Obama’s Teleprompter: Is this all the right has?

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

The favorite right-wing meme of late is that President Obama is incapable of speaking without a teleprompter.    Are they trying to say Obama is too stupid to speak without one?  A Harvard graduate who was editor of The Law Review (a highly acclaimed honor only bestowed upon the brightest and best at one of the best ivy league institutions in the world), a man who authored two books and has spoken across this great land, in Town Hall fashion, taking questions outside of The Bubble, this man is unable to speak on his own? Seriously?

Let’s take a look and unpack this a little, shall we?  It’s fun, honest.  Click that Keep Reading link and…


From the right wing headliner:

Drudge

Drudge Resorts to his Usual Garbage

And then there is:

RedState Chiming In

RedState Chimes In

Getting into the picture is Ron Fournier, the Washington bureau chief for the Associated Press (Remember him?  His email exchange with Karl Rove encouraging Rove to “keep up the fight” for the McCain camp, and was even courted to join the McCain campaign), who wrote a 100 word “analysis piece” on last night’s speech.  Five of those 100 words were “teleprompter” which begged Steve Benen to ask: This is an “analysis” piece? From where, the Republican National Committee? Good question, Mr. Benen.

Why might a president want to use a teleprompter?  Oh, I don’t know, perhaps to make sure to ensure that his facts are straight?  I mean, it’s not as if this president doesn’t have so many plates spinning in the air that he can readily remember every fact of every disaster which was bestowed upon him.

And, honestly, it’s not as if the teleprompter is new, or that a sitting president might want to make sure that they have their fact straight.  Really, see Saint Ronald Reagan set up for his little tête-à-tête with the American people.

Ronald Reagan and his Teleprompter

Ronald Reagan and his Teleprompter

Reagan is hardly the only GOPer who has used the teleprompter, as John Avarosis from AmericaBlog shows.

Even Ed Henry (he of the beautiful smackdown by the President, shown at the beginning of this clip) states that Obama is being careful with what he says (see the 1:08 minute mark).

Compared to the previous resident of the White House, as shown below.

Please let us never forget the difference between a president who is thoughtful enough to use a teleprompter versus a president who is not.

The best of Rovian politics is to attack your opponent’s strongest points.  Obama is a powerful speaker, one who engages people, is thoughtful and knowledgeable in his responses.  And this is what the right-wing brings forth. I’ve also noticed that not one of these right-wingers has questioned Obama’s facts.  But we all know that facts have that terrible liberal bias.

Thankfully, the American people are having none of it.  Obama’s approval ratings continue to be strong, which is infuriating and frustrating the right. This from Erick Erickson at RedState:

I’ve been in a funk these past couple of weeks.

There’s something more though.

I am a bit overwhelmed. I suspect many of you are too. The information is coming fast and furious, the GOP has yet to get back in the game with a full swing, socialism is creeping upon us, and many of my friends around me have decided the best course of action is to put their heads in the sand and hope for the best. The default is to shift into the doldrums in the middle of the fight.

Sorry, fellas. You’ve lost this fight.  Your dog don’t hunt. The American people are just not that into you. You had eight years and you blew it. Now, you have to tough it out while the grown-up’s try to fix what you wrought upon this country.  If this is all you have, considering you have completely become The Party of No, with no ideas, no ideals, no rational thought, other than more tax breaks for corporations and the rich and their constant attempts to stop any sort of recovery efforts.  If this is all the right wing has, I say: Bring. It. On.

Whigs II anyone?

Fine by me.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

About these ads

20 thoughts on “Obama’s Teleprompter: Is this all the right has?

  1. All I can say to those who feel their only option is to stick their head in the sand, can we help by mixing a little Portland and water in it first?

    If they aren’t bright enough to figure out getting with the program is an option, I’ll dig the hole for them and mix the mud.

  2. Thanks, Z.

    Actually, I did link to RS, but only because I love to indulge myself in watching this clown die by his own ideology.

    Poor old Erick. It’s such a bummer when your whole world-view is as fucked up as his is, and has caused more harm to the US and the world.

    Remember, I read right-wing blogs so you don’t have to. :D

  3. whoops! I think you meant to say: Obama’s Teleprompter: Is this all the LEFT has?

    No thanks needed. But just to be generous. You’re welcome!

  4. Good lord. After 8 years of watching their guy mangle every simple sentence he ever tried to read off the prompter, who couldn’t go off script and ad lib to save his life, they have the stones to criticize Obama’s public speaking skills?

    Too funny.

  5. It seems to me that the GOP is aggressively using every tactic possible to show President Obama in a bad light. The teleprompter is the best that they can do? Really? Why is it now that we have a President that is truly for the people that there is an issue about something as little as a teleprompter. This is just another ploid to throw the American people off track of the real issues. This is the same kind of bull they tried during the election. Give it up already and join the fight to help get America back on it’s feet.

  6. You hit the nail on the head Fashion Tales. It really is ridiculous everything that is going on in this country and people are so petty…still trying to discredit and act as if he isn’t qualified. We haven’t seen a president who can be articulate, yet address every question like him in quite some time. Yet and still, people still find the dumbest thing to complain about. I am so tired of hearing this right vs left crap. I didn’t vote for him because of his color, or his party affiliation. I voted for him because I believed in what he was trying to do, and had faith he was being forthright. I believed he had the best interest of the American people at heart. People are so caught up in parties, meanwhile there are Americans who are hurting.

  7. Actually, no, this is not all we have. If it’s as insignificant as you make it to be, why waste internet space defending it?
    And by the way, Bush didn’t use egregious non-verbal pauses like Obama does.
    Some “Harvard” graduate. You can brag all you want about that, but I see no professionalism there.
    And Fashion Tales, what part of him is for the people? You do mean minority people, right? Better yet, you mean the proletariat, right? He has officially put the notion in weak-minded Americans’ heads that to be rich and successful (aka CEO’s, Wall Street, etc) is synonymous with evil. Where is the logic in that? Aren’t we the land of opportunity? Where is the sense in taking my tax dollars to fund a job for someone who hasn’t earned it?
    He’s for the people, all right: gullible people.

    • And by the way, Bush didn’t use egregious non-verbal pauses like Obama does.

      OMG, you have GOT to be kidding. Bush didn’t use non-verbal pauses because Bush didn’t and doesn’t have the ability to think. (And what do you think those “egregious” pauses are for? To take the time to gather facts and thoughts!) Bush took questions which were pre-approved by people who were pre-approved to be anywhere he spoke. If they had an offending bumper sticker on their car they were sent away.

      I love when one of those 28% of the dumbest people in America come around and show their own ignorance by telling us how wonderful Bush was and that Obama is a dolt. After eight years of Bush mangling words, mangling thought (what little he had), smirking at completely inappropriate times, like when talking about war and casualties, and everything else wrought on this country, you can come here and say “Harvard” like it is some institution that doesn’t exist (nice McCain air quotes there) and that Obama is unprofessional? You are a tool of the worst kind.

  8. I really don’t like to get heated on the internet, but let me clear something up.

    There’s no need to get upset. I’m simply pointing out that Bush is no longer in office, so let’s all forget him. I didn’t like him, either. (And you’re right, he wasn’t perfect either.) Also, McCain lost because he was a moderate. I didn’t like him anymore than you did or do now, but for me, he was my only choice.

    And if you’re talking about Bush having “pre-approved” questions, what makes you think that Obama hasn’t used ACORN to use such methods as well? I’m not saying he does, but surely you can’t be serious if you think that George W. Bush is the only President to have done something like that.

    And Harvard is a real place, actually; I know that. But simply put, I don’t think we should elect men based on where they went to college, whether it was Harvard or not. There is a large group of people that believe that just because he wrote for the Harvard Law Review, he is naturally articulate, etc. I would accept him just for being articulate, not because he wrote some paper.

    If you’re referring to me as one of this 28% you’re talking about, that’s very unprofessional and quite insulting. And calling me a “tool” is, also. I never attacked you personally, never called you out personally, never did anything of the sort, yet it appears that I have angered you somehow; I’m simply engaging in political conversation. Usually when I see a “hot post” on the homepage, I want to know why it’s “hot.” It’s nothing personal towards you. You can believe whatever you want.

    I’m really sorry I upset you. I was under a different impression:

    “We are a friendly, and generally laid back group linked by a common passion. If you would like to join this gathering, you are welcome! Please join us in the comments section for active and engaging conversation, and the occasional Cesspool Party.
    Open and uncensored dialog does not mean no rules. The pertinent definitions of the word “dialog” are:

    a. a conversation between two or more persons.

    b. an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, esp. a political or religious issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement. (Example: agreeing to disagree)

    If a visitor persistently behaves in a way that violates this meaning, then dialog is not happening, or even worse is being hindered, and it is the job of “Admin” to take action.

    This is not about censoring ideas, it’s about managing the site responsibly and staying true to its goal of being a site that is welcoming to open discussion rather than intimidating to open discussion.”

    I don’t appreciate the harshness.

    • I’m sorry RR Irwin, but it’s simply not possible, nor is it advisable, for us to “forget” George W. Bush. Surely you can’t be serious?

      Also, ACORN is simply a voter registration entity. They would not be making up “pre-approved” questions for the President. I don’t even know where you might get such an idea.

      BTW, writing for the Harvard Law Review is rather prestigious. Although, since GWB was given a gentleman’s degree, it is rather tarnished.

      Thanks for stopping by.

  9. All I’m saying is that you can only blame that man for so much. I would rather see immediate action by Obama rather than the continued saying, “I inherited this.” (No, I’m not saying this is necessarily an actual quote.)

    Also, never said that the Harvard Law Review wasn’t prestigious, but Dr. Jack Kevorkian has written some pretty impressive pieces too. Adolf Hitler wrote some prestigious works, also. Do we simply look at those achievements to judge a man’s character? No. That’s all I meant by that. By all means, congratulations to Mr. Obama for what he did at Harvard.

    By “forget,” I mean put the past where it belongs: behind us. Yes, George W. made some terrible choices, and for some like you (and me, sometimes), it’s almost impossible to displace ourselves from some of the things he did, but he is not in office anymore. People criticized him for 8 years, yet nobody said boo. Why is it all of a sudden wrong for us to bring up valid points for consideration? What I would love to see, what I’d really love to see, is President Obama truly uniting this nation like he claimed during his campaign. I would love to see his words played into valiant action.

    Can we all just get past the Bush hatred?

    That’s all I’m trying to say, but I’m done commenting. Appreciate what you’ve said. Have a great day.

    • President Obama has been in office for a little more than 60 days. I think he’s gotten an amazing amount of work done, considering the mess this country is in. It is a factual statement that he inherited all of this mess from George W. Bush, and the actions of previous administrations going back to Reagan.

      I was only addressing the Harvard Law Review. Citing Kervorkian and Hitler is a strawman, and I’m sure you’re aware of that.

      I’m sorry, there is no “forgetting” the past. We are still living with, and suffering from, actions taken in the past — and will be for some time. Are we living in the same country, Mr Irwin? George W. Bush declared that he was a “uniter, not a divider,” and then proceeded to divide this country more deeply than it has ever been. I would like to see this country united again, but the right really must stop with the obstructionist tactics (Republican Congress) and fearmongering (Dick Cheney et al).

      George W. Bush and his administration must be held accountable — no one is above the law. Nixon was not held accountable. George H.W. Bush was not held accountable. Look at the hubris in the Bush administration! This really must stop, because this country simply cannot take it anymore. We have reached a breaking point, but this country is salvageable.

      Won’t you join us in trying to save this country? For all Americans?

      • I am completely floored that anyone could possibly press the “Let’s just forget Bush” concept. How and why would or could we forget lying into war, wasting a budget surplus, cutting taxes at a time of war, saying we need to sacrifice by shopping, continual job loss, transfer of wealth, and the other things that supposed conservative values wrought upon this country? I am sorry, that simply is not an option.

        We have to remember what brought us to this point so that it doesn’t happen AGAIN. We, meaning the majority of Republicans (read: Gramm/Leach/Bililey and the Financial Modernization Act) sought to overturn what was put in place after the Republican Hoover did nothing making FDR a hero, and now a villain in the eyes of the current “conservatives,” because THEY DID NOT LEARN LESSONS OF THE PAST. Mr. Irwin might buy into the Grover Norquist vision of drowning our government in a bathtub, but I happen to like roads, bridges, schools and the like.

        You cannot have a country for two or three percent of the country. It simply does not work. Trickle down does not work. Period.

        We must NEVER forget what brought us here. Not now, not in 10 years, not in 500 years. Not ever.

  10. Well I’m glad we can agree to disagree. We’ll see what happens in the next couple of months, years, etc.

    And I do live in the same country as you do, just to clear that up, also :). I will help this country by practicing my beliefs, as will you, my friend.

    And yes, it is a nice thing to be popular :).

    Best wishes.

Comments are closed.