my point of view. For instance: gays in the military. Now, I don't know how y'all feel about it, but gays want to be in the military. Here's how I feel about it, all right? Anyone dumb enough to want to be in the military should be allowed in. End of fuckin story. That should be the only requirement. I don't care how many push-ups you can do, put on a helmet, go wait in that fox-hole, we'll tell you when we need you to kill somebody... You know what I mean? I'm so sick... I've watched these fuckin Congressional hearings, and all these military guys, and all the pundits, seriously "oh, the esprit de corps will be affected..." Excuse me, but aren't y'all fuckin' hired killers? Shut up! You are thugs, and when we need you to go blow the fuck out of a nation of little brown people, we'll let you know. Until then... "

12/1/2007 5:41:26 PM

^
I don't necessarily espouse everything he says in that bit, but c'mon. It's funny; moreso, if you hear it.

Quote :

"I don't want any gay people hangin' around me while I'm killing kids."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np6_b-72h3e

[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 6:11 PM. Reason : "I could kill you by looking at you."]

12/1/2007 5:59:28 PM

He believes everyone in the military is a dumb thug who is nothing but a hired killer...thats just fucking hilarious.

12/1/2007 6:12:06 PM

Haha, yeah it is.

He also thought we would fight our next war with musket repellant.

What a moron.

12/1/2007 6:19:55 PM

Quote :

"He believes everyone in the military is a dumb thug who is nothing but a hired killer...thats just fucking hilarious."

i'm not saying that's true, but the rank-and-file - the 19 year old kids getting shot at in Iraq right now - aren't generally the sharpest tacks in the box. The leaders and officers, and some of the infantry? Yeah, of course. but it's true that sometimes, or maybe even often, the Army is a last resort for kids who can't get into college or don't want or can't get a "real job".

12/1/2007 6:35:02 PM

Quote :

"i'm not saying that's true, but the rank-and-file - the 19 year old kids getting shot at in Iraq right now - aren't generally the sharpest tacks in the box. The leaders and officers, and some of the infantry? Yeah, of course. but it's true that sometimes, or maybe even often, the Army is a last resort for kids who can't get into college or don't want or can't get a "real job"."

This is easily one of the most arrogant and wrong things I have ever read on this site.

12/1/2007 7:35:07 PM

no kidding.

12/1/2007 7:42:10 PM

mhum, i sure didn't expect that response.
now it's time for some anecdotal evidence - "I graduated from State and still joined the army". "My brother is the smartest person I know and he joined the Marines"

12/1/2007 9:50:44 PM

i'd like to see both sides of this argument (military smarts) provide some form of evidence for their respective sides

12/1/2007 10:26:57 PM

as opposed to your anecdotal evidence on how people in the Armed Services are nothing more than idiots who couldn't do anything else with their lives?

12/1/2007 10:28:37 PM

^^^ Ultimately, I suppose my anecdotal evidence is no better than yours, but...

I spent 11 years in the Navy. Granted, it is not the Army but I'd imagine the generalities that we're talking about here are similar.

Without a doubt, I ran into some very, very dumb people in the Navy. Some I seriously questioned whether or not they were mildly retarded. Needless to say, they were processed out in short order. I'm still amazed they managed to make it to a boat.

The point, though, is that these handful of people were by far the exception and not the rule that you're attempting to make it out to be. The majority of people I met and worked with were no smarter or dumber than anyone else outside of the service. Many were very motivated--not slackers unable or unwilling to make it in the 'real' world. Certainly the majority were more than capable of being accepted to college and doing well there academically. I myself am doing very well academically as an EE undergrad.

I understand why you may not like others' career choices. But just because they made a decision that you would not does not make them idiots "who can't get into college or don't want or can't get a "real job"."


What do you base your opinion on?

[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 11:04 PM. Reason : ]

12/1/2007 11:01:57 PM

Quote :

"i'm not saying that's true, but the rank-and-file - the 19 year old kids getting shot at in Iraq right now - aren't generally the sharpest tacks in the box. The leaders and officers, and some of the infantry? Yeah, of course. but it's true that sometimes, or maybe even often, the Army is a last resort for kids who can't get into college or don't want or can't get a "real job"."

I'd like to see what you'd get on the ASVAB. But really, I'd like to see how you'd compare to those with whom I serve. Now, I'm going to be an officer in the Navy come May, so according to you, I'm a sharp tack. But really, do you most, if not, all of those with whom I serve, branch notwithstanding, wouldn't be able to get a job outside of the Armed Services? I mean, really?

Because in this nation, there has been and never will be a maker of character and abilities as there is in the Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, and Marine Corps. Our nation's best and brightest have all served, and their time in service contributed to their success like no other job ever did.

Four generations of men in my family have served. My great-grandfather, grandfather, and my father are who they are now because of their time in uniform. I joined to continue that trend, yes, but most importantly because I felt the call to duty, and that's why my millions of brothers and sisters in arms, and of veterans that came before us joined.

[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 11:07 PM. Reason : and yes, I've seen some stupid sailors in my time, too, but like A Tanzarian said, they get the boot]

12/1/2007 11:05:18 PM

lol fuck the ASVAB, give him the DLAB or EDPT

12/1/2007 11:13:51 PM

I wonder if they had another YouTube debate for democrats, if the moderator would let a conservative stand up after asking a tough question and be invited to evaluate the answers?

[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 11:53 PM. Reason : maybe plant a Ron Paul volunteer in the crowd next time.]

12/1/2007 11:52:04 PM

I would totally be in favor of that being the status quo for everyday interactions with politicians.

12/1/2007 11:55:50 PM

well, that's his stance this week

And for the record, DADT is bullshit. I think it might even make things worse because it means that someone who is questioning his sexuality can't use the military counseling system to deal with it, IIRC. And he certainly can't talk to his leadership about it. So, he is left to suffer in silence. Really, how good is THAT for morale?

12/2/2007 2:34:39 AM

I've gone on record here several times now that it's time to allow gays to serve openly in the military--let's face it, they have been serving anyway probably since the US military was created. And I think we need everyone of sound mind and body that we can get.

I do object to the way the media has given Bill Clinton--who signed don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue into law--a pass. And Hillary Clinton has mostly been given a pass about it, too. She did answer one question that I know of about the policy at issue during a debate--and she gave a skillful answer, I must say.

The fact of the matter is this (some of you may be too young to remember): Bill Clinton campaigned on lifting the ban on gays in the military--and he didn't accomplish anything of the sort. In fact, discharges due to gay or lesbian sexual orientation actually increased under his policy.

(1) Please don't give me any of that "compromise" bullshit--like a number of top Democrats these days, Bill Clinton simply didn't have the courage of his convictions. And (2) gays and lesbians were just one more part of his constituency--along with women, middle-class taxpayers, union members, and so on--that he let down when he didn't keep his campaign promises. Bill Clinton said anything to get elected--and Hillary Clinton will, too--believe it.

[Edited on December 2, 2007 at 3:42 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2007 3:39:16 AM

^ Clinton was told by the entire Joint Chiefs, from the Chairman on down, that the only option that would conceivably work was "dont ask dont tell".

unlike GWB, Bill Clinton actually ACCEPTED and ACTED upon recommendations from the Joint Chiefs

but yeah, i know i know.

Bill Clinton is de Debil. everything he touched was an evil socialist plot.

12/2/2007 3:54:52 AM

i was always told bill clinton did about as much as he could on the issue but right wing conservatives basically limited him to "dont ask dont tell"...at least thats how it was taught at our highschool...

12/2/2007 3:59:29 AM

if youre going to make an Appeal to Authority, you should at least find something better than your "high school".

otherwise youre just inviting people to come in and turn everything you say against you.



[Edited on December 2, 2007 at 4:13 AM. Reason : ]

12/2/2007 4:12:43 AM

^^^ and ^^ You obviously don't understand the chain of command. Everyone below Bill Clinton worked for him--not the other way around.

^^^ And the "de Debil" comment is ridiculous. I'm simply pointing out facts that you don't like. That's a form of the standard deflection whenever Bill Clinton is brought up--and it's certainly not a meaningful discussion point.

[Edited on December 2, 2007 at 4:18 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2007 4:14:34 AM

whereas YOU don't appear to understand the first rule of executive management: delegate tasks to subordinates as per their expertise.

the CEO of a company isnt going to be an expert on backend SQL Servers. he expects his CIO to handle that arena. Likewise Clinton wasnt an expert on military logistics. he trusted his Joint Chiefs in that arena, and took their unanimous recommendations quite seriously.






too bad GWB didnt trust his Chiefs and Generals. maybe we wouldnt be in the shitpile we're in right now.

12/2/2007 4:33:28 AM

^ Just as I thought--you really don't understand the chain of command. Presidents don't "delegate" the signing or the ultimate decision-making authority concerning such high-profile policies.

Here's what Clinton said in 1993 about the policy at issue:

Quote :

"I believe the policy I am announcing today represents a real step forward, but I know it will raise concerns in some of your minds. So I wanted you to hear my thinking and my decision directly [emphasis added] and in person because I respect you, and because you are among the elite who will lead our Armed Forces into the next century, and because you will have to put this policy into effect and I expect your help in doing it."

Quote :

"Shortly after I took office and reaffirmed my position, the foes of lifting the ban in the Congress moved to enshrine the ban in law. I asked that congressional action be delayed for 6 months while the Secretary of Defense worked with the Joint Chiefs to come up with a proposal for changing our current policy. I then met with the Joint Chiefs to hear their concerns and asked them to try to work through the issue with Secretary Aspin. I wanted to handle the matter in this way on grounds of both principle and practicality [emphasis added]."

http://dont.stanford.edu/casestudy/appendixD.pdf

One correction: I indicated that the policy at issue is a law--it is not. At the time, there was talk of making the ban law and I simply confused the issues.

12/2/2007 4:56:36 AM

Why did this thread turn into a Bill Clinton debate?

12/2/2007 9:26:12 AM

Quote :

""why didn't he just say "should gays be allowed to serve in the military?""

Gays are allowed to serve. They just can't let it be known that they are gay.

[Edited on December 2, 2007 at 10:17 AM. Reason : nmhv]

12/2/2007 10:17:11 AM

^ that's not acceptable. That's like saying blacks are allowed in the military, as long as nobody knows they're black.

12/2/2007 10:28:17 AM

Quote :

"Presidents don't "delegate" the signing or the ultimate decision-making authority concerning such high-profile policies. "

Really? You mean, they don't let someone else sign for them? I had no idea.

You just proved Joes point, btw.

But please, call me a troll if it helps you avoid any real discussion.

12/2/2007 10:30:33 AM

Quote :

"Gays are allowed to serve. They just can't let it be known that they are gay."

NO SHIT

obviously he meant serve OPENLY.

12/2/2007 11:30:42 AM

In related news...

Quote :

"Military opponents of the US "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy banning openly gay soldiers from serving in the military spoke out this week in Washington, in the latest criticism of the legislation. Coinciding with the law's 14th anniversary Friday, 28 retired generals and admirals put their names to a letter to Congress, demanding that the controversial legislation be scrapped. "We respectfully urge Congress to repeal the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy," the letter said. "As General Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said when the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy was enacted, it is not the place of the military or those in senior leadership to make moral judgments," it said. "As is the case in Britain, Israel and other nations which allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion and sexuality," the officers said. The letter marked the single largest number of generals and admirals from the US armed forces to come out against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" at one time, according to a statement issued by the Log Cabin Republicans, a conservative organisation that supports equal treatment for homosexuals. Since "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" came into force in 1993, 12,000 soldiers have been forced to leave the military, either because they refused to hide their homosexuality or because they were denounced by fellow soldiers. "

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Opponents_to_US_military_s_anti_gay_12012007.html

12/2/2007 4:50:18 PM

I am not trying to derail this thread. I am simply pointing out that the number of military personnel discharged for homosexuality was greater under Bill Clinton, the number of military personnel discharged for homosexuality was on the rise under Bill Clinton, and the cost to taxpayers under Bill Clinton was more than it has been under George Bush.



Ignoring facts in order to mindlessly bash Republicans does not mean that those facts cease to exist.



[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 1:55 AM. Reason : Best graph I could find. If someone has a better one, have at it.]

12/3/2007 1:52:10 AM

am i the only one that saw the twin towers in that graph?

12/3/2007 2:03:16 AM

Quote :

"Ignoring facts in order to mindlessly bash Republicans does not mean that those facts cease to exist. "

I don't see anyone mindlessly bashing republicans, but according to that graph you posted, under clinton DADT cost us about 25 million/year where as under Bush, it rose to 29 million/year on average. To be clear, I think the graph is a meaningless metric on the issue, because it completely ignores causalities and extenuating circumstances, but it doesn't necessarily support the ideas you think it supports.

Also, I can't really see your overall point either. Per your own post, Clinton campaigned to lift the ban on gays in the military, but the next best thing was DADT, which was clearly meant as a transitional policy. It's not the greatest policy, but considering Clinton's goals, it seems to be the best that could be done at the time.

Unless you're trying to argue that Clinton or the Democrats were actually trying to keep gays down, or something along those lines, I don't see how the data and statements in your post is sympathetic to the statement "Ignoring facts in order to mindlessly bash Republicans does not mean that those facts cease to exist".

12/3/2007 2:07:27 AM

^ The path to hell is littered with good intentions. Bill Clinton created the policy at issue--even though some of you have actually tried to pin it on Colin Powell --and more military personnel were discharged for homosexuality under Clinton than in the following years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask%2C_don%27t_tell (See chart.)

Many of you try to frame this issue and the gay marriage issue as if it's only the "neocons" or the "evil closeted Republicans" that take what some perceive as anti-gay positions on certain issues.

1. Did you see happen to see Bill Richardson stuttering and stammering when asked if people are born gay? Did any of you question Richardson's handling of that question? He has been handled with kid gloves by the media and the left concerning that answer, FYI.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lYFtYlFPS5o

2. And are some of you aware that every major Democrat candidate for president from Gore through Kerry to the current crop has been opposed to gay marriage? BTW, so was Bill Clinton.

I'm sick and fucking tired of some of you acting as if only Republicans can be hypocritical about and have trouble dealing with gay issues. It's simply not the case.

12/3/2007 2:46:19 AM

hooksaw is either trolling or smoking crack

12/3/2007 11:13:22 AM