Two different kinds of boos


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The American election process can be messy and entertaining, frightening and exhilarating, confusing and educational. In the past week we have had one great example of this during the nominating conventions of our two main political parties. In both cases, the convention-going party attendees have broken out in loud boos, loudly attacking people on the podium for their positions. Such behavior is not what you would expect from the modern conventions, which for several decades have been nothing more than staged propaganda events designed to sell their candidates to the American public. One doesn’t usually boo during such staged events.

First we had at the Republican convention the response to Ted Cruz’s speech, where when he refused to endorse Donald Trump he was almost literally driven from the stage by boos from the audience.

Then, yesterday we had Bernie Sanders supporters overwhelm the Democratic convention with boos, first during an appearance of former Democratic chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and then during the convention’s opening prayer.

It is important to understand the difference between these boos, as they are a strong marker of what will happen in November. In the case of the Republicans, the booing was in support of the Republican candidate, hostile to the implied opposition to Donald Trump by Ted Cruz. In the case of the Democrats, the booing was in opposition to the Democrat candidate, hostile to Hillary Clinton’s nomination and the perception that the Democratic Party stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders.

I have always believed that Hillary Clinton was the worst presidential candidate I have seen in my lifetime. It seems to me that this difference illustrates this fact once again. Sadly for me, the Republicans have wasted this opportunity and picked a liberal Democrat as their candidate, losing the best opportunity since 1980 to put an honest and principled conservative into office.

All I can do now is hope that Donald Trump will surprise me and be far more conservative than I expect, when he becomes President in January.

8 comments

  • Des

    I’m not a fan of Hilary Clinton, but Trump is definitely worse in my opinion. He is a thin skinned, racist ignoramus with anger management issues. Hilary Clinton is uninspiring and has made bad decisions, but is at least qualified to lead the country.

  • Cotour

    Des: Joke?

    What has she accomplished that recommends her for the job of president in her long, long government employee career? Please list them for me and anyone else who likes actual evidence of performance. And just to be clear, being the first lady, or getting elected to the NY Senate or serving as Secretary Of State in and of itself is not evidence of performance.

    We are all waiting to be informed.

    (Trumps private business actual accomplishments are exponentially more significant and successful and of consequence then anything that she has even thought about)

    “Qualified” for what?

  • wodun

    Hillary is so thin skinned she sued a documentary movie maker to prevent them from making a movie about her and took that case all the way to SCOTUS. The case was called Citizen’s United v. FEC. Hillary weaponized a government agency to do her dirty work. And she accused Trump of wanting to use the IRS to audit his enemies, just like Bill and Hillary Clinton did.

    In the case of the Democrats, the booing was in opposition to the Democrat candidate, hostile to Hillary Clinton’s nomination and the perception that the Democratic Party stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders.

    That’s an excellent point. The networks, except Fox, all tried spinning the Democrats as united, even the “journolists” were following the DNC directive to spin this. But we see that outside of the carefully rigged system of the DNC convention floor, that there are protesters and a lot of people not happy with Hillary Rotten Clinton.

    losing the best opportunity since 1980 to put an honest and principled conservative into office

    The problem is that honest and principled usually means they don’t fight. Romney needed to fight when Candy Crowley lied in the debate and he should have called Obama out for lying. The Clintons history of sexual predation, policies like ending Glass Steagall, and horrific record as Secretary of State need to be issues. Would a polite Republican candidate do that?

  • Wodun wrote: “The problem is that honest and principled usually means they don’t fight. Romney needed to fight when Candy Crowley lied in the debate and he should have called Obama out for lying. The Clintons history of sexual predation, policies like ending Glass Steagall, and horrific record as Secretary of State need to be issues. Would a polite Republican candidate do that?”

    Who is talking about a polite Republican? And what makes you think “principled” means you “don’t fight”? Just the oppose. The problem we’ve had for the past three decades is that we have been saddled with polite Republicans (Bush 1, Bush 2, Romney, Dole, McCain, etc) who are neither principled nor honest. They were the ones who wouldn’t fight.

    Ted Cruz was willing to fight, and to do it for his principles. More importantly, he has demonstrated this repeatedly, in action, even when it appears harmful to him politically. His reward? He gets called names and is booed.

    We get the government we deserve. And right now we really don’t deserve very much.

  • Localfluff

    The last opportunity ever to launch an honest conservative candidate was lost in 2012 with the disgusting republican rejection of Ron Paul. No republicans have any interest at all in stuff like the constitution or honesty. They have each and everyone in action proven that to be the fact.

  • Cotour

    Ron Paul was seen as an extremist by the general public with good reason, and he was identified as a Libertarian, he was never, just like Bernie, going to get to represent his party. Republicans are not Conservatives as a rule, strictly defined “Conservatives” are a narrow segment of the Republican party.

    The candidate that will succeed will be informed by conservatism as their philosophy but is seen as reasonable, benevolent and compassionate and able to take care of business in the eyes of the general public / masses. A “conservative” will never be the candidate.

  • Localfluff

    Cotour
    “Ron Paul was seen as an extremist by the general public with good reason”
    For what reason? Inform me.

    And conservatism has failed. One cannot be “conservative” and survive today. Gotta adapt to changes, like all other life forms. If you want true “conservatism”, look at the muslims who keep living in the stone age. Things don’t work out very well for them, do they. History has an expiration date after which nothing can be learned from it. Society explores the unknown, conservatism is per definition not useful in this real context.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *