Boo hoo hoo
It’s reported that Romney was booed a couple of times during his NAACP speech (full video here, which I have not yet watched), although he was also cheered at times.
Which brings us a more general question I’ve long wondered about: what is the significance of booing in a crowd? How many people have to boo someone to have it be meaningful? After all, in an audience composed of hundreds or even thousands, a mere ten people can make quite a loud noise, and fifty can sound highly significant.
If the press is trying to emphasize the booing, it becomes an entire crowd that’s against the speaker. If the press wants to de-emphasize it for a candidate it likes, the booing either remains unreported, or is linked to a few isolated troublemakers or even plants from the opposition.
Unless an entire crowd stands up in unison and walks out in protest, or tosses a fusillade of rotten tomatoes en masse at the speaker, how would we really have a clue what’s going on?
Fascinating spin is developing on this event.
Most media outlets emphasize the booing, as if that were the theme. Other, more Romney friendly sources, point out the standing ovations that sort of offset the booing. Some idiot on MSNBC, but I repeat myself, accused Romney of going to the NAACP to get booed because that would appeal to white racists.
I have reached the stage where I ignore almost all Punditry. That includes Conservatives, e.g. Limbaugh, Krauthammer; as well as pseudo Conservatives, K. Parker, P. Noonan et al. Statists have triggered this reaction for quite some time.
There are a select few that still command my attention. Mark Steyn is one. Although you may, or may not, consider yourself a Pundit, Neo is another.
I know it would never happen, but part of me wanted Romney to get up there and say something along the lines of “I’ve been told that speaking to you is a waste of time. I’m a Republican and blacks only vote Democrat. That blacks are only about 13% of the population, vote in an even smaller percentage and any amount I persuade to vote for me will be negligible. But in being honest with you, because I have no reason not to be, I have a couple of questions for you: How is it to be a black person in the U.S. today? What is the biggest problem the black communities face? Can we agree that it is the destruction of the black family? Lack of access to good education?”
Just laying out the major, objective problems that blacks face, what might be the solutions and then leave off on “You’re not going to vote for me, I know that. But you really should insist that whomever you vote for has very clear answers on these points. If that person offers more of the same, you should make them tell you how it is going to be different this time.”
Conservatives would have loved it and Obama would have been forced to respond. The media wouldn’t know whether to be horrified or not.
can i boo this?
Obama Quietly Gives Himself Power to Seize Internet
just asking…
how about other things? like the war between turkey and syria? and the build up of american troops and soviet troops that is going almost unreported?
can i boo that?
to answer your question..
there is no logical answer to it…
if one person boos, then the left can say he was booed.. ONLY if no one boos, can they not say it… so they make sure that at least one person boos.
on the flip side, unless everyone boos, they can just focus on the one that doesnt.
i explained this with feminism supporting both sides of an issue. it allows the leaders to choose what they want without having to answer to those they dont represent but believe they do.
this is the beauty of representing conflicing sides in an issue… you can ignore them and do what you want and there is no way to tell.
same here.
same tool, same principal, same application
but if your not going to get that its a tool a game, etc… you might just ask silly questoins trying to understand it
but you cant… its fascist irrationality beating out the Spock of the enlightenment.
irrationality cant be negated with rationality…
so your going to fail anytime you try to do that if you dont understand the logic behind the irrationality that makes it rational to the one presenting it…
irrationality appeals to the emotional and unthinking… (ergo why feminists push it as women thought)…
unless you can slap the get across the face to get them to stop being irrational long enough to think, your logic is futile…
“how would we really have a clue what’s going on?”
Easy… take whatever the MSM media reports and reverse it, that will be closer to the thruth.
Ughh…truth…. fingers moving too fast
Physicsguy, you may just have coined a neologism. “Thruth” is what the MSM purvey; it’s the truth reflected through a mirror plane (or pushed through an inversion center).
Mitt Romney ‘deliberately got booed by the NAACP to appeal to white racists’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2172593/Mitt-Romney-deliberately-got-booed-NAACP-appeal-white-racists.html
Pelosi: Romney made ‘a calculated move’ to get booed by NAACP
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/237427-pelosi-romney-made-a-calculated-move-to-get-booed-by-naacp
just think of the worldview you have to have and how you think it works to think that moriarty really exists… i guess its the same as feminists who think of the patriarchy.. and race hucksters and so on..
but what a world view and wacky set of principals.
Art, I saw that stuff too. Someone should send Pelosi to a clinic where they can study the effects of Botox on brain cells.
What is the significance of booing? There used to be a huge taboo against interrupting a public speaker so that a boo-er had to really be motivated and/or the speaker was so outside of reason or propriety a boo was required.
Since the 60’s, there has been an agreement between the left and the media: the left boos and the media reports it breathlessly. For instance, a city will conduct a parade where 2,000 people will come out to watch. Ten “boo-ers” will protest and that becomes the media headline if it promotes illiberalism.
A caller into the RL show stated he was at the NAACP event and that there were protesters outside the forum. No mention of them.
How about the “you lie” boo?
Which brings up Romney’s new ad that basically calls Obama a liar. Consult and use Stanley Kurtz.
Artfldgr:
Thank you for your brevity today. You made good points and I agree with what you said.
Art, I saw that stuff too. Someone should send Pelosi to a clinic where they can study the effects of Botox on brain cells.
She is crazy, bat shit crazy, I guarantee you that women sleeps upside down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60cKE-WAQqU&feature=related
I think Romney’a decision to speak before the NAACP was a brilliant strategic move. It showed confidence in his message. He knew going in that it was a hostile audience. He knew black conservatives are a tiny minority within a minority. His appearance showed he is willing to walk into the proverbial lion’s den. And, I admit that my opinion of Romney as a candidate has changed significantly over the last 8 weeks. GO MITT!
When ever a commenter says something about derogatory Palin, I say “I’ll see you one Palin, and raise you one Pelosi.” They have to fold.
The progressive Galactic guide to planet Earth:
Sudan champions Human Rights. Obama cut spending. Jihad is spiritual struggle. Gay activisits support diversity. Taxes are investments. Racism is endemic. Conservatives are fascists. The economy is fine. Jews are terrorists. Debt funding is responsible. Rich people are horrible. America destroys Earth. Rush Limbaugh is a fat drug addict.
Parker i agree. This made Mitt look head and shoulders above the manchild.
One of his better speeches; earnest and bold without being abrasive.
I generally don’t like booing outside of sporting events. But perhaps this is America’s real #1 sport after all.
Obama is attempting to create a new narrative. Yes, he says, everyone conceded I could give a good speech, but could I manage?
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/07/its-funny-when-i-ran-everybody-said.html
Well.
Can anyone recall Obama’s executive experience being questioned? Now, in typical upside down Obama fashion, he attempts to establish that he has managed well but not communicated well. How dare we, if he concedes to a lacking in narrative building, also accuse him of managerial inability.
Cripes.
How Rousseau-ean of Obamo. It was Rousseau who taught us how to use a false admission. For instance, “I admit I slapped the girl, but that only proves how much I love her and could never really hurt her.”
Ridiculous.
But it worked for some. Rousseaus’s “Confessions” attempts to distinguish his behavior from his search for freedom from moral restrictions. In that quest, Rousseau’s “Confessions,” is a lot like Obama’s “Dreams of my Father.” A new morality, the morality not so much of Rousseau’s back to nature gig (yet derived from) but of a back to victim gig, paves the way for a not so blushing bride.
Mmmmmm. Mmmmmmm. Mmmmmmm. Obama.
That’s the good stuff. Obama gonna pay my mortgage. Free at last, free at last.
As the incredible Schneiderman puts it: Rousseau confused sincerity with authenticity. Obama’s case, however, doesn’t qualify here. Does the quantity and quality of evidence infer that Obama is sincere in his identification with the tenets of Critical Race Theory? Not much, especially when he must invent every single event of racism or trauma.
Obama’s trauma is being born white. Obama is much more an Irishmen than he is Kenyan. That is why he chose Biden, an even stupider Irishman. Let’s face it: The Irish can be long on words and drink and short on performance. You kind of have to admire the chutzpuh of Obama when he turns that character trait on its head and suggests it’s not performance he is weak with, but words.
Hunh?
“The progressive Galactic guide to planet Earth:
Sudan champions Human Rights. Obama cut spending. Jihad is spiritual struggle. Gay activisits support diversity. Taxes are investments. Racism is endemic. Conservatives are fascists. The economy is fine. Jews are terrorists. Debt funding is responsible. Rich people are horrible. America destroys Earth. Rush Limbaugh is a fat drug addict.’
Yeah, yeah, yeah you got that right. Bring on the clowns. http://tinyurl.com/7ebepyp
Oldflyer Says:
July 12th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
I no longer watch TV. At all. Therefore all of my pundits are to be found on the internet. I’d add Victor Davis Hanson and Richard Fernandez (“Wretchard”) of Belmont Club to the list of good ones.
One of the things that amazes me about Wretchard is that his own comments on his posts are often better than his original posts. That unusual phenomenon is on full display here:
Private Warfare
Read the original post, and then see comments #4, 10, and 15.
The United States made black people slaves. We made them family, not friends. There is no dissolving the family ties. We live and die together. That is no longer our choice. And by “our’ I mean black and white. Our choice is whether our living and dying be mutual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQyf1BeWmYs&feature=related
Uhh, I left out the the whole point that Romney’s appeal to the NAACP stresses his whole campaign strategy that he unites and does not divide. In other words, what Obama falsely used, Romney genuinely believes.
Well, I did listen to Rush Hudson today, and he pointed out that Romney got a STANDING OVATION at the end of his speech to the NAACP.
That really is remarkable. Another crack in the Great Wall.
Yep; or another way to spin it. A few people boo in a crowd the media does not like… ergo it is implied it was the response of the whole crowd.
Ms. Neocon,
If you want to know what booing is, with no question as to what it means, and no doubt as to who is booing and why, come see a Phillies game during their lean years (which we are unfortunately heading into yet again). You will know what serious booing is all about.
Terry Hoover: No doubt about it, Philadelphia fans – not just Phillie fans- have a reputation. After all, they once booed Santa Claus.
http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/philadelphia.asp
Curtis Says:
July 13th, 2012 at 12:19 am
Excellent post, Curtis.
Along the same lines as Obama’s “story-telling” remarks, I see that one published left-wing propagandist, George Lakoff, has released a new book, “The Little Blue Book,” (cute title, eh?) which purports to show libs how best to frame their talking points in language he believes will reach more people. Never mind actually justifying one’s position logically.
The left sees no reason to attempt to think through its stances, and it clings desperately to the belief that its ranks are not only more intelligent and informed, but also more righteous – despite all historical evidence and economic common sense – so blissfully unaware (or maybe not so unaware) that the road it advocates leads to our country’s destruction.