Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Aug 29, 2012 in Guest Contributor, Politics | 12 comments

Two RNC Attendees Ejected After Throwing Nuts at Black CNN Camera Operator, Saying “That’s How We Feed Animals”

CNN reports that two people were removed from the Republican National Convention yesterday for throwing nuts at a black  CNN camerawoman, saying “This is how we feed animals.” CNN won’t disclose the name of the camerawoman. When Mitt Romney hangs around birthers like Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio and Donald Trump, as well as crack his own birther joke, then you embolden the worst elements in the Republican Party.

The convention released a statement saying, “Two attendees tonight exhibited deplorable behavior. Their conduct was inexcusable and unacceptable. This kind of behavior will not be tolerated.”

CNN also acknowledged the incident, saying, “CNN can confirm there was an incident directed at an employee inside the Tampa Bay Times Forum earlier this afternoon. CNN worked with convention officials to address this matter and will have no further comment.” Source: CNN

This was cross-posted from The Hinterland Gazette.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2012 The Moderate Voice
  • StockBoyLA

    The RNC officials said the behavior was deplorable. What about the thoughts and beliefs behind the behavior? Does the RNC believe racist thoughts are fine? Because even if you have racist thoughts, you will still treat others as second class citizens even when your actions don’t rise to this level. These people obviously thought their actions were acceptable. No telling how they conduct their lives away from cameras.

  • ShannonLeee

    Again, not all Republicans are racists, but if you are looking for a racist, that is a good place to find one.

  • Most delegates are elected officials in their own states. I hope their names are published there so those voters can see who they elected. Maybe they’ll give ’em medals, or maybe people will wake up and say “we elected THAT?”

  • The_Ohioan

    After Ron Paul supporters shouting about the laws changing the way his candidates can be counted, a Puerto Rican speaker with an accent who took the stage was drowned out by “USA USA” until Mr. Priebus had to ask them to stop. Two versions here. More video on the Hitt/Harper piece.

    Meanwhile, far from the furor of the televised convention, the actual business of getting elected was being conducted on a yacht flying a Cayman Island flag. (One of a dozen such get-togethers).

  • adelinesdad

    “Does the RNC believe racist thoughts are fine?”

    Yes, since they didn’t directly address racist thoughts, let’s assume they endorse them.


    The chants started before the woman even walked up to the podium, so I don’t see how her accent had anything to do with it. And the video shows at least some of the people chanting what appears to me to be “seat them now”, referring to the Ron Paul delegates. The chanting of “U.S.A.” is a common method of drowning out dissenters, and that seems to be the case here as I understand there was a controversy regarding the Ron Paul delegates. Priebus rightfully called for order, presumably from those chanting on both sides, out of respect for the speaker who was trying to give her report. Of course, none of this can be proven since I can’t read the minds of those chanting, but you might as well suggest they were attempting a mass seance (Reagan, maybe?) just as well as claim they were trying to silence the Puerto Rican.

    The key words in the post are “were removed.” I don’t hold the GOP responsible for the actions of two of their members, only its response to them. Neither would I hold the Democratic party responsible for someone saying hateful things about Mormons. I’m sure GOP partisans would muster a fair amount of feigned outrage at that was well, but that doesn’t excuse Democrats.

  • adelinesdad

    To clarify, outrage and unqualified condemnation of the two individuals is of course justified. Using this incident to condemn the GOP is not.

  • ShannonLeee

    You have to wonder what the GOP response to these actions would have been had the camerawoman/animal had not been a member of the media. The incident was obviously going to be reported…so they had to act. Would it have been just glossed over and forgotten had it not been on record?

  • The_Ohioan


    Here is another take on the Puerto Rican speaker’s reception. I guess it is one of those “you had to be there” situations where we bring our own preconceptions to the viewing.

  • adelinesdad


    I don’t accept “you had to be there” when those forming opinions are basing them on incorrect facts. Here are some facts that link contradicts:

    1) The boos started well before the woman was introduced, during the controversial motion regarding the seating of delegates which immediately preceded the introduction. There was not a calm restored. Boos and chanting can be heard throughout. (The heightening of the noise when the woman was introduced can reasonably be explained by the dissenters not wanting to allow the convention to move forward and let the issue die. That last part is not fact, just a reasonable interpretation of the fact that the opinion you linked to ignores as a possibility.)

    2) The changing of “U.S.A.” is common to drown out protesters or chants from dissenters, as had been done at other times in the convention, not just to show patriotism or racial hatred.

    (I was going to include that the chanting of “U.S.A.” started before the woman began to speak, but that is debatable. However, it is clear that some form of chanting, most likely from the dissenters, began before she began to speak, which lends itself to the reasonable interpretation that the chanting of “U.S.A” was in response to that and not the woman speaking.)

    Therefore, the opinion that “There is no doubt, that Ms. Fonalledas was disrespected and subjected to racial bigotry” is unfounded. It is based on incorrect facts and contradicts reasonable interpretations of fact. Disrespected, yes, but there is an abundance of doubt on the second part.

    Secondly, even if both sides of the argument have equally reasonable perspectives (which they don’t), I don’t accept that one side can charge racism and then say “well, it’s open to reasonable interpretation based on preconceptions, so let’s say both sides have a point.” No, while “innocent until proven guilty” is a legal term, the principle behind it, that the accused deserve the benefit of the doubt, applies more broadly. All of us would want the same courtesy extended to us, as it should be in civilized discourse, and therefore I extend it to others.

  • The_Ohioan


    It was probably the Paul group protesting Priebus trying to continue as though nothing important had happened after quashing their delegate’s request to enter another candidate. Whether it was also a nativism response to a Puerto Rican speaker, only they know. Others there interpreted it as such. It’s one of those things where if you weren’t there, and even if you were there, it’s difficult to assign motives to the various players. It’s impossible to determine from a distance with limited access to limited video. You could hear the shouts die down as Mr. Priebus restored order, then start up again after she was introduced. Also, the muted shouts continued all through her presentation. Some who were there took it as a nativism protest, some did not. I simply included it in this article because to me racism and nativism amount to the same thing.

  • adelinesdad

    If someone said, “I was there. Believe me, the chant was racist”, then I’d have to concede that I can’t argue with their first-hand experience to convince them otherwise. However, I’m not obligated to accept it for myself unless it can be demonstrated to me, or unless they have established some prior trust with me such that I can be confident in their observations. If, upon attempting to demonstrate it, they make assertions that are demonstrably untrue and dismiss reasonable alternative explanations of the actual facts, then I have to conclude that their observation is biased and there is probably no basis for their accusation.

    I think there is danger in allowing credibility to accusations that cannot be backed up, especially when there is a clear partisan incentive to make such accusations. “Where there is smoke, there’s fire” is false. It’s not hard to see how this would devolve into a downward spiral with both sides making outrageous but unverifiable accusations at the other side, if it hasn’t already.

  • mcunningham

    this just shows how a lot of the crap being said against President. Obama is generating hate and mistrust. startled. with Rush saying HE HOPES ALL OBAMA’S POLICIES FAIL. No one came out to say how UNAMERICAN. that statement was, which. gives the bigot license to spew. their crap.These folks claim to be Christian but only when it serves there agend. Not. all GOP supporters are like this but it’s interesting that They spew a lot of unchecked borderline comments.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :