Associated Press
The Romney campaign's heckling squad.
Earlier this week, President Obama's senior campaign strategist David Axelrod took a firm stand against heckling. "I strongly condemn heckling along Mitt's route," he said of the hecklers targeting Mitt Romney in Ohio. Axelrod added, "Let voters hear BOTH candidates & decide."
Obama spokesperson Ben LaBolt added, "We have sent a strong message to our supporters that this campaign should be an open exchange of ideas, not one where we drown out the other side by heckling and crashing events."
Any chance the Republican will also aim for the high road? Apparently not.
Mitt Romney has declined to call on his supporters to stop heckling President Barack Obama's campaign. [...]
Romney was asked if he would also condemn heckling during Obama events. He declined.... Romney says American politics has a "long history of heckling and free speech."
Romney specifically told Fox News Radio yesterday he doesn't believe in "unilateral disarmament" when it comes to his supporters disrupting Democratic campaign events.
Keep in mind, we're talking about a fairly specific, deliberate plan from Romney Campaign HQ. They sent hecklers to disrupt an Obama campaign event in May, and last week, Team Romney sent its bus to circle an Obama event in Cleveland, honking its horn repeatedly, for no other reason than to be obnoxious. It's presidential politics at a junior-high-school level.
Most striking of all, instead of distancing himself from ugly tactics, Romney claims credit for this nonsense. As we talked about a few weeks ago, it'd be easy for the Republican to say, "If people are going to try to disrupt public events, that's up to them. I'm running for president of the United States, and I don't have time to concern myself with who is or isn't heckling."
But that's not what Romney is saying at all.
On the contrary, he seems almost proud of the disruptions. Remember this from three weeks ago?
Romney's comments yesterday were similar: instead of distancing himself from the heckling, he took ownership of it -- effectively admitting that his campaign is directly responsible -- and defended the childish tactics.
I realize that efforts to disrupt opponents' campaigns aren't new -- they're about as old as elections themselves -- and that Democrats and their allies are hardly angels. No one side or ideology has a monopoly on virtue or vice.
But that's not really what I'm getting at here. Rather, the point is Romney is the first major-party nominee I can think who's claimed credit for obnoxious hecklers on purpose.
The 2012 campaign has already descended to a rather cheap level; with several months to go, it's a shame Romney intends to make things worse.
Leave a Comment:
False equivalence as usual. Gee, do these people wonder why they are perceived as childish, temper tantrum throwing, entitled, morons - really? And that's "leadership" ok?
Gee:childish, temper tantrum throwing, entitled, morons - really?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/anti-romney-protesters-say-theyre-paid-to-heckle
Ah, Buzzfeed, the icon of objective journalism (not). The only person quoted denied that they were paying people. All the other quotes were anonymous (i.e., made up).
Pretty lame. You're going to have to do better than that.
Tom, can you at least rebut me with a "credible" source? FAUX NOISE doesn't count....
People don't need to get paid to heckle Romney. That just comes naturally when Romney opens his mouth.
Here is an interesting definition: a whore - A prostitute. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain. Looking at today’s political parties is there any political party that really qualifies for this definition? Actually, there is a political party that does qualify and that is the GOP/Republican party. Where they have driven the American and world economies into a depression all at the expense of everybody else for their own personal self gain. But are they really whores? Well actually no their not, because they are much worse than whores, because at least with a whore you get something in return besides misery, despair and death.
Right wingers are a silly bunch
Gee, where are the MSM cries for "civility"?
Yeah, I know: we'll hear them the next time a lefty blogger says or does something nasty. But the Man Who Would Be President gets a pass.
Here's civility for you - you might actually try saying or posting something that actually required deep thought, ok maybe just thought. :>)
Looking at those young Republicans hootin' and hollerin' on Romney's behalf with their delusional signs - I can't help but think it's a safe bet that every single one of them will be on their parents' insurance policy until they're 26, courtesy of the Affordable Care Act. I also can't help but wonder if any of them will look back at that photo 20 years from now and say to themselves, "What the hell was I thinking? How could I let myself be played for such a fool by Romney?"
It's a short trip between bullying the guy in high school whose hair Romney forcibly cut and pulling these heckling stunts.
Sheesh, what would this guy's foreign policy look like? Might makes right?
We all saw BO reaction when he gets "heckled", he pouts and storms off. He can't take it, if it's anything less than swooning kool-aid drinking, followers, and a teleprompter he wants nothing to do with it.
You have to be a special kind of stupid to have interpreted his reaction as you have. Check past announcements by your beloved GWB. He also made announcements, did not take questions and walked back into the White House. That's how it's been done many, many, many times by many, many, many presidents. President Obama did the same thing and twats like yourself twist it and squeeze it until you get your full dose of hate and stupid out of it.
Yes, to someone as stupid as yourself, that must seem like what happens. I'd like to see some evidence of his "pouting" and "storming off", because he actually handles the Romney idiots extremely well and makes them look like ... well, like a person such as yourself.
And pouting and storming off occurred...when, exactly?
Ah, nice to see Eric here again, giving us our daily demonstration of what someone ignorant enough to flunk the IQ test low enough to be a Republican sounds like. Go back to mommy, fat boy.
Oh, it's D-bag!-2804575 again..
Eric 2 Another Troll! Gee this wouldn't be something organized?
Eric Eric Eric off your meds again?
Title of post:
When maturity is abandoned
You are your own worst enemy.
DFTT
Notice how diverse that group of young Romney supports is? You'd think they're smart enough to organise a group of hecklers and pay for a Latino or African-American to join the crowd.
They'd end up with Latinos named Nguyen, Chao, Kyoko, etc.
I noticed that "diversity" too. That sign ought to say "Romney - Believe In A Whiter America"
I'm a bit surprised they were willing to take off their hoods for the event.
It's ok..the magic underwear will protect them.
I love the circuitous effort at semantics here. We all know that heckling certainly *can* be part of "free speech," but to stir "heckling and free speech" in the pot does not result in a formula for civility.
But I suppose it's better to throw out happy words and hope that people completely forget that you didn't talk about actual ideas, rather than insisting that they listen to you when you try to mix them up.
The only "unilateral disarmament" is by the Democrats, as usual. Given the cowardly nature of these Republican scum, once one of those crowds gets a good whuppin', the rest of the little cowards will get the message. I for one thought it was a good thing when the Democrats in PA were out confronting Romoney. There should be more of it.
What we have now is the gang of 18-year olds, led by their "cheerleader" out looking to give "haircuts" and the only way you deal with that is you kick them into a wall.
Actually, Mitt doesn't appear to know the difference between unilateral (by one side) and bilateral (by both sides) disarmament. By saying he doesn't believe in unilateral disarmament, he is saying that he doesn't think just one side should refrain from heckling. But he's not smart enough to even know what his words really mean.
Oh, he knows exactly what he's saying -- he's lying and implying that the Democrats are going to do it, even though he's responding to their explicit rejection of it.
Republicans do this all the time -- on voter suppression, voting to directly reward their contributors and supporters, the filibuster, and more. It generally takes the form of "yeah, this may be wrong, but we have to do it because we're sure the Democrats are doing it (even though we have no evidence), so if we don't, they'll have an unfair advantage!"
They look like the mormon kids who knock on my door every Saturday and try to talk me into coming to their church.
What's being overlooked - the right-wing, in general, likes to heckle. it makes them happy and riles up the base. They're never happier than when they're simultaneously blocking a point they don't like form being made while accusing the other side of trying to prevent them from making their points. Followed by the media then agreeing that yeah, both sides do it, and where's the civility? Which results in Democrats behaving in an even more weak and craven manner so as not to invite abuse, getting the abuse anyway, and then being accused of being just as abusive.
One day, the left will grow a collective spine and show the right just what it's like when they're really and truly called out on their horsecrap. Not just by the Michael Moores or the Bill Mahers, the Stewarts & Colberts and the SNL Weekend Updates. But a non-stop point-and-laugh by half of the electorate, shouting as one "That's your plan! My God, you're all idiots!"
I believe in a shame-based society - everyone deep down knows how to be behave. Everyone wants to get ahead. When the desire to get ahead conflicts with society's expectations that you not be a flaming jackhole, it is up to Society in General to point and laugh. The reason things have gotten as coarse and divisive is not that we're not pointing and laughing, it's because we're not pointing and laughing ENOUGH, thus giving the impression that the bullying and fear-based divisive tactics on the right are not only acceptable, but by default making them acceptable.
You are correct. When one side refuses rational argument, refuses logic, refuses learned authority, refuses undisputed fact and evidence, there is only one recourse: ridicule and shame. Thomas Jefferson knew this. Why don't we?
When you've been wrong for 30+ years with failed economic ideas and policies that resulted in the Great Recession, you cannot continue to win by being sheepish and apologetic. You have to continue to assert that those failed ideas are really what is needed. And the only way to do that is by lying. And the only way to keep that lie from being understood to be a lie is to continue in a loud-mouthed, obnoxious way and along the way attempting to drowned out your detractors. Republicans know this and they will do it because they are loud-mouthed, obnoxious, pushy asswholes who fully intend to continue to destroy the 20th century.
Lying and brazen obnoxiousness is the only way Republicans can win. They will do it. And Democrats will politely allow it proving once and for all that, even though Democrats are the adults, they're also completely OK with losing what was earned the hard way in order to show they're terrifically polite adults.
But they'll lose with class. And then stand there and take even more heaping helpings of abuse from the Repubs. And continue losing.
For gawd sakes Democrats. Fight. Do it with class, and be civil, but FIGHT.
Romney acts just like the privileged jerkoff that he is. Even Bush had enough sense to keep that under wraps (sometimes).
Bush had the sense to physically keep protestors and hecklers no less than 2 city blocks away from all of his events. That's how he brought "Amerr-cans" together.
Republicans, namley Mitt Romney are now sending hecklers to Obama campaign events,just as the Koch bros. and Dick Armey bussed in hecklers to disrupt the AHCA town hall meetings.I believe they are also assigning low level campaign workers armed with republican talking points and Foxnot News lies,to this and other MSNBC blogs.These people are children playing childish games in a grown up world.
Well not to get off topic I believe in the fairness for men and woman in the work place. I also think that more woman should be included in some of the traditionally male dominated fields. Like for instance woman serving side by side in the military doing the same things as men.If a woman wants to serve in the infantry I believe she should be allowed if a woman wants to work on an oil rig let her be paid the same as her male counterparts in every field. Now that being said I do understand why some men don't want to work with woman.Its not about seeing them as unequal its more about the men having to curb there behavior because a woman has now been introduced into what was commonly called a boys club or a male dominated field.I say that because I've never seen a woman have to take masculinity training in order to know how to deal with men in the work force:) You see this may sound like it doesn't matter but it really does. Why because men especially married heterosexual men can't even say what they want in there own household if they are married and if he wants to stay happily married they better not:)Then again he at times can't go out with the fellas Why? he's married. And yet again if he wants to stay happily married he needs to curb that behavior too:) Oh you say well he can always join a club or a gym thats only allows males then he can say what ever on his mind without offending any woman?ERRR wrong again although its funny I never see any men coming out of female only clubs like Curves. I guess men don't have curves they would wanna lose ? Fat men to either workout at home or a regular gym with guys and girls who are more then likely gonna stare at their curves. Hmm its funny maybe someone should open a gym for fat guys only that might curve obesity? Although thats a whole other topic. But I have a solution to the problem we need to support more lesbians going into more historically male dominated fields and boys clubs.Why you say because its harder to offend a lesbian woman then it is a heterosexual one.:) I say this because me personally I have a lesbian friend that at times is more of a dirt bag then any male I've ever met. I would love to work with her and even go to war with her fighting side by side. And wouldn't have to worry about ending up in male sensitivity classes I could tell all the dirty jokes I wanted have naked pinups in my locker at work because she more then likely has the same ones or even better ones:) And men wouldn't have to curve their behavior to the point where they would feel uncomfortable working and interacting at work around woman.And the biggest and best thing would be NO MORE MEN IN SENSITIVITY TRAINING CLASSES. Its a win win for both sides men would no longer have to go to other males to know what a woman is really trying to say or how she would react to certain issues.He would be able to go to his female friend.Who actually can break down things to us in a way we could understand. More woman would be earning the same as men in historically male dominated places. We would have a bridge to the gender gap in this country.And while woman or out shopping with their homosexual friends we can go to the strip clubs and bars with or lesbian co workers and friends.Although before we do that we need to get rid of all those nutters on the far right.
I don't mean to be mean-spirited, but next time use paragraphs. I simply didn't read what you wrote because it looked intimidating in a run-on way.
I read it. Sometimes I just can't resist.
Are you trying to say that you don't think women should share the same workplace as you, unless they are lesbians because you think a lesbian won't notice that you act like an ass?
Or did you take the Sensitivity Training at your workplace and missed the point..entirely?
Yours is the sort of confused rants which my nephew used to indulge himself with...when he was 15.
any democrat is a crypto-commie, socialist, hippie, tree-hugger, keynesian, martian, and thus unqualified to hold any elective office under the constitution of the united states. therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to deny them the opportunity to be heard. hells bells! that might lead to people thinking!
I hope others here see your sarcasm, Jim. At first I thought you were serious.
Ok..you got me..I'll admit it..I'm a Martian (& that's a capital M to you, Bucko!).
I approve of your use of Hells Bells. And agree. With the sarcasm
IOKIYAR
Those have to be some of the whitest, most well-off looking people I've ever seen...
...since the Brooks Brothers riot in 2000!
They're ready for you Mitt, stick it in!
By the way, I'm certain Mr. Rmoney wouldn't mind a pie or two in his face.. Just a thought..
Mitt probably figures that bullying and shouting down the opposition worked to take Congress in 2010, so he might as well give it a try. Republican "leaders" weren't shy about endorsing it then, either.
Bullying worked in order to practice giving forced haircuts.
A Presidential public appearance draws huge masses of people. They lined the boulevard in California as the POTUS motorcade passed en route to Cloney's fundraiser just to wave and show support. If the President were to ever speak publicly (which he cannot), the teaming masses present would dissuade any punk protesters, or it could turn into a throw down. Sure, the opposition can drive a bus around the block outside an event and honk like high school, but they will not get off the bus.
Romney events draw only a hand full of supporters. Perhaps his great fear of hecklers is a convenient excuse for a no show constituency.
Mitt is nothing more or less today than he was when as a privileged, high school bully he heckled and assaulted a classmate he didn't like. He got away with it then, thus he believes his privilege extends to today. It probably does, but his behavior in this instance confirms much that we already knew about him, and is why he is entirely unlikable.
This behavior is a good sign of how this sociopath would act towards his critics if he ever became president.
Seriously. Look at those goons. Who wears ties and looks like Hitler Youths at political rallies?
mormons!