GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 2

[financeguy]

I'm going to regret wading back into FYM, but...

Let's stop with the narrative that "the crowd" booed the soldier. Multiple people here have said that now. It was one or two people.

Sunshine State Sarah: The Truth About the Booing at the Debate

"I was at the debate, in the audience on the right hand side about halfway back. The person who booed was just a few rows in front of us. The booing got an immediate and angry reaction from nearly everyone sitting around him, who hissed and shushed at him. Lots of loud gasps, "Shhhh!" "No!" "Shut up, you idiot!" etc. There was a concrete floor beneath all of our chairs. Ever been in a metal shop or warehouse with a concrete floor? Certain sounds can really resonate on that kind of surface."

It's true that it's only a small number of individuals engaging in audible booing.

But, in general, your reactions to these kind of incidents, and not just on the gay rights issue, always seems to me to attempt to downplay them, or say the other side has extremists too, as though that makes it alright. You never seem to be willing to take on the extremism in your own party. Didn't your parents teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

 

[Irvine511]

i think Perry is going to sink like a stone. even someone like Michelle Malkin is freaking out.

it's either Romney -- who continues to prove that he's literate, informed, and nimble on his feet, even if he's wrong -- or ...

 

[Irvine511]

and the wild cheering after Santorum's response is every bit as disrespectful to the gay soldier as the "boo's" were.

 

[financeguy]

I thought Romney came across tired and at times vaguely irritable in that debate. However Romney is electable in a way that the others aren't. Presidential candidates don't win elections on appealing to kooks. The right wing foaming at the mouth brigade is and always has been minority in American politics.

 

[financeguy]

and the wild cheering after Santorum's response is every bit as disrespectful to the gay soldier as the "boo's" were.

All of which offers fertile ground for liberals to drive home a "Tea Party hates the troops" framing moment. Liberals and centrists shouldn't let these kooks off the hook.

 

[2861U2]

It's true that it's only a small number of individuals engaging in audible booing.

But, in general, your reactions to these kind of incidents, and not just on the gay rights issue, always seems to me to attempt to downplay them, or say the other side has extremists too, as though that makes it alright. You never seem to be willing to take on the extremism in your own party. Didn't your parents teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

See, now you're losing me. When did I say anything about the other side? I'm trying to set the record straight from the notion that "the crowd" booed when that is clearly an unfair charge. You're talking to someone who actually supports the repeal of DADT and believes the majority of "my" party is wrong here.

 

[BVS]

I'm going to regret wading back into FYM, but...

Let's stop with the narrative that "the crowd" booed the soldier. Multiple people here have said that now. It was one or two people.

Sunshine State Sarah: The Truth About the Booing at the Debate

"I was at the debate, in the audience on the right hand side about halfway back. The person who booed was just a few rows in front of us. The booing got an immediate and angry reaction from nearly everyone sitting around him, who hissed and shushed at him. Lots of loud gasps, "Shhhh!" "No!" "Shut up, you idiot!" etc. There was a concrete floor beneath all of our chairs. Ever been in a metal shop or warehouse with a concrete floor? Certain sounds can really resonate on that kind of surface."

I've been saying this for years, here's where I see the difference:

The booing of this soldier, the cheering of letting the man in the coma die, the cheering of executions, the racist tea party signs, etc. They all might be a vocal minority, but no one would know it because no one speaks out against it, in fact many of you go out of your to defend and try to explain how it's not how it seems. And even more appalling is that your policies often back the sentiment.

To me silent bigotry is just as bad if not worse than vocal bigotry.

 

[yolland]

^ I think part of the problem might be that there's a perception among many Republicans that the aghast Democratic response to these moments is generally of a contrivedly self-righteous nature, and reflects a desire to shut down all policy argument more than it does genuine moral indignation. There might also be some sense of, This is an internal argument between conservatives, not an 'American' argument, so keep your opportunistic fingers out of it. No doubt there are also textbook fence-sitters who (for example) often flinch at the blunt homophobia of the far right but are too uncomfortable around gay people themselves to take a stand, but that's probably a largely separate issue from the response to 'outside' condemnation. In some ways it's a little bit like the common liberal response to the use of 'socialist(ic)'--no one considers that a character assessment exactly, so it's different in that way, but nonetheless for many that word remains as loaded as if it were a hand grenade.

 

[Irvine511]

here's an interesting take on it, and on Romney's weakness-but-also-strengths as a candidate:

Romney’s flaws as a primary candidate are numerous, but the two most serious are his legacy of supporting health-care reform and other moderate stances, and his refined temperament, which puts him far out of step with his party’s mood. But it’s important to understand the precise nature of that mood, and I’m beginning to think that Romney does.

Three moments during the last two debates captured the mentality of the Republican base. The first came in the previous debate, when some crowd members shouted that an uninsured man with a fatal illness should be allowed to die. Another occurred when a gay soldier serving in Iraq appeared on the video board to ask if he could be allowed to continue serving and was booed.

These expressions clearly reflect the straightforward policy implications of conservative principles. At the same time, I don’t think they ought to be taken purely at face value. I believe few conservative Republicans feel visceral hostility toward sick, uninsured people or gay soldiers. Rather, their booing is an expression of tribal partisan solidarity. These people are presenting challenges to the Republican dogma — living, breathing examples of the failures of their stance. They represent a challenge to the tribe, and the crowd is booing them for this, but not necessarily thinking through the substantive merits of their position.

This is essentially the way Romney is treating the conservative mood. Yes, conservatives have developed a series of policy stances — say, that subsidizing and regulating private health insurance is the greatest threat to freedom in American history. Rather than treat this as a principled view, Romney simply treats it as an atavistic expression of hostility toward Obama. He defends his Massachusetts plan by pointing out that it involves private insurance. That makes it exactly the same as Obama’s plan, but Romney probably figures most conservative voters don’t know that, and he’s probably right. Here's a good example of Romney on health care:

Obamacare intends to put someone between you and your physician. It must be repealed. And if I'm president of the United States, on my first day in office, I will issue an executive order which directs the secretary of health and human services to provide a waiver from Obamacare to all 50 states. That law is bad; it's unconstitutional; it shall not stand.


Rather he uses every question as an opportunity to convey to conservatives that he shares their general sense of anger and grievance against Obama. He does so without, in most cases, tying himself down to specific policy stances that could harm him in the general election.

I had assumed that Romney would face insurmountable obstacles because he is not, at heart, a true conservative. But this turns out to be something that allows him to pander to the base more effectively. It allows him to treat conservatism as a psychological condition, one he can pander to without the complicating burden of taking it seriously. (His contempt for the party base has always endeared him to me.)

Reconsidering Romney’s Chances -- Daily Intel

 

[financeguy]

^ I think part of the problem might be that there's a perception among many Republicans that the aghast Democratic response to these moments is generally of a contrivedly self-righteous nature, and reflects a desire to shut down all policy argument more than it does genuine moral indignation. There might also be some sense of, This is an internal argument between conservatives, not an 'American' argument, so keep your opportunistic fingers out of it. No doubt there are also textbook fence-sitters who (for example) often flinch at the blunt homophobia of the far right but are too uncomfortable around gay people themselves to take a stand, but that's probably a largely separate issue from the response to 'outside' condemnation. In some ways it's a little bit like the common liberal response to the use of 'socialist(ic)'--no one considers that a character assessment exactly, so it's different in that way, but nonetheless for many that word remains as loaded as if it were a hand grenade.

Can't agree, TBH. The failure of the US conservative movement to criticise homophobia in its midst is moral cowardice, pure and simple.

 

[financeguy]

I've been saying this for years, here's where I see the difference:

The booing of this soldier, the cheering of letting the man in the coma die, the cheering of executions, the racist tea party signs, etc. They all might be a vocal minority, but no one would know it because no one speaks out against it, in fact many of you go out of your to defend and try to explain how it's not how it seems. And even more appalling is that your policies often back the sentiment.

To me silent bigotry is just as bad if not worse than vocal bigotry.

All I can gather is that some very strange, twisted, odd people seem to fly the conservative flag in America these days.

 

[financeguy]

See, now you're losing me. When did I say anything about the other side? I'm trying to set the record straight from the notion that "the crowd" booed when that is clearly an unfair charge.

Would it have happened at a Democratic congress?

 

[INDY500]

CONVENTION 2000 / THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION; NOTES; Rooms: $260, Phones Extra; A Walk on the Wild Side; [Home Edition]

Faye Fiore and Steve Chawkins.
Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Aug 17, 2000. pg. 4

No Gaiety Over Pledge; Full-Frontal Tipper

In Philadelphia, we learned, a crowd once booed Santa Claus. But members of the usually mellow California delegation trumped Philly on Tuesday night when they booed the Boy Scouts leading conventioneers in the pledge of allegiance. The Scouts don't allow openly gay leaders, and their presence onstage did not sit well with some of the 434 Californians, 34 of whom are openly gay.

"It's such an affront," Assemblywoman Carole Migden of San Francisco complained after the Scouts disbanded their Norman Rockwell montage. "We're going to pursue who made this decision and why and make sure it doesn't happen again."

There's boneheads in every crowd and sometimes they're even gay.

I was impressed by the whole field last night and understand perfectly why Democrats now feel their only hope to win next fall is to portray the GOP as "Barbarians at the gate."
"Pay no attention to the stock market, lack of job creation, trillion dollar deficits, our bond downgrade, the looming recession or our hapless president and his sinking approval... no, focus your attention to the reprobates in the crowd at GOP debates and the greedy, not-paying-their-fair-share rich.

 

[PhilsFan]

Boy Scouts = US soldiers during wartime?

 

[Irvine511]

Boy Scouts = private organization that actively discriminates against gays. They are free to do so. But no one has to applaud them. A soldier IN IRAQ is entirely different.

Seriously INDY? You were impressed? Why doesnt te rest of the right agree with you?

 

[INDY500]

Boy Scouts = private organization that actively discriminates against gays. They are free to do so. But no one has to applaud them.

Not applauding is quite different from booing. It's always been pretty black and white to me -- adults shouldn't bully minors. Must be one of those gray areas you proudly claim to occupy.

A soldier IN IRAQ is entirely different.

Yes, about that. I wonder if you realize the tinge of hypocrisy liberals display at their indignation at a soldier getting booed by a handful of attendees at a boisterous political event when liberal administrators at Harvard, Yale and other elite schools around the country have banned ROTC and military recruiting from their campuses for 40 years. And in San Francisco, the pumping left ventricle of American liberalism, the voters themselves banned military recruiters from public high schools and colleges.

 

[BVS]

Not wanting recruitment in certain areas = booing a soldier?

What kind of logic is that?

 

[Irvine511]

Not applauding is quite different from booing. It's always been pretty black and white to me -- adults shouldn't bully minors. Must be one of those gray areas you proudly claim to occupy.

no one is condoning booing boy scouts -- you're conflating of the two situations is bogus and lazy. though your rigid, right-or-wrong thinking likely makes you unable to make distinctions between such things, i'm afraid.

Yes, about that. I wonder if you realize the tinge of hypocrisy liberals display at their indignation at a soldier getting booed by a handful of attendees at a boisterous political event when liberal administrators at Harvard, Yale and other elite schools around the country have banned ROTC and military recruiting from their campuses for 40 years. And in San Francisco, the pumping left ventricle of American liberalism, the voters themselves banned military recruiters from public high schools and colleges.

oh please. that's not even a stretch, it's a yank. it has nothing to do with the case at hand and you're not even trying to defend the audience or the candidates because you know it was indefensible all the way down. you'd rather do the whole, "oh, yeah? well here's something YOU do," and switch the topic.

but seeing as how i'm laid up with a cold and cranky, fine, i'll engage. i'll say these elite institutions are PRIVATE institutions and doing just what the Boy Scouts do -- and they are free to do so. you'll note that ROTC recruiters will be heading back to Harvard now that they've removed DADT.

we had a man who was gay is now out who is serving in Iraq and asked a question and got booed and no one said anything and Santorum told him he'd have to go back in the closet (but he'd be gracious enough not to witch hunt him out) and the crowd erupted in cheers. and this from the war party that gets excited whenever we blow up shit anywhere.

remember, more than 70% of Americans, supported the repeal of DADT. this is not controversial by any stretch of the imagination.

if anything, it's liberals who view the troops as something more than cannon fodder that can be thrown into whatever Asian country to achieve whatever dubious political goal while using the peril they face as evidence of some kind of "strength."

all this goes hand in hand with the rank hypocrisy we have had on display in just these debates alone.

we love the troops ... but boo the gay ones.

we're the party of life ... but we applaud 234 executions, including at least one known innocent man, of Gov. Perry, the governor with the most executions in American history.

we're against universal health care ... and think people without health insurance should die rather than get treatment.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

the voters themselves banned military recruiters from public high schools and colleges.

Woah!!!! They banned military recruitment from high schools?!?!? How fucking evil. What a fucking den of sin you live in. God must hate them. What has America become? I pray for you. I hope you get your high school military recruitment back. Fuck. What a terrible world you live in. Clearly you need Christ now more than ever.

 

[PhilsFan]

I'm really disappointed they didn't get banned in my high school or college. I just want to get lunch, I don't want to know why my 130 pound self should be running with guns in Afghanistan.

 

[trojanchick99]

Herman Cain won the Florida straw poll.

 

[deep]

The Republican Party’s straw poll results are:

Herman Cain, 37.1%
Rick Perry, 15.4%
Mitt Romney, 14.0%
Rick Santorum, 10.9%
Ron Paul, 10.4%
Newt Gingrich, 8.4%
Jon Huntsman, 2.3%
Michele Bachmann, 1.5%

what happened to Bachmann?

 

[kramwest1]

Herman Cain won the Florida straw poll.

what happened to Bachmann?

 

[yolland]

I stopped paying attention to Cain after he declared municipalities have the right to ban mosques in order to protect themselves from sharia law, and that he would not consider appointing a Muslim to a Cabinet position. Unfortunately frank xenophobia won't deter some voters.

 

[INDY500]

no one is condoning booing boy scouts -- you're conflating of the two situations is bogus and lazy. though your rigid, right-or-wrong thinking likely makes you unable to make distinctions between such things, i'm afraid.

Just pointing out that intolerance comes in all shapes, colors and agendas.

all this goes hand in hand with the rank hypocrisy we have had on display in just these debates alone.

we love the troops ... but boo the gay ones.

we're the party of life ... but we applaud 234 executions, including at least one known innocent man, of Gov. Perry, the governor with the most executions in American history.

we're against universal health care ... and think people without health insurance should die rather than get treatment.

What hypocrisy? Conservatives DO believe capital punishment should be an optional punishment for heinous crimes. We ARE against government managed universal health care and we ARE a little iffy on the repeal of DADT. Large crowds only illustrate that some people present those ideas more, what's the word I'm looking for... bluntly, than others.

But again, this is the distraction from the failed, divisive policies of this president. I realize that's all the Left has at this point. You've played the Tea Party incites violence card, the race card, the Mediscare card and now the barbarians at the gate card.

Can't wait for the next one.

(hope you feel better, I had it 2 weeks ago. You'll find your cough lingers well after all other symptoms subside)

 

[Irvine511]

But again, this is the distraction from the failed, divisive policies of this president.

up is down? seriously? it's OBAMA who's been divisive? what kind of alternate reality do you live in?

i guess a world where this:

government managed universal health care

is what you think the ACA is.

i guess you're right, though. it's less hypocrisy and more a total disconnect from reality.

in any event, i'm sorry Perry is already crashing and burning, the debates having revealed him as Bush, but without the compassion, curiosity, and intellectual rigor.



feeling better today. also made me feel better? my premiums just went down by over $20 a month!

 

[Canadiens1131]

Rick Perry Debates Miss Teen South Carolina - YouTube

 

[financeguy]

When did loutish, cruel, and ignorant behavior become socially appropriate?
Posted by TygrBright in Editorials & Other Articles
Sun Sep 25th 2011, 09:17 PM
This bothers me. A lot.

It bothers me a little that people have mean, loutish, ignorant thoughts and beliefs. Not a lot. Because some of my beliefs, when I'm alone in the dark, taking my soul out and looking at it... well, there's a little of the mean, the loutish, the ignorant in me, too. I'm a human being, it's in the DNA.

But I was raised to believe that stuff like that is shameful. That expressing stuff like that will make ordinary people (who have their own Inner Mean Louts, but understand about not letting them out to play,) not want me to live near them or marry their children or work with their spouses or otherwise intersect with them socially.

The closest I let my Inner Yahoo to the surface is when I don't restrain myself from laughing at a mean joke or when I snigger at a cruelly funny remark. And even then, I prefer to do it in privacy, in front of my own computer.

When the Navy SEALs finally took bin Laden out, I admit, there was a small, nasty voice inside me yelling, "Good! I hope you had a last moment of supreme terror and regret, you vile son of a bitch-- and that the shades of every man, woman, and child who's died since you incited your mindless vicious minions to hijack planes in 2001 rise up to accuse you before your Prophet and your God." I admit it. I had those thoughts.

But I tried NOT to express them. Because my Socially Appropriate, Acceptable Self-- the one I resisted acquiring as a child, rebelled against as a teen, chafed against as a young adult, made friends with reluctantly and ultimately learned to appreciate deeply-- told me that the proper, socially appropriate response to that event was more along the lines of: "Well, I'm glad it's over. I would have preferred that he could be brought to trial in a court of law, I would have preferred that no one, not even that sick barstid, die by my government's decree, but I understand the reasons and if this was how it went down, well, I'll make my peace with it."

I have anger-- anger I believe to be righteous and justified-- at the evil done by many of my fellow human-beings. But I try to express that anger in socially appropriate ways. Will I march, will I chant, will I shake my fist and holler? Yes, there are times and places for that.

Will I laugh and applaud tragedy, cruelty, and dehumanization of others? No matter how much evil they may do, I will try hard to condemn actions, express outrage at wrongs, and state opposition to positions and opinions strongly, but without dehumanizing those whom I oppose.

I see a world becoming more habituated to thuggery, to cruelty, to dehumanization. I see a world where politeness, good manners, respectful disagreement, and standards of adult discourse are being shattered and degraded and thrown aside for strident self-expression of beliefs and opinions. I see a world where it's socially appropriate to laugh about the tragedy of people being put to death (hah-hah! YOU DESERVE IT, SUCKER!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!) I see a world where people seeking positions of leadership and authority see no need to remonstrate with thuggish public boo-ing of a service member based on his sexual orientation.

I see a world getting meaner, smaller-souled, colder and more darwinist. (And isn't that just the ultimate in irony? That people who believe the Earth was created 6,000 years ago nevertheless embrace and avow a creepy principle misnamed for the man who first articulated the reasoned science of evolution?)

I see a nation re-shaping its social norms based on the social norms of a suburban junior high school. A nation where adults are not expected to exercise control in presenting their opinions and feelings. Where disagreement stays forever at the level of schoolyard bullying and playing the dozens, and there seems to be no more will to impose any kind of expectations of adult, thoughtful interaction among people who disagree.

TygrBright's Journal - When did loutish, cruel, and ignorant behavior become socially appropriate?

 

[Canadiens1131]

Completely agree, FiG.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

But again, this is the distraction from the failed, divisive policies of this president. I realize that's all the Left has at this point. You've played the Tea Party incites violence card, the race card, the Mediscare card and now the barbarians at the gate card.

If I may ask, what's this got to do with the left?