Why are Republicans focusing on WHO asked about gays in military and ignoring the answers that were given?

Question

Why are they ignoring the original question - Why don't they think the military is professional enough to handle this?

Didn't one of the candidates - it might have been Huckabee, I'm not sure - answer that the reason we can't have gays serving openly is that there are too many Southern Christian bigots in the military?

And people in the audience applauded. Is this an acceptable answer to Republicans and Christians???

Why are people focusing on WHO asked the question and not on the answer?

Enviroman, if it is an open forum then I assume that anybody can ask questions. So what's the problem? Now answer the question.

GoGo girl, you do realize that the same "disruption" argument was used to keep women from serving, too.

Ash, yes it was Clinton's policy. But remember, he wanted to totally remove the ban against gays in the military and was rebuffed. He settled for "don't ask/don't tell" but it used to be that even if you didn't tell you could still be kicked out if they found out.

Kathy, you say that gay rights is not important to republicans - I know a lot of republicans who it IS important to. Even gay republicans. So you are simply wrong.

It is certainly not an important issue to many Republican candidates and it is important for the debates to point that out.

Or would you rather just hear about who loves their guns more?

Kathy, you said it wasn't a Republican issue.

And if you listened to the dbate you would have heard the gun lover questions and answers. or was THAT a plant, too?

Kathy, my question IS directed at the Republicans who are making a bigger deal of the questions and how they were chosen and are ignoring the answers that were given. The answers I've gotten to this question, from republicans emphasize my point that they want to draw attention away from those answers and somehow attack democrats.

What about the answer? Why can't the military be trusted to be professional enough to accept gays?

Answer 1

You noticed that too? At the end of the day I don't care who asked the question. I only care about the subject matter and the candidates response.

Answer 2

Excellent question, it seems that this is more of a rallying cry than an issue anyone is really considering and discussing. Seems to me there have always been gay people in the military and always will be; it is a political talking point being used to rally voters to your ideology; and those suffering are the gay members of the military who can potentially be kicked out with no pension, no benefits, if "outed".even after years of service. The shame here is on the people who keep this policy in place.

And although I am not a Republican we sadly have to remember that hhis stupid policy came from a Democrat.

Answer 3

I advise that the top cut back for contributions be performed away with, and that the optimal payouts in retirement nevertheless proceed to be as they're, adjusted for inflation. Social risk-free practices isn't a "supply away" application yet one that all of us make contributions to love a fee reductions plan, and may well be shielded from different makes use of with the help of the government. Do you agree or disagree and why? in case you're so apprehensive approximately it then why do not you; first placed it returned into the internal maximum sector and make to have been no can take out money from it for his or her own interest, 2d pay returned each penny you have borrowed from the two Social risk-free practices and Medicare, 0.33 take the unlawful immigrants off of it and people who come over here yet never paid a penny to it, and ultimately have it a similar for each individual; in different words government officers are to take part in it and in the event that they want something greater they do it on their own without the tax payers investment it?yet, the financial stytem feeding the imbalances had never been truly replaced. They, a team of scholars, reported that each physique fees of interest could be 3% or much less for each individual to grow to be rich if needed (which could be real additionally to taces). the suitable financial challenge could be, they suggested, whilst there have been no fees of interest. Why not attempt this answer? the rich could nevertheless be rich. My question is: whilst soial risk-free practices turns right into a difficulty linked to federal money owed, why not paintings with a balanced or earnings funds and spend no greater effective than is attainable in, as any family contributors has to attempt for? Why not ban all loobying presents with the intention to get regulations that serve the rustic? God bless usa.

Answer 4

The entire debate was promoted by CNN as a forum for Republicans and undecideds to choose their Republican candidate for the election...NOT debate issues important to Libs. Gays in the military is NOT important to the average Republican. The questions, in general, were more reflective of Liberal stereotypes about Republicans. They were not Republican issues.To accomplish this the questioners had to misrepresent themselves as Republicans and undecided. In other words, THEY LIED. That brings into question just how earnest their questions were to begin with.

Understand now?

Edit: I did NOT say Gays in the military was not important to any Republicans...just the average Republican. Heck, I know there are Republican tree-huggers, but they aren't the average. Read my answer again...It was addressing that we AREN'T focusing on the gay issue...but how it was presented...which was the question YOU asked.

BTW...That "who loves their guns more" crack is a classic example of the stereotype I was referring to in what Libs THINK are our issues...versus what REALLY are our issues.

Edit: Now you are just being obtuse on purpose. Since you seem incapable of looking a few lines up, here is the quote: "Gays in the military is NOT important to the average Republican." If I could underline the word average to make it even more understandable to you I would...sorry. The AVERAGE Republican does not care about gays in the military. BTW, I am a retired AF officer...I didn't even care when I was in, let alone now.

As to the guns issue, AGAIN I refer you back to YOUR own question. We are more upset about the way the debate was portrayed and why the questions were chosen...not the questions themselves.. CNN had THOUSANDS of submissions from which to choose. They chose many questions that portrayed Liberal STEREOTYPES of Republicans. A guy standing in front of a Confederate flag in his basement is a NEGATIVE stereotype of Republicans and is certainly not an issue that will decide who will be our presidential candidate. Why was THAT irrelevant question asked over important issues?

Would you like to know the important issues? How about border control, the war in Iraq, terrorism, taxes, immigration, big versus small government, religious freedom, social security, Medicare, etc.? Those are issues that will help Republicans decide who they want to represent them in the election.

Answer 5

Ill answer it. Ofcourse the military is professional enough to handle it. The problem is not wether they can handle it it is why should they have to. Remember is was Bill Clinton who enacted the dont ask dont tell policy not a Republican. The military is there to protect us and the constitution of the United States it is not a social project. We dont need these kinds of distractions especially during war time. To answer your question though, I will say that I wish they would just answer these questions and honestly. Even though it was supposedly a unbiased debate and those questions they were given were planted they should answer them. All politicians dance around questions and it makes me sick wether they are Rep or Dem.

Answer 6

I thought the answer they gave were interesting. For the most part they said Bill Clinton was right in implementing don't ask don't tell.

Answer 7

I didn't watch the debate, but I will tell you as a Veteran I chose to not have the gay lifestyle in my bedroom or my living room. Enlisted have to live together if they are single. There were times they were fighting over each other in front of me and disrupting my life. I chose to not have that in my house. The were reported to the OSI. I had gay friends too, but they respected my space and I respected theirs.

Answer 8

Because it was represented as an unbiased, open forum. In reality it was a sham! You sound like Dan Rather!

Answer 9

I noticed that as well, their answers were ridiculous. The guy asking the question is living proof they were all wrong.

Answer 10

I can care less if they want to be in the military, then so be it