Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 in Media | 14 comments

There Are Two Sides in American Politics? The Horror!

Yes, CNN should have known and disclosed General Keith Kerr’s links to the Clinton campaign before letting him ask his question. But you know what? It was a good question, and he was the right person to ask it. The people who act as if it’s a huge affront that Republicans had to even hear a question from someone who’s voting Democratic (Kerr is a Log Cabin Republican but is supporting Hillary Clinton this cycle) have precisely the wrong idea when it comes to American politics. The candidates should have to field queries from Americans of all stripes and backgrounds. And, contrary to the rhetoric we too often hear, there are real Americans who are Democratic, and real ones who are Republican.

Of course, as to the substance of Kerr’s question, the Republicans bombed it miserably. Special negative bonus points to Duncan Hunter for implying that Israelis didn’t possess sufficient “Judeo-Christian” values.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2007 The Moderate Voice
  • Bones_708

    I don’t think it’s a problem that he is voting Democrat, but the fact that he is working for Hillary is a different story. Lets get real like the question or not it’s just too much like the fake questions for comfort.

  • Rudi

    What will these Republicans do if the gain the Presidency, not answer the “Hot Line” because Putin or the Chinese leadership will ask questions outside the script.

  • Plear

    I, also, think that it should have been disclosed. And, I also feel that as an interested voter he should be able to ask a question he wants answered. However, I don’t think he asked a question he honestly cared about the answer to. I think his question was asked in a “You people are wrong, so just admit it” kind of way.

  • superdestroyer

    The story would not have played as widely if CNN had not stacked the Nevada debate with Democratic activist (one such an activist that the candidates knew exactly who she was). Of course, this occurred after CNN stated that the questioners were undecided. Thus, the CNN method seems to be in a Democratic debate, Democratic activist get to ask questions and in a Republican Debate, Democratic acitivist get to ask the questions.

    The count of documented Democratic is up to 7 and would be nine if you count the two African-American questioners, it means that about 1/3 of the Youtube questions at a Republican debate can from Democrats.

    Of course, it matters more when you review the number of topics that were ignored so that Democratic Party talking points could be inserted in the debate.

  • superdestroyer

    I also find it odd that someone who is from Maryland were the Republican party is totally irrelevant and from Montgomery County where the Republican Party is basically non-existent and goes to a liberal arts college that probably does not have a single College Republican is talking about how there are two sides in American politics.

    For most of the upper middle class white Democrats living in the bluest counties of the nation, two sides is about as far from reality as there is.

  • George Sorwell

    People from Maryland–you’re on notice! Your opinions are totally irrelevant and your arguments are basically non-existent!

  • PWT

    I agree that it is fair to ask these types of questions or republicans in their ‘debate’. But without subjecting the participants in the debate for democrats to the same sort of questions (i.e., from non-sympathetic parties), it looks like bias.

  • Somebody

    Funny George. The point he is making and I think everyone is forgetting is that this is the REPUBLICAN debates in an effort for REPUBLICANS to settle upon a candidate to face the democrats in the general election.

    There will be plenty of time for these questions in the general election.

    Hence why the democratic plants? People have accused the Republicans of going to exorbitant means in order to win elections and now here you have the democrats going to great lengths to continue to beat the Republicans while they are down. Pulling questionable tactics and now the outcry from the left of “Huh?” “Crybabies”.

    What goes around…comes around in politics. Yet that does not mean the Republicans are not permitted to cry about it, complain about it and point to a responsible news organization and say…..”Whats the deal?”

  • DLS

    Two sides? The horror! While the thread here is originating from distorted “reasoning,” this in fact is a long-entrenched attitude. That is how Republicans and conservatives were viewed during the heyday of liberalism and Democratic Party power, and how so many still insist it be, and who are so resentful and childish that Americans have rejected this one-way, one-party-line mentality since electing Reagan in 1980.

    (I could add that there is a multiplicity of views held by people on various issues that is not limited to two “molds,” and which justifies a multi-party system in this nation with proportional representation, that has nothing to do with the desperation of the far Left, the normal proponents of “PR,” but that would be overdoing it, I suppose.)

  • DLS

    For most of the upper middle class white Democrats living in the bluest counties of the nation, two sides is about as far from reality as there is.

    Well, yes, there is sclerosis and retarded development, but usually things are more purple than solid blue on nation-wide issues, even if one’s own district is hopelessly old-blue locked-in-the-past.

    This is a suburban nation and even in notorious Montgomery County (where I lived for a while), not everyone was lizard-like, brain-stem-only instinctively Democratic (or liberal) in those butt-of-jokes-Montgomery-County suburbs. The suburbs in the USA are frequently mixed, not thoroughly one way or the other.

  • domajot

    There should be Republican questions and questioners and Democratic ones?
    I don’t hink so.

    Part of gauging candidates should be seeing how they would do in the greneral election, and fielding uncomfortable/tough question is part of that.
    I can see the need for questions that are part of the Dem/Rep general platform to show how the candidates differ. I can’t see the need to restrict questions to only that, though. A good mix in type of questions would be a healthy excercise for all candidates.

    When they’re campaigning out in the field, I sure hope their audiences aren’t restricted to only allow supporters. The debates are just part of campaigning and restricing questions should not be part of the process.

  • DLS

    this is the REPUBLICAN debates in an effort for REPUBLICANS to settle upon a candidate

    This should have been conducted by Republican and conservative activists and media members[!], putting pressure in particular on lately-conservative Giuliani and Romney to convince people that they really are conservative.

    That probably is impossible, but that’s no excuse for this to have been conducted by Democrats and liberals, with dishonest augmentation to that effect.

    But then again, “What liberal media?” [sic] (“What blue sky? What round earth?”)

  • Entropy

    I don’t have any problem with it as long as what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander. Had the parties been reversed in this case would the left-leaning people here be defending it with equal vigor? One wonders.

    I should add that the DADT policy is US law and so a President cannot change it with Congress rolling the ball first.

  • Pdx632

    Who are we kidding. Politicians don’t want to hear other sides. Leaders do, but not pols.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :