ADDED: From Jim Geraghty (who faults Rick Santorum for failing to thank the soldier for his service):
Sarah Rumpf, who was in attendance, writes:Also, Santorum says: "I did not hear those boos . . . If I had, I would have said, 'Don’t do that, that man is serving his country and we ought to thank him for his service.'" As I said in my original post on the subject, these inferences about how the candidates responded to the audience "assumes they hear the sounds and can immediately correctly interpret whether it's an approval or disapproval sound and what it refers to."
... There was audible booing after his question . . . however, please note that it was not the crowd booing. It was only one or two people.See, that's my point. The sound after the loud boo was not more booing or any negativity directed at the soldier. It was hostility to the booer.
I was at the debate, in the audience on the right hand side about halfway back... The person who booed was just a few rows in front of us. The booing got an immediate and angry reaction from nearly everyone sitting around him, who hissed and shushed at him. Lots of loud gasps, “Shhhh!” “No!” “Shut up, you idiot!” etc.
In fact, if Rumpf is correct, most of the people watching at home were failing to correctly interpret the sounds they heard. If only one guy booed, and all the other voices were people trying to shush him, and the candidate had launched into some righteous chastising of the the audience, it would have opened that candidate to criticism about how he assumed the people were intolerant and ungrateful.
Posts
34 comments:
I think the fact that we are concerned about the embarrassing audience reaction indicates our sincerity for an honest and intellectual debate on the principles.
The fact that vuvuzela honking "marauding bands" of liberals disrupt debates and conferneces as an intentional tactic indicate their desire for an emotional and one sided process of intimidation.
When I first heard this, I wondered if the person was saying "Hoo-ah", the army phrase meaning (among other things) "anything and everything except 'no.'"
Are we still on this?
Oh, good, traditionalguy stupidity coming soon!
Traditionally the Claque was a group of armed strangers sitting in the spectator seats at a trial that yelled out for their side and against the opponents side.
Their purpose was to intimidate the Judges who were often circuit riders that feared assault later in the town after court was over.
The close calls of NFL and college football Refs go decidedly to the home team with a belligerent crowd. That's a fact. It also worked on Pontius Pilate
So that claque in the GOP debate audience in Orlando ( site of the Casey Anthony trial )knew what they were there to do and they did it.
The slip by the candidates was to sit on the fence in fear of the crowd.
Told you.
At every baseball game some guys boo when the opposing team gives a slugger an intentional walk or when an opposing pitcher throws over to first base more than once.
Should real fans stand up & denounce these people?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Yeah, why is still a discussion. Give me a crowd, and I'm sure we'd find one real ass in it. Again the trick is pointing out the person as not being like the others then moving on. The worst thing is to make the story about the one person and not why the other people are there.
And yeah, Curious George did call it, but hey, I predict the sun will rise in the east. It's easy.
Curious...You are playing the role of the claque on the blog when you attack a commenter personally rather than argue the other side.
Knock yourself out.
A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.
I didn't hear even 1 boo.
There was no booing at all!
There's a better clue:
IF the debates were more interesting nobody would be focusing on the gay army guy.
That's the part of the VIRAL ... not the BOO ... That got a lot of people to pay attention.
The real plant? The VIDEO was streamed in as a QUESTION! Right there, you have a clue that the media is galloping above the stage with these "debaters cum candidates." Whatever.
Yesterday, Drudge ran the headline: "TEXAS TOAST"
Drudge is always ahead of the news! He leads it! When he sees it.
He just plucks the "essence" of the story up there. Then lots of people see it. Even if they didn't watch the debates.
What's the big deal?
I mean the President calls his wife Boo all the time and nobody gets upset about it.
Yeah. And if there were any other boos, they were booing the first booer.
Either way, Santorum is an idiot.
This is a non-story.
Now, if teh gays ever boo'd the military, that would be a story!
Actually it was a film maker trying to hype his new film "The Summer of Boo Boo."
Preston has an excellent point. What if one guy yelled out "Hooah!" What would that sound like? The mystery continues.
It could have been someone in the audience enamored with those big guns.
I wonder if this will incentivize the hostile media to place or direct microphones at the crowd during Republican/Tea Party events?
"Macaca" for the masses!
"traditionalguy said...
Curious...You are playing the role of the claque on the blog when you attack a commenter personally rather than argue the other side."
There's is no other side when you build your case on opinion stated as fact, and make moronic statements equating the GOP debate crowd acting like "StormTroopers at a Nazia rally" or calling the GOP "the party that hates Hispanics for Spanish culture and hates gays for gay culture..."
That just makes you an idiot.
All Santorum had to do was start out his answer with "thank you for protecting our country", as you would expect from any politician, and he would have been covered.
And it would have helped if he had avoided the word "tragic" which is usually reserved for a topic like abortion, or some natural disaster.
Santorum's position is loaded with unintended consequences.
If Santorum is elected, any soldier who hasn't come out already would have to reveal their sexuality in order to ensure it couldn't be used against them later.
Jason the commenter wrote:
All Santorum had to do was start out his answer with "thank you for protecting our country", as you would expect from any politician, and he would have been covered
actually if you check national review's home page, there's video od SA forum, where a fox host asks him about the boo and he says he didn't really hear it on stage, but that he condemns the people booing, as well as offering praise for the mans service.
So, I thnk he's covered.
jr565: actually if you check national review's home page, there's video od SA forum, where a fox host asks him about the boo and he says he didn't really hear it on stage, but that he condemns the people booing, as well as offering praise for the mans service.
So, I thnk he's covered.
I've seen that, too. But what counts most is what he said in the heat of the debate, not what he said a day later.
Santorum, like Bachmann, has a gay problem. People think they hate gay people. There's also the worry that they want to impose their religious beliefs on the country. That's the bias they have to work against.
In this instance we had a soldier serving in Iraq, who was very respectful, said he was gay, and asked a question about policy. Santorum had the perfect opportunity to see past the soldier's sexuality and thank him for his service. Instead Santorum was blinded by the soldier's sexuality and forgot to thank him.
Doesn't matter. Republicans booed a gay veteran, just like Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house. Too good to check. Fake but accurate.
Am I the only one left? Come on. Boo him and state outright he has no place in the Army. Not only is that the right answer, it would get the most votes. There are alot of me out there.
Gary Johnson was interviewed about this and he said he regretted not reacting to the boo(s). There was nothing about not hearing it or it not clearly being a boo.
So unless there was something unique about Santorum's stage perspective, it seems unlikely he didn't hear it. That doesn't make him look "covered"..makes him look to be covering up.
Ok, so obviously the self-serving testimony of one of the candidates means that at least he's off the hook, and, by extension, so are all the candidates. And Rumpf's (giggle) testimony is enough to conclude that none of the nominees needed take a stand when they could outsource moral indignation by transforming it into the need for the audience to simply hear better.
But where was FOX News on the matter? Surely those Republican Taskmasters had access to the same tape?
But otherwise, awesome argument.
The façade of the building with its full height windows and balconies is clearly that of a residential one.
Vietnam Travel Blog
silver bullion roundsstock Clipart
Known as Building 2, the tower is situated roughly in the centre of the site with it comprising of an expanded number of 243 private residential apartments over 50 floors with the predictable inclusion of ground floor retail. The hotel element has been removed entirely from the tower as a result of feasibility studies.
home solar panelscomputer repair
To maximise the views throughout, it is intended that the living rooms will be dominated by curving glass windows that will wrap fully around the corners offering panoramic views. On the exterior this is expressed by four horizontal metal louvres that wrap around the tower between the windows of each floor.
Vietnam Travel Blog
KSacramento Movers
However, it is the conservative Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood who are most vocal in these demonstrations rather than the young people using social networks who led the protests earlier this year, he says.
Witnesses say that Tahrir Square was split between the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party and the more hardline Islamist Salafi rivals, represented by several political parties.
sell domainused ophthalmic equipment
Post a Comment