Quote
The Worst Fox News-Google Debate Moment: Audience Boos a Gay Soldier
By Garance Franke-Ruta
They've applauded record executions in Texas and letting a 30-year-old man die. Now a GOP debate audience boos an out gay serviceman.
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:
http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=NGJNXW3PJXZ5TG47&read_more=1&widget_type_cid=svp
"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.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/09/the-worst-fox-news-google-debate-moment-audience-boos-a-gay-soldier/245547/
QuoteI have become used to hearing gay people and our lives either ignored or stigmatized or demonized in Republican debates. It is a function of a political party becoming a religion. And so my skin is pretty thick at this point, and my outrage button eroded by two decades of learning to ignore this stuff and focus on the positive arguments we have to make. It's not that I didn't react at the time:
10.18 pm. Santorum claims bizarrely that repealing DADT means permission for sexual activity for gays in the military. This is a lie. The same rules of sexual misconduct apply to gays and straights alike. And a gay servicemember is booed by this foul crowd. Santorum keeps saying "sex is not an issue." But that's the current policy! This has nothing to do with sex, as Santorum surely knows. And again, the crowd reveals itself as hateful - even when it comes to those serving their country in uniform. This is one core reason why I cannot be a Republican. So many are bigots - and no one - no one - stands up against them. They're a bunch of bullies congratulating themselves on rooting out the queers.
But as I went to bed last night, the scattered boos for an American soldier in the field at any debate began to sink in. And Santorum's despicable lie in response - that repealing DADT somehow means license of gay sexual misconduct in the armed services - was intended to reduce that soldier, his life and work, to Santorum's obsession: the intrinsic evil of gay sex. Again, this is usual. Gays are used to being reduced to sexual acts rather than being seen as full human beings, like straight people, with sexuality sure, but a whole lot of other things as well.
But somehow the fact that these indignities were heaped on a man risking his life to serve this country, a man ballsy enough to make that video, a man in the uniform of the United States ... well, it tells me a couple of things. It tells me that these Republicans don't actually deep down care for the troops, if that means gay troops. Their constant posturing military patriotism has its limits.
The shocking silence on the stage - the fact that no one challenged this outrage - also tells me that this kind of slur is not regarded as a big deal. When it came to it, even Santorum couldn't sanction firing all those servicemembers who are now proudly out. But that's because he was forced to focus not on his own Thomist abstractions, but on an actual person. Throughout Republican debates, gays are discussed as if we are never in the audience, never actually part of the society, never fully part of families, never worthy of even a scintilla of respect. When you boo a servicemember solely because he's gay, you are saying he is beneath contempt, that nothing he does or has done can counterweigh the vileness of his sexual orientation.
And then I think of all those gay servicemembers who have died for this country, or been wounded in battle, or been on tours year after year ... and the fury builds. Even GOProud, the two gay guys who love Ann Coulter, issued this statement:
“Tonight, Rick Santorum disrespected our brave men and women in uniform, and he owes Stephen Hill, the gay soldier who asked him the question about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal, an immediate apology. That brave gay soldier is doing something Rick Santorum has never done â€" put his life on the line to defend our freedoms and our way of life. It is telling that Rick Santorum is so blinded by his anti-gay bigotry that he couldn’t even bring himself to thank that gay soldier for his service.
Stephen Hill is serving our country in Iraq, fighting a war Senator Santorum says he supports. How can Senator Santorum claim to support this war if he doesn’t support the brave men and women who are fighting it?â€
He can't. Apologize, Santorum.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/
Damn embarrassing. They're making their own bed with stuff like this.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 23, 2011, 11:17:16 AM
Damn embarrassing. They're making their own bed with stuff like this.
Yea Tacahale, I wonder if they even care about that.
The job of our military is make war, not love. Santorum is right, no one in the military should be having sex. If priests can refrain, why can't they?
Vic we should all be computers is your answer mindless machines who only follow orders. This is a real world we live in. I attend a Catholic church and I will admit it was stupid and detrimental when church made priests give up sex so the church could keep any money the priest's families would have inherited. Not respecting our gay soldiers by trying to make them hide is stupid and immoral. Trying to defend the booing is well I think you can guess.
Thanks Steven sometimes I am slow.
So much hate. No love in the world.
Quote from: vicupstate on September 23, 2011, 06:20:42 PM
The job of our military is make war, not love. Santorum is right, no one in the military should be having sex. If priests can refrain, why can't they?
That's hilarious..every military leader has has sex during war time and priest get everyday with their little boys....the gop hates gays and feels they should all be put on an island and then they'd blow it up..that's the story i hear alot..."noone in the military should be having sex"...that's hilarious..a bit naive but hilarious.
I have been so torn this whole presidential election cycle. I recently switched to Democrat because of crap like this and the Tea Party. On the other hand, the Democrats and those in charge right now are doing everything wrong to right this economy and Obama is showing a lack of leadership abroad, so I, like so many others, have actually become hopeful that some Republican candidates look good for 2012. I like a couple of them from an economic standpoint, but I I can't stand most of them from a social standpoint. I like Obama from a social standpoint, but I can't stand him from an economic standpoint. This is a real dilemna for me.
I know that not all Republicans liked Santorum's answer or the booing, in fact in the video it seemed that at least half were not clapping (glimmer of hope?). He won't win anyway. I'm sure Perry feels the same way, unfortunately. Hope on Romney? I don't know at this point; I'm torn between giving up my social agenda (completely against the death penalty, too, and we just had that guy put to death here in GA...very tragic) and the economic agenda. Our economy is so bad right now and getting worse, and there are so many things we can be doing to protect us from the EU's and China's troubles that we are not doing. The policies of this admin are all head scratchers. I'm just torn. I wish there was a really strong candidate on the Repub side who did not care about social issues at all and just focused on the economy at this point. Sadly, they all seem just as focused on social stuff as economic stuff, and they play to the lowest common denominator of middle America.
I hear you simms I am a democrat who is upset Obama did not focus his energy the first two years on the economy. I want healthcare reform, equal rights under the law for everyone and to be involved in fewer wars but fixing the economy floats more boats faster than anything else. Obama is finally getting it now but it may be too late.
Quote from: simms3 on September 24, 2011, 09:23:11 AM
I wish there was a really strong candidate on the Repub side who did not care about social issues at all and just focused on the economy at this point.
Ironically, this was the view the Tea Party was claimed to have had when they first burst upon the scene. of course, that was shown to be a lie soon enough.
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 24, 2011, 09:48:32 AM
I hear you simms I am a democrat who is upset Obama did not focus his energy the first two years on the economy. I want healthcare reform, equal rights under the law for everyone and to be involved in fewer wars but fixing the economy floats more boats faster than anything else. Obama is finally getting it now but it may be too late.
+1
Rick Santorum said in an interview today that he did not hear the hecklers before he answered the question. I believe that Santorum lied. I believe that he did hear the booing but he thought it was coming from a larger portion of the audience. He didn't want to be booed himself by opposing his base.
Quote from: Garden guy on September 24, 2011, 07:52:14 AM
the gop hates gays and feels they should all be put on an island and then they'd blow it up..that's the story i hear alot...
I'm starting to see the source of your vitriol for anything remotely not-Democrat. If this is indicative of the kind of crap you "hear alot" from your so-called 'republican' friends, you're hanging out with some pretty f*cked up people.
Stay classy Orlando.
I know better before I even type it, but in reality - Does the repeal of DADT really make a positive difference for the majority?
I"m not trying to step on any toes with my personal viewpoint on the subject but how does the repeal of DADT really solve anything? IMO, the vocality of the few for 'equal rights' is actually infringing on what I would assume to be the majority who are content with anonymity. They are making targets of themselves to the members in their own fraternity that are genuinely uncomfortable knowing that they are not like themselves. And please understand, I'm not saying that the majority of the military is homophobic or anti-gay - I'm just saying that it may make a lot of people 'uncomfortable' - and again, for what gain? What equality are they seeking that they didn't have before?
Quote from: Cricket on September 24, 2011, 05:31:28 PM
Rick Santorum said in an interview today that he did not hear the hecklers before he answered the question. I believe that Santorum lied. I believe that he did hear the booing but he thought it was coming from a larger portion of the audience. He didn't want to be booed himself by opposing his base.
Of course he lied. If you watch the video, you see him pausing until the booing is done.
For someone who makes a big deal out of his religious 'values', he should study up on the Ten Commandments, especially number nine.
Quote from: simms3 on September 24, 2011, 09:23:11 AM
I have been so torn this whole presidential election cycle. I recently switched to Democrat because of crap like this and the Tea Party. On the other hand, the Democrats and those in charge right now are doing everything wrong to right this economy and Obama is showing a lack of leadership abroad, so I, like so many others, have actually become hopeful that some Republican candidates look good for 2012. I like a couple of them from an economic standpoint, but I I can't stand most of them from a social standpoint. I like Obama from a social standpoint, but I can't stand him from an economic standpoint. This is a real dilemna for me.
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 24, 2011, 09:48:32 AM
I hear you simms I am a democrat who is upset Obama did not focus his energy the first two years on the economy. I want healthcare reform, equal rights under the law for everyone and to be involved in fewer wars but fixing the economy floats more boats faster than anything else. Obama is finally getting it now but it may be too late.
Excuse the cliche, better late than never. Obama/ Demo landslide 2012
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 27, 2011, 10:55:09 AM
I know better before I even type it, but in reality - Does the repeal of DADT really make a positive difference for the majority?
I"m not trying to step on any toes with my personal viewpoint on the subject but how does the repeal of DADT really solve anything? IMO, the vocality of the few for 'equal rights' is actually infringing on what I would assume to be the majority who are content with anonymity. They are making targets of themselves to the members in their own fraternity that are genuinely uncomfortable knowing that they are not like themselves. And please understand, I'm not saying that the majority of the military is homophobic or anti-gay - I'm just saying that it may make a lot of people 'uncomfortable' - and again, for what gain? What equality are they seeking that they didn't have before?
By this argument, if the majority of the military was content with segregation, should the armed forces never have integrated? Obviously not. The majority's right to "contentment" doesn't trump anyone's civil rights (or exist, really).
And in this case, it's not even the majority that feels this way. In 2006 Zogby found that only about 37% of military personnel were against gays serving openly in the military. The rest were either for it or simply didn't care.
As to the benefit, well, it's a benefit to not have to discharge hundreds or thousands of otherwise perfectly qualified servicemen and women every year for breaking an artificial regulation.
Quote from: finehoe on September 27, 2011, 11:10:26 AM
Quote from: Cricket on September 24, 2011, 05:31:28 PM
Rick Santorum said in an interview today that he did not hear the hecklers before he answered the question. I believe that Santorum lied. I believe that he did hear the booing but he thought it was coming from a larger portion of the audience. He didn't want to be booed himself by opposing his base.
Of course he lied. If you watch the video, you see him pausing until the booing is done.
For someone who makes a big deal out of his religious 'values', he should study up on the Ten Commandments, especially number nine.
Haven't you heard? None of the bible-thumping these right-wingers do actually applies to
them.
Where would be the fun in that? Much better to tell everyone else how to live, normally while doing the exact opposite.
Thanks Stephen for explaining my earlier post. I was being fasticious.
For the folks that think Obama should have waited on Healthcare, I can assure you that if he had not attacked the issue immediately, he would NEVER have gotten another chance. It was difficult enough as it was, but would have been impossible to do with anything less than the maximum political capital that he had to bring.
If a President is going to change the country in a very fundamental and significant way, they must do so when their popularity is high. By simply being in office, that political capital is spent daily, so he had to start off leading with that battle.
Quote from: vicupstate on September 27, 2011, 01:24:52 PM
Thanks Stephen for explaining my earlier post. I was being fasticious.
For the folks that think Obama should have waited on Healthcare, I can assure you that if he had not attacked the issue immediately, he would NEVER have gotten another chance. It was difficult enough as it was, but would have been impossible to do with anything less than the maximum political capital that he had to bring.
If a President is going to change the country in a very fundamental and significant way, they must do so when their popularity is high. By simply being in office, that political capital is spent daily, so he had to start off leading with that battle.
He shouldn't have bothered with healthcare, if this was going to be the result. The public option got gutted, and the courts immediately struck down the individual mandate as unconstitutional. We're back where we were, except he's expended his political capital, so there is little likelihood of achieving any meaningful progress on it at this point. The insurance lobby won the day, unfortunately. Until someone comes along who doesn't compromise at the first sign of a debate, I can't see our healthcare system changing any time soon. There are too many companies making too much money off it.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 27, 2011, 01:50:01 PM
He shouldn't have bothered with healthcare, if this was going to be the result. The public option got gutted, and the courts immediately struck down the individual mandate as unconstitutional. We're back where we were, except he's expended his political capital, so there is little likelihood of achieving any meaningful progress on it at this point. The insurance lobby won the day, unfortunately. Until someone comes along who doesn't compromise at the first sign of a debate, I can't see our healthcare system changing any time soon. There are too many doctors, attorneys, politicians and lobbyists companies making too much money off it.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 27, 2011, 01:59:47 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 27, 2011, 01:50:01 PM
He shouldn't have bothered with healthcare, if this was going to be the result. The public option got gutted, and the courts immediately struck down the individual mandate as unconstitutional. We're back where we were, except he's expended his political capital, so there is little likelihood of achieving any meaningful progress on it at this point. The insurance lobby won the day, unfortunately. Until someone comes along who doesn't compromise at the first sign of a debate, I can't see our healthcare system changing any time soon. There are too many doctors, attorneys, politicians and lobbyists companies making too much money off it.
The ones making obscene money and wrecking the healthcare system in the process are the large hospital and provider chains, the major drug companies, and the insurance carriers. Medmal verdicts account for 1% of the 113% increase in healthcare costs over the past 10 years, lawyers have as little as possible to do with it. Actually, I bet when you add the amount of money we contribute just for our own healthcare, it outweighs the total of verdicts achieved in any given state. And of course, if you happen to become one of the small number of victims of serious medical malpractice, I suspect your view would change drastically if you woke up to find the wrong leg had been amputated, a lack of basic hygeine leaves you with a debilitating MRSA infection, or any number of other rare and preventable but nonetheless real occurrences.
Can you imagine if that crap would've happened in J-ville? We would have gotten vilified for being a town that's full of bigots, racists, etc, etc. Since O-Town is the city at hand, and they have the charm of the magic mouse, and the other theme parks, it's A-okay.
Quote from: vicupstate on September 27, 2011, 01:24:52 PM
Thanks Stephen for explaining my earlier post. I was being fastidious.
For the folks that think Obama should have waited on Healthcare, I can assure you that if he had not attacked the issue immediately, he would NEVER have gotten another chance. It was difficult enough as it was, but would have been impossible to do with anything less than the maximum political capital that he had to bring.
If a President is going to change the country in a very fundamental and significant way, they must do so when their popularity is high. By simply being in office, that political capital is spent daily, so he had to start off leading with that battle.
I believe that is true. This president continues to amaze me with his abilities to work with congress and get his and many Americans legislation through. I know many will argue with my last sentence, but seems the administration has their strategy all planned out years in advance.
::)
You could be right, but I doubt it. I am a reluctant supporter of a single payer system, with the caveat that a constitutional amendment be passed prior to pushing any such system through.
There are too many hogs at the feeding trough of Medicare/Mediciad.
That said, Obamacare is nothing short of a disaster. ( Private Insurers Guaranteed Profits Act: PIGPACT)
We got no accountability from Primary Dealers (Wall St Banksters), renwed Gitmo, renewed Patriot Act, Federal Reserve devaluing the dollar to bail out Wall Street, zero inflation ;) although everything I buy has gone up considerably, and a new war in Libya.
Meet the new boss... NOT the same as the old boss, but a crouching tiger just waiting for the right moment to pounce. ???
As for booing a soldier who pronounced he was gay, it was a bit of a sucker punch, coming like it did, totally unexpected, but the Republican Party deserves it.
Booing him was disgraceful, and any true lover of liberty would have stood and reprimanded the culprits, regardless how many/few they were. This was perhaps the most disappointing moment for the entire panel.
The frikken war party, booing a soldier... Such hypocrisy can no longer be tolerated.