[Lazlo in PA]

That’s free speech alright, but it is no different than heckling a bad comic. What’s the point. They are trying to discuss serious issues at these debates and we have hooting and hollering from the audience like a bunch of drunk Eagles fans. Decorum matters in my book.

[Netizen]

It didn’t prevent any serious discussion. Santorum answered the question and he did a fine job. Gays didn’t like it obviously and now they are trying to stir the pot. He didn’t have to mention that he was gay. He could have just asked the question. If you want the audience to shut up and not react, perhaps he should have shut up and not announced it. That works both ways. jmo

[Darkwolf377]

Exactly right. On the one hand, people just can`t seem to grasp that sayinng they weren`t booing the soldier but thequestion matters--even if so, it doesn`t matter because of the matter of decorum and esp. how the MSM will use such a response against the right.

More importantly, this is not a rally, but a debate. We`re supposedly the adult party, but people there can`t go that long without hooting their emotional responses? Let the viewers take in the candidates` responses without the editorializing from the studio audience like they`re at the Leno show. Some folks seem to think letting our message get out without emotional outbursts is a form of `silencing` but I can`t figure out how letting our side speak clealry is `silencing` anything. But some people need to feel put-upon.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “They are trying to discuss serious issues at these debates” <<

.
No, they are running from their records. Especially Perry and Romney.