With Bruce’s candidate (but not mine) for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination saying “Sunday that he should not have stayed silent after the audience at a GOP debate booed a gay soldier serving in Iraq“, the question remains should we fault the candidates for remaining silent when a boor in the audience booed just after a gay soldier asked the candidates a question on the repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT).
As Herman Cain himself noted, “it wasn’t immediately clear . . . what had drawn the audience’s scorn, adding, ‘I happen to think that maybe they were booing the whole “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal more so than booing that soldier.'”
From the candidate’s response, it seems that he had heard the booing, suggesting that his rival for the GOP nomination, Rick Santorum, was not speaking honestly when he said he had not heard the boos.
It is a very ugly thing to boo a member of our armed forces, whether he be gay or straight. That said, audience members do not speak for the candidates.
“Had the candidates spoken out,” I wrote in an update to a previous post, “they would have shown themselves to be of a more noble sort. But, absence of nobility does not necessarily mean smallness [as the president suggests it does].”
Would we even be having this discussion if leftist radicals booed a service member at a Democratic forum and none of the politicians there failed to chastise them?
So, let me throw this out to you, if Santorum had heard the boos, was he duty bound to criticize them? Indeed, is any candidate duty-bound to denounce hateful rhetoric spoken (or rude actions undertaken) by an audience member at a rally where he speaks?
FROM THE COMMENTS: ILoveCapitalism offers: “Since Santorum was asked a question by a soldier, Santorum should have begun by thanking him for his service. I think we can agree on that.” Yes, we can agree on that.