Booergate continues! Following up on my post from yesterday, I checked in with Althouse earlier today and, sure enough, she had revisited the controversy of Who Booed the Gay Soldier at the Republican Debate:
I have listened to the video several times, and I stand by my perception that only one person audibly yells “boo.” I hear a loud “boo,” then a difficult to decipher noise — which could be an ugh response to the booer — and then a little more of a boo, which sounds like the original guy.
She links to Jim Geraghty at the National Review, who quotes a woman who witnessed booergate first hand:
I was at the debate, in the audience on the right hand side about halfway back (here’s my tweet of the video screen that was right in front of us). The person who booed was just a few rows in front of us.
Hmmm. Right hand side. About halfway back. Booer was just in front of her. Maybe if we employed some sort of advanced parametric analysis of the audio track we could pinpoint the booer’s exact location and thereby . . . hold on, wait one minute.
WHAT THE HELL ARE THESE PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT?
All of this noise about tracking down the booer and checking his voter registration card implies that his actions at the debate were unacceptable, entirely beyond the pale, and that anyone who behaved like that must be either a lone wolf bigot or a left wing infiltrator on a false flag mission. There’s simply no way he could be a Republican in good standing.
To which I say: Huh? What? Have you not been listening?
Look, I don’t know who did the booing. Could have been one guy, could have been two or three, could have been a roving band of dwarf gibbons angry with the nut selection at the Orange County Convention Center snack bar. But what I do know is that all of the ugliness on display — rudeness, disrespect for those in uniform, and a deep-seated hatred of gay people — is all Standard Operating Procedure for the current Republican party.
You think the Republican party displays an unwavering support for military personnel?
As for the rudely calling out, remember You Lie?
And as for the bigotry against gays, everyone put on your hip waders, because we’re going to journey down down down into the fetid swamp they call the comments section at National Review Online. All of the comments below were left in response to the Jim Geraghty post I linked to earlier. Let’s see what readers of the National Review Online have to say about DADT and gays in the military.
[Approved commenter] SeanB
: 09/23/11 23:05
The guy should be prosecuted for lying on his enlistment documents and dishonorably discharged. This will ruin the military. Sodomites do not belong in our army.
: 09/23/11 15:03
Absolutely the type of situation that explains why this among other destructive Obama policies needs to be overturned as soon as possible. It is terrible for morale that our troops have to wonder who might sneak up in the shower behind them or even get pleasure watching them shower. The military and everyone else obviously recognizes this or they would have females sharing showers with males among other things.
: 09/23/11 16:32
The people criticizing “fredb” have apparently taken political correctness for their creed. No problem—let’s simple rid ourselves of that inconvenient right to free speech.
The idea that we must all pander to homosexuals and their interests is mighty close to asking that Big Brother (or Big Sister, if you will) take control of our political and social discourse. The next step will be the Canadian approach of demanding via law that we all show open respect if not adulation for what formerly was acknowledged as perverted behavior.
When I was in the service open homosexuality wasn’t a problem—not, at least, for heterosexuals. Now, as homosexuals increasingly demand special privileges, it’s becoming a problem for most of us. I fail to see how this leads to a more effective military or an improved society.
And no, it’s not like racism.
: 09/23/11 12:42
I go back and forth on this issue.
I think the raising of homosexual union to parity w/that of heterosexual union will cause the lower class to degenerate even more. I could be wrong, and hope I am.
It is transgressive and the lower class can’t buy its way out of some of the consequences of that. Our lower class is, how should I put this?, not like that of Sweden.
Whether you want to or not, you are elevating an abberant, and I would add, unholy, behavior known only to the male mammal.
But that Soldier is my soldier, what can I do but agree to disagree and live and let live?
: 09/23/11 11:22
what is troubling is that the guy enlisted illegally and we’re supposed to thank him. For what? Lying?
This whole “thank you for your service” is meaningless except as a sop to the conscience of people who feel guilty that someone else is carrying the weight. I say this as a career airborne infantry officer.
: 09/23/11 11:14
The fact of the matter is that gays are driven by sex. It’s sex and their sexuality first and everything else is second. They look for approval of their lifestyle and expect kudos. The soldier focused on his sexuality and the question was answered in that respect. Pandering to gays is nonsense.
: 09/23/11 10:59
Thanks? How about scorn? As a veteran, I can tell you the thing I was annoyed most about was the fact that nobody called this soldier what he is – a liar. The bedrock of military service is integrity. He self-identified as a liar before he self-identified as a homosexual.
Are we going to just say, “well, the policy was unfair, so wink-wink, lie all you want”? I personally don’t think the policy was wrong. In fact, what Congress was too chicken %$$t to do (ie: change the actual UCMJ), means that the particular sexual behavior chosen by most homosexuals ( and many heterosexuals) remains technically illegal for military members… But “don’t worry, you can ignore that reg, since we collectively think it’s wrong”…. Not the level of integrity I learned to aspire to as a military member….
Man o man, I sure hope we can find this nefarious booer, because he is bringing shame and disrespect to the Grand Old Party!