Boy Scouts at the 2000 Democratic Convention

[fgoodwin]

In another thread, a question was asked in regards to the booing of the Boy Scouts color guard: "is there any proof it was set up by the Democratic leadership at the time?"

 

I don't know if it was "planned" in advance, if that's what you mean. But does that really matter? Do you think that would've made a difference to the boys and adults who heard the booing?

 

In any event, here is a direct quote from the original article that broke the story, in the Aug 17 LA Times:CONVENTION 2000 / THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION; NOTES; Rooms: $260, Phones Extra; A Walk on the Wild Side; [Home Edition]

 

Faye Fiore and Steve Chawkins.

Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Aug 17, 2000. pg. 4

 

No Gaiety Over Pledge; Full-Frontal Tipper

 

In Philadelphia, we learned, a crowd once booed Santa Claus. But members of the usually mellow California delegation trumped Philly on Tuesday night when they booed the Boy Scouts leading conventioneers in the pledge of allegiance. The Scouts don't allow openly gay leaders, and their presence onstage did not sit well with some of the 434 Californians, 34 of whom are openly gay.

 

"It's such an affront," Assemblywoman Carole Migden of San Francisco complained after the Scouts disbanded their Norman Rockwell montage. "We're going to pursue who made this decision and why and make sure it doesn't happen again."

 

But this is L.A., after all, so no one was heard to protest an oil painting showing a full-frontal self-portrait of a nude and pregnant Tipper Gore that popped up in a Spike Jonze video shown in the hall Wednesday and carried on C-SPAN.I know there are many who don't believe this really happened, simply because the primary source on the Internet is a much lengthier story from the Washington Times that came out a day later.

 

But the quote above is from the original source, the Los Angeles Times. Unfortunately, the LA Times article is no longer available on the Internet, but if you have access to Infotrac at your local library, you can easily confirm the above is an accurate quote.

 

The Boy Scouts most assuredly were booed by some Democrats at the 2000 Convention -- it is not an urban legend or something conservatives made up.

[GernBlansten]

That is indeed a shameful display. Much like the shameful display at the Republican Convention of 2004 when band-aids with little purple hearts where passed out to the crowd. Really spit in the eye of every purple heart recipient.

[funscout]

Thanks, fgoodwin, for the info. Sad, but true!

[OldGreyEagle]

I am the one who asked about the Scouts at the Democratic Convention. I did not mean to imply that it was urban legend that they were booed, they were indeed booed. The question I raise is whether or not "democrats" are anti-boy scouts, and whether or not the people who booed at the boy scouts were representative of the Democratic party(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[fgoodwin]

OGE, I didn't mean to imply that you thought this was an urban legend -- I know you did no such thing. But there are those who deny it ever happened, simply because the most commonly cited source of the story is the Washington Times.

 

Well, it DID happen, and those skeptics can't ignore the LA Times as easily as they do that "Moonie" paper.

 

You also asked if the booing was led or staged by the Democratic leadership -- I ask again, how does that make any difference?

[OldGreyEagle]

This statement was made on another thread:

 

"... Well, maybe because when the National Democrat Party invites a Boy Scout Color Guard to their National Convention to carry in the flag, and then booh's them on nationwide tv, that would be a start..."

 

Then in the story Fred posts it says:

 

"...In Philadelphia, we learned, a crowd once booed Santa Claus. But members of the usually mellow California delegation trumped Philly on Tuesday night when they booed the Boy Scouts leading conventioneers in the pledge of allegiance. The Scouts don't allow openly gay leaders, and their presence onstage did not sit well with some of the 434 Californians, 34 of whom are openly gay..."

 

So the story documents it was "some" of the California delegations. What about the delegations from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, etc. What does some of the California delegation actions tell us about the National Leadership of the Democratic party?

 

It was wrong, but was it orchestrated?

 

I seem to remember after the booing there were apologies made, is there any reference to that avaliable?

[GernBlansten]

OGE, you are right. I shouldn't paint all republicans with a broad brush just because a few of them mocked a solemn war decoration at their national convention. But the sight of them proudly waiving their purple heart band-aid on national TV really brought my blood to a boil. I mean, mocking an award given to our fighting men and women injured in battle especially in wartime was just over the top. I will try better to remind myself that not all republicans are insensitive, just some of the them are.

[fgoodwin]

OGE, thanx for that clarification.

 

True, it was not the entire National Democratic Convention that booed the Boy Scout color guard -- it was some members of the CA delegation, or at least, that's all the LA Times article identified.

 

However, when given an opportunity to either apologize or to chastise the delegates who booed the Scouts, the DNC leadership did neither (according to the Wash Times article, which of course many don't believe is a credible source).

 

Maybe that's where the feeling comes from that the DNC leadership either supported the booing or did nothing to stop it, nor did they apologize for it afterwards.

 

Indeed, other delegates to the Convention quoted in the article place the blame for the booing on the targets of the booing, the Boy Scouts themselves! Saying their appearance was "thoughtless" and "insensitive", sounds like blaming the victim.

 

I'm not aware of any published apologies, but I could be wrong. I think the reason you see no published apologies is that would be an admission that the booing actually occurred. There is at least one article in which a lesbian delegate from San Diego denies the booing even occurred (SD Union-Tribune, Aug 19, 2000).

[johndaigler]

Hi all,

 

Aren't we spending too many brain cells on relatively ancient history? I think we feed the rhetoric-asauri when we try to create archetypal truths from individual incidents. That singular event speaks little as to how "democrats", "liberals", "Californians", "homosexuals", "whites", "blacks", "hispanics", "middle-aged politically connected people" or anyone else feel about Scouts, the Flag, the Convention process, or anything else. On that day, those 50 people felt that way about that moment. That moment speaks even less to the "Quality" of followers of different political agendas.

 

IMHO, we'll be better served when we can stop summing people up with these labels -- conservative, liberal, red, blue, etc. They mean little and are almost ALWAYS used to negatively sum up an individual (or a state) so as to disregard their complicated contextual content as simple, one-dimensional and flawed.

 

A "conservative"?? A "liberal"?? A "red" state?? A "blue" state?? This is dumbing down politics, issues and ideas. If one of our goals is to help young men grow into good citizens then we ought to teach them to fight back against these days of "sound-bite" Truths, and see ideas as more powerful than labels - to see facts as more powerful (and more useful to the general good) than opinions.

 

But that's just my opinion,

 

jd

 

[evmori]

The image of a "full-frontal self-portrait of a nude and pregnant Tipper Gore" makes me shudder!

 

 

[Kahuna]

>>I mean, mocking an award given to our fighting men and women injured in battle especially in wartime was just over the top.

[SR540Beaver]

True, they were just mocking a highly decorated Purple Heart veteran who chose to enlist rather avoid the draft like many of the leaders of their party. Pretty darn classy.

[BrentAllen]

Yes, this was definitely one of the DNC's prouder moments.

Sorry, OGE - the Eagle Scouts never did receive an apology from anyone with the Democrats. When Democrat National Spokesman Rick Hess was asked about the incident, and given an opportunity to apologize, he stated: ""We want to see gays and lesbians treated with respect," he said. "Democrats across the board support equal rights for gays and lesbians, and we want to make sure they're not discriminated against."

 

Was it just the CA. delegates? Hmmmm. Let's see.

"This year's convention has almost twice as many homosexual delegates as the 1996 gathering, thanks to recruiting efforts by the national party. Mr. Christensen said there are 212 openly homosexual delegates at this year's convention, up from 125 four years ago.

Delegates give credit to the DNC, which instructed state parties to work on making their delegations reflect their states' minority composition. For many states, that meant setting "targets," which are different from quotas, Democrats insisted."

So were the gay CA delegates the only ones booing? I seriously doubt it.

 

Mocking a highly decorated Purple Heart veteran? Who would that have been? Your information is incorrect - they were mocking Kerry.

 

 

[strongshaman]

I used to be a Democrat, since I registered to vote at 18(34yrs ago), but over the years, my views have become more conservative, as the DNC has moved further to the left, I have remained 'in the center', neither ultra-left or ultra right. But when this came to light, the 2000 DNC booing our Scouts and the Flag, I switched my voting preference to Independant, even though I'm stuck with the likes of Ralph Nadar and H.Ross Perot. I just couldn't make my vote count toward a political party that would disrespect the Flag or Scouting. Just my opinion, from a new forum member.

[Kahuna]

>>they were just mocking a highly decorated Purple Heart veteran who chose to enlist rather avoid the draft like many of the leaders of their party