[Guest post by DRJ]
Rule #1. Google the questioners:
“So, the fellow who just asked the Republican candidates about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, retired Brigader General Keith Kerr, is a member of Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Presidency.”
H/T The Corner and Instapundit.
— DRJ
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: Michelle Malkin has evidence of other questioners’ affiliations with Democrat candidates.
CNN should be deeply embarrassed.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
Powered by WordPress.
Hillary’s plants are everywhere!
Paul (36cd46) — 11/28/2007 @ 7:32 pmThe “debate” (these things are always just fashion shows really) was incredibly funny.
Quel train wreck!
Republicans were asked to defend the Confederate flag. (There was precisely ONE African-American in the audience that the camera clung to like grim death.)
A gay general got roudly booed.
McCain decimated Romney on waterboarding (Having actually been tortured he knows what it’s like.)
Rudy seems to believe that New York City is a separate country.
Freddie Hollywood circled every question like Marie Osmond on Dancing with the Stars (which should be his next gig.)
Huckabee hucklebucked.
The winner?
Hillary Clinton.
David Ehrenstein (4f5f08) — 11/28/2007 @ 7:47 pmNo, David. Vodkapundit won the debate. He always wins.
DRJ (a6fcd2) — 11/28/2007 @ 7:57 pmHis question is here: youtube.com/watch?v=yIQTWX0bo7g There’s nothing on that page about a Hillary connection (aside from comments people are starting to leave pointing it out).
On the wider issue, if you want a fair debate that would allow an in-depth discussion of policy matters, push this proposal.
TLB (9163ab) — 11/28/2007 @ 8:14 pmThe gay general who was “roudly” booed was a Hillary plant and the audience smelled a rat. Having just been caught red handed for other plants, Hillary comes off the big loser.
kyleb (d682a7) — 11/28/2007 @ 8:17 pmToo scared to dip his wick for forty-two years. I wonder if he asked permission from the enemy to fire on them.
nk (09a321) — 11/28/2007 @ 8:18 pmI don’t care if this was a plant. The important aspect is that Kerr served his country, and has every right to ask this question. Duncan Hunter, of course, should be ashamed of himself for accusing this man of undermining troop cohesion. The others who skated around the issue (Huckabee, Romney, and McCain) weren’t much better.
Jaxebad (ee579f) — 11/28/2007 @ 8:18 pmYou need to hit the bong a few more times David, your attempts at humor were kinda lame there. I’ll match if you want!
chaos (9c54c6) — 11/28/2007 @ 8:19 pmWe will see the military’s policy on gays serving reversed and it will probably happen during the next Republican administration. Meanwhile, it will be hilarious to see Hillary run on a platform of reversing a policy written by her husband’s administration.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/28/2007 @ 8:43 pmThis isn’t surprising. It’s become SOP for CNN to use Democrat operatives in all the debates it televises.
chas (d7c0b2) — 11/28/2007 @ 8:43 pmBy not identifying himself as not just being a Hillary supporter, but as a member of her sterring committee on gay rights, the general doesn’t get a pass, either, especially given the kerfuffle over the planted questioners in the last CNN debate — complaints not only voiced by Republicans but by Democrats who thought CNN had slanted the questions and the crowd towards Hillary. And while it could have been said the general made his YouTube video before that brouhaha erupted, the excuse flies out the window since he was in the audience at the debate, and could have identified his Clinton campaign connections then, but again chose not to bring them up.
So even if you believe the topic has merit (which I think it does), there’s still the question of did Gen. Kerr try to do this stealth video on his own, as a rogue operation within the Clinton campaign, or did Hillary and her staff know the fix was in? (And again, it’s not as if the general could have been surprised to see his YouTube question pop up on the debate tonight, since CNN both invited him to be in the audience and to ask a rebuttal question. Are we to believe when he found out his question not only had been picked but he would be allowed to follow up that question, he told no one within the Clinton campaign what was going to happen tonight?)
John (34537e) — 11/28/2007 @ 8:45 pmYou know, perhaps it would have been better for CNN if his support for Clinton would have been disclosed. The problem, of course, is that doing so would turn the issue away from Kerr and his relevant question, and toward Clinton. The best compromise would be for the affiliation to have been brought up after the candidates gave their answers, so they still would have have addressed the issue while also maintaining transparency.
The thing that still gets me is this: The Republicans were handed (or thrown, I guess) softball after softball. “You’ll support gun ownership, right?” “You’ll cut taxes, right?”. Oh yeah, and including Grover Norquist. No chance of him being a plant, right?
Sorry, I’m in a snarky mode. But after the shameful treatment General Kerr received, I’m a bit angry.
Jaxebad (ee579f) — 11/28/2007 @ 9:00 pmCNN’s credibility is gone. If they can’t vet the sources behind their questions (especially one they personally invite to provide a personal rebuttal), they clearly can’t verify sources in news stories.
There also were too many questions (the angst-ridden female Muslum, the Confederate flag, the gun-toting right-wing freak) out of a limited selected pool to represent an unbiased distribution. Objectively said, CNN isn’t news. It’s progressive opinion.
Incidentally, I’m one who believes sexual dialog is inappropriate in any professional environment, whether it’s gay or straight, military or not. I have no problem with gays in the military and have worked with many that know acting flamboyant is as inappropriate as me going ga-ga over the hot females I work with. My sexual preferences and that of those I work with has no place in the workplace. Select people on their expertise and capacity to do the job, and leave your sexual preferences at home.
That said, General Kerr has damaged a legitimate cause by associating it with partisan, sneaky and dirty politics. Just as I feel dirty as a libertarian seeing a kook like Ron Paul on stage identifying as one of us, Kerr has done substantial damage to the cause he claims to represent.
redherkey (9f5961) — 11/28/2007 @ 9:11 pmCNN and YouTube can answer the question of whether or not they received any videos with a similar gays in the military question as the one asked by Kerr. If so, there was no need to use the general; they could have taken a video from someone not connected with any specific campaign (even if they person was generally supportive of Democrats) and presented that during the debate. But obviously they drooled over the idea of having “A General” ask that question, which — giving CNN the benefit of the doubt — made them too excited about the questioner to even consider he might have a connection to anyone in the opposing party.
While the deception — which was deliberate due to Kerr’s refusal to self-identify his Clinton connection while on live in the audience — just reinforces the idea that Hillary’s people scheming to bend or break the rules make Bill Belichick seem like Mother Teresa, it’s obviously not something either Obama or Edwards can use against Mrs. Clinton in the primaries, since to question her methods based on similar problems at the CNN Democratic debate would allow Hillary’s people to turn it into a question about their opponents’ support for gay rights (which is also why the big media outlets will drop the story after half a news cycle). But I’m sure Barak and John won’t be too unhappy if the GOP candidates and talk radio hammer Hillary and CNN over their attempt to sneak a campaign advisor past the viewing audience as simply a retired general seeking equal treatment in the military, which they’re very much justified in doing.
It’s not as if any answer the candidates provided tonight would have shifted Kerr off his support for Mrs. Clinton, and the whole premise of the YouTube debate is the questioners — even Grover Norquist — don’t have their minds made up on which candidate they’ll support. So Democrats and the big media outlets will focus on the question come Thursday, while Republicans, talk radio and Fox will focus on the questioner and how CNN couldn’t have known his Clinton affiliations.
John (34537e) — 11/28/2007 @ 9:22 pm@1 True
@2 I saw at least three blacks in the audience.
@3 No doubt
@4 No question the debates highly a very specific and non-informative skill set of a potential president.
@5 I’m gonna go with should come off as the big loser.
@6 There actually is an interesting question about not declaring one’s personal belief for 40 years. But it might work in his favor.
@7 Hunter should’ve ended his candidacy immediately upon answering that question.
@8 Dude vaporizers are better for your lungs.
@9 Yeah – that is gonna happen and probably in the next four years.
@10 Would be more accurate if it were the Game Show Network
@11 You are correct. He does not deserve a pass, but I would not be surprised at all if he can’t provide an answer that satisfies.
@12 It is a good question and deserves an answer irrespective of Clinton’s hand in it.
@me I’ll be here all week
David (96b9dd) — 11/28/2007 @ 9:24 pmSo Democrats and the big media outlets will focus on the question come Thursday, while Republicans, talk radio and Fox will focus on the questioner and how CNN couldn’t have known his Clinton affiliations.
Bingo! And the GOP will have missed an opportunity to give an honest forthright answer on a legitimate subject. Heaven forbid they might win over a couple of voters.
We’ve made these debates so antiseptic they are hardly worth the effort to watch anymore.
voiceofreason (9b7a24) — 11/28/2007 @ 9:25 pmGeneral Kerr should have identified himself as a Clinton operative, though being one of 50 serving on a National Military Veterans advisory group is more or less an honorific.
Anderson Cooper acknowledged on-air his staff should have identified Kerr as such.
http://campaignsandelections.com/ia/releases/?id=6514
Of course, if this is the biggest take-away from the night, we’ve pulled into Dialogue Desolation.
steve (b4bafc) — 11/28/2007 @ 9:32 pmIf I run over you backing my car out of the driveway, I still go to jail for manslaughter. That’s because I’m licensed to back a car and am responsible for my negligence. The Clinton News Network doesn’t get a pass.
William Graves (08a9d5) — 11/28/2007 @ 10:00 pmGosh, Steve, I think we made it to Dialogue Desolation with “Boxers or Briefs?” Maybe before that but I have trouble remembering that far back.
DRJ (a6fcd2) — 11/28/2007 @ 10:05 pmThe debates are, by and large, quite silly. I say once the final two candidates are chosen that all debates be held in a television studio with no audience and just one questioner such as a news anchor (but please God, not Katie Couric). My hope is that this would cut down on the grandstanding and playing to the crowd, and it might lead to some pretty interesting exchanges. The hell with “town halls” and “YouTube Debates” and all those other contrived and overly-staged events.
JVW (477e5a) — 11/28/2007 @ 10:21 pm“Hillary’s plants are everywhere!”
Hillary is like a farmer…
john marzan (6e87ff) — 11/28/2007 @ 10:34 pmThe Clinton News Network was duped by a Hillary Clinton supporter – imagine the odds.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 11/28/2007 @ 10:39 pmYou know what would be cool. Some future debate happens to be on CNN. The candidate fields an off the wall question from a Hillary audience plant, but unbenounced to the host, the candidate has found out before hand due to a well positioned plant of his own, working behind the scenes at CNN.
papertiger (894e4f) — 11/28/2007 @ 10:42 pmThen Fred, Rudy, or Huck, unmasks the shill, and outs him for being a Hillary stooge in real time as part of the debate.
That would be awesome.
Dem debates: plants are politically active dems.
Repub debates: plants are politically active dems.
…
I’m getting a little tired of this….
Foxfier (d50fce) — 11/28/2007 @ 11:04 pmYou 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.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/28/2007 @ 11:05 pmANOTHER ONE — this time an Obama supporter. Remember the “Log Cabin Republican” questioner? He’s got a blog at Obama ’08.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/28/2007 @ 11:15 pmMe too, because it demonstrates the the MSM and liberals basically hate republicans or conservatives in the same way Hitler hated jews.
Topsecretk9 (e43747) — 11/28/2007 @ 11:25 pmThank you, VOR.
Does it really matter that some questions came from Democrats? It might even make for some better questions. Press them on uncomfortable subjects and see what comes of it. Worst case, we get some entertaining side-stepping.
I’d love to see the reverse as well–a Republican plant at a debate for the Democrats.
Joe M. (7ab14b) — 11/28/2007 @ 11:58 pmNote how the questions dealt with topics that liberals think are of concern to conservatives: Abortion, bible, guns, capital punishment, gays, and race. Where were the questions about health care, Iran, or the economy? Could it be that CNN thinks Republicans are a bunch of gun toting, bible thumping, gay hating, bigots? If that stereo-type is true, how come the question about gays in the military, abortion, and race came from Democrats? You’d think CNN would have had plenty of questions submitted from Republicans to choose from. After all, they billed the questions as coming from undecided Republican voters. (When CNN was called on using plants in the Democrat debate, they said that by “undecided voter” they meant “undecided Democrat voter” since the debate was among candidates for the Democrat nomination for president. Shouldn’t the same logic apply to the Republican debate?)
David Walser (cfeff0) — 11/29/2007 @ 12:16 amConfederate flags, but no health care. Very astute, David Walser.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/29/2007 @ 12:32 amMichelle Malkin says there were no less than four Democrat supporters asking questions at yesterday’s Republican debate.
So it looks like Edwards got a second supporter. [click second link for details]
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/29/2007 @ 12:42 amYeah, I updated the post with a link to hers.
This is a fiasco.
Patterico (faeccf) — 11/29/2007 @ 12:55 amJasonColeman.com thinks he has discovered two more plants, over and above the four Michelle talks about.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/29/2007 @ 2:35 amWhat got me about “the General” was the followup portion – Cooper asked him if his question was answered. Well, it was, but, of course, it wasn’t the answer he wanted to hear.
The overall lesson from last night, and the charade in Las Vegas, is that “news” organizations really have no business stage managing this type of event.
Covering – certainly. Acting as a conduit for the dissemination of the event, by all means.
But manufacturing the news, by controlling the content and pacing?
The inherent conflict of interest in such a scenario is staggering.
Wind Rider (f58536) — 11/29/2007 @ 3:40 am“I don’t care if this was a plant”
“Does it really matter that some questions came from Democrats?”
Ends justify the means?
How very…Clintonesque.
Swede (f39093) — 11/29/2007 @ 3:47 amComment #2:
Hardly, David.
See, unlike you and your prized Trent Lott story, we actually have proof to back up our charges.
BTW, how is that search for the scandalous e-mail screen caps going?
Paul (36cd46) — 11/29/2007 @ 3:57 amhere’s a question that should have been asked: Senator McCain, you support restrictions on speech which do not apply to “news organizations”, why should “news organizations” which have plain bias get a privileged position?
Law (62ca0c) — 11/29/2007 @ 4:37 amThey’re just being fair, and running it like the last debate…
What, you thought they would use republican plants? You think they would know what one of those actually looks like?
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/29/2007 @ 4:59 amWe also have his brother-in-law being investigated/raided by the feds during an investigation…
I’m sure it’s just a cooincidence…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/29/2007 @ 5:02 amDrudge has got Michelle’s post linked on the front page. But, I think her site has melted. And Michelle’s post doesn’t even include the great work Jason Coleman is doing on this.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/29/2007 @ 5:24 amI didn’t link to both Jason Coleman’s revealed plants. The above is plant one. Here, apparently, is plant two.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/29/2007 @ 5:52 amYes and Hitlery has a camp she’s going to send you too in Nevada where you’ll be force-fed Sondheim 24/7 and won’t be relased until you can sing the score of Anyone Can Whistle by heart.
Truly hilarious to read the posts in here where the notion that the genral was a Clinton “operative” trumps everything else — even the legitimacy of his question.
Hey is Anderson Cooper a Clinton Operative? He’s gay too you know. I’m surprised no one in here hasn’t complained that he should have used the occasion to “out” himself on world-wide TV.
David Ehrenstein (4f5f08) — 11/29/2007 @ 6:36 amDavid,
Do you remember the gay-bashing circus which were the Congressional DADT hearings in 1992? With all due respect to the general, that was his chance to be a hero.
nk (09a321) — 11/29/2007 @ 6:41 amErr … 1993.
nk (09a321) — 11/29/2007 @ 6:42 amIt was so quick and easy for these plants to be discovered in the aftermath, so vetting beforehand would have been equally easy and quick. Duh.
After the last debate, I am surprised that CNN would allow the previous plant debaucle to exacerbate last night. Geez, “Gullible” must be written on my ceiling somewhere.
It absolutely disgusts me that there is now and has consistently been a total void of integrity by CNN and the Clinton/Obama/Edwards campaigns that propounded these fiascos of “debates”.
Is no one taking seriously the election of our country’s highest office?
EHeavenlyGads (5ac5e3) — 11/29/2007 @ 6:48 amIs no one taking seriously the election of our country’s highest office?
I don’t see the candidates taking it all that seriously.
I know this is too idealistic but the candidates on both sides should simply say that they are going to have a debate at x location at y time and the moderator will be z, whose purpose will be to keep it moving as the candidates question one another and to maintain some equitable time constraints.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/29/2007 @ 6:57 amIt will be videotaped so that each candidate can post it to their website and IF the media wishes to cover they are certainly welcome to do so.
nk, it never ceases to amaze me how so many people in here get discombobulated over Teh Ghay.
And that’s not to mention Teh Plants.
Doesn’t anyone remember the greatest of all plants, “Jeff Gannon” (real name James D. Guckert) a male hustler for whom Republican operatives created a fake news service (“Talon News”) so he could sit in the Whie House press room and lob softballs at Scott McClellan?
He even has overnight stays at the White House.
Surely McClellan’s forthcoming memoir will deal with this.
(Yeah, right.)
David Ehrenstein (4f5f08) — 11/29/2007 @ 7:08 amThe only one here obsessing over teh ghey bhut seks appears to be you, dude…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/29/2007 @ 7:11 am“Me too, because it demonstrates the the MSM and liberals basically hate republicans or conservatives in the same way Hitler hated jews.”
-Topsecretk9
What a dumbass…
Insofar as the rest of this thread goes:
PLANT! PLANT! PLANT! They’re everywhere! Oh no! The Dems are winning the Debate War with dirty tactics and CNN collaborators! Mark my words: George Soros is behind this! And Howard Dean! And Jane Fonda! And that sneaky little Chinaman, Kim Jong Il!
…
Leviticus (e87aad) — 11/29/2007 @ 7:13 amYikes. NOBODY CARES. Nobody cares what the audience says. Nobody cared what they said in the Dem debate, and nobody cared what they said last night. Gimme a break. You guys act like the Democrats are going to win the election, or something.
Here’s the perfect Christmas gift for all Pattoricians!
David Ehrenstein (4f5f08) — 11/29/2007 @ 7:26 amAgreed, Mr. Voice of Reason, and I certainly appreciate your debate format suggested. How I wish that would be our offering, instead of the farce heretofore imposed.
Mr. Ehrenstein, two wrongs don’t make a right. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty here. No one of them is more or less guilty than the other and therefore less in the wrong.
The questions offered last night were good questions. But in the aftermath of discovering political connections between the questioners and their declared candidates, their credibility and motivations are challenged and those questions themselves becomed diminished. That is entirely counterproductive.
It seems that nothing in this country, regardless of the importance to all our lives, is sacrosanct anymore.
EHeavenlyGads (5ac5e3) — 11/29/2007 @ 7:31 amDavid Ehrenstein,
Heh.
In yo face, conspiracy theorists.
Leviticus (e87aad) — 11/29/2007 @ 7:38 amWhat about Two Whores.
Unless you can produce a Democratic Party “escort” disguised as a “reporter,” the “playing field” remains unlevel.
David Ehrenstein (4f5f08) — 11/29/2007 @ 7:58 am?
Huh?
Is there some mitigation of the common wrong espoused somewhere in your response?
EHeavenlyGads (5ac5e3) — 11/29/2007 @ 8:08 amThat would be MY question.
David Ehrenstein (4f5f08) — 11/29/2007 @ 8:10 amThere is no mitigation in my mind, Mr. Ehrenstein. I think I clearly explained that in my #50 comment above.
While a newcomer to posting here, I believe you either get your kicks out of baiting someone, or you are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong in this matter. If the latter is true, I feel very sorry for you.
I hereby defer the inevitable last word to you. We have humitidy below 45% here in Dallas and I have a ton of candymaking to accomplish.
Kind regards.
EHeavenlyGads (5ac5e3) — 11/29/2007 @ 8:29 amI’m perfectly capable of distinguishing right from left.
David Ehrenstein (4f5f08) — 11/29/2007 @ 8:45 amYou have it right from David’s keyboard: the left is wrong.
Steverino (e00589) — 11/29/2007 @ 8:54 amYou should listen to the “Simple” number for Anyonce Can Whistle, Steverino, where the “right/wrong” — “left/right” distinction is dealt with succinctly.
David Ehrenstein (4f5f08) — 11/29/2007 @ 9:00 amHaven’t been here for quite some time. Sad to see that Ehrenstein is still obsessed with Jeff Gannon.
SmokeVanThorn (97d6f6) — 11/29/2007 @ 9:18 amYou could probably say the same of “Cool, Cool Conservative Men” from “1776”, but that’s a topic for a different debate.
Since I don’t get my guiding philosophy from songs, I won’t follow your suggestion.
Steverino (e00589) — 11/29/2007 @ 9:25 am“Sad”?
David Ehrenstein (4f5f08) — 11/29/2007 @ 9:33 amDo we have a problem with gays being turned down by the military?
papertiger (aea3ff) — 11/29/2007 @ 9:57 amIs there a line of gays out in front of the recruiting office, hoping like hell to get stationed in Iraq?
The gay general is from Santa Rosa – It’s hard for me to believe they even have a recruiting office in Santa Rosa. Plenty of marijuana co ops. Vinyards for as far as the eye can see.
Walmarts and recruiting offices? Not so much.
Every able-bodied citizen has the right to take up arms on behalf of his country. No! Not just a right, an obligation. DADT is [crude word] stupid and un-American.
nk (09a321) — 11/29/2007 @ 10:08 ampapertiger, you can find the answer to your question(s) in this book. It’s author was not on a Conservative, he was a member of the Young Americans For Freedom. So you won’t find any HillaryCooties on it.
David Ehrenstein (4f5f08) — 11/29/2007 @ 10:12 amP.S. And I mean “able-bodied” in the sense that he can hold a rifle and shoot at the enemy. He does not need to be Rambo.
nk (09a321) — 11/29/2007 @ 10:17 am“Obligation” is the wrong word, nk. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, sure… but not all things belong to Caesar, whatever he may think at any given moment. Unquestioning service is one of those things.
Leviticus (ed6d31) — 11/29/2007 @ 10:19 amFrom Wikipedia:
“During the 2002 election campaign, Davis took the unusual step of taking out campaign ads during the Republican primaries against Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan. Davis claimed that Riordan had attacked his record and that his campaign was defending his record [71]. Polls showed that, as a moderate, Riordan would be a more formidable challenger in the general election than a conservative candidate. Polls even showed that Riordan would defeat Davis [72]. Davis attacked Riordian with negative ads in the primary. The ads questioned Riordan’s pro-choice stance by questioning Riordan’s support of pro-life politicians and judges [73] [74]. The ads pointed out Riordan’s position of wanting a moratorium on the death penalty as being to the left of Gray Davis, who strongly supported it [75] [76] [77].”
“Davis’ negative ads against Riordan and a variety of other equally important factors explained on the 2002 election page, lead to Riordan’s defeat in the Republican primary by the more staunchly conservative candidate Bill Simon.”
So active intervention in the GOP candidate selection process has won at least one major election for the DEMs. The question is, what are CNN and the DEMs up to here? In 2002 they chose the candidate they would run against in California, selecting one unlikely to win a general election. If that’s they’re up to here, then why would the GOP candidates agree to debate in their contrived framework?
William Graves (08a9d5) — 11/29/2007 @ 10:29 amHere’s a story about one of our patriotic Santa Rosa citizens. www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060925/NEWS/609250322/1033/NEWS01
She scrawls her phone number on bus station walls so that Active-duty soldiers trying to sever their military ties can get legal help. She’s helped over 470 opt out after deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Okinawa and elsewhere.
“We’re not anti-soldier; we’re anti-military,” said foundation Executive Director Karen Topakian, explaining why Stinson stood out among Northern California’s many champions of nonviolence.
They have a statistic. 60 people have been recruited from Marin county over the last year (2006). Marin County pop.(2005) 235,609
Sheesh. Even the Congress has sent more of their sons and daughters to serve the country, percentage wise.
BTW I found it by googling “Santa Rosa Military Recruiter” Second listing.
papertiger (aea3ff) — 11/29/2007 @ 10:42 amNo, it’s the right word.
Do you benmifit from the freedoms this country provides?
Then man-up and serve.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/29/2007 @ 10:52 amYou won’t get very far asking any number of high-profle Republicas to do that,Scott.
They have, in the immortal words of Dick Cheney, “other commitments.”
David Ehrenstein (4f5f08) — 11/29/2007 @ 11:02 amMany high-profile Republicans already have.
Bet our numbers are higher than your’s. WOnder why that is.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/29/2007 @ 11:07 amDave the way I figure Marin County has actually less of their sons and daughters serving their country in the military, then both President Bush and VP Cheney combined.
Cause when you take the plus 60 recruited and subtract the 470 that leaves minus 410. Even if no Bush or Cheney kids serve they can’t get a negative number.
papertiger (aea3ff) — 11/29/2007 @ 11:08 amDavid #70,
Scott and I were on your side on this. Don’t be so reflexive. It’s a hard world and we need friends, not enemies, even if we joke about Zinfandel and frozen margaritas.
nk (09a321) — 11/29/2007 @ 11:43 ampapertiger — pet peeve.
Parents do not “send” their children to war, with the possible exception of those in Congress who voted for the war while they had children serving.
I doesn’t matter who the parents are, it’s the one who’s serving who chooses to serve– as that Sheehan woman amply displayed.
Frankly, I’m a little disgusted that folks keep on acting like our military is full of stupid puppets who act on their parents’ orders and not for their own reasons– if you’re in the service, you’re AN ADULT.
As someone who *did* choose to do a term and some change, I have news for those who want to use the “Chickenhawk” argument– The military does not NEED everyone who would support it to serve in the uniformed services. Barring a world-ending-huge war, we won’t ever need that.
Foxfier (d50fce) — 11/29/2007 @ 1:26 pmI’m fully able to see that folks can serve and protect the nation without joining the military– say, by keeping the nation strong.
“No, it’s the right word.
Do you benmifit from the freedoms this country provides?
Then man-up and serve.”
– Scott Jacobs
Eat me. Let me know when you start cutting terrorist throats, 4-F Boy (or whatever the fuck provision is restraining your over-eager ass from enlisting).
I love my state, and I love this country. If I decided, based on empirical evidence and rational consideration, that it was in danger from an external threat, I would volunteer to fight. If I decided, as an intellectually/morally responsible individual, I would go to war; not just because the Prez sez.
If there was a draft, I would enlist… but not out of any sense of “obligation”. I wouldn’t hold it against anyone who said “Fuck you, Sam” and moved to Canada… It’s just that I don’t think I could do that.
There’s a chapter in The Things They Carried that talks about that whole dilemna.
Leviticus (43095b) — 11/29/2007 @ 1:45 pmYou have a point there Firefox, but on the otherhand patriotism isn’t a genetic trait.
It is a learned positive outlet for the expression of masculinity.
A beastly kind of cruelty highlights what happens when a community uses leftist rhetoric to shame their masculine offspring into self neuterment.
papertiger (5d1ef3) — 11/29/2007 @ 7:17 pmpapertiger — quite agreed that it has to be learned. But I had to deal with enough unpatriotic jerks in the service– we don’t need MORE! (Lots of folks see the military as a form of welfare.)
BTW, it’s Foxfier, and I had this name back in ’95. *Grin* My mom wouldn’t let me log in with my real name….
*reads the link*
Give me a baseball bat and ten minutes. I’ll teach those SOBs that pain is NOT something you take amusement from– and yes, this is coming from someone who is small and female.
I am not, however, surprised that they try to indirectly blame the shootings on cattlemen.
Foxfier (d50fce) — 11/30/2007 @ 8:13 amSomehow, “shooting someone else’s livestock to watch them die” was never a talking point, and it’s one of those bloody-obvious wrong and illegal things.
*swoons*
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/30/2007 @ 8:16 am