Frankly the audiences at these debates may just lose this election for the Repubs.
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.
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.
That’s a little over-dramatic, don’t you think?
Most people understand that boorish behavior is representative of the individuals engaging in it.
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?
These debates are stupid. Debates should be reserved for the general election.
When you pretty much have a bunch of people in a room who basically agree on everything, all they have is personal attacks.