I just now came across an AP report about Kerr's connection to the Clinton campaign by way of the LGBT advistory committee and his endorsement. I headed right over here to correct myself, but damn, you beat me to it.

I stand corrected on that single point. But that was just one of several statements I made in the case of Kerr. Let's add up the score:

....seems based on nothing more than his having expressed support for a Democrat some time ago [correct]. Not a member of a Democratic campaign [wrong] or an activist [wrong] or anything [?], not on anybody's payroll [correct; I'm pretty sure the committee gig was non-paying], just that he'd expressed support for a Democrat [correct]. AFAIK, nobody knows his political affiliation for sure [wrong].

By my tally, it's 50/50. If you want to play the divert-the-conversation-with-technicalities game, we're simply even.

But let's get serious, Tom. The accusation that he's a "ringer" means specifically that he was deliberately planted by the Clinton campaign with the cooperation of CNN. Can you back that up?

The account I read is that he submitted his video through the same public channel as everybody else, and that CNN had verified his military service and checked the FEC records to make sure he wasn't a donor to any political campaign. But apparently they didn't dig deeper than that. Sounds like an error of omission, not of commission.

You're actually raising more questions than you're putting to rest taking this tack with me. Do you really think that being a political activist disqualifies a person from asking a question of a candidate? I'd be really curious to know why, if so, considering the simple fact that people who take an active interest in politics are statistically far more likely to submit questions than disinterested parties. Are you actually saying that you think only the clueless and politically apathetic should question Republican candidates?

Are you entirely sure that none of the Republican questioners was a Republican political activist? If so, why? If CNN vetted everybody the way they vetted Kerr, then Republican activists would slip through the filter the same way.

We done here, or do I have to keep going with the others? It would be a lot less work for me if you gave me credit for being able to back up what I say.

Oh, poor long-suffering Tom. What a cross to bear. But catching me in a single error is not the same as defending your charge about "ringer activists". That charge means more than just the fact that somebody had shown substantive, if not monetary, support for a Democrat. You have not backed up your substantive allegation.

And, conveniently, you managed to avoid responding to my question about whether the rules stipulated only Republican questioners; and my semi-facetious yet highly relevant question about whether, if so, it means that Republicans are afraid to be questioned by Democrats. What is behind all this hysteria over a Democrat asking a question of a Republican?