November 30, 2007


Gay Question Puts CNN on Defensive (JACQUES STEINBERG, 11/30/07, NY Times)

The president of CNN said yesterday that the cable channel would redouble its efforts to vet the campaign affiliations of questioners at open-forum debates, after a retired brigadier general was permitted Wednesday to ask the Republican presidential candidates about gay men and lesbians in the military without CNN’s knowing that he was listed on an advisory committee of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign.

“I think it’s pretty obvious, in retrospect, our search should have turned this up,” Jon Klein, the president of CNN’s domestic networks, said in an interview. “It’s in the nature of doing something that hasn’t been done before — you’re going to try to anticipate everything, and you’re going to fail at that.

“Had we known ahead of time,” Mr. Klein added, “we would probably not have used his question. It raised too many flags, in terms of motivation.”

It's not the questioners' motivation that's at issue.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 30, 2007 3:43 PM

I'd be fascinated to learn why they thought this question, from anyone, was worthy of being presented, why they think anyone out in the real world even cares about this subject, and why they won't also ask St.Hillary! about this policy her consort instituted.

(In answer to #2,I think it shows that to the Left, nothing is settled until it's settled in their favor, no matter how obscure or irrelevent the topic.)

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at November 30, 2007 8:09 PM

Let us not all lapse into the Orwellian newspeak of BJ's "third way."

BJ went for queers in the military on inauguration day, got slapped down hard and wound up with "don't ask, don't tell" as a face-saving compormise. It was as much a farcical reversal as the Hindenburg-like collapse of Hillary-care.

BJ's moderation is a fabrication. It was only after his gun-grabbing fiasco produced the Contract with America that he started his pretense of taking credit for the way the country was going.

Posted by: Lou Gots at November 30, 2007 9:17 PM

He ran on Welfare reform and passed it. He ran on trade and passed it. The rest is just politics.

Posted by: oj at November 30, 2007 9:57 PM

Lou is right about Clinton's volte-face. His initial position on gays was the Dutch view; don't ask, don't tell was his fallback. We have discussed welfare reform ad nauseum here - I am unaware he ran on free trade. Did he specifically endorse NAFTA during the campaign? Did he get a majority of Democrats to vote for it?

"The rest is just politics."

Then why so much interest in Rudy's girlfriend? At least he governed the way he campaigned. Hillary's abuse of the White House Travel office (to benefit the Thomases) is surely much worse.

Posted by: ratbert at December 1, 2007 1:02 AM

I'm wih Raoul on this - nobody cares about gays in the military - except gay people in the military, which is about 0.0001% of the US population.

It's to the point that the debates are so goofily run, that it's like watching the blind date blooper reel - things that make no sense being there "suddenly" appear - is it ratings? politics? stupidity? an agenda? - probably all the above.

Posted by: KRS at December 1, 2007 1:18 AM

Yes, he ran in favor of NAFTA. No, most Democrats voted against it, which is a demonstration of his Republicanism.

Yes, a comparison of Rudy's corruption to the Clinton's is apt.

Posted by: oj at December 1, 2007 7:30 AM

Jonathan Klein is the guy who gave PajamasMedia its name. I wonder if he dreams about bloggers, chasing him, nipping at his heels, biting his butt, hounding him every waking moment.

If he doesn't, he should. He deserves every delicious splat of irony.

Posted by: jim hamlen at December 1, 2007 1:27 PM