That was ugly! TPM leans heavily on the GOP for the sounds that emanate from various audiences. There was the booing of the soldier and...
... On Sept. 7, the biggest applause line of the night went to the then-234 executions that had occurred during Rick Perry’s time as governor. At the CNN/Tea Party Express debate a few days later, members of the audience voiced their support for letting an uninsured man die.Settling in to write this post, I said out loud: "The Republicans need to get their audiences under control." And Meade said:
"No, they don't. They're the party of free speech. Anyone can come in and say what they want to say. It's just like your blog. You're not responsible for what people say in the comments."There's no real way to control the audience, other than to strictly limit who gets in, which will look repressive and cowardly. And who knows who is booing or applauding in this way that's harmful to the Republican cause? It could just as well be somebody who hates the GOP, trying to generate bad press and distract attention from what the candidates actually say.
The booing in that clip above comes from one very loud guy. Maybe he could be identified. I'd like to know whether he's on the Republican side or he's a dirty trickster. Am I being repressive to suggest that audience members at the next debate ought to pay attention in the future and look when somebody boos or applauds in this way that is useful to Republican opponents?
I don't think so. I think it's similar to going to a protest and photographing people with offensive signs. Let's say someone who hates the Tea Party is thinking of going to a Tea Party rally and holding up a blatantly racist sign in the hope of stoking the belief that the Tea Party is a bunch of racists. If this prankster realizes he will be photographed (or confronted by the people he's hoping to hurt), he probably won't do it.
A separate matter is whether the candidates should overlook the inappropriate sounds in the room. (This assumes they hear the sounds and can immediately correctly interpret whether it's an approval or disapproval sound and what it refers to.) The candidates have to be smart about what will be used against them and, if they are sharp, they could find opportunities to leverage the moment for their own benefit with a good spontaneous remark. But I don't think that every jerk in the audience, like that guy last night, ought to have the power to command attention in place of whatever response the candidate had brewing in his head as he listened to the question. There lies chaos.
ADDED: I have listened to the video several times, and I stand by my perception that only one person audibly yells "boo." I hear a loud "boo," then a difficult to decipher noise — which could be an ugh response to the booer — and then a little more of a boo, which sounds like the original guy.
पोस्ट्स
२५५ टिप्पण्या:
255 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»What should the Republicans do about their problem with boos?
Maybe cut back to a couple of whines per event.
Your ridiculous assertion that the boos came from a plant is belied by the fact that no one on stage denounced them.
These people understand their audience.
Then you've got Santorum's answer. It would make the booing man proud.
Just face facts and move on. The Republican base hates homos.
Why is the honest expression of some Republicans-- their cheers for the death penalty and their boos for service members, a problem? Perhaps the real problem is the candidates who stand mute unable to say anything until after the fact? At least this gives the country a chance to see the sub-text of some of the discussion.
It really doesn't matter whether the cheers or boos come from Republicans or anti-GOP activists out to disrupt. The lapdog media will report it in the manner most favorable to the Democrats.
To start with, stop the gimmicky formats. Second, greatly reduce or eliminate the studio audience. Who goes to such an event?
"Your ridiculous assertion that the boos came from a plant is belied by the fact that no one on stage denounced them."
How? It doesn't help the candidates to have crap like that.
There's really nothing they can do. It's like trying to implement crowd control here in these threads.
Meade's right.
If such booing creates an automatic 'score' for the Democrats, what's to keep someone from balancing the score by inciting 'boo-ers' to attend and sound off at Democrat party functions? Isn't that the Wisconsin way?
Unfortunately the rubes, bark chewers, or infiltrators get all the attention. The media laps it up.
Second, greatly reduce or eliminate the studio audience. Who goes to such an event?
Then where would the likes of Stephen Hill go to get the attention he craves?
"Then you've got Santorum's answer. It would make the booing man proud."
Santorum's answer was lame, but it was the precise lameness that Bill Clinton signed onto. I don't see the hostility to the soldier in Santorum's naive hope that DADT is a good approach.
"There's no real way to control the audience, other than to strictly limit who gets in, which WOULD BE repressive and cowardly."
There, fixed it for you.
Trey
"To start with, stop the gimmicky formats. Second, greatly reduce or eliminate the studio audience. Who goes to such an event?"
Let's build on that idea. Why do the candidates (and the President) travel around the country at great expense and inconvenience to produce photo ops with citizens. Stay in a studio and record statements and put the video out on the internet. Everything else is gimmickry.
There was a lone booer. To single him out would just give him an added sense of self importance and encourage the next jerk to make his feelings known.
The analogy to the blog doesn't quite work because whereas the commenters at Althouse are not Althouse, and so (generally-speaking) nothing about Althouse can be inferred from what we say, the Republicans attending the Republican candidates' debate are Republicans just as much as the candidaets are, and so (ceteris paribus) we can make inferences about Republicans from what they say. But then the question becomes whether members of the audience are Republicans, which is a much more dubious assertion despite Martin's sneering. The Democratic Party can scarcely play innocence abused, any more than the GOP can. Everyone in politics resorts to dirty tricks when subterfuge when they think they can get something out of it and get away with it.
"I don't see the hostility to the soldier in Santorum's naive hope that DADT is a good approach."
Of course YOU don't.
It was sad and made me sad. But I'm over it.
The soldier enlisted to serve his country and had the balls to post that video. Did Ricky serve in the military?
What about that soldiers guns? WOW!
As I said last night, it was a stupid, self-serving question. That's what got the reaction.
And I don't know it's a "problem". One boo does not necessarily constitute a "problem".
But Meade's right. It was an audience reaction. Just like the cheering. Or the guy who yelled, "Yeah!" last time out after Ron Paul's answer on health insurance. Either you let the audience go or you don't.
Frankly, I don't think there should be audiences at these things. And SteveR is right.
Lose the gimmicks.
Santorum could have thanked the man for his service. That would have implicitly condemned the boos and shamed him for his outburst.
Taking control of the audience is something any good speaker should know how to do. Same technique as lecturing to a class --
I like the gimmickry. Gimmickry teaches you something about the people putting on the show, and the people participating in it.
Stay in a studio and record statements and put the video out on the internet. Everything else is gimmickry.
Was there a studio audience at the televised Nixon/Kennedy debate back in 1960? I think there was.
Titus said...
It was sad and made me sad. But I'm over it.
The soldier enlisted to serve his country and had the balls to post that video. Did Ricky serve in the military?
What about that soldiers guns? WOW!
No, he enlisted to get a "job". That's what he was worried about - "keeping his job" (his words). Not doing his duty or serving his country.
And it didn't take much to post the video, now the DADT is history.
Considering Titus likes to spit on everybody and everything, that we're supposed to believe this makes him "sad" is rich.
I do appreciate Ann's comment policies. And I think we would do well to remember that her comment policies have come at some cost to her reputation.
Putting your real name on stuff out on the Internet always carries some risk, that these things will be held against later, fairly or unfairly, whether you have changed your mind or not.
Anyone can yell stuff anonymously at a candidate. And then anyone else can play the "why didn't you condemn that game"? Maybe because it's hard enough trying to stick to what you were invited there to do, debate the people on stage without looking like an idiot. Maybe it is unfair to expect candidates to have to take on an additional responsibility of policing an anonymous crowd.
And the time and effort it takes for some jackass to yell something stupid or false is far less than the time and effort it takes to correct that jackass--and must come at the expense of what you were invited there to do.
Perhaps there is a choice. Either stop saying such zany things or do like GWB did and just let in people who sign loyalty oaths but this time see if they can read them first instead of just grunting.
No?
Just passing through.
"Why is the honest expression of some Republicans - their cheers for the death penalty and their boos for service members - a problem?"
OK. Bearing in mind I am on lunch and have no way to access the clip, let me say this about that: RV, your assertion of "boos for service members" is the first red flag for me that this is not legit. Short of LaRouchies or the Ronulans - neither of which I would classify as "Republican," though they may ally themselves with the Reps - it would be almost as unheard for a GOP-freindly audience to boo a "service member." That in and of itself makes me suspect a leftist plant (and please do not insult my intelligence by suggesting the Democrats would never do such a thing; look up Dick Tuck) or one of the two other choices above.
The death penalty? That, I do expect from a GOP-friendly audience, conditioned as we are to endless anecdotal as well as actual evidence of criminals being set free to murder again, or illegal aliens involved in accidents who somehow manage to slip through the cracks. I believe, in that case, it is more of a "justice deferred is justice denied" POV. For the record, I have slowly come around to opposing the death penalty, though it is not absolutely forbidden by the Church, so far as I know. But that's a discussion for another day.
"Perhaps the problem is the candidates who stand mute unable to say anything until after the fact?"
The old "deer-in-the-headlights" explanation? Perhaps, though one would think that anyone running for president would have some crowd savvy and be able to anticipate certain responses from favorable and unfavorable audiences. But bear in mind, as Ken points out, the "lapdog media' is always going to place the worst possible spin on anything An unfavored GOP pol (that is, anyone not Jon Huntsman) might say ('macaca' anyone?).
And the media have certainly not been above creating slander from whole cloth. Remember those supposed shouts of "Kill him!" at McCain-Palin rallies when Obama's name was mentioned? Or must we go through the whole "nigger" scream business that somehow only reached the ear of one Democrat?
Frankly, I think the Cheney-Edwards debate was the way it should be - candidates sitting down together, asking each other questions and followups, with no time limit and no cheering audience. Hell, at this point I'd even take another Nixon-Kennedy style debate.
Good lord. I've rambled on almost as long as Carol Herman. Sorry about that.
chickenlittle said...
Stay in a studio and record statements and put the video out on the internet. Everything else is gimmickry.
Was there a studio audience at the televised Nixon/Kennedy debate back in 1960? I think there was.
They all were until Bush 41 agreed to that network circus in '92.
I'd like to know whether he's on the Republican side or he's a dirty trickster.
It's the Democrats' fault.
HDHouse said...
Perhaps there is a choice. Either stop saying such zany things or do like GWB did and just let in people who sign loyalty oaths but this time see if they can read them first instead of just grunting.
Apparently HD is against free speech, too.
Just passing through.
Don't let the door hit ya...
And the time and effort it takes for some jackass to yell something stupid or false is far less than the time and effort it takes to correct that jackass--
Speaking of which, we've not seen Jeremy hereabouts lately.
The real question to ask is what should Democrats do about their problem with assholes?
Ah, I took to long to post. Boos because of DADT? In that case, I'd call it more of a reaction to gays - whether in military or not - than anything else. And that is most certainly not an official "Republican" position.
"Do as GWB did and just let in people who sign loyalty oaths."
Or do as your precious SCOAMF does, and feed pre-vetted people appropriately obsequious questions in advance so he doesn't have to speak without his telebinky.
"Just passing through." Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
The Republican base hates homos.
There is very little actual hate in the world. There is a lot of whining and crybabying, however.
It's hard to be in the military with whiners and crybabies, and that's what some of the opposition is about.
There's no real way to control the audience, other than to strictly limit who gets in, which will look repressive and cowardly.
Isn't that what Obama did during the 08 campaign and still does?
What about that soldiers guns? WOW!
That his guns were so prominently displayed on his self-made video made it 50/50 he was gay before he even opened his mouth.
And you know I'm speaking the truth.
I don't know this blogger, but she says that she was there and explains that it was only one or maybe two people, and gives a nifty explanation of how certain sounds carry:
http://www.sunshinestatesarah.com/2011/09/truth-about-booing-at-debate.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SunshineStateSarah+%28Sunshine+State+Sarah%29
I hated Santorum's answer, though. It was wholy based on what he "believes", not what he knows to be fact. And he really should have tossed in a "thank you for your service."
- Lyssa
...no one on stage denounced them.
This is a convenient fallback position.
Broader question: When, and how often, do people need to denounce the fringe? It happens in this forum too. Cedarford's a conspiratorial anti-semite. Should other commenters make a point of denouncing him every time he posts? Some commenters and occasional fly-by idiots push the line of racism and misogyny. Others lard up the comments section with repetitive idiocy (J, Mick). Should I interrupt my response to the main post or the more fruitful discussion to comment about them?
My tendency is to ignore the crackpots. I think this is a pretty common approach. Hey, loser, it's not about you.
At least none of them used a 'vuvuzula.'
I thought the soldier is a fine representative of a man serving in our military DOING A THANKLESS JOB!
Should we be in Iraq! I hope we've got forts there 100 years from now! Our military should "practice" in the toughest conditions! Irak provides this!
Just as long ago Americans were sent out WEST to man forts in "no-man's lands" ... Where some from the indian tribes came in to find safety.
I don't think military matters belong to hollywood.
And, I don't think we should keep troops in korea ... because korea is ONE NATION. Why are these people kept separated?
Don't bullshit me.
And, if this guy represents gayness ... his sacrifice to US ... deserves our heartfelt good cheer.
Now, let's say obama comes along. And, visits these troops in Irak. And, "suddenly" this guy can't overcome his urges ... and he unzips his pants ... And, the most unbelievably longest cock in the world comes into view. Then, I think, like every other porn star ... he'd be stripped of rank.
Well, what if, instead, a woman takes off her shirt and jiggles her tits? You got it. An immediate parting of the ways!
As to audiences in Orlando ... WHAT? Were these people offered seats while they were at Disneyworld? They're all uncomfortably similar. Old. White. And, fat. They don't even represent the full picture of Orlando.
Too bad all the stars from the Golden Girls are dead.
Estelle Getty, in particular, would have been a central member of the audience. And, so, too, would'a been Blanche.
VIRAL my ass.
You can't create gays by showing videos.
And, at one time or other ... the biggest complaints were when women tried to join the ranks!
Yes, I know about Florence Nightingale. But on average, women weren't welcome. Not in medicine. Not in law. (Except as secretaries.) And, not in mathematics. Prejudice STINKS.
It stank then. It still stinks now.
The GOP is in real trouble. To have their crowds acting like StormTroopers at a Nazi rally is beyond bad, it is totally stupid.
If the GOP is the party that hates Hispanics for Spanish culture and hates gays for gay culture that's just fine. But they can forget winning elections forevermore.
Winning elections requires expanding the circle to include everyone in an alliance.
Losing elections is easy for stupid folks. Just exclude everyone that the most bellicose legalistic assholes want to see condemned in public.
Believe me they will leave.
Rick Santorum could not win an election if his own family were the only voters, because Santorum wants to condemn someone so bad that his family knows that they will be next victims up.
That bleak white audience! Too screwed up to get their fat asses out of their seats ... to counteract the "boo-ers" of hate. And, to have stood up to applaud.
Okay. It was a TV audience. The APPLAUSE SIGN wasn't flashing.
BOOBS ON PARADE ... And, not one decent show of hooters. Titus was right!
I am unconvinced that the Candidates could hear/process the boo from the audience. When you are concentrating on hearing a question, then rapidly formulating a cogent response, that concentration will interfere with other processing in the brain, such as understanding and interpreting what was essentially background noise.
Free speech....Everyone's got that right still, no? I like Sabtorum's point about the military not being a place for social experimentation, that the job is to kill people and break things, period.
I hate to be caught defending Clinton, but DADT was probably the best he could do given the environment at the time. Recall that he first attempted to allow gays to openly serve by issuing an executive order. It was the Democrats, led by Sam Nunn, who caused Clinton to go the DADT route.
Also, consider that, even though current attitudes towards DADT seem to characterize the policy as cruel and demented, at the time, it was a real improvement for gays who previously could be discharged under less than honorable conditions based on nothing but flimsy accusations. I know this because I served in the military prior to DADT and saw it happen to soldiers in the units in which I served.
So, there's a world of difference between Clinton biting the bullet and accepting a policy which wasn't what he wanted, but probably the best he could get, and Santorum suggesting that DADT is the way to go even when almost everybody in the military leadership accepts the challenge of integrating openly gay service members.
You really have to wonder what's driving someone to take the attitude that Santorum takes, albiet with a smily face. Yes, integrating openly gay service members is going to be a distraction, but it's a distractiion that the military leadership can deal with and it's not a distraction that the military leadership feels will impact readiness. So, what's up with Santorum? Where does he get this special knowledge about military service? Doesn't appear to be from experience nor does it appear to be from talking to the military leadership, as they disagree with him.
"... a few days later, members of the audience voiced their support for letting an uninsured man die..."
Wasn't the question phrased differently? If a person chose not to buy insurance and later became sick, should we let him die?
If his choice was to go without then he made the decision. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for what he chose not to pay?
There are a lot if things I'd rather not pay for either but I do because I'm a responsible person and not a liberal. I,d rather spend my money on booze and broads so how about you pay for my groceries so my family doesn't starve.
The ONLY reason the GOP is in trouble is that these "debates," AREN'T!
And, it's a MEAT MARKET!
Nobody in America likes to be single and have to submit to the "meat market."
Not one of those contendahs did anything to show that they could lead!
What are they doing?
They're treating the presidency of the United States as if it's a job you get if you pass the SCREEN TEST!
HELLO!
NO LEADERSHIP!
As to the booing, it's an American spirit thing. It even happens at football games where high school teenagers are playing. (For the life of me ... how can parents do that?)
Actually, how can a parent sign the consent form for a kid to go out and play football? Go ahead. Call me a coward. But I think children should figure out their own games. And, get the adult "coaches" ... totally away from this shit.
And, I also think that the GOP "problem" ... has nothing to do with last night's audience.
Most Americans think the audiences get free tickets. They'd sit through anything for a "free pass."
You can't fool me.
This GOP show? The sooner it gets canceled, the better!
Let me clarify what's on the video. The boo doesn't come when he says he's gay. It comes after his question about policy.
The boo is about policy. Stop being such crybabies, gays.
traditionalguy said...
The GOP is in real trouble. To have their crowds acting like StormTroopers at a Nazi rally is beyond bad, it is totally stupid.
If the GOP is the party that hates Hispanics for Spanish culture and hates gays for gay culture that's just fine. But they can forget winning elections forevermore.
Winning elections requires expanding the circle to include everyone in an alliance.
Losing elections is easy for stupid folks. Just exclude everyone that the most bellicose legalistic assholes want to see condemned in public.
Believe me they will leave.
Rick Santorum could not win an election if his own family were the only voters, because Santorum wants to condemn someone so bad that his family knows that they will be next victims up."
You are really a moron. This is so painful stupid it hurts.
Ah, the old "plant theory" from Althouse, that comes up only when something potentially damaging to a Republican arises.
traditionalguy said...
The GOP is in real trouble. To have their crowds acting like StormTroopers at a Nazi rally is beyond bad, it is totally stupid.
If the GOP is the party that hates Hispanics for Spanish culture and hates gays for gay culture that's just fine. But they can forget winning elections forevermore.
Spare us the Paulian talking points.
Yeah, Santorum's day is done, but he's not getting the nomination or anything else, so this is just noise to promote the Libertarians.
Somehow, they think they're going from 1% in the last election to national status.
Ain't gonna happen.
"If the GOP is the party that hates Hispanics for Spanish culture and hates gays for gay culture, that's just fine."
Nice strawman. I certainly don't "hate" Spanish culture. I don't particularly care for it, being a WASP myself, but I don't hate it. I do hate when the "Hispanics" refuse to assimilate into the country as millions of immigrants before them have. If your primary identification is with Spain, Puerto Rico, Columbia or wherever, then go there. If you live in America, be proud of your heritage, but learn to be an American.
And gay culture? I didn't know there was such a thing. It might as well be as accurate to speak of heterosexual culture. People are people, with their own different quirks. It is the insistence that your particular quirk be not merely tolerated, but celebrated - even to the point of legal penalties - that I oppose.
They all were until Bush 41 agreed to that network circus in '92.
I'm for most anything that would starve networks of some revenue. The increasing layers of spectacle surrounding the main event risks the very political process.
Macaca plants?
Martin: "no one on stage denounced them"
No one on stage high-fived either.
They didn't hear or comprehend what happened because they were too intent on remembering their canned answers. Don't forget our politicians can't think and talk at the same time. Our most eloquent, most brilliant president has to parrot TOTUS, else he's totally lost. Yet you expect lesser mortals to pay attention to the audience? Btw, Obama has yet to denounce Hoffa's killing spree talk.
Is cheering for the death penalty bad? How about those two sub human pieces of feces who raped, murdered and then burned Dr. Petit's wife and daughters? I'd be cheering too knowing those two inhuman pieces if garbage aren't wasting our oxygen.
How come those candle holding protestors don't go to the victims gravesite and give them equal time? Or don't they count?
"Ah, the old "plant theory" from Althouse, that comes up only when something potentially damaging to a Republican arises."
My use of the expression "dirty tricks" was intended to call to mind Lee Atwater, who was a Republican.
Carol_Herman said...
The ONLY reason the GOP is in trouble is that these "debates," AREN'T!
And, it's a MEAT MARKET!
Nobody in America likes to be single and have to submit to the "meat market."
The Demos did the same thing in '08.
Did you object then?
Your ridiculous assertion that the boos came from a plant is belied by the fact that no one on stage denounced them.
Why should Republicans spend their time denouncing what audience members say when Obama won't denounce what Congressional members of his own party say?
If Republicans are guilty of what their audience says, can Obama be tarred by the comments of Grayson or the CBC? He has WAY more influence over them since their quotes were hardly anonymous.
the Republicans attending the Republican candidates' debate are Republicans just as much as the candidaets are, and so (ceteris paribus) we can make inferences about Republicans from what they say.
They give out identification cards for Republicans? If not, how would they KNOW somebody was a Republican?
I can SAY I support Obama. Doesn't make it reality.
McCain wasted a lot of energy defending Obama in 2008. Obama didn't do squat for McCain when he was getting smeared.
Booing is not cool at a debate on a subject. At least on issues like the death penalty, immigration and gays. Are you against all immigrants, for executing anyone, and against all gays? I am sure if pulled aside the answer would be no. You may have strong feelings on the subjects and that is fine. Wait for the answer! Show just a tad bit of introspection.
We need to put a quick stop to the GOP becoming the Depends Party and quit wetting their pants fretting about what the people who hate and detest them might say against them, whether it is this instance or Romney's urinary incontinence over practically everything Perry says.
It would be an excellent tactic for a candidate to single out the booer and read him the riot act. He/she would get props for tolerance and courage. Everybody loves a stand-up comic who skewers a heckler. The gays in the military thing has passed this week without a ripple-- as a whole Americans approve.
But Professor, live interactions under stress are what most people want to see to better evaluate the character of the candidates.
The pressures are so high this time because the government itself has become our acknowledged enemy.
So who can show he/she can govern and also eliminate the government atrocities upon citizens?
And how does one show that anyway??
Ron Paul has enough mind-controlled asshole bullies attacking everyone to intimidate a candidate who say he/she wants to govern well.
But the alternative is to out destroy Obama. I seriously blame the Ron Paul and his followers for poisoning politics in the GOP.
And let's be clear -- there was no booing for "a serviceman." I don't even need to see the clip to know that any booing was in regards to the politicization of that military service.
To say "I'm serving in Iraq" would rightly bring cheers of thanks from the crowd.
To essentially say "Look at me, I'm gay, and serving in Iraq -- deal with it" is to put gayness above service when one's gayness should be irrelevant.
Bender said...
We need to put a quick stop to the GOP becoming the Depends Party and quit wetting their pants fretting about what the people who hate and detest them might say against them
Excellent point.
Ann uses TPM as the basis for the post. Last I looked, TPM isn't exactly unbiased.
And, since that's the case, why do we care what TPM thinks?
Tyrone Slothrop said...
The gays in the military thing has passed this week without a ripple-- as a whole Americans approve.
Think you're wrong there.
I spent a lot of time wondering if I should comment in the thread when I suddenly realized you weren't discussing booze.
Why is there even an audience? What purpose do they serve? This is a TV debate, sponsored by a TV Network.
The purpose of the debates is to help us, the Republican voters, decide who to nominate.
This is just another distraction.
I was at a big D.C. Tea Party rally and there were 4 or so people on the side with posters equating B0 to Hitler. They were clearly not with the TP.
We ignored them and eventually the police asked them to leave as they were blocking some part of the sidewalk.
The fortunate thing for the Republicans is that is impossible to lose to Obama. They would really, really have to work at losing to Obama. Maybe they will need to have Herman Cain dressed in a stylish Hugo Boss updated SS uniform sporting an Adolph mustache spraching gibberish in deutsch. Maybe that will work (at losing). Probably not.
What I find amazing is the level of vehemence some commentators are expressing towards some of the GOP candidates. The nation is about to fall in to the abyss and they are worried about secondary issues like gays in the military and illegal aliens? Please God we should have a speedy recovery from the scourge of the Democrat-Communists so we can afford the luxury to indulge ourselves with the secondary issues.
Meade is just your standard knuckle-dragging teabagger who thinks free speech allows anyone to say literally anything to anybody, regardless of the hateful, bigoted content or repercussions.
And comparing what someone shouts out in an open, Presidential debate forum no less, as being the same as what is posted on some blog site like this, show just how stupid the man really is.
And it's small-minded fools like him who will guarantee the reelection of President Obama in 2012.
Thank God.
It would be an excellent tactic for a candidate to single out the booer and read him the riot act.
I think this answers Ann's question. And the candidate gets a bonus if he/she drags it out long enough to avoid answering the original question.
cubanbob "The fortunate thing for the Republicans is that is impossible to lose to Obama. They would really, really have to work at losing to Obama."
Well, they're doing a pretty good job of it so far.
Maybe at the next debate, when the MSM moderator again pushes our elites' strange obsession with the centrality of the homosexual agenda, a Republican candidate with balls, Michele Bachmann is the only one I see out there, will call him out for detouring the discussion from the domestic economic crisis and middle east crisis engineered by the current administration and on to such piddling stuff as the homosexuals' hunger for validation.
Somebody should have whacked the motherfucker that booed.
Dear Curious: Politics is the building of a circle of supporters that is larger than the circle of supporters of the other candidate.
And in our politics 50% plus 1 wins it all. Remember 200 votes in Florida meant 8 years in office for Bush II.
Whipping scapegoats in public is not effective when people think that it is unfair. It will only shrink your circle.
So from one moron to another, please think before you applaud condemnation of the voter groups who seem strange to you. You need them more than you need to be right all of the time.
fleetusa "I was at a big D.C. Tea Party rally and there were 4 or so people on the side with posters equating B0 to Hitler. They were clearly not with the TP."
So you think they just stopped by, and happened to be carrying Hitler posters?
Bullshit.
"traditionalguy said...
But Professor, live interactions under stress are what most people want to see to better evaluate the character of the candidates."
And you know this how? Of course we should probably bow to the wisdom of someone that related one person booing the decision to allow gays to openly serve in the military to "acting like StormTroopers at a Nazi rally"
You really are a moron.
Raul
A couple days ago, you posted a Bachmann quote and said "many" here wanted to see her as president. I asked you to name three.
Still waiting. Third request.
edutcher said...
Think you're wrong there.
I'm not passionately on either side of this controversy, but I don't remember hearing any expressions of outrage over this, unless you credit the guy at the debate with representing a majority of Americans.
I'm sure it's like Michael Moore said at the Oscars.
The booers are booing the booers.
edutcher, at 11:30 AM ...
"Did I object then?"
No. I went into my garage and fondled my old Ross Perot sign! /s
The current GOP crapola-show ... is not bringing NEW voters to join the fold.
At least that should have been a goal.
In 2008 ... by the way ... McCain was your presidential goal. Schmuck couldn't even get above 48% of the vote.
Obama is president because in 2008 he got 51% of the vote. McCain was surprised! Because McCain thought white people wouldn't vote for a black man. (Hillary, at home, probably thought the same thing, too.)
Busted wishful thinking!
Now? If the election were held t'marra ... Obama would win.
This is true even though unions are losing.
Now, given the circus atmosphere of these televised "verbals" ... (Without a GONG. And, without Alex Tribeck) ... You're actually watching the GOP go sliding down the cliff.
Sure. There are some who hate Obama so much they're screaming he can't win, ahead, in a landslide.
To that I'll agree. Landslides turn voters off. They don't go to vote.
The reporting will be that this is a very close race. It isn't.
Will Sarah run? Does she have to? Didn't she decide she'd like to make money? Isn't there money to be made out there in TV land?
Meanwhile. The GOP is still the GOP. They'd run Thomas E. Dewey if he wasn't dead, already.
So you think they just stopped by, and happened to be carrying Hitler posters?
We had a confirmed local Democrat organizer show up at a couple of the St Louis TP events with inflammatory false flag type signs. He was outed almost immediately and left. That didn't stop him from trying again, the second time with others of his ilk. They were likewise outed and left.
Are you suggesting this sort of thing doesn't happen?
We need to put a quick stop to the GOP becoming the Depends Party and quit wetting their pants fretting about what the people who hate and detest them might say against them
Closing ranks is what the left hopes the GOP will do. As pointed out above, you want to bring more people to your candidate, not fewer.
Meade is just your standard knuckle-dragging teabagger who thinks free speech allows anyone to say literally anything to anybody, regardless of the hateful, bigoted content or repercussions.
Out of curiosity, what speech would you ban? I want to know how far your support for free speech actually goes, since it is very much limited, apparently.
It was one guy booing. How can they be expected to control that? The Left is playing a game of guilt by association by linking the candidates to the handful of people in the last two debate who have behaved poorly.
In the first debate, the applause for the 234 executions under Perry was widespread, and that was truly disturbing.
But in spite of all that, what I find even more disturbing is how the candidates are introduced to roaring applause. They're politicians for chrissakes, they're not rock stars. They didn't find a cure for cancer. They're basically going to Washington to sign laws to restrict your freedoms and confiscate your money in taxes. It is bizarre to applaud that.
Scott M, Raul is talking-pointed. Pretty clearly.
Out of curiosity, what speech would you ban?
I'm guessing he's against hate speech.
You know, like "Obama's an incompetent fool." Or, "We've got to reform entitlements."
He's probably a regular contributor to Attack Watch, so be careful what you say.
Because you're probably not paying your fair share of taxes.
1) I only heard one person booing. For all we know, it was a "Progressive" plant. Such plants have been proven beyond any doubt to have routinely shown up at TEA party events for precisely the purpose of creating a false impression.
2) The soldier lied! Don't ask, don't tell does not require him to lie about anything. It simply requires him to be discreet. Once upon a time in a land far, far away, we were all discreet when it came to our sex lives.
Much ado about absolutely NOTHING!
What're we supposed to shake in our shoes and deny support for Michele Bachmann? She's a gutsy straight talker and I'm proud to support her candidacy.
Raul said...
cubanbob "The fortunate thing for the Republicans is that is impossible to lose to Obama. They would really, really have to work at losing to Obama."
Well, they're doing a pretty good job of it so far.
9/23/11 11:53 AM
So when are you and your brother Fidel going to do the world a favor and die? And please take Hugo with you as well.
As for Obama, ice has a better chance of staying frozen in hell than Obama getting reelected. The only real question is will the Republicans get a filibuster proof senate? And will the next president repeal all of the Obmunist nonsense?
Once upon a time in a land far, far away, we were all discreet when it came to our sex lives.
Titus kinda wrecked that around here.
Carol, admit it. you still have the hots for Willie.
OT, but somehow relevant:
WaPo says black approval of GodZero at 58%.
Zero praises the building of the "Intercontinental Railroad".
And best of all:
New poll (how can we live without them?) says Zero would lose to both Perry and Romney.
No wonder all the Lefties here are jumping on boos at the debate.
Their side is sinking by the bow.
So, is it fair to tar Obama with the church he attended for 20 years yet? Or is it still wrong to do that to him while condemning Republicans for actions of an audience they had little control over?
Curious...I did not equate this crowd's hostility to Hitler's rallies. This GOP crowd did it all on their own and I only noticed it.
Have you ever studied color films of Hitler's mass rallies affirming the rights of Blood and Soil for pure German citizens.
Those were the same issues that were being raised by the existence of Hispanic immigrants and gay soldiers last night.
Why give the election back to Obama by doing that to fire up your supporters?
The video is really a vehicle for the soldiers huge guns.
I didn't hear anything he actually said.
I was blinded by the arms.
But, I mean, come on, who wasn't?
He is HUGE!
The best "lawyer's reason" not to sue is that it would open Sarah Palin up to "DISCOVERY." She needs that like a hole in the head.
Meanwhile, I think Joe McGuinness should go to Random House, and ask for an "advance" on writing a sequel.
But then, instead of renting the house next door, he should rent a helicopter. And, take his camera along. So he can
hang out of the plane" and take pictures.
Well, what if a gust of wind came along and blew Joe McGuinness out of his seat?
WIN-WIN
I can see this story board working, too.
I'm surprise nobody has picked up on the Alinsky angle. Whatever that may be.
Suing is so stupid!
It takes a million years for a case to wander through the courts!
And, it's made worse because you have to hire someone who "talks for you."
Why does Sarah Palin need a lawyer to speak for her? That, alone, should keep her out of the business of going to hire an attorney now.
Because Joe McGuinniss' book is about to hit the remainder stock.
Plus, Borders went out of business!
There isn't a bookstore window left in this world ... where his books can be seen by mall customers.
So, is it fair to tar Obama with the church he attended for 20 years yet?
Racist. Plagiarist. Briar Rabbit hater.
I'm surprise nobody has picked up on the Alinsky angle. Whatever that may be.
Obtuse.
Carol_Herman said...
The best "lawyer's reason" not to sue is that it would open Sarah Palin up to "DISCOVERY." She needs that like a hole in the head.
Touche' Madam.
Why not make all your comments this short, sweet and accurate?
2012 is obviously not as much of a slamdunk as either cubanbob or Raul think it is, but I will tell you this--people vote their pocketbooks. Bush senior had 90% approval ratings during Desert Storm and a tiny little recession derailed him. Things are terrible now and they will not get any better as long as Obama pursues his Social Democrat agenda, which he appears to be ramping up instead of abating. The election can still be lost by Republicans. Intrade favors Republicans at 50.1% to 48.3% for Democrats, which is still too close for comfort.
Closing ranks is what the left hopes the GOP will do. As pointed out above, you want to bring more people to your candidate, not fewer.
Exactly. The booing or cheering can either be embrased or shunned. THAT's what folks, the undecided or the curious, will notice.
"Dear Curious: Politics is the building of a circle of supporters that is larger than the circle of supporters of the other candidate.
And in our politics 50% plus 1 wins it all. Remember 200 votes in Florida meant 8 years in office for Bush II. "
This reads like a junior high essay. It's also moronic. Bush didn't win because he won Florida, he won because he won Florida and a bunch of other states. And he certainly didn't his second term because of the FL 2000 vote. But this doesn't square with your original bit of genius:
"Winning elections requires expanding the circle to include everyone in an alliance..."
"Whipping scapegoats in public is not effective when people think that it is unfair. It will only shrink your circle.
So from one moron to another, please think before you applaud condemnation of the voter groups who seem strange to you. You need them more than you need to be right all of the time. "
Again, you are taking your moronic opinions, stating them as fact, and then building some moronic argument on it.
"GOP is the party that hates Hispanics for Spanish culture and hates gays for gay culture that's just fine."
"To have their crowds acting like StormTroopers at a Nazi rally is beyond bad, it is totally stupid."
You are a moron.
Edutcher thinks I have the "hots" for Willie.
While I think the GOP just stuck it's cock into the jaws of death.
They had all this time to come up with a candidate and they've got NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT!
Gone are the days when the lemmings inside the GOP tent pushed Ronald Reagan aside ... And, he had to work his way back up ... one living room at a time ... from 1976 to 1980.
Sad news, too, for the GOP, Obama isn't Jimmy Carter. He's NOT hated!
While the hate on parade belongs to the religious white maniacs.
Keep it up.
(While at Drudge, he's got a headline reading: "TEXAS TOAST?")
"... free speech allows anyone to say literally anything to anybody, regardless of the hateful, bigoted content or repercussions..."
Yeah, that's pretty much defines free speech. If you don't like it you're free to live somewhere that restricts what you're allowed to say.
Raul obviously broke his irony bone when he decried hateful speech while in the same sentence calling Meade a knuckledragging teabagger.
Liberals
The difficult thing for liberals to understand, as they grasp at sexuality to establish identity, is that many people prefer to keep it private.
This is a pretty funny thread.
Did you know that many people have stopped posting here because you do not control some of the more rambunctious commenters. Because they are tired of dealing with trolls who carpet bomb a thread and insult and threaten people they don't agree with and generally bring the level of discourse down to the gutter.
At one time I was very upset about that but I got over it. I came to really respect your free speech policy and I tried to emulate it myself.
Recently I have had an issue with a commenter who is using these tactics on my blog. I decided to judicious delete his offensive comments but let his regular comments that were combative but not pure hate speech. It is a comprimise that I am not happy about. But I will strive to let people espouse even the stupidest and most inane opinions. I mean shit even hdhouse posts on my blog.
So to think that the Republicans can control the speech of their crowd is just stupid.
Listen to Meade.
Sharpen up there missy.
I have personally met this soldier.
He's not the problem.
The clapping over Cain's cancer survival felt mandatory rather than heartfelt. The gay GI on the other hand was bringing up a very pointed problem -- the Republicans are often accused of having no heart. The problem with the Democrats on the other hand is that they have no brain. They don't think about the overall structure and whether or not it's working. They only think about individuals, and how each one feels. When the Republicans do try to show they have hearts -- as when they applauded Cain for something he didn't really have much to do with (his doctors may have saved him, but he didn't really do anything himself to survive cancer, so there is no reason HE should have been applauded -- although maybe his immune system should be applauded, but that's a separate issue) -- at any rate, I people should think about the system, and whether the system is working, and individuals should shut up.
Perry might be a secret Democrat. He cares too much about individuals, and doesn't think in larger paradigms about how systems are either operative or non-functional. I don't think the military has to include everybody. It should only include people that help it to fight the communists and the terrorists more effectively.
Other than promoting violence or just outrageous pornography and profanity in public, I would not ban any speech.
Racist speech? So what. Provided you are not buring crosses on people's front yards and engaging in violence, it just proves you are a complete and utter jack ass. And we have the free speech to tell them so. In a civil manner of course.
Anti gay? If you say, "I disaprove of gay behavior" how does that hurt gays? Many gays are not into conservative straight behavior (have you ever listened to them go off on traditional values?). They are entitled to their opinions. If they go beyond that, see what I think of racists above.
Free speech means free speech. If you disagree, you are free to do so, but that means you are a stupid jerk who hates the Constitution and everything good in the world. And I am free to say that.
And of course just because you have free speech does not mean I am not free to fire your ass for abusing it in the work place, or that schools cannot place reasonable restrictions on it (note reasonable), or that you are immune from libel or slander suits. You can say what you want, but you need to recognize that with that comes responsibility to act in a civil manner.
So you think they just stopped by, and happened to be carrying Hitler posters?
Hitler posters are so 2004.
Andy Warhol once said "In the future, everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes."
I think, in the future, everyone will be compared to Hitler.
He cares too much about individuals, and doesn't think in larger paradigms about how systems are either operative or non-functional...
Democrat? Individual rights are more conservative.
Tyrone Slothrop said...
2012 is obviously not as much of a slamdunk as either cubanbob or Raul think it is, but I will tell you this--people vote their pocketbooks. Bush senior had 90% approval ratings during Desert Storm and a tiny little recession derailed him. Things are terrible now and they will not get any better as long as Obama pursues his Social Democrat agenda, which he appears to be ramping up instead of abating. The election can still be lost by Republicans. Intrade favors Republicans at 50.1% to 48.3% for Democrats, which is still too close for comfort.
9/23/11 12:22 PM
Even the patron God of the left Soros said we are in a double dip recession. There is no chance the economy will recover in time for Obama to get reelected. Especially with his policies. Can the Republicans lose? In theory, yes. But they will really have to work hard at it. Look 40% of the electorate will always vote for one of the parties. That is a given. In 2008 the Republicans lost because of a perfect storm, an unprecedented turnout of the blacks and students, white fantasy in seeing what they wanted to see and too many conservatives sitting it out because they could not bring themselves to vote for McCain.
That confluence of events is not going to happen again. Should the Republicans be cocky? No. Should they run as if they might lose? Yes. But winning to win should not be the goal. The goal should be to win the the presidency and the full congress with the intent of rolling back the progressive (what an irony of a term) agenda of the last hundred years.
In every crowd there will be one or two people who have the self control of a four year old and a need to be noticed. At graduations they are the ones who interrupt the reading of the next name by hooting and hollering about their half-wit offspring who probably graduated in spite of his low IQ. In college lectures they hiss and spit when the professor says something they believe to be politically incorrect. Disrespectful behavior crosses all known party and ideological lines. Its presence or absence at a political debate has no relevance with respect to the arguments of the debaters.
I think, in the future, everyone will be compared to Hitler.
E.M. Davis, You need to check out Godwin's Law.
In fact, you just proved it again!
I wonder if the hate speech pimps see any hate speech here:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/your-mothers-a-whore-vile-comments-lead-to-bar-fight-between-heckler-and-bristol-palin/
Nah...
All they see is imagined homophobia from Palin.
Fred4Pres said...
"Other than promoting violence or just outrageous pornography and profanity in public, I would not ban any speech."
What about United States v. Stevens. How do you come out in that case, the "crush video" case.
"... Republicans are often accused of having no heart...."
That's because by and large they don't support open ended handouts. I think few in the GOP if any think there should be no saftey net. But is it truly heartless to say at some point you have to cut off the purse strings? Is it possible extending unemployment benefits to two years or three maybe is contributing to unemployment?
Do liberals ever consider that poverty is by and large the result of piss poor life choices like dropping out of school, getting knocked up at 16 or getting arrested and having a criminal record?
You know almost everyone has made some monumental fuckup at some point in their lives and its only luck that fuckup didn't land you into poverty. Providing a perpetual handout doesn't fix anything but just bandaids the problem.
What should the Republicans do about their problem with boos?
Chip S said: Maybe cut back to a couple of whines per event.
Also, they can always consider rehab here at AA.
If a Fox News venue cannot be fair enough to the GOP wannabes, what will the Nets and the CNN guys do to them next?
Losing the election is the only issue... Not whether the bad image of them on TV was really fair or not.
Why doesn't Newt or Huntsman call for a semblance of openness to Hispanics and gays. They have nothing to loose except future polemic book royalties.
The problem will not go away without some leadership shown by someone who is not chasing the almighty ideologue's dollar.
Trooper York said...
"This is a pretty funny thread. Did you know that many people have stopped posting here because you do not control some of the more rambunctious commenters[?] Because they are tired of dealing with trolls who carpet bomb a thread and insult and threaten people they don't agree with and generally bring the level of discourse down to the gutter.… Listen to Meade."
Meade is a gardner, so presumably recognizes that you have to pull up weeds to have a thriving garden. Althouse is an intellectual, so presumably recognizes that this is a metaphor.
Whitney may be great as high-falutin' principle, but it's not a good comment policy.
Raul the Tool doesn't like "your standard knuckle-dragging tea-bagger who thinks free speech allows anyone to say literally anything to anybody, regardless of the hateful, bigoted content or repercussions."
Actually, Raul, you blithering ignorant helpless unthinking fool, that's exactly what free speech means. The first amendment contemplates that adults will be able to encounter speech that they find disagreeable without retiring to the fainting couch and calling up Big Mommy Government to fetch the free smelling salts.
As a gardener Meade also realizes you need to have some manure in the soil for the garden to thrive.
So that's why a sprinkling of Alpha, J, and Jeremy/Raul is good.
Garage and Matt are more like those damp dreary days that a garden also needs. We conservatives are the sunshine.
What should Republicans do? Denounce the jerks for their behavior.
The candidates there aren't potted plants. They can stand up to the jerks even if it's a handful of people or real (if you will) plants.
The GOP would be so lucky if this "white booing" could be overcome with a better show.
I don't blame the audience.
While Drudge is leading with a headline that Perry is "TEXAS TOAST?"
Who put him in the toaster?
He says "he started too late."
And, then there's Romney, trying to erase a sentence out of his book about health care. (Also at Drudge.)
At least Drudge keys in on the important stuff.
I don't know, Ann. I think this and the fussing over the death penalty cheer are examples of the other side establishing the grounds for civilized discourse, then feigning indignation when those grounds are breached.
Capital punishment and gays in the military are social conservative staple issues, and everyone knows where most social conservatives stand on them. Is cheering capital punishment really that offensive? Maybe to Progressives, who think conservative support for it is motivated by bloodlust. But imagine if a Democratic candidate voiced support for abortion and the audience cheered wildly. As a conservative, I would find that perfectly repulsive. But you know there would be no controversy because the Leftish media in this country establishing the grounds of civilized discourse, and supporting abortion is perfectly civilized on those grounds.
This is all manufactured controversy from TPM and the New York Times. Why waste pixels addressing each candidate and their statements when you can paint over the entire conservative movement far more efficiently? Anyway, none of my liberal friends watched the debate, so I won't know how they feel about the cheering until they read TPM. My independent friends who watched the debate didn't mention the cheering at all, so I suspect it doesn't resonate with the average viewer as much as Progressives think it should.
"Oh, we're sorry. We thought he was a Boy Scout."
I don't know where the idea came from though that the Republicans (of all parties) are the party of FREE SPEECH and ANYONE can come in and say what they want to say.
When did that happen? I guess that urban legend must have gotten some credence when the Dems refused to allow the Pennsylvania anti-abortion governor speak before one of the conventions.
I'd like to see anyone of the parties take that position "Of course you can respond vocally at our debate any way you want. We're the part of free speech." Who would give that party any credibility?
Just another lone wolf!
I wanted to write more on that gay soldier, but his bulging arms and broad chest are distracting me. What a hottie! Why can't he be the face of the gay rights movement instead of those limp-wristed sissies that they parade around high schools? "See kids? It's not just o.k. to be gay; IT'S FRAKING AWESOME!!!!"
If there's one thing the gay rights movement needs, it's more testosterone.
If I were in the audience, I would have booed too. "Boooo! Get out of Iraq! Booo! You're needed here. Meet me at Quinn's for happy hour!"
Who would give that party any credibility?
Anarchists.
Just another lone wolf!
My seven-year-old unconsciously covers her mouth when she says something she embarrassed about. Garage adds an exclamation point.
There's a way of responding to the boos without directly responding to the people or individuals booing.
We're not all back in grade school. We know how to do it.
I'll add this: if you're going to lump some of the crazy protesters in Madison to the entire "left" - as some here do - then you'll have to listen to the other side do it to you as well.
Guilt by association is a game that everyone can play. So the best idea is not to play it yourself.
Yes, but if a Democratic audience member boo'd loudly at a Democratic debate about some subject you cared about then I am very sure you would be saying that that boo represented ALL Democrats.
Now, the idea that somehow there was a prankster in the crowd is absurd. It is not taking responsibilty for some of the folks in your camp. There are some Republcans who think poorly of homosexuality. And some of them are vocal about it. Denounce them and move on.
"I'd like to address whoever it was who just booed that young man. Gay or straight, he's out there serving our country. He's putting his life on the line to defend your freedoms. And if you can't respect that, you don't belong in our party."
Cue loud applause.
Hoosier Daddy
Of course some conservatives have no brain...
Do a little more research on just who is living in poverty. Look at the big picture - not just the picture you create in your head and from your political perspective.
Simon said...
Whitney may be great as high-falutin' principle, but it's not a good comment policy.
I thought Whitney was a new lousy sitcom with a skinny bitch who thinks she is hot but is really not. Just sayn'
Denounce them and move on.
Denounce the ideas - not the people - and move on. Don't make it personal, I think.
But denounce the idea in a positive way and not in a vengeful way.
That's assuming the candidates know what is going on. I've been on the stage with candidates in state races and it's really hard to hear things. Lots of people yelling and shouting...it's a real mess.
loud booer who overbears the whole audience and becomes a media byte?
Drunk?
Insane?
Union member?
In any matte its worth the national educational process to track the person down and deconstruct them. Rather than project ones own weakness onto them. The person being this vocal would probably love for Anderson Cooper to deconstruct him. Leg shiver and all that.
I thought Whitney was a new lousy sitcom with a skinny bitch who thinks she is hot but is really not. Just sayn'
It's not a sit-com, it's an "unscripted drama".
Did reality TV ever get it's own Emmy category?
Low and behold: over at the UN the east Jerusalem building permits and the 1967 borders (meaning the 1949 truce line) Have been announced as what the State of Palestine has been created to fight for, together with finishing off the Jews who have No State of their own anywhere.
That result is exactly what Obama and Clinton attacked Netanyahu to get for the past year.
I would argue that the obnoxious douchebag left is the majority of the protestors in Madison. I have seen the YouTube videos.
There is from NRO on the booing at the debate:
UPDATE: Sarah Rumpf, who was in attendance, writes:
The debate included video questions that were submitted on YouTube, and one came from a soldier serving in Iraq who is gay and asked about the candidates’ opinions on don’t ask don’t tell. There was audible booing after his question . . . however, please note that it was not the crowd booing. It was only one or two people.
I was at the debate, in the audience on the right hand side about halfway back (here’s my tweet of the video screen that was right in front of us). 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.
Sometimes, ya see a problem (like in a bad marriage) ... You see wounded people. And, you can't imagine why they keep doing their bad shit?
In a similar way ... the GOP is just like that! It wants voters to come in. But it also wants voters to "agree with their side." (Most people don't agree with either partner in a lousy marriage!)
The GOP makes believe its crazy religious views hold water. (Mark Twain had a field day with that one, when he wrote Huckleberry Finn.)
You bet, I think Obama is a weak candidate! But he's not losing! The GOP, intead, proves it's gonna continue with selling its white bread ... long past the point where Obama even has to worry.
Start with this: Obama doesn't have to worry about Roe V. Wade. He doesn't have to worry about the military. He doesn't have to worry about the EURO going up in smoke. And, he doesn't have to react to the antics of those "candidates" who are trying to appeal to all those white voters in Iowa. Or down south. Or wherever they congregate!
Ronald Reagan learned this way back when he nominated Bork to the Supreme Court!
But most of the GOP tent dwellers ... at the top ... either don't give a shit. Or they think their "insider list" is so special ... they'll keep surviving ... while DEMOCRAPS RULE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE!
Hey! The Bush's, and Karl Rove, hold grudges because you don't like Jeb!
And, ALL the turkeys who go on stage and these "white bread" debates ... are terrified their gonna make the religiously bred lunatics run them off the stage!
(That's why Sarah Palin won't compete! What does she need this headache for? Isn't shooting caribou more pleasurable?)
It's so sad!
It's probably like how Abraham Lincoln felt ... each and every time he had to meet that stupid general McLellan.
While McLellan wrote home to his wife he thought Abraham Lincoln looked like a monkey.
It ain't gonna get better.
While "close" is the name of this contest ... because the media want you to think this. (While they're hiding from view ... that among the 8 "debaters" last night ... Ron Paul won the most votes.)
Well, keep the stupid show going. But Dancing with the Stars ... other amateur talent shows get way more call-ins.
Denouncing the audience members/ideas is horseshit. (Why does Mozilla's dictionary recognize horseshit but not teriyaki?) Maybe it's good optics for a general election, but this isn't the general election; this is where candidates appeal to the base for support. And none of the ideas so far expressed by the audience are outside the mainstream of the conservative base.
You can say, support, or appear to support all sorts of crazy nonsense when you're addressing your base. The President is notorious for letting his socialist foundations show when it's a room full of wealthy liberals he's addressing. Then he mellowed out when it was Popular Centrism Time during the actual campaign. That's just how things work. Nobody at these debates is going to denounce THEIR BASE with Iowa on the horizon. Wise up.
Who says the guy booing was booing the soldier? When the soldier announced that he was gay, nobody boo'd. He continued to speak, and nobody boo'd. It's only at the very end of his question when the soldier essentially asked if Santorum would return to the days of DADT that the guy boo'd. So we're left with a raft of possible targets of the boo:
1. The soldier--but, again, nobody boo'd when the soldier said he was gay, so I'd argue the boo wasn't directed at him.
2. The current policy in the military with regard to gays and lesbians--this is a possible target. In other words, the booer thinks we should return to DADT.
3. The old DADT policy--the booer thought DADT was a stupid policy and doesn't want to return to it. This one is related to possible target #4, which is:
4. The idea that anybody would consider overturning the new policy and destroy the progress that gays and lesbians have made in the military--given that it was at this point that the guy boo'd, I'd vote for this as the likely target of his anger.
I'd like to see someone make the case that the soldier was the target. I just don't see it, unless, of course, we conflate the soldier with his opinions. Talking Points Memo isn't arguing for the old Obama standard it is? You know, where any criticism of Obama's policies was racist?
Matt said: Yes, but if a Democratic audience member boo'd loudly at a Democratic debate about some subject you cared about then I am very sure you would be saying that that boo represented ALL Democrats.
I still recall when a couple of gays hung Palin in effigy right before Halloween 2008. Then, as events unfolded, Palin became a scapegoat for people like Sullivan. I looked for (but could not find) Althouse's response to that mock hanging. Yet I think it would be wrong for me to assume that she approved of it.
What about you Matt? I know you're a Sullivanist and a Palin loather to boot. If you seek to tar all conservatives with last night's event, can I tar you with some past sin too?
Simple solution:
At the next debate, someone can ask what the candidates thought of the execution yesterday of that guy in Texas who dragged & killed the black man behnd his truck. I bet the audience will cheer wildly about that execution and then we can see what TPM has to say about that.
none of the candidates made it clear that the booing of a US soldier on active duty was shameful.
then santorum went on to advocate for the marginalization of gay soldiers serving their country.
this post and all of the comments are trying to evade the reality: republican candidates are either actively anti-gay or in a party where denouncing anti-gay booing of a US soldier is what is more unacceptable than the booing itself.
sad to see such excuses for homophobia (a plant, really?) and the republican candidates who either foster it or allow it.
chickenlittle
I don't think I have been on Sullivan's site for three years. I also don't hate Palin. I don't much like her political positions but that's all. I'm also not painting all conservatives with one brush. Why would I and why would you think I am? What I said was conservatives have to face the facts that there are some conservatives who do not like gays. Denounce them and move on. That's it.
However, I am not saying if you do not denounce them then that means you agree with them.
BTW I think Greg has a good comment on this. Perhaps the boo was directed toward Santorum's answer to reinstate DADT. It's possible.
Are a lot of Repubilcans drinking to much? Are most of them alcoholics or something? I thought Republicans were more likely to be teetotalers.
Matt: You are quite right about denouncing those who hate gays. It is the right thing to do and something the party, the Republican Party, should do loudly. We would hope that the African American wing of the Democratic Party would be similarly chastised. But it won't.
Oops, boos, not booze.
Never mind.
Mnad dyslexia.
Yes, lets talk about gays, Christians, anything else but the Democrats destroying the economy that need to be tossed out of office.
The candidates have to be smart about what will be used against them and, if they are sharp, they could find opportunities to leverage the moment for their own benefit with a good spontaneous remark.
Reagan was the best at that.
There are several ways to do it..
Why so much hand-wringing about whether a member of the Republican audience booed a gay-friendly policy when the largest faction of openly anti-gay sentiment in the country is non-Hispanic blacks, who voted 95% Democratic in the last election?
Would you suggest that Democrats exclude black people from any future debates to avoid a similar embarrassment?
The booing in that clip above comes from one very loud guy.
No it doesn't. There are multiple very loud guys booing the soldier.
How about we make up our minds if we want truthful debate, including truthful audience responses or want the gimmicky slicked over PR productions that brought us Obama in the colosium with styrofoam pillars?
So some people made a noise...I saw tweets from those at the debate immediately after the noise post that the real noise we heard were members of the audience telling the goof that made the first boo, to shut up. There were several of those posts, but ofcourse they don't fit the biase of the MSM media.
The way I see it, the Repubs do not have a "booing" problem at all. It's free speech, like it or not and needs to be defended as such. Candidates, if they hear it are free to disagree...but, keep in mind that mics that pick up crowd noise and amplify it are not necessarily heard by those on the stage. Especially if they are listening to a video or being asked a question. You may hear some disruption but not know what it is related too.
I'd say, once again the conservatives are being asked to jump through the hoop, held by the left media higher, smaller, off the ground and ringed with fire while we scramble to feel guilty. No more guilt. Free speech is what it is. Anyone that wants to be fair, could hear that was 1 voice or 2 at the most. The very responsive audience left you know doubt when they supported or disagreed with something, and that was not it. Anyone else, wants to make an issue and will find the door as a way out, regardless.
Would you suggest that Democrats exclude black people from any future debates to avoid a similar embarrassment?
So there wasn't any black people at the GOP debate last night?
A smart candidate would boos to his advantage. In this case he would show some support for gays/gay rights.
I fully support gays in the military. Gays benefit a great deal from the wide acceptance of gays in our society, especially as opposed to many other societies. I believe in allowing them to fight and die to preserve those rights and freedom. Why should straight people catch all the bullets?
It's not a sit-com, it's an "unscripted drama".
I see what you did there. I would also call it by it's less formal name: Crap.
Strait jacket and gag the audience. Problem over.
So there wasn't any black people at the GOP debate last night?
As usual, garage intentionally misses the point. He specializes in fallic sympols.
The booing comes from one loud guy, one less loud guy, and, maybe, one other who we can barely hear. That said, let's quit the question begging: What or who was the object of the booing?
Was it the soldier? I don' think so. If was the soldier, why didn't the people booing do so when he first announced he was gay, at the very beginning of the clip?
Was it the soldier's question? Possibly.
Was it the original DADT policy? Possibly.
Was it the idea that someone would even consider overturning the current policy? Possibly.
We don't know who or what the object of the booing was. It only becomes the soldier if we're mind readers or if we begin with the assumption that all Republicans hate gays. I'm a Republican, and I don't hate gays, so that assumption is wrong. I guess we must have a lot of mind readers.
cubanbob said...
The real question to ask is what should Democrats do about their problem with assholes?"
We just put out a box of tea bags and the asshole designates just seem to pick them up. It is a rather elegant solution to the problem I think.
No it doesn't. There are multiple very loud guys booing the soldier.
So, are we suggesting Republicans ought not to have political debates on account some people might be hateful?
I'm not defending the person/persons booing but I'm saying it is impossible to have a sort of surgical debate.
So there wasn't any black people at the GOP debate last night?
Maybe they were the ones booing?
I'm just saying it's funny to watch Democrats, the party of the country's largest anti-gay voting bloc, accuse the Republicans of being anti-gay because one dude at a debate booed.
I guess we must have a lot of mind readers.
Very True! MarkG, for example, has mind-read that the boo was about policy. How unfortunate for the GOP that a vocal policy-wonk was in the audience, booing at a time when his meaning could be misinterpreted.
Don't have an audience.
Don't know if the boor was a plant or just a Republican dope but why leave yourself open?
Althouse's idea of the GOP staging its own debates and posting them on youtube is the way to go. It permits the GOP to control the horizontal and vertical. Let TV networks have the right to rebroadcast the debate (without editing).
9 out of 10 blacks support Obama, who just signed off on ending DADT. They can't be too anti-gay.
Herman Cain doesn't count! Yes, he's Black. So, too, is Clarence Thomas! Ain't gonna help ya win in 2012.
Michelle Bachmann presents the same problem. She's not attractng women voters (who aren't already religious nutters.)
And, the other thing missing?
THE GOP INSIDERS! They could care less, now, about the White House! They just want their perches. Doesn't matter to them what the crazy white loon contingency of the republican party wants ...
Because you should know this already:
The republican insiders all have "safe seats." And, the democraps play with them. They work together "nicely."
You're not changing the makeup of the elites.
And, you're not frightening Obama.
Madison Man wrote:
Very True! MarkG, for example, has mind-read that the boo was about policy. How unfortunate for the GOP that a vocal policy-wonk was in the audience, booing at a time when his meaning could be misinterpreted.
And you've apparently read minds and decided that the soldier was the object of the booing. So, without resorting to 'the GOP hates gays' and the like, support your claim.
Carol Herman said...
Don't bullshit me!
What a magnificent yenta you are, CH, the gift that keeps on giving.
"the power to command attention .... There lies chaos."
It's an odd idea. Loud booing may be impossible not to hear, but there's nothing about it that can "command attention." Mostly, it's just a small distraction -- very far from chaos in any of its meanings. Unlike distractions, "commanding attention" is all about significance, how something fits into a larger perspective and, in that sense, can make a difference. Ann suggests that the perspective here is political appearances, in that bad behaviour at a Rep (or Dem) event can be used to tag the candidates or the larger party.
That only works if the bad behaviour connects with some aspect of the candidate's or party's message. Here, it's conservative opposition to the end of DADT. Twenty years ago it was conservative opposition to the introduction of DADT, which Clinton came up with to defuse the furor that erupted when he floated the idea of ending the gay-ban in the military altogether. Conservatives are, by definition, slow to embrace any change in the social order -- so no surprise that they've been slow in accepting the idea that, at least in the public square, sexuality is no longer a line that should have legal consequences.
The solitary booing just served as a passing reminder of that. Was there anyone who didn't already know or had forgotten?
I'm just saying it's funny to watch Democrats, the party of the country's largest anti-gay voting bloc,
You have any evidence to back this up? Country's largest? They make up what, 12% of the population?
I seen a PPP poll yesterday showing only 19% of WV supports gay marriage. Only 26% of WV Democrats support. Are there a lot black people in WV?
SGT Ted said...
"Yes, lets talk about gays, Christians, anything else but the Democrats destroying the economy that need to be tossed out of office."
This is on the money.
This just in (according to garbage): blacks support Obama because he's pro gay!
9 out of 10 blacks support Obama, who just signed off on ending DADT. They can't be too anti-gay.
Here's a two-year old study on attitudes toward gay marriage and civil unions: Pew Research
garage said: "9 out of 10 blacks support Obama, who just signed off on ending DADT. They can't be too anti-gay."
From WaPo: "According to The Post-ABC News poll released yesterday, Obama went from an 83 percent “strongly favorable” rating among blacks in April to 58 percent. Yes, they are still in his corner. But this is a 26-point drop in five months." Coincidence?
And "Only 26% of WV Democrats support."
Are West Virginians a "voting bloc"?
The reason the solider got booed is because homosexuality is a mental illness. All human behavior is consciously selected because we have intellect, rather than instinct, to guide us. That is why the military excluded them until the courts got in the way with political correctness.
9 out of 10 blacks support Obama, who just signed off on ending DADT. They can't be too anti-gay.
ipso facto retardo
"9 out of 10 blacks support Obama, who just signed off on ending DADT. They can't be too anti-gay."
Not so anymore.
Right now that's at 58% and falling.
I think it's very possible Santorum didn't hear the boo, but it looks like he did hear something.
I thought at the time that he'd have done well to thank the soldier and answer differently.
I was against repealing DADT, and I think the problems that I foresaw are going to manifest themselves, give it time.
I foresee this becoming a religious freedom issue for members of the military.
Ironic to me is the reaction of those, who often post in these threads, that while they cared very passionately about the freedom of military personnel to be openly gay, when I pondered the freedom of service members being open about their religious beliefs that deem said behavior sinful, they suddenly didn't care about military personnel's freedoms. Only then did we hear: oh, you give up your constitutional rights in the military!
Apparently some rights are more righteous than others.
Santorum might have done better saying something like:
"With the repeal of DADT, there are reasons to wonder if the military will become a place where folks who don't agree are still going to be welcome. And that is a problem.
"If I am elected, I will have zero interest in making life difficult for this soldier or anyone like him; but I want to make equally sure we don't make life difficult for service men and women to hold to their religious beliefs. Large numbers of Christians, Muslims and Jews believe homosexual behavior is a sin. Agree or disagree, that's their religious belief and their right. Our military shouldn't veer from silencing one group, to silencing another."
9 out of 10 blacks support Obama, who just signed off on ending DADT. They can't be too anti-gay.
Absolutely fucking hysterical, Garage, and you know it. One thing has nothing to do with the other, and you know it. They support him (or did, some of them) because he's black. You can try and run from that all you want, but it's true. Take the recent CBC comments as case in point.
I take it you don't know that many black men to have made that claim. Nor do you pay attention to black so-called role models that openly admit it's a problem.
I rather hateful people express their hate.. so it can be addressed rather than keep it to themselves in a sort of dont ask dont tell.
TPM should have featured the Santorum reply. That makes it look even worse.
http://sonicfrog.net/?p=6295
Do we really believe any liberals other than the media were watching the Republican debate?
I hate being at events with the Larouche and Ron Paul people because they often behave like adolescents. Generally, the people around them ask them to tone it down. But while we're still a free country, these people have first amendment rights. I don't want Republican organizers emulating Obama so that public events are by invitation only to friendly supporters.
Conservative crowds normally conduct themselves civilly. What happened last night was unfortunate, perhaps embarrassing, but not fatal.
I was actually inclined to agree with Garage Mahal on the blacks-aren't-the-largest-anti-gay-voting-bloc thing, until I thought about it a little. (Funny how that happens.)
According to wikipedia, which of course has an article on such things, blacks are second only to Evangelical Christians in believing gayness is wrong (60% vs. 43%). But one in three Evangelical Christians voted for Clinton, and one in four for Kerry. They don't have the 90%+ uniformity that blacks have as a voting bloc. So I am thinking that, in fact, blacks are the largest anti-gay voting bloc in the country.
How come nobody's complaining about the primaries?
These primaries are chasing independent voters away.
The democraps don't have to have them. Because the have Obama.
This circus is so detrimental to republican "base dwellers."
It's probably why they're popular in Iowa. And, places like that.
While there's NOBODY in the "tea party" who is on any committee in DC! And, other than political handshakes ... YOU'VE GOT NOTHING!
At least it's a good clue that Sarah Palin won't enter this "beauty contest."
"Large numbers of Christians, Muslims and Jews believe homosexual behavior is a sin. Agree or disagree, that's their religious belief and their right. Our military shouldn't veer from silencing one group, to silencing another."
Oh, I think you're still allowed to think this, even say it.
But when it gets in the way of doing your job -- meaning if you leave one of your buddies out to hang, or treat him any differently than another in uniform because your religion determines he's a hopeless sinner -- that's where you'd simply not be welcome.
It's not DADT on your personal religious beliefs, that is. It's just .... can you get your job done, despite your beliefs?
In this way, very analagous to those who don't think black and whites should be fraternizing. Think all you want, it's how you act -- or don't act -- on those beliefs that matter and affect the team.
Of course, your religious team -- your workplace Fr. Fox -- is a very different workplace than the military, you understand.
Itstead of "republican debates," they should just call them cattle calls.
Keep in mind this is all about fitting the narrative of the progressive Jews of the media. In which the Republicans are singled out in toto for a lone heckler - who then is cast by the progressive Jewish editors and producers as standing for the whole "hateful, intolerant" audience.
While for decades they have ignored Left and black minion audiences using brownshirt, Marcusian (see Repressive Tolerance), and Alinskyite tactics to shut down speakers they disagree with. To say nothing about Lefty and gay audience members that boo when the word "Christian", "small business owner", "Southern", "the rich" is mentioned. (Along with those the progressive Jewish narrative demonizes - Nixon, LBJ, Bush, Reagan, Cheney, Hillary when she stood in the way of their annointed black messiah, etc.)
Republicans have to recognize the game the progressive Jews of the media are playing and deal with it. Because the ploy will not go away. It has succeeded many times since the 60s, just as it did for the Bolsheviks out to marginalize their enemies as repressive, hateful, intolerant. Liberals and Dems get a complete pass on what boos and catcalls emerge at their rallies, conservatives and Republicans do not - And it was worse in the 60s and 70s when the progressive Jewish dominance of the media was more pervasive and it was hard to gain a media forum to rebutt the "narratives" they were creating.
They should say, during or after debates, that a couple of catcallers does not represent the audience and does not supplant the views of each candidate.
That would help defuse the damage of the tactic.
The Tea Party fought back well against the "Journolist" progressive Jews attempts to pick out some nutball in the crowd as "typical", and stigmatize them collectively as terrorists and racists.
Conservatives and Republicans need to keep up the effort to neutralize and defuse this old Bolshie tactic.
What should Republicans do? Get a message to these bozos to think before they do something as juvenile and unproductive as booing during a debate among presidential hopefuls. Because, if they don’t, we’re left following a distracting and potentially damning thread of conversation, while the larger issues at hand — DADT and the fate of gay soldiers in the military — are shoved into the background.
One thing has nothing to do with the other, and you know it. They support him (or did, some of them) because he's black.
So what about blacks historically voting overwhelmingly for white Democrats?
Are there a lot black people in WV?
63,124 according the census.gov.
Plenty on the UWV football team.
So what about blacks historically voting overwhelmingly for white Democrats?
Like Bill Clinton?
Why be ashamed of who you are and what party you belong too, embrace those boo-ers, they represent the new Republican Party. If those boos make you uncomfortable, leave the party.
The democrats aren't on this stage!
It's a circus production from the GOP. Where the real powers within the GOP aren't on stage, either.
No Rockefeller. No Bush. No Karl Rove.
This is a spectacular cattle call.
And, it has nothing to do with Jews. Or even with Putin.
It's a solid gold winnah, though, for Obama.
I think these shows actually lose more mainstream voters ... than if you forced these people to debate in State tents. Without TV cameras!
IF there was anything worthwhile going on? Sarah Palin would have jumped into the pool.
The reason the solider got booed is because homosexuality is a mental illness.
I disagree with this.
Of course, there is Andrew Sullivan, so....
Coincidence?
It looks like your position is blacks have dropped their strongly favorables because of Obama's support for ending DADT? Interesting.
More importantly, lock your shit up! Some little cocksucker took my BMW out for a joyride last night and ripped all my stereo equip out.
Of course, there is Andrew Sullivan, so....
There are plenty of mentally ill straight people too, although maybe not any in Sullivan's class.
I'd like to know the last Republican garage voted for.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा