Posted on 09/23/2011 12:19:04 AM PDT by lbryce
The last three GOP presidential primary debates have been nearly as notable for the actions of audience-members as for the candidates who appeared before them.
In California at the MSNBC-Politico debate at the Reagan library, the audience applauded mention of the high number of executions in Texas and Rick Perry's defense of the death penalty. "If you come into our state and you kill one of our children, you kill a police officer, you're involved with another crime and you kill one of our citizens, you will face the ultimate justice in the state of Texas, and that is that you will be executed," the Texas governor said to hoots, whistles, and applause.
In Tampa, Fla., at the CNN-Tea Party Express debate, the audience cheered the idea of letting an uninsured 30-year-old man die (video) without care, greeting the idea with applause and shouts of "Yeah!"
And last night, at the Fox News-Google debate in Orlando, Fla., some audience-members booed a recently-out gay soldier stationed in Iraq who submitted a question through Google's YouTube video-sharing site. His offense? Asking the candidates if they would circumvent the progress made for gays and lesbians in the military.
Watch the interaction with Stephen Hill:
"Any type of sexual activity has no place in the military," former senator Rick Santorum told Hill, saying that the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on out service constituted "special privileges" and "social experimentation."
The audience response led former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer to tweet, "Booing a soldier serving our nation is uncalled for. If I were on stage, I would make that point."
But he wasn't on the stage, and none standing there spoke up on Hill's behalf.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
It wouldn't surprise me.
I understood the "cheers" for the death penalty in the context of the debate behind held in a state with just 17 executions in 30 years with over 713 awaiting death, with more dead by natural cause or suicide than by actual application of the sentence. Further there's been a judge-imposed moratorium for years. The cheer was for a place where a jury's verdict matters.
I laughed at the so-called "dying man" question because the way Wolf Blitzer presented it was outlandish.
I was not impressed by the booing of a man serving his nation and asking potential commanders-in-chief about a timely policy change directly effecting the services. It was a serious question and entirely expected. I even suspected Santorum would get it because the press want to go to the "extreme" on any question. Bachmann, an evangelical, gets a question about Church-and-State. The "anti-gay" Santorum gets the question on DADT.
Did we learn anything about Santorum on that? NO. We knew where he'd be just by searching his name online. What about Romney, who got a deferment? Or Cain, who worked for the Navy? Or Perry, who served in the Air Force? Or another candidate?
You’re not wrong.
My neighbor flies a flag over his house by which he intends to let the world know what sex acts he engages in and with whom.
WHY?
I agree. Your exactly right about the not allowing viewers to hear answers and make up their own minds.
Your right. I don’t have that kind of hate in me. I just don’t want certain things thrown in my face.
but I don’t care who it is. If they are going to die for this Country, the very least they deseerve is a little respect. The booing of an Army member in Afganistan turned my stomach.
The whole thing was off putting to me - and I am a political junky. I disliked the cheering AND the booing. I disliked the quick cuts for breathless reports on Google stuff.
That the candidates signed off on the format is again evidence that The Stupid Party marches on.
Exactly. And for his politically view which does have a place in the debate. It's interesting how the MSM can spin this by saying Republicans were booing a soldier.
Open Gays in the military is the WORST thing that has happened to this country.
What if he said he’s a PEDOPHILE???? What would be the difference??? He ONLY wants to think about SEX, ANAL SEX!!! They were RIGHT in BOOING! It’s DISGUSTING!
I think the audience was booing the stupidity of the topic and/or question, when there are much more important things to think about.
I think it was Paul or Santorum who was answering, and it was dead-on
SEX HAS NO PLACE IN THE MILITARY
You can be whatever you want, just KEEP IT TO YOURSELF
Don’t ask, don’t tell was a perfectly fine policy. If someone talked about sex in my workplace they would be fired (hetero or gay) for discussing innapropriate topics.
And the bosses here made it clear- you’re here to do your job- not to talk about your sex life. Period.
Agreed.
Why wasn’t “Stephen” identified by his rank?
I didn’t hear the booing, because as soon as the video was over I wondered aloud to my wife why the service member’s rank was not given.
In every case I can think of where a service member is on the news media, they are identified by their rank, even after their ETS.
This stood out to me.
You nailed it, that is exactly what it seems like.
Why don’t these “journalists” ask the people that supposedly Boo why they did... why are they blaming the GOP Audience? Oh, never mind..
Would that be ari the “poofter” fleischer?
LLS
LLS
LLS
In your post you’ve discussed those subjects more than he did by asking a policy question.
I just don’t get the freaking out. And if you can’t see the difference between pedophilia and two consenting adults doing whatever gross thing they feel like doing together, I don’t know what to say.
Why don’t you petition for him to be tossed out of the military? Does it bother you that gays have served and died to protect your life and liberties? How about non-gays who’ve done things you and I wouldn’t approve of—not every person who serves in the military shares your values.
I don’t get people who freak out over these people anymore than I get what these people are into. Plenty of folks around here probably do things in their own homes I would object to. I couldn’t care less what consenting adults do, even if I find it disgusting. All I ask is that they mind their own business and keep out of mine, and as long as they are not hurting anyone but themselves, it’s none of my business, or yours, frankly.
Just asking a question about a real policy isn’t the end of the world. It sure won’t stop me from voting for representatives who oppose that policy. And I’m just not getting where people get all this anger about something I never think about...until I read your post.
Please by all means, leave again.
If they kept it private, as you say, how do we know that any gay men “bravely served the United States in every war since the Revolution”? We don’t “know” anything of the sort. We can only guess that some may have. Try not to repeat the mantra of the left.
Why wasn’t “Stephen” identified by his rank?
I didn’t hear the booing, because as soon as the video was over I wondered aloud to my wife why the service member’s rank was not given.
In every case I can think of where a service member is on the news media, they are identified by their rank, even after their ETS.
This stood out to me
************************
I wondered the same, I also wondered why he first sent in a video with his face hidden, then uncovered after the repeal. (as MK made sure to dramatically tell everyone)
Everyone knew DADT was to be repealed, he never needed to cover his face (he could have stipulated if the DADT repeal was somehow blocked, just go with sound or blur his face)
He had on his Iraq tee, he said he had to lie before being deployed to Iraq for fear of losing his job—does that mean somebody broke the DADT law in asking him? Was he suspected?
I just found him suspect or very dramatic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.