1. Cercone start with the assumption that all Americans are familiar with Log Cabin Republicans. He offers no explanation of the group.

This is smart of LCR as it both raises their profile and also starts with the base assumption that gay people are just a standard part of the Republican Party. This feeds the “gays are everywhere” idea back to the American public and confirms the “humdrum, everyday, non-crazy-activist-leftist, just like you” image of gay people that most folks would share if not for wackjobs that constantly scream about “liberals” and “anti-Christians” and “secular progressives”.

2. When Dole was the party’s nominee he returned a check from Log Cabin (which blew up in his face). He thought the support of Log Cabin was an albatross to be avoided.

For many years the more conservative candidates prided themselves that they did not have Log Cabin’s support.

But in just a decade, the Southern Baptist preacher running for President felt it necessary to proclaim to a Republican audience that he would welcome gay support. Yes he qualified it all over the place, but at least with the cameras running he welcomed it.

What LCR did with this question was raise the bar. No longer can a candidate oppose gay Republicans, per se, without being perceived as hateful. And that’s good for all gay people.

3. The last part of the question (why should LCR support you?) was interesting but not as effective.

Had it gone well, a candidate may have been able to list the things that gay Republicans have in common with other Republicans. I suspect McCain or Giulianni might have handled it in that way – talking about small businesses and tax bases etc. Which would again have helped those Republicans watching feel kinship to gays. Alas, Huckabee didn’t go there.

Some have noted that perhaps a better question might have been about one of our issues – marriage, DADT, ENDA, etc. – but I think Log Cabin asked a question that only they could ask (though in other words): “Mr. Candidate, do you consider gay Republicans to be part of your Party”. And while I might have preferred a more resounding “Yes”, it’s nice to know that a very conservative Republican candidate speaking to a Republican audience is no longer comfortable saying “No”.

Q I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.

A … most kids who … serve in the military … have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values.

In other words, Mr. Hunter believes that Judeo-Christian values precludes one from being professional.

As a Christian, I find Hunter’s assumptions to be utterly offensive and patronizing.

“I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.”

and you get BS about unit cohesion and the policy “working”. Slavery seemed to work, in fact, that was the reason the south fought against it’s repeal. That and not wanting to be told what to do.

Not letting women vote, segregation, not letting interracial couples marry all seem to have “worked” at the time, should they still be in place?

So Hunter thinks it’s better to do a disservice to the country, and to it’s gay citizens, then to do a disservice to the majority? Isn’t the constitution supposed to protect the few from the many?

And what about those conservative christian soldiers, should they not have to serve in a unit with a muslim? An atheist? A woman who’s pro-choice?