I’ve been commenting on this from a fait accompli angle: such and such happened, so, what is the significance.?

Given a do-over, i agree with you, it would have been better if the man’s full background had been disclosed. Appearnces do matter, and the appearnce of forthrightedness is very important.
That’s a lesson to take note of in the future.

Looking at this debate, which is over and done with, my position still stands.

I am repeating myself when I say that this being a Republican debate, to choose the Republican presidential candidate, is also important. I can’t come up with a solution as to who should control the content in a debate and how they should/could control it in order to reflect this Repulican-ness, and I would be interested in what ideas others propose.
I find one big stumbling block in the content control approach, and that’s the fact that the Repuclican candidates are rated also by many non-Repulicans (Independents and the uncommitted), as well as by Republicans who are not happy with the present state of the party, like the Libertarians . Unless just writing these people off is the preferred position, then opening up the debates to non-traditional topics seems to me to be important. At the very least, it shows how well the candidates can field these type of questions, an important talent to consider for the presidential contest to come.

I’m also repeating myself when I say that challenging questions (raising taxes, gun contro)
have, in fact, been asked at Dem. debates. There was no furor over these questions, however, and no one checked the background of the questioners. As far as I can tell, to this day, no one knows or cares if these questions came from Republican activists in disguise. Everyone watching, however, took note of how the candidates responded.

The importance of the host news channel and the moderator is more than evident, when we watch the character of the debates change as they move from venure to venue. It’s a problem for both parties.
If FOX is a problem for the Dems, then PBS and the balck caucus was a glaring problem for the Reps.
At least the Dems were forthright (there’s that word again) about their reasons for abstaining, instead of finding pressing engagements elsewhete..

I feel I’ve addressed every point, some twice over, so unless something new pops up, I’m done with this tipic.

I already know I’m not going to agree with 100% of what any candidate says. And I don’t want a President who just spouts out what the latest opinion poll says he should. Even though there are plenty of candidates I can’t stand- and would never vote for, I can still find common ground with all of them. One of these candidates will be President (barring any late entrances by a star) and it’s important for me to understand how they all think. The way to get there is by having them answer questions important to all the people. Granted I spend more time on the front-runners than the long-shots.

How would the left react if the opposite happened on a Dem debate on fox? Oh that’s right, can’t trust Fox.

The presidency is not a cakewalk. Do we want a FEMA style debate with softball questions? Or do we want to test a candidate when he/she is a bit off-guard? Isnt’ there enough choreography of the political scene with C-span and planted questions? As I stated before, I had no problem with the tax-and-spend liberal question at the Democrats u-tube debate.

You bring up a whole other area worthy of dicussion: the power the networks have to set the tone and conrol the content of the debates. I see a definite difference in the tone and scope of the debates as they move from netwerk to network and moderator to moderator.
It’s kind of puzzling actually, that this power is accepted without questionm as there are other possibilities. Maybe the parties should outline the issues they want to cover and choose their own moderator, thus foregoint the town square approach. Each debate pertains to one pariy’s primary after all. It would depend on what kind of deal the networks would be receptive to.

Things being what they are, however, how a network handles it and the tone it sets affects the debate tremendously. FOX is, unforutanely all too predictable. I’m not sure FAIR and BALNCED is within anyone’s reach so as to satisfy enryone, but it makes no sense to look for it where ti definitely is not.

And BTW, a ‘moderate’ site does not require everyone to have the same moderate opinion. It’s a place for exhanging ideas of various kinds, with no boundaries set by the managers, except those of civility. I think the comment code explains ‘moderation’ quite well.

There is quite a few “moderates in their own minds” around here.

I acknowlege your point about the fake FEMA news conference and its broader implications.
I didn’t mean to ‘summarily dismiss’ the questions raised by those troubled by this incident. Rather, it was a matter of priorites for me.

Rather than spending a lot of time trying to get to the bottom of the man’s motivation and intent (was he speaking as a Clinton supporter or a gay Republican military man?), the question’s legitimacy was of higher priority to me.

There is another dilenna in the full diclosure of his background that you want. What would happen if his question had been truned down, and he calimed he was a Repulican shut out of his party’s deliberations? It could easily get so complicated that the ensuing debates about the debate would dwarf the debate itself.

Sorry, but while not claiming that it’ s simple (what is?), I still stick to my overall approach, across the board and in all instances. Ideas trump the pople proposing them, with due deference to nuances and exceptions, of course.

You point to exactly what the difference between us is. I think the political affiliation or political activities of the author of a question is only of 10th tier importance.

That is precisely what’s wrong with much of political commentary. The Left often dismisses statements on the grounds of ‘Well, he’s a neocom, or a Republican, or a Bush fan” The Right does the same, in reverse.

A lot of insightful ideas get thrown away because of that attitude. Ideas, or questions, should matter a great deal more than their author, IMO.

In this case, it’s my understanding that the man is also still a Republican, while supporting Cinton. Focusing on the questioner gets us into the very murky ground of motivation.

Did he ask the question because he supports Clinton or because he is a gay Republican?
There is a contingent of Republicans (Whitmn of NJ and Pete Abel of TMV, etc) who would like to reform the Republican Party to become more moderate.
A man can wear many hats and be loyal to more than one cause. Rather than assume out of the blue, which hat he was wearing the night of the debate, it makes absolute sense to me to ask simply if the question was worthwhile or not. Since it’ s the case that there are many gay people in the Republican party and the military, it’s not like he was speaking for himself alone. It is absolutely not true that all gays are Democrats, so why is he the enemy? Would the question have had more meti if it was asked by former Gov. Whitman?

The Democrats, in one of their debates were asked about raising taxes. What difference would it make if the question was asked by a Democrat, a Republican, or an aide to Giuliani? It was a legitimate question, because it is important to a lot of people, left and right, flue and red.

This fits into my thinking about blogs and comments on them. Way too often, commentsers attack the author of the post rather than the ideas he is issuing. Once you do that, you cut off the chance to separate his good idead from the bad, because you are separating people rather than ideas.

My opinion , whether you agree with it or not, is consistent across a broad band of issues and is far from being dependent on one incident at one debate.

With your points of view, then, the qustions and the questioners should be pre-picked.
Okay, then, that’s another format entirely.. Have the GOP do precisely that. Just don’t pretend, then, it’s a general audience/public participation event.

If the Republicans want to take the exclusive club with no undomfortable questions appoach, then that’s okay with me, as long as it’s made clear that it is what it is.

I wouldn’t think that this would be a good PR move,
There are lots of uncomitted people who are sizing up the candidates from both parties. This approach would not be attractive to any of those, I suspect.
But, if the Reps would be happy with the consequences, then it’s their business.

Maybe they should even consider making this a closed circuit event, with only pre-certified homes given access.

Okay how do you determine ahead of time how the one asking the question will react to the answer?
If it’s a good question, it has to stand on is own merit, no matter what the answer is or who the questioner is or how either of them act.

The question:

My name is Keith Kerr, from Santa Rosa, California. I’m 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. (0:20)

I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians. (0:30)

(NYT)

This “question” isn’t a question, it’s a statement. Basically it states that [if] they support don’t ask don’t tell they, consequently, don’t think gays and lesbians should serve at all and therefore, think that “American men and women in uniform are not professional”.

By the way Dom the General is a gay Republican, who is working with Hillary.

If it’s a good quesion, it has to stand on is own merit, no matter what the answer is or who the quesioner is or how either of them act. Dealing with the publiccan always result in the unexpected. That’s life.

I agree with you completely.

What’s the difference between a Guiliani supporter asking Romney a tough question and a Dem asking a Repub a tough question? I’m sure that not all questions posed to Rudy, or Mitt, or Huckabee, or whichever candidate were posed by their respective supporters. So why should it matter where the questions come from?

These debates are “get to know the candidates” so the voting public can vote for the candidate who best represents them (I wish the voters were better informed…). The Dems’ positions are very different than the Republicans’ positions. Since we already know the broad strokes of each candidate based on their party, and that the Prez. is the leader for all people, I say let the Dems ask all the Republican candidates questions in the next Republican debate and vice versa. The Prez. should be aware of all concerns of the citizens and be able to make sound decisions, taking into account all relevant factors. The American public has a right to see how the candidates will make decisions. For example, will the decision be based on purely partisan lines? Does the candidate take all views into consideration and even if the decision is not what many people would like? Is it still thoughtful and well-advised? The candidates need to be more forthcoming with their beliefs and not just cater to who they THINK their supporters are. That’s the only way we Americans can make a good choice for Prez. (and other elected offices).

Okay how do you dettermine ahead of time how the one adking the quesion will react to the answer?
If it’s a good quesion, it has to stand on is own merit, no matter what the answer is or who the quesioner is or how either of them act.
Dealing with the publiccan always result in the unexpected. That’s life.

In the words of paperserenade who asked about abortion, she didn’t even see Ron Paul’s response. So, why should she, and others who don’t care about the answer, get to ask questions?