GW Bush booed at Nationals' opener

[MTK]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

People don't understand that when you boo the President of the United States of America, you're not just booing GWB, you're booing everything that that office stands for. It's unacceptable but not unexpected from our rapidly degrading society.

I don't agree. People are booing W, not what the position stands for.

It's like the dumb logic that if you're against the war you're also against the troops.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

People don't understand that when you boo the President of the United States of America, you're not just booing GWB, you're booing everything that that office stands for. It's unacceptable but not unexpected from our rapidly degrading society.

PERFECTLY stated!

[jsarno]

Not really a shocker...it's DC for pete's sake. The most political city in the world.

How many republicans would have been in the stands? You filled a stadium full of Dems...what do you expect? If you send a lame deer in front of 40 thousand hungry lions, guess what is going to happen?

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I don't agree. People are booing W, not what the position stands for.

It's like the dumb logic that if you're against the war you're also against the troops.

I am sure you would not boo the troops because you do not like what they are doing

[GTripp0012]

I think it would be easier at this point to list the things the masses do understand.

Two reasons why this is entirely inappropriate. The President was there because:

1) He is the president.

2) He is a baseball enthusiast.

It would, IMO, have been an entirely different issue if he was using the opening night stage as an opportunity to pander for votes, or push for re-election (or the election of John McCain), or to reference anything political in any way would have made it acceptable to be booed, but coming to throw out the first pitch at Nationals Park and to add to the importance and mystique of the event for a franchise that really needed a night like that...

I mean, this has nothing to do with politics. If you are a Nats fan, or even just a baseball fan who was present at that game, and you didn't think it was a privledge or at least slightly cool that the President of the United States was throwing out the first pitch, then I can say with confidence that you would be a simpleton of the highest order.

Then again, these are the same people who have already written off the Cerrato/Zorn era as failure, so I guess we didn't really learn anything new.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Hog1

I am sure you would not boo the troops because you do not like what they are doing

Of course not, why would I? It wasn't their decision to go to war.

[MTK]

For those against the boo birds, what would be your expected reaction towards a President who's approval ratings are in the toilet? Should he be cheered or should people just sit in silence?

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I don't agree. People are booing W, not what the position stands for.

It's like the dumb logic that if you're against the war you're also against the troops.

The president is not just a person, when elected he becomes a symbol ofthe United States. That comprises past, present and future. To boo that is what's disrespectful. Personally, I don't think much of GW, but I do have respect for the office that he inhabits. I have greater respect still for the ideals with which this country was created.

I see your point regarding people booing the man, not the country. But it is impossible to distinguish one from another. While in office, for better or worse, he is President of the United States of America. In this case, people need to realize that what they intend is of no consequence, only the reality of their actions.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Of course not, why would I? It wasn't their decision to go to war.

If this is really about the war, and not about just a general hate for the man himself, then don't we have to also blame a majority of congress for the decision, and boo the hell out of them whenever they try to accomplish anything?

Except congress as a whole has not done as much to promote Nationals' Baseball as GW did in a single night.

That's the dangerous double standard we all set by taking an issue of politics, and applying it to an issue of men. We're going to disagree with all sorts of decisions that are made throughout the past, present, and future. If we meet all decision-making with overwhelming shows of disrespect....well draw your own conclusions.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

The president is not just a person, when elected he becomes a symbol ofthe United States. That comprises past, present and future. To boo that is what's disrespectful. Personally, I don't think much of GW, but I do have respect for the office that he inhabits. I have greater respect still for the ideals with which this country was created.

I see your point regarding people booing the man, not the country. But it is impossible to distinguish one from another. While in office, for better or worse, he is President of the United States of America. In this case, people need to realize that what they intend is of no consequence, only the reality of their actions.

I guess that's where we'll have to agree to disagree. Again, I liken it to the weak logic that if you're against the war you're also against the troops. To me there's a pretty clear difference between the two.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

For those against the boo birds, what would be your expected reaction towards a President who's approval ratings are in the toilet? Should he be cheered or should people just sit in silence?

again, simply show respect for the office. Simple applause would be fine. I don't think people understand that showing restraint is admirable.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I guess that's where we'll have to agree to disagree. Again, I liken it to the weak logic that if you're against the war you're also against the troops. To me there's a pretty clear difference between the two.

i completely agree with you there.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

again, simply show respect for the office. Simple applause would be fine. I don't think people understand that showing restraint is admirable.

That's easy to say in theory but the war is a hot button issue and anytime human lives are involved it's bound to be an issue that people react passionately about. People have had enough of the war and enough of W. To me it would have been pretty shocking if he wasn't booed at this point.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

For those against the boo birds, what would be your expected reaction towards a President who's approval ratings are in the toilet? Should he be cheered or should people just sit in silence?

I think people should be 'expected' to use their brains sometimes.

I'm not surprised by what happened, I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that the expected reaction was not appropriate for the venue.

The guy is out there trying to promote Major League Baseball, and Baseball fans are booing the crap out of him. It doesn't take Einstein to figure out that people don't understand WHY the President was there, but the problem is that a bunch of simpletons don't want to make the distinction.

Should I be against/show disrespect for President Clinton's efforts to help raise money for rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina because I feel that he made a few boneheaded moves while he was the president? Why would this event with GW Bush be any different?

Any reaction ranging from polite recognition to total apathy in the situation would have been acceptable in my opinion. To boo violently shows a total misunderstanding of the situation, and may be a sign that people can no longer just let politics be politics.

[12thMan]

Man, this thread has really taken off. Good stuff.