Skip to comments.The Worst Fox News-Google Debate Moment: Audience Boos a Gay Soldier
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 ...
That moment and the dog poop joke were the best parts.
He’s not being booed for being a soldier, he is being booed for his behavior. Being a soldier does not indemnify one against their other actions being judged.
“Any type of sexual activity has no place in the military”
This can’t be repeated enough. Gays out. Women waaaaay in the back / homefront. Soldiers in.
Keep that stuff at home, off base, or on shore-leave.
worth noting that gay men have bravely served the United States in every war since the Revolutionary War. However, they kept their personal life private and that is how it should be when serving your country in the serious role of serving in the military.
Who cares about a few scattered boos. Santorum hit that question out of the park. I believe few up on stage would have taken it head on like Rick without hedging and being overly PC. Santorum is a solid guy.
He asked a question--he didn't perform any "actions". And I suspect if a soldier was booed at a Dem event, you wouldn't be defending the action because "he wasn't being booed for being a soldier" (which NO ONE has suggested).
As a soldier, he deserves the respect of those whose lives he is defending with his own. Has nothing to do with condoning his point of view.
Man, we can't even show simple respect to our soldiers anymore unless they're "our" kind of soldiers? What the heck is going on here?
Frankly the audiences at these debates may just lose this election for the Repubs.
For conduct that SHOULD get him dishonorably discharged. The disruption caused by Obama's pandering to the homosexual lobby will likely have terrible repercussions.
Rick Santorum gave an excellent answer, by the way.
The soldier’s question illuminates a point: the UCMJ section banning homosexual acts is (as far as I know) unchanged. President Obama’s ‘ending’ the ban could be reversed by another Executive Order, by the next President, or even by himself, if it should prove to be necessary for good order and discipline. So, for a serviceman or woman of homophilliac tendancies, knowing what the candidates’ position would be on the question is essential. If one is such a person, and if one has made the mistake of going public with one’s preferences, and if a candidate who would reinstitute the ban looks likely to win the next election , it would be a good time to consider a change in careers.
The knife is firmly embedded in the back of our military.
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Got a child to donate??
I agree. From another thread, slightly corrected:
I wish people wouldnt boo or cheer at these things. Let the answers come, and let viewers sit there and think for themselves.
We are right on so many issues, but those we hope to sway back off at such displays from the audience—while the curious viewer should be thinking about what the candidate says, and should be thinking about that without the emotion, he’s suddenly blasted with boos and instinctively backs off.
Most people don’t hate gays—they just want them to leave the rest of us alone. So when a serving soldier in Iraq asks this question, to suddenly hear boos from the crowd has the potential to make a wavering viewer back off just when the candidates gave good responses that reasonable people can agree with.
No, Im not talking about preventing freedom of expression. Im just recalling how when I wasnt as conservative as I am now, listening to the answers at presidential debates given by Reagan, for example, and then later hearing the MSM flip out over certain things, Id think Thats not how I received that answer.
The cheering and such makes it so much more like a lib emotion-charged event, instead of an opportunity to hear responses. And I dont care if someones gay or whatever, if theyre a soldier they deserve to say what they have to say, even if its stupid.
Knowing the candidates’ policy on rendition of dual citizenship terrorists in the military is also important to the terrorists in question. Shall we refrain from booing them also?
I think there are a hell of a lot more people who feel that way than the media lets on. And people are also tired of gays being in the debate at all with so many serious issues that need to be discussed. People have had enough of the bull coming from interest group advocacy.
Why? Have you already donated all of yours?