Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama’s anti-Republican demagoguery at HRC fundraising dinner

Interesting that when President Obama addressed his party’s gay and lesbian auxiliary (the Human Rights Campaign) last night, he generated the most energetic reaction not for touting of his accomplishments, but for attacking Republicans:

The most electric reaction, however, came when Obama sharply criticized the GOP presidential candidates for staying silent when audience members at a debate booed a gay soldier who asked a question about DADT.

“We don’t believe in the kind of smallness that says it’s okay for a stage full of political leaders — one of whom could end up being the president of the United States — being silent when an American soldier is booed. We don’t believe in that,” said Obama to loud cheers and a standing ovation.

“We don’t believe in standing silent when that happens. We don’t believe in them being silent since. You want to be commander in chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it’s not politically convenient. We don’t believe in a small America. We believe in a big America — a tolerant America, a just America, an equal America — that values the service of every patriot.”

It is sick what this Democrat is doing.  He didn’t need to attack Republicans.  He could have simply highlighted his accomplishments on issues of concern to the gay community, notably repeal of DADT (which even yours truly believes is a feather in his cap).

It is telling that Obama felt it incumbent upon himself to attack, attempting to hold Republican presidential candidates responsible for the boorish behavior of at most three (but likely just one) rude and disrespectful louts.  And it is telling that this mean-spirited attack generated the “most electric reaction” at an HRC event.

The only candidate who would be expected to condemn the boor would be the man to whom the gay soldier’s question was addressed.  And that man, Rick Santorum, albeit belatedly (though he claims not to have heard the boos during the debate*) did condemn the boors who bood the soldier.

To suggest that the Republican candidates do not stand up for the men and women in uniform is demagoguery plain and simple. The president should abolish for suggesting as much (while hinting at their “smallness“).

The president’s mean-spirited attack shows his eagerness to repeat the talking points of left-wing pundits.  He is attempting to hold Republicans responsible for the actions of perhaps not more than one boorish individual.  This demagoguery, having defined the president’s governing style for these past several months, has also begun to define his re-election campaign.

Perhaps if he considered the standard he has set by claiming that “we don’t believe in standing silent” in the face of such boorish behavior, he might realized how, in world with balanced media**, he might be held to account for his own silence when his political allies attacked Republicans.  Guess that before he took office, he felt General David Petraeus betrayed us.

By the standard Obama set last night at the HRC dinner, a Democrat who stands silent when a participant in a rally where he speaks boos a soldier or a citizen, that Democrat believes in a “kind of smallness.”  (Perhaps we should find footage of rallies where Democrats spoke and protesters slurred the troops or held up signs denouncing the men and women of our armed forces and use the Obama standard to fault his fellow partisans’ silence.)

Any time a Democrat stood silent in the face of angry rhetoric, he shows just how small he is.  We now have a president to small to condemn a political ally for wanting to “take out” their political adversaries.  He has repeatedly stood silent when much vitriol has been leveled at his ideological adversaries.

His term cannot end soon enough.

—–

*If Santorum heard the boos, I agree he should have condemned them before launching into his reply.  And yes, I do find it striking (and disturbing) that he failed, during the debate, to thank the soldier for his service.

**Perhaps given this bias, Obama knew he could get away without having the media investigate his own past rhetoric.  (Indeed, both AOL and Yahoo! lead with articles largely sympathetic to the president, never questioning if he maintains the standard to which holds his partisan adversaries.)

UPDATE:  Just one to make one thing clear which I had intended to imply with the post, but may have been less implicit than (and definitely not explicit) I had originally thought:

It is one thing to say the candidates should have spoken out against the booing — as I wish they had done.  It is quite another to demagogue it as Obama has done.

Had the candidates spoken out, they would have shown themselves to be of a more noble sort.  But, absence of nobility does not necessarily mean smallness.  And let me stress again that if the Republican candidates’ silence renders them small, as the president suggests, then Obama himself is small for his silence when various his supporters hurled invective at rallies where he has spoken, indeed, when fellow partisans and political allies who stood on the very stage he did, attacked and insulted his political rivals — and their supporters.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  “But,” notes our reader Jimmy, “this particular soldier was gay. Had someone in the crowd booed at a straight soldier, would anybody on the left take notice? I kind of doubt it. But the president knows his audience.”  Good point.

UP-UPDATE:  Glenn Reynolds links Ann Althouse’s trenchant commentary on the matter.  That blogress finds the president’s meme that Republican candidates “condoned or tolerated the booing of a gay soldier” to be

false, as explained here. There is a contagious lie and the President — he who often speaks of transcending divisiveness — is enthusiastically spreading it… while — ironically! — posing in the mantle of oneness, E pluribus unum. The [HRC] crowd goes wild, by the way. Listen to the audio (at the link). They find the infected red meat scrumptious! And can you blame the poor man? He must serve something to the assembled hungry masses, and this — this! — is the best he’s got.

Read the whole thing.

UP-UP-UPDATE:  Law professor  (also via Glenn as above) reminds us that the man who said, “We don’t believe in them being silent” was indeed, “pretending not to have heard or known, of the denunciation  — not for the first time — of America’s military at his own church by his own personal mentor”.  So that means, you’re small when you stand silent when a loutish audience member boos a service member, but you’re doing nothing wrong when you continue to sit in the church of a man who slurs the U.S. military, returning regularly to his congregation, never faulting his pastor for his mean-spirited invective.  And recall the president’s onet-time pastor denounced not just the U.S. military, but also gays.

And his silence didn’t prevent HRC from endorsing him.  Guess they hold Republicans to higher standards.

Share

45 Comments

  1. The Democrats get a free pass laced with a defensive boost from the media when they sling mud. The Republicans, on the other hand get gang raped if a nuance of impropriety is picked out by the Democrats and elevated to the level of societal treason and evil.

    The “booing” might well have been aimed at dropping DA/DT, but it makes better copy to claim it was aimed at a gay and that the boo-ers where caught short and didn’t have time to put their KKK robes on and grab a rope.

    That is the way the game is played and Obama intends to play it tougher and meaner than it has ever been played before.

    Even thinking he has a sense of propriety is naive.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 2, 2011 @ 8:19 am - October 2, 2011

  2. It’s election season, money is needed and I’m sure he got at least a few extra thousand for each time brought up boo-gate 2011.

    Hey, elections are all about using whatever your opponents give you. Blame Republican audience for providing a great democratic fundraising soundbite. I’m sure if the shoe was on the other foot, Republicans would be using that to raise funds as well.

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — October 2, 2011 @ 9:22 am - October 2, 2011

  3. Furthermore, Barack Obama supports and endorses those who support terrorists killing US soldiers and his own party calling them “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”.

    So he’s a lying hypocrite.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2011 @ 12:07 pm - October 2, 2011

  4. Obama’s very essence is demagoguery, class warfare & trying to stir the public, but these qualities do not lead to elective office; Obama must have something to support, but his big Communist government such as ObamaCare, Porkulus, Frank-Dodd plus his Crap & Tax EPA regulations are all political poison. The real Obama is showing his face & the people reject it. Expect the demagoguery & class warfare to increase as a frustrated Obama just explodes from his own inner rage.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — October 2, 2011 @ 12:43 pm - October 2, 2011

  5. What about Columbia University, Mr. Obama? Your old “stomping grounds” for undergrad … that booed, “jeered,” and even spit at an Iraq war veteran for standing up and speaking in favor of the idea that the University bring back ROTC? What about the signs and things that were said at those “rallies” and meetings?? I’ve heard libs say the nastiest things about our military. They don’t get it. I had a friend so upset because her brother left for Afghanistan on a mission that they were told he probably wouldn’t come back from … and her liberal friends couldn’t have cared less. One even said they hoped he didn’t come back. If anyone should be condemned for their rhetoric toward or actions regarding the men and women who serve this nation, it should be Democrats and those who vote for the idiots.

    Comment by Jackie — October 2, 2011 @ 12:48 pm - October 2, 2011

  6. Straight from the headlines

    WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday he supports the Obama administration’s decision to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy banning gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military — a move that was staunchly opposed by most top Republicans.
    “I think the decision that’s been made with respect to allowing gays to serve openly in the military is a good one” Cheney told CNN’s Candy Crowley on “State of the Union.” “It’s the right thing to do.”

    . . .”We don’t believe in standing silent when that happens,” Obama told attendees at the annual National Dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, an organization that promotes equality for gays and lesbians.
    If “you want to be commander-in-chief, you can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States even when it is not politically convenient,” Obama said.
    Cheney responded to Obama by noting that he’s “a little bit leery of the notion that somehow we ought to go hammer the Republican candidates because they didn’t respond to booing in the audience.”
    “When you’re in a political campaign and debates, people boo a lot of things,” Cheney told CNN. “I’m not sure that it was all focused specifically on that particular issue.”

    but then we have Cain (I predicted Bruce’s support) is now leveling allegations of racism toward Perry and his use of a hunting camp with racist name. Perry is scrambling and Cain is all up in arms trying to gin up his name and fundraising.

    Like DER said: it’s all in the name of political fundraising. Money is tight.

    Comment by rusty — October 2, 2011 @ 12:50 pm - October 2, 2011

  7. So now I know what “HRC” stands for: Hate Republicans Campaign. Makes perfect sense.

    Comment by MV — October 2, 2011 @ 1:18 pm - October 2, 2011

  8. I thought I smelled gin and regret…

    Ah, the sweet, sweet aroma of Democrat desperation. :-)

    Comment by Eric Olsen — October 2, 2011 @ 1:24 pm - October 2, 2011

  9. MV, clever, I may have to use that one!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 2, 2011 @ 1:43 pm - October 2, 2011

  10. gee, except we now see Mr. Cain admitting that he should have spoken up at the debate against the booing of the soldier.

    So Bruce’s candidate is as much a demagogue as Obama?

    Or is it simply allowable for Republican candidates to actually campaign (including criticizing Democrats, as they tend to do a hundred times a day), but Democrats, especially Obama are not allowed to do the same???

    Comment by Badler — October 2, 2011 @ 2:33 pm - October 2, 2011

  11. So Badler, since you attack Republicans for demagoguing, you must iPods Obama doing it, right?

    Or are you again demonstrating Obama Party hypocrisy and projection?

    People are realizing that Obama is a liar and a hypocrite. You are flailing because Obama demonstrates how thoroughly stupid, naive, and racist his supporters like you are.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2011 @ 2:39 pm - October 2, 2011

  12. Or is it simply allowable for Republican candidates to actually campaign (including criticizing Democrats, as they tend to do a hundred times a day), but Democrats, especially Obama are not allowed to do the same???

    Textbook example of specious reasoning, Badler.

    Comment by Eric Olsen — October 2, 2011 @ 2:55 pm - October 2, 2011

  13. Badler, this is not just criticizing candidates, but holding them to a higher standard than the one to which the president holds himself.

    Please identify a Republican president — or other elected official — who, on the stump, slammed his Democratic rival(s) for standing silent when his (the Democrat’s) supporters or fellow partisans hurled invective or booed an American citizen.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 2, 2011 @ 3:02 pm - October 2, 2011

  14. Please let me know which of the Republican nominees for president support the repeal of DADT, the repeal of DOMA, etc. Most, if not all, of the current crop of actual presidential wannabes stand firmly with anti-gay rhetoric.

    It’s nice that you can site the former VP of the US, but I didn’t notice him supporting the repeal of DADT while he was Vice President. The current speaker of the house has his knickers in a twist because the president is now refuse to uphold DOMA.

    Comment by Kevin — October 2, 2011 @ 4:24 pm - October 2, 2011

  15. Once again, the left shows that having their sexuality validated by politicians is more important than the economic and fiscal survival of the country.

    Comment by V the K — October 2, 2011 @ 4:43 pm - October 2, 2011

  16. Please let me know which of the Republican nominees for president support the repeal of DADT, the repeal of DOMA, etc. Most, if not all, of the current crop of actual presidential wannabes stand firmly with anti-gay rhetoric.

    Kevin, you’ve become so predictable, you’re not even interesting anymore.

    Comment by Eric Olsen — October 2, 2011 @ 4:50 pm - October 2, 2011

  17. Guess, Kevin, you missed the point of the post. I commended the president for helping repeal DADT. So, if you contend the GOP presidential wannabes all stand firmly with anti-gay rhetoric, then your guy, Mr. Obama, stands firmly with the hateful rhetoric of extremists on his side of the aisle.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 2, 2011 @ 4:50 pm - October 2, 2011

  18. [...] more here: GayPatriot » Obama's anti-Republican demagoguery at HRC … AKPC_IDS += "21713,";Popularity: unranked [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Obama's anti-Republican demagoguery at HRC … | MyGaySpot — October 2, 2011 @ 5:21 pm - October 2, 2011

  19. I suppose Obama must have forgotten his lack of comments when Hoffa Jr. assailed fellow Americans in his introduction of the President a few weeks ago, or when he failed to stand -up in church when his Black Liberation Pastor assailed White-Americans and in fact America itself…or maybe he could start by questioning his own party calling American citizens tea-baggers and hostage takers, but alas, I’m afraid our ball-less, agitating, racist, Muslim, foreign-born President didn’t hear any of those things or even himself his own words(which are nothing more than paper scrawl, and nothing he stands for)…It needs to be said AGAIN..he is nothing more than an anti-American, Alinksy rebel in sheep’s clothing, whom wants nothing more than Government to run our lives, people to be dependent on same and for America to fail. He was born into it, propogates it and lives it. A discgrace of a President whom never should have seen the Oval Office.

    Comment by Heath Danford — October 2, 2011 @ 5:27 pm - October 2, 2011

  20. Kevin, you’ve become so predictable, you’re not even interesting anymore.

    Kevin was interesting once? Who knew?

    Comment by V the K — October 2, 2011 @ 5:40 pm - October 2, 2011

  21. What I found most offensive was that these are the kind of people that look down their noses at the military. But this particular soldier was gay. Had someone in the crowd booed at a straight soldier, would anybody on the left take notice? I kind of doubt it. But the president knows his audience. He knows many of them believe their rights are bestowed by governments based upon their group victim-hood status. Soldiers don’t merit respect by many of these people, but gay soldiers…now that’s something for them to get excited about.

    Comment by Jimmy — October 2, 2011 @ 5:52 pm - October 2, 2011

  22. Herman Cain has now spoken up about this issue:

    Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain says that he should not have stayed silent after the audience at a recent GOP debate booed a gay soldier.

    The Georgia businessman told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday that it would have been “appropriate” for him to have defended the soldier. None of the candidates at the Sept. 22 forum responded to the booing.

    Comment by Naamloos — October 2, 2011 @ 6:09 pm - October 2, 2011

  23. Not knowing the acoustics of the hall at the Reagan Center, I wonder how much the GOP debaters actually heard from on the stage. With the TV floodlights I doubt they could see much of the audience or the audience’s behavior one-way or another.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 2, 2011 @ 6:35 pm - October 2, 2011

  24. And Ted, that is the crucial question. Could they hear the “boos”?

    So, this comment could cast additional doubt on Santorum’s leadership abilities since the question was addressed to him.

    It is a good question for further discussion: is a candidate duty-bound to respond to the hostile reaction of some in the crowd to the candidate’s opponents or to American citizens?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 2, 2011 @ 6:37 pm - October 2, 2011

  25. The boos is a distraction from the Democrats; they cannot debate the issues.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — October 2, 2011 @ 7:23 pm - October 2, 2011

  26. [...] Gay Patriot has more on why Obama felt the need at the dinner to focus on attacking Republicans.   [...]

    Pingback by » Obama: Silence for me, but not for thee - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion — October 2, 2011 @ 8:07 pm - October 2, 2011

  27. The boos is a distraction from the Democrats; they cannot debate the issues.

    So true. The debt is closing in on $16 Trillion, the annual deficits are $1.5 Trillion, the real unemployment rate is close to 20%, the administration is shoveling billions of dollars at solar companies run by connected cronies (venture socialism)… but none of that is supposed to matter because somewhere a Republican booed at a gay soldier.

    Comment by V the K — October 2, 2011 @ 8:30 pm - October 2, 2011

  28. [...] Gay Patriot: Obama’s anti-Republican demagoguery at HRC fundraising dinner. “The president’s mean-spirited attack shows his eagerness to repeat the talking points of [...]

    Pingback by Instapundit » Blog Archive » OBAMA SPREADS A LIE ABOUT GAY SOLDIER-BOOING, INCOHERENTLY: Ann Althouse: Obama must serve somethi… — October 2, 2011 @ 8:37 pm - October 2, 2011

  29. And Ted, that is the crucial question. Could they hear the “boos”?

    So Herman Cain heard it, but no other candidate, ok!

    Comment by Brendan — October 2, 2011 @ 8:37 pm - October 2, 2011

  30. It is not a fact that the soldier was booed for being gay. Let’s see some convincing logic that he was booed for being gay. And while you are at making your case, please explain why DA/DT was not the target of the reaction.

    I am not campaigning on this, I just don’t know how people have come to the conclusion of what was in the minds of the small number of people who reacted.

    One of the great liberal tricks is to declare the outrage and then demand repentance. Fine by me. But prove the outrage was as they painted it.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 2, 2011 @ 8:40 pm - October 2, 2011

  31. And Ted, that is the crucial question. Could they hear the “boos”?

    In what detached, out-of-touch universe is this in any way a “Crucial” question?

    One in which there isn’t a $15 Trillion debt, maybe.

    One in which there isn’t >16% real unemployment, maybe.

    One in which the administration isn’t funneling billions into solar companies run by its cronies, maybe.

    You lefty gays are so unbelievably self-centered. Nothing matters except getting your precious egos stroked.

    Comment by V the K — October 2, 2011 @ 8:49 pm - October 2, 2011

  32. “And Ted, that is the crucial question. Could they hear the “boos”?”

    V the K, isn’t that your host’s question? Oh, wait, over there, isn’t that Elvis?.

    Comment by Brendan — October 2, 2011 @ 8:55 pm - October 2, 2011

  33. Here’s a pro tip:

    When a liberal resorts to this…

    V the K, isn’t that your host’s question? Oh, wait, over there, isn’t that Elvis?

    …it’s a pretty safe bet they’ve run out of responses.

    Comment by Eric Olsen — October 2, 2011 @ 9:46 pm - October 2, 2011

  34. Of course, what this comes down to is the incredible hypocrisy and breathtaking obtuseness displayed by a man who, almost daily, provides evidence of his inability to do a job he wasn’t qualified to do in the first place.

    Further, the hyper-petulance of the left in defending him at every turn is as predictable as it is entertaining in it’s stubborn insistence that there’s far more to Obama than just an impeccably creased pant leg.

    Sadly, there isn’t.

    Comment by Eric Olsen — October 2, 2011 @ 9:59 pm - October 2, 2011

  35. Thanks, Dan!

    Comment by MV — October 2, 2011 @ 11:04 pm - October 2, 2011

  36. Well, the message is a bit off kilter given the messenger’s clear motives in bringing this up as well as his own silence regarding Big Labor’s less savory moments, but despite this his criticism isn’t entirely wrong. It doesn’t matter if the boorish individuals at that debate was just one person or fifty: it became an issue, fair or not, and when given a chance most of the GOP candidates refused to address it. Do I believe the rhetoric that Republicans “do not stand up for the men and women in uniform”? No. It was a cheap shot by the president. Yet I do believe that most of the GOP candidates “do not stand up for the men and women in uniform” when those wearing them are gay or lesbian – espeically openly so. They’ve given me every reason to believe this by their own behavior, which has nothing to do with whatever the latest nonsense is coming from the Democrats or their sycophants in the media. Saying that the Democrats are just as boorish, or even more so, doesn’t mitigate that because frankly I knew that already, nor does calling the GOP candidates on this make the Democrats any more attractive (oh lordy that’s not the case at all). Most of the GOP candidates I think would be better than Obama on many issues, particularly regarding the economy, but that too doesn’t mitigate this. No, 2012 is shaping up to be yet another year where I look at both sides and am just disgusted with the lot of them. I can’t say for certain until next November, but it also will probably be the first time ever I vote Independent in a presidential election.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 3, 2011 @ 12:19 am - October 3, 2011

  37. JohnAGJ, a vote in 2012 for an independent is one less vote for the candidate most likely of replacing a failed incumbent.

    I’ll pinch my nose, if need be, and vote for the Republican nominee. But, with Bachmann fading and Santorum not picking up any steam, it looks like we’ll be spared the worst of the lot.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 3, 2011 @ 2:29 am - October 3, 2011

  38. [...] Obama’s anti-Republican demagoguery at HRC fundraising dinner [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Why did Obama feel compelled to attack GOP at HRC Fundraiser? — October 3, 2011 @ 3:45 am - October 3, 2011

  39. And just what exactly is so terrible about Rick Santorum?

    And this whole mentality of, “I am going to vote to re-elect the most disastrous president of the last century because a Republican hurt my feelers” is sheer idiocy.

    Comment by V the K — October 3, 2011 @ 8:25 am - October 3, 2011

  40. I WAS THERE (as a delegate for Escambia County). ONE ~ count ‘em O.N.E. ~ loud, lone voice, with a tiny sprinkling of quieter, quickly derided down hoots rang out for a FRACTION of a SECOND from the middle to back of the Covention Center, and we were all HORRIFIED by the behavior. HORRIFIED. (In defense of the candidates squinting on stage, we were all distracted by it and I’m not too sure any of them could have had a clue WHAT it, in fact, was.) The surrounding members apparently took care of the jackasses promptly and expediantly.

    They would not have DARED to make another peep judging by the combined AUDIENCE reaction. We were out for blood.

    That’s the biggest, most pernicious LIE spread by this LIAR in CHIEF of ours ~ that it was the entire audience. It was a tiny three or four individuals in a room of FIVE THOUSAND, every one of whom looked immediately to see who the disgusting cretins were and if anyone needed help getting the situation shut down.

    Everywhere this SOB’s vicious slander of us is written, I tell our story. Makes my blood boil. Thank God I can see 2012 from my house. It’s the only thing that’s keeping me sane…

    Comment by tree hugging sister — October 3, 2011 @ 9:09 am - October 3, 2011

  41. [...] Obama’s anti-Republican demagoguery at HRC fundraising dinner [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Should politicians denounce audience members at their rallies who say hateful things or engage in rude behavior? — October 3, 2011 @ 12:29 pm - October 3, 2011

  42. JohnAGJ, a vote in 2012 for an independent is one less vote for the candidate most likely of replacing a failed incumbent.

    Which frankly is an idictment of the crazy two-party system we have wherein voters are left with two unpalatable choices and dissatisfaction is left to fester.

    I’ll pinch my nose, if need be, and vote for the Republican nominee.

    Yet it’s not just the Republican nominee for president, odds are right now that we should expect a GOP tsunami next year in Congress as well meaning that they will control both branches with every opportunity to swing the country as far right as they wish. Now since I believe Obama and his Congressional Dem allies have taken things too far to the left that’s not necessarily a bad thing, but I’m very tired of these extreme swings left and right every few years. I’ll take the improved economy and stronger foreign policy stance a la the 1980s and perhaps even the 1990s, but I have no wish to relive the rest. With respect to Lenin (or not since he was a true SOB), I’m not about to hand either the rope to hang myself with. They do just fine on their own without my help in that regard.

    But, with Bachmann fading and Santorum not picking up any steam, it looks like we’ll be spared the worst of the lot.

    Not necessarily. Perry has aligned himself with unsavory elements of the far right, like the AFA and FRC, although I suspect this is for more political reasons than true conviction. I’m not sure which is worse really. It’s hard to tell actually since he gives some vibes of being a used car salesman a la Romney. Both at least have records as state executives, which is far better than Obama ever had in ’08.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 3, 2011 @ 10:01 pm - October 3, 2011

  43. I WAS THERE (as a delegate for Escambia County). ONE ~ count ‘em O.N.E. ~ loud, lone voice, with a tiny sprinkling of quieter, quickly derided down hoots rang out for a FRACTION of a SECOND from the middle to back of the Covention Center, and we were all HORRIFIED by the behavior. HORRIFIED.

    I wasn’t there so will take your word for it. Yet I have a very difficult time believing that most, if not all, of the GOP candidates wouldn’t have said something that same evening or the next morning if the soldier had been, say a straight Evangelical Christian who was likewise booed by some idiot.

    (In defense of the candidates squinting on stage, we were all distracted by it and I’m not too sure any of them could have had a clue WHAT it, in fact, was.) The surrounding members apparently took care of the jackasses promptly and expediantly.

    Perhaps, although so far Cain, Huntsman and even Romney have said they hear the whole thing and the first two apologized for not saying anything. Except for Huntsman it took them awhile though.

    That’s the biggest, most pernicious LIE spread by this LIAR in CHIEF of ours ~ that it was the entire audience. It was a tiny three or four individuals in a room of FIVE THOUSAND, every one of whom looked immediately to see who the disgusting cretins were and if anyone needed help getting the situation shut down.

    At this point nothing coming from the president or the Dem Party should surprise anyone anymore. Chicago politics is alive and well. Just ask SEIU.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 3, 2011 @ 10:07 pm - October 3, 2011

  44. One interesting thing on repeal of DODT. When Obama repealed DODT, and thus allowed open gays in the military, there was not that much blowback. Nowhere near as much as when Clinton tried in 1992. I think there are several reasona for this:
    1. Attitudes toward gays have changed for most young people. The boomer generation started out with a lot of anti gay prejudice, but the younger generation has mostly lost it.
    2. When that younger generation got into the military, their attitude changed as well.
    3. The Tea Party drives a lot of republicans now, and they are mainly a fiscal conservative organization, being largely neuttral on social conservatism.

    Comment by richard40 — October 4, 2011 @ 11:27 am - October 4, 2011

  45. Good points all, richard40 (though I might quibble with the notion that the boomer generation harbored a lot of anti-gay prejudice). And good use of the adverb, “largely” in your third point.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 4, 2011 @ 12:05 pm - October 4, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.