Republican debate audiences turning off voters

[evanrick]

GOP debate audience boos gay service member

Nia-Malika Henderson, Erin McPike and Michael Steele discuss the audience reaction to a question on Don't Ask Don't Tell at Thursday night's Republican debate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/44639348#44639348
lets see, a servicemember gets booed,

a sick man is told to die,

executions are cheered,

if we have seen anything at the GOP debates, its seething hatred.




Importance of knowing your audience at GOP debate

At Thursday's Republican presidential debate, the audience was more interesting than the candidates. MSNBC host Chris Hayes and Politico’s Maggie Haberman join The Last Word to analyze the highlights.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/44648331#44648331

 

[jackoroe]

Aside from the spin uber liberal MSNBC puts on things, the audience should not be part of the discussion. They should be instructed to remain silent except for applause at the end of the event.

This is about candidates and what they would do. Not about what nameless audience members think or say.

 

[T-Rexx]

This is about candidates and what they would do. Not about what nameless audience members think or say.

Nonsense. That audience is who will be voting for these candidates. That audience, by their participation, is who decides who "wins" these debates. That audience is the reason for having these debates in the first place.

If that audience were not important to the process, they would just hold these things in a television studio in New York.

That audience has a lot of bigotry and hatred in it.

And, rather than try to guide that audience to more appropriate attitudes and behavior, the Republican "leaders" on the podium have chosen to pander to it.

Again and again and again.

 

[White Eagle]

The "leaders" on the podium had all the time in the world to state the audiences were wrong. It gives the appearance that they agree with the booing of the gay, let the poor die and clapping for Perry's executions.
Even tho it is on MSNBC, I see that Republican at the desk, don't remember his name, he agrees that booing the gay soldier turns off the voters.
MSNBC has all the right to question these audiences. Everything can't go your way.

 

[Spiff]

Aside from the spin uber liberal MSNBC puts on things,

Anyone watching on any network could see/hear the audience's horrific behavior. This didn't require any liberal spin for anyone (with a conscience) to notice. Audience clearly boos gay serviceman, how did MSNBC spin that to make it sound worse to liberal ears? It was what it was, no spin required. Can't you just admit it was simply disrespectful and inappropriate without hinting at media bias in this?

 

[CowboyBob]

The debates were a hate fest and putting on display to the world what the real republican party has become. What it really did was to demonstrate the the audience was bigger jerks than the millionaire candidates.

The Presidential hopefuls stood with a deer in the headlight look as the cruel, bloodthirsty republicans applauded as Perry boasted of his body count. They cheered to allow the death of a comatose man. They booed a soldier. The republican party is the party of ignorance, bigotry and callousness.

I hope they continue to air these republican "debates" so the world can see the mob mentality.

 

[jackoroe]

Anyone watching on any network could see/hear the audience's horrific behavior. This didn't require any liberal spin for anyone (with a conscience) to notice. Audience clearly boos gay serviceman, how did MSNBC spin that to make it sound worse to liberal ears? It was what it was, no spin required. Can't you just admit it was simply disrespectful and inappropriate without hinting at media bias in this?

The awful truth is people support the death penalty by a better than a two to one margin.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx

The response to the question asked of Dr. Paul was simply in keeping with libertarian principals of self ownership. It's not government's responsibility to protect everyone from every bad outcome. Ride your motorcycle without your helmet if you like. But crack your head on the curb while doing so doesn't mean that I have to provide you medical care.

Oddly enough, the real outrage that should be expressed at Santorum's response to Stephen Hill's question isn't. It is instead directed at the audience booing the question, not the soldier. Note that when Hill identifies himself as a gay soldier, no one boos. His question essentially asked the candidates if they intended to violate their oath of office and duly enacted laws of the United States in order to circumvent the law and impose their own views. That's a disrespectful question that goes to an individuals integrity. I think it's reasonable to be pissed when someone asks you a "Do you still beat your wife?" kind of question. So while booing the turd in the punchbowl question isn't inappropriate, it isn't an audience participation question.

Santorum, who actually is a candidate, suggested that sex has no place in the military and that you should keep your sexuality gay or straight to yourself. That's where we should be expressing our outrage.

In terms of the audience, anybody willing to fork over $125 got to go the the debate last week. It isn't just the party faithful. It's open to the public. So you can't draw any meaningful conclusions as to who was or was not behaving themselves.

 

[chrisrobin]

The "leaders" on the podium had all the time in the world to state the audiences were wrong. It gives the appearance that they agree with the booing of the gay, let the poor die and clapping for Perry's executions.
Even tho it is on MSNBC, I see that Republican at the desk, don't remember his name, he agrees that booing the gay soldier turns off the voters.
MSNBC has all the right to question these audiences. Everything can't go your way.

During the 2008 campaign, Sen. McCain and Princess Sarah were giving a speech to a fairly enthusiastic crowd. Someone in that crowd, in referring to Obama said, "kill him." Neither candidate batted an eyelash. All McCain would have had to have said would have been, "that kind of conduct is inappropriate." Neither candidate did. I can only interpret this as tacit approval.

How is this any different from what didn't happen during the "debate"?

 

[White Eagle]

That's right! Jackoroe is just trying to spin the facts that we all see, well so far nearly all.

 

[opinterph]

… Neither candidate batted an eyelash. All McCain would have had to have said would have been, "that kind of conduct is inappropriate." Neither candidate did. I can only interpret this as tacit approval.

I don’t think Senator McCain was present at that particular speech. Nonetheless, some commentators do suggest that the violent rhetoric was recognized and sanctioned by the McCain campaign.

In Fla., Palin Goes for the Rough Stuff as Audience Boos Obama
Is Palin Trying To Incite Violence Against Obama?
McCain Bets Election on Recycled Violent Rhetoric about Obama​

 

[JayHawk]

I believe the fact that they dont discourage it to be tacit approval. It would be political suicide to acknowledge public hate speech so they wont do that BUT they want those peoples votes.

I think it displayed rampantly on talk radio. The host will allow some outrageous and violent comment and not really knock it down

I have been listenng to a station here called KMBZ and they have a pair called Shannon and Parks... those guys WILL go off on a rant when a bigoted violent idiot calls in. They set them straight for which I respect but dont necessarily agree with their opinions.

 

[Dolmance]

That's a disrespectful question that goes to an individuals integrity. I think it's reasonable to be pissed when someone asks you a "Do you still beat your wife?" kind of question.

Taking your own analogy further, it's only disrespectful depending on context. In this instance, it's the continually and consistently battered wife asking "Do you intend to keep beating the shit out of me? Why?"

Those questioned have demonstrated their lack of integrity in this regard time and time and time and time again. Your attempt to apologise for it, sidestep it and distract from it is appalling to me in so many ways. Very much a case of "Hit me again Ike, and put some steak on it!"

 

[Dolmance]

Oh, and to further make the point, when someone is purporting to represent you and your interests, not to mention presuming to be in charge of what rights you should be afforded as a human being, you ask them whatever the Hell you like. Some flimsy, mealey, whiney vox-pop notion of "respect" doesn't come into it. When the likes of Santorum and his fellow knuckle draggers start demonstrating characteristics that are worthy of "respect," maybe it'll be incumbent on those they continually shove down face first into the sewage to show a little. Until then, they can gargle on their own excrement.

 

[Kulindahr]

Note that when Hill identifies himself as a gay soldier, no one boos. His question essentially asked the candidates if they intended to violate their oath of office and duly enacted laws of the United States in order to circumvent the law and impose their own views. That's a disrespectful question that goes to an individuals integrity. I think it's reasonable to be pissed when someone asks you a "Do you still beat your wife?" kind of question. So while booing the turd in the punchbowl question isn't inappropriate, it isn't an audience participation question.

I couldn't tell if there just wasn't any sound except from the soldier's question while it was being asked, or if the audience was actually staying quiet.

Given the statements of some of the candidates prior to the debate, asking that question is perfectly appropriate -- not disrespectful. But even if it were disrespectful, it should be applauded, because by their statements some of those candidates were being disrespectful to begin with. What counts is that the question hits an important point -- and it did.

Not that it wasn't already obvious that Santorum is a shallow, bigoted moron; this just made it more evident.


BTW, in today's political realm, I'm not going to assume that anyone who opposes basic human rights has any integrity. There should be more people asking and questioning these people's integrity.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh, and to further make the point, when someone is purporting to represent you and your interests, not to mention presuming to be in charge of what rights you should be afforded as a human being, you ask them whatever the Hell you like. Some flimsy, mealey, whiney vox-pop notion of "respect" doesn't come into it. When the likes of Santorum and his fellow knuckle draggers start demonstrating characteristics that are worthy of "respect," maybe it'll be incumbent on those they continually shove down face first into the sewage to show a little. Until then, they can gargle on their own excrement.

Ah, but with the possible except of Romney, and the certain exception of Johnson, these someones aren't purporting to represent us and our interests: they plainly say that they intend to serve some fantasy vision of America that exalts the wealthy and has a religious litmus test for public office.

I see no reason to have respect for such barbarians. The more question they get asked that call into question their integrity, hopefully it will become plain that they don't have any.

 

[bike10]

The GOP is party not progress of regress. Who will be next group that will bare the hate of the so call party of moral, christian family values?

 

[T-Rexx]

His question essentially asked the candidates if they intended to violate their oath of office and duly enacted laws of the United States in order to circumvent the law and impose their own views. That's a disrespectful question that goes to an individuals integrity. I think it's reasonable to be pissed when someone asks you a "Do you still beat your wife?" kind of question.

The question is not disrespectful in the least.

The last president who favored DADT was GWB. GWB is a party member of Santorum's who made a career out of ignoring and deliberately circumventing the laws of the United States. It is pretty reasonable to ask Santorum if he planned to continue the policies of his ideological predecessor and hero. It is pretty reasonable to ask Santorum if he planned to enforce the ideology on which he has campaigned.

I do not agree with your assertion that the question is equivalent to "Do you still beat your wife?" However, within the context of your analogy, Santorum's response amounted to "I'm not beating my wife now, because I can't. But, once I'm elected president, you can sure as hell bet I'm gonna beat the living crap out of her!"

Santorum, who actually is a candidate, suggested that sex has no place in the military and that you should keep your sexuality gay or straight to yourself. That's where we should be expressing our outrage.

I agree. That answer was phenomenally stupid.

The only thing that has saved Santorum outrage for his stupidity has been the focus on the audience's hatred.

 

[jdbadboy]

not that anyone is much interested in much more than "omg, Republicans are evil," but there's really no way of knowing exactly what the people heard on the stage versus what the microphones picked up.

Oh please...

 

[White Eagle]

As for the 2 to 1 in favor of the death penalty, that is true at this time, but I expect that to change in the near future. I have been getting all kinds of requests for changing the law to unconstitutional. Besides that, there are a dozen, it seems like, that are totally disgusted with the murder of Troy Davis.

 

[Dolmance]

"omg, Republicans are evil,"

When the considered Conservatives of the U.S. stop allowing people to represent them who seem to be nothing but petty, spiteful, bigoted malevolence, when they get some balls and start taking their party back, then there might be reason to regard the party as a whole as something other. As it currently stands, yes, the party has been infested and pervaded by a particular strain of political evil that is born from vouchsafing stupidity and lack of consideration as virtue, bigotry as tolerance, anti-intellectualism as truth.

The Democrats have their evils too (lack of spine being a primary one), but to pretend that the party's pure corrosiveness is currently in any way equivalent to that of what the republicans have allowed their party to become is simply dishonest. Personally, were I a U.S. citizen, my vote would be going to an independent party or nowhere at all.