UPDATE BELOW
Remember all those moronic, infantile, doltish comments infecting the intertubes about Mr. Obama and his use of the teleprompter?
Yeah. The rightwingers even set up a blog called Barack Obama's Teleprompter's Blog, or some such idiocy.
Well, guess what:
So when will rightwingers set up a blog mocking Willard's consistent and unrelenting use of the teleprompter?
Their stupid criticism of President Obama's use of something every modern president has employed to give speeches speaks to their unhinged hatred of our president.
I haven't seen anything on the left about Mr. Romney's use of the teleprompter at every speech he gives, and that's because liberals understand a teleprompter has nothing to do with a candidate's intelligence or ability to speak in public. But the squirrel-brained conservatives who unrelentingly hammered Mr. Obama on this non-issue haven't the sense to understand that simple fact.
This post is up just to show how imbecilic, nonsensical, and asinine the conservatives who promoted this issue are.
UPDATE:
Going into this beautiful weekend, think about this fascinating news about First Lady Michelle Obama's convention speech:
Michelle Obama's Speech Gets More Online Views Than The Entire RNC Convention
This is very satisfying news to us, since we've had to endure reading the puerile names and insults the knuckle-draggers on the extreme right have thrown at America's First Lady. The satisfying part of this is that behavior accomplished absolutely nothing. First Lady Michelle Obama is overwhelmingly admired and loved by the American people, and more of them went on line to watch her brilliant speech than watched the entire Republican Convention.
45 comments:
Nothing is too petty or asinine for them to hit on our president about. At some point it must register in the public consciousness what that says about the extremist right, the racially bigoted, the dumb and dumber.
Maybe when that happens it will no longer be OKIYAR.
I am guessing we won't be hearing much on this from the malcontents on the right...
Even Ann Romney got in on the "Obama uses a TelePrompTer" non-joke week before last when she said she'd be delivering a speech at the GOP Convention but "she wouldn't be using a TelePrompTer." I am so glad that First Lady Michelle Obama has the grace not to embarrass herself and her husband with such partisan, inane comments.
What is the driving narrative behind all of those Obama teleprompter jabs and jokes?
My theory is that they were just another way to demean our first bi-racial president and diminish him--a cheap way of implying that he really isn't as intelligent and gifted as people think he is because of his teleprompter use, which ignores the fact that all modern presidents have used the device.
IOW, I believe most of the people who promoted the teleprompter foolishness were employing a safer means of denigrating the president than coming right out and saying what was really behind their insults.
And we all understand what that is.
Telepromter, big deal. As you say using one isn't an indicator of a persons lack of intelligence. A president's policies and their effectiveness is.
And my take is Romney's reliance on the teleprompter to stay on script and focus is just as great, if not more so than Obama.
As majii noted upthread, even Ann Romney used the teleprompter jab as a cheap shot at the president, probably to match her husband's weaselly "No one's asked me for my birth certificate." yuk, yuk.
I wonder of Mrs. Romeny made her remark while Romney's people were setting up the teleprompters for her husband's next speech. LOL!
Shaw, even the Wash Times noticed or maybe they're reading you.
Thanks, Kevin.
For those who won't use the link, here is the middle and end of the Washington Times article from January 2012:
"Mr. Romney has dinged the president for using a teleprompter in the past. In 2008, he told Glenn Beck that Mr. Obama "speaks well" and "reads the teleprompter well."
The Washington Post reported that after delivering remarks during a town hall meeting in Florida in October, a woman lauded Mr. Romney: "You did all of this without a teleprompter. Good job!"
"You didn't see the teleprompter?" Mr. Romney replied. "It's in my watch, actually. I just look down."
Newt Gingrich, though, has perhaps had the most fun ridiculing Mr. Obama in his stump speeches, where he vows to challenge the president to seven "Lincoln-Douglas" style debates. "If he wants to use a teleprompter, that would be fine with me," Mr. Gingrich has said. "It has to be fair. If you had to defend ObamaCare, wouldn't you want a teleprompter?"
Asked about Mr. Romney's use of the teleprompters during his victory speech on Tuesday, the campaign did not respond.
Yahoo News, meanwhile, reported last week that Mr. Romney also planned to use a teleprompter for his victory speech in Iowa, but those plans were thrown off because the race was too close to call at the time, forcing him to resort to a version of his familiar stump speech."
As President Clinton said in his speech this week at the Democratic convention:
"You have to have brass to criticize someone for what you did yourself."
But then, Romney is appealing to the low-information voters, isn't he. No one else would fall for this nonsense.
WOW! What a find!
LBJ was the first president to use a teleprompter.
Republiscums want to go back to the 19th century, so teleprompters are out.
Typically hypocritical, Republiscums again, attack their opponents for something they do.
The evidence shows that Romney, or GB can not speak without a teleprompter.
Evidence shows Obama and Clinton can speak for hours without a teleprompter.
Love this. I commented on my FB: "Funny that Clinton went off script for most of his speech and didn't use teleprompters to tell the truth while Republicans used them to tell lies."
Of course the snide remarks from the fright-wingers about Obama's use of the teleprompter is just another small-minded attempt to try and demean his intelligence because he's black. Teleprompters have been in use since LBJ by every president since except for GWB, and God knows, he more than any of the others could have benefited from them.
"Silverfiddle said...
WOW! What a find!"
So saith the internet's self-appointed blog critic on anything he can't refute.
Silver, what do you make of the fact that many of the blogs you visit and comment on regularly are almost serial carpers on Obama's use of the TelePrompTer but have no problem with Mitt using it?
Is it a double standard?
Once again, republicans bitch about democrats doing something that republicans themselves are doing.
I have done a little public speaking and the thought of using numerous teleprompters is intimidating. I would think it would be more difficult than referring to notes.
I imagine the speaker has to shift between three screens (by the look of it) and then find where they were and stay fluid. Then there is the chance of electrical failure or goof up by the crews. With the 12" legal pad at least I know where is it is and can skip ahead if needed :)
On making fun of Obama for using teleprompters; they guy is a gifted speaker, always has been by clips I've seen at Harvard.
If I invest my time and emotional support to a cause, criticism of the cause feels personal to me, especially an unsolicited critical critique. It’s the reason I expect others to be careful when offering unsolicited critique of nutritional choices, or on my faith, my lack of faith, my children’s behavior; unless I ask or pay for it. Why? Because there is a good chance we will take them personally.
But in politics, especially on the net, anything goes on both sides; Republiscums, Demtards, projected hatred, making fun of religion, making fun of no religion, likeness to Hitler …. and the dreaded teleprompter :-
I am willing to bet, the teleprompter comments by Obama’s opposition have never entered the President’s mind. Teleprompter jokes = not a big deal.
Dave, have you noticed that some commenters on some far left blogs put down believers of Jesus Christ? Not too many progressives who believe stand up to them even though Obama has committed himself to Christ and goes up to altar call. And on the far right, have you noticed than some believers in Christ call Obama a Muslim?
I consider these examples of double standards.
Dave, after over three years of blogging it seems apparent, at least in my never humble opinion that double standards are prevalent in left blogistan as well as right blogistan. I suppose it is the nature of politics as well as human interpretation of things. But yeah, with respect to this particular subject I chuckle both at the waste of time and the absurdity of it all.
RN is the perfect example of "double standard."
He has to have everything his way, on both sides of an issue.
Oh, that's right, he has no dog in this election.
He did vote for Republicans for the last 30 years, so our mess is his fault.
Chuck Grassley makes the argument for a continued Republican minority in the Senate:
As Romney speaks notice he is smart enough to do so wo TelePrompTer unlike obama
— @ChuckGrassley via Twitter for iPhone
Shaw: What is there to refute? You're right. Romney's using a teleprompter. What do you want me to do, deny it?
This post isn't about whether or not you acknowledge Romney uses a teleprompter.
I put this blogpost up to show how foolish and childish the whole teleprompter accusations against Mr. Obama are, since all presidents have used a teleprompter [with the possible exception of GWB, since it was difficult for him to read a teleprompter because of his dylexia].
The teleprompter controversy was just anothr way for people on the fringe to try to diminish the president's intelligence and make Mr. Obama look incompetent.
Happily, it didn't work, and Romney's use of the teleprompter makes the people who pushed this "joke" look stupid.
Your dismissive first comment appeared to be something someone who realizes the foolishness of the GOP's effort to make Mr. Obama look dumb would say to try to get attention off the subject.
This is very satisfying news to us, since we've had to endure reading the puerile names and insults the knuckle-draggers on the extreme right have thrown at America's First Lady.
Yes, very satisfying. The insults I see thrown at Michelle Obama on even moderate Republican sites are disgusting and disturbing. These days right-wingers in general seem to have a major problem with blacks and women who "get above" their stereotypical station, as we can see from the racism targeting the President and the sexism vomited up at Ms. Fluke. So I suppose it's to be expected that the country's most prominent black woman would be subject to the very worst. Thanks goodness most Americans don't share such attitudes.
It looks like the President won the ratings competition:
President Barack Obama can beat rival Mitt Romney as a television draw, but can't eclipse his old self.
The Nielsen company said 35.7 million people watched the final night of the Democratic convention on Thursday between 10 and 11 p.m. Eastern time. That's when the president delivered his nomination acceptance speech.
Last week, Mitt Romney had 30.3 million viewers for his speech at the GOP convention, with an assist from Clint Eastwood.
And it looks like the President is getting a serious boost in his personal approval rating as well.
I guess none of that matters if the bully pulpit and soapbox are irrelevant to policy and elections. But something tells me the people who say that are wrong.
"The teleprompter controversy was just anothr way for people on the fringe to try to diminish the president's intelligence and make Mr. Obama look incompetent."
But, but, but....in Romney's case it is true. He is lower in intelligence and is incompetent. :)
@Jerry Critter I have been trying to figure out what Gollum is chewing on in your avatar. Can you clear that up? Thanks in advance.
I remember, I guess I'm going t show my age, when Ronald Reagan spoke in the British House of Commons and they were all surprised at how he spoke so eloquently without missing a beat and losing track. The teleprompter was new to them. I remember when Clinton would use a teleprompter as President and stray from it and then swing back when he felt like it frustrating the people who would operate it. You see he used it like most fairly intelligent people use it, like President Obama uses it, as another tool, another color in the crayon box. It's there when you need it and easily dismissed when you don't.
I would have to wonder about those people who look at technology as if it's witchcraft and ask myself, how on earth can they expect to get sane people to support them?
KP and RN... For me, yes, both sides dabble in double standard criticism of the other candidates. The difference IMHO, which Shaw has pointed out numerous times, is that on the case of Pres. Obama, that criticism has taken on a different life than we have seen with other presidents.
Over the years we have seen some pretty horrible things said about our presidents, most recently Clinton and Bush. But no stepped up and said the reason they were bad was that they were unAmerican. That has been a major part of every criticism of Obama since he took office.
Even in 2000 after Florida, Dems, while not believing Bush won the election, and some believing and still believing, never said he was unAmerican and thus not even able to be a President in our country.
Have the Dems denied or refused to stand up for their faith over the years out of fear of alienating their base? Yes. Have they engaged in terrible double standards and critiques of the GOP over the years? Yes. But... have they ever mocked the citizenship of a GOP candidate for President? No. Have the ever called him, and implied that he arrived at his principles because he is from another country? No.
A fair question, and it is not about the TelePrompTer at all, is why.
Strip everything aside and venture a guess as to the answer and then tell me why I should vote for that party.
Finally, like most of you, I can tell my future grand kids that they too can be President. I only hope that if they decide to run, they too will not be called unAmerican.
The difference is, he is our first BLACK president.
The idea that some of the ridiculous smears against Obama are not racially motivated, is poppycock.
Racism, unfortunately, is part of the attacks on our president.
To ask if the president is American born, is a Constitutional qualification.
When that question has been answered 3,4,5,6, times, yet, continued to be asked, is racist.
To imply something every president has done for decades is wrong for Obama to do, is racist.
KP: "If I invest my time and emotional support to a cause, criticism of the cause feels personal to me, especially an unsolicited critical critique. It’s the reason I expect others to be careful when offering unsolicited critique of nutritional choices, or on my faith, my lack of faith, my children’s behavior; unless I ask or pay for it. Why? Because there is a good chance we will take them personally."
SK: Yes. Exactly. The First Lady actually took up the cause of good nutrition and exercise for our children, and she received insult after insult for doing so. Most of the insulters mistook her efforts as "the government trying to tell us what to feed our children." Of course that was never the case. And then there were the endless jabs about HER body and her eating habits.
Laura Bush, an elegant and lovely First Lady, never received such rank criticism for her encouraging children to read. I don't recall any concerted effort to paint her as "forcing our children to do what SHE wants them to do," or some such nonsense.
Infidel753,
The racial insults to Mrs. Obama will increase not diminish, I'm sorry to say, as we approach November. I've already seen an example of this on a conservative blog that let stand a link to a photo of an ape in reference to Mrs. Obama. Of course I won't link to it, but Dave Miller will understand which blog it is when I say the hostess believes in "false facts."
The GOP's nightmare,
I read that as well, and was happily surprised.
Curious,
The running "joke" about Mr. Obama's use of the teleprompter is really Rovian in what it hoped to accomplished: Turning one of Mr. Obama's strengthes--his oratorical gift--into a weakness and implying that he's too dumb to speak without a teleprompter.
Dave,
Agreed. The implication that President Obama is not a real citizen or that he's not a genuine Christian has been supported by the GOP all during his term in office. It's not just the fringe promoting these falsehoods. When you have the GOP candidate invite the biggest Birther in the country, Trump, to speak at your convention [he was cancelled by Isaac], that is an indication that the highest ranking officials of the GOP sanction the lies about Mr. Obama's birth and religion.
Dave wrote: "Have the Dems denied or refused to stand up for their faith over the years out of fear of alienating their base?"
President Obama has not shied away from talking about his Christian faith. As the leader of the Democratic Party, I think that says more about Democrats and their religious tolerance than any individual who avoids doing so.
IMO, I don't think religion should be mixed with politics.
Maybe he did so, but I don't remember Ronald Reagan bringing his faith or the mention of Jesus into a lot of his public speaking. IIRC, that was because the GOP's biggest hero was not a particularly religious man.
See below for what he said in a famous speech given at Temple Hillel in Valley Stream, NY, in Oct. 1984.
President Reagan:
"We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.
In SF's post today SF claims Mayor Nagin was responsible for the unnecessary deaths and suffering during Katrina.
One could call him stupid, because the facts do not back up his claim.
SF calls New Orleans the "Chocolate City" in his post. Clearly, a racist comment.
Republiscums hated Clinton, but worked with him to get things done for the country.
Work with our first black president, no way.
Republiscums claim they are fighting against policies they disagree with, but Republiscums haven't agreed with Democratic policies since they started their party, yet, things got done. Why a total shut down now?
It's like the supporters of ChickFlick who claim they do not support the anti-gay agenda, yet, ChickFlick gives millions to the Republiscum legislators who write anti-gay bills.
"Double standard"? Hypocrisy? Sure!
It's bigotry and hate.
"SF calls New Orleans the "Chocolate City" in his post. Clearly, a racist comment."
Actually, Steve, Mayor Nagin referred to NO as "Chocolate City."
But I'm wondering why SF is even talking about Nagin.
Is it because of this?
Wow!
Expect the braying against Mr. Obama and the Democrats to get louder and louder because of this.
Nagin apologized, SF should also.
Like I said about RN's comment that Jews went willingly to the gas chambers; I'll forgive that he wrote that, but I won't forget that's the kind of person he is.
From SF's post today:
"Ray Nagin, mayor of the Chocolate City"
Your being nice to SF. He did not refer to what Nagin said, he defined NO as the "Chocolate City."
Repeating a racial slur doesn't make it less offensive.
Knowing it is seen as a racial slur, SF chose to use it anyways.
KP,
It's a fish.
On the non-issue of including God in the DNC platform, I agree with this post from Leslie Parsley's fb page:
Bill Peach:
"One of the basic differences in the political dialogue between the two parties, or at least in public dialogue, resurfaced during the Democratic convention. The inclusion or deletion of the word God in or on a political platform, political document, coin, paper currency, bumper sticker to some people has a tendency to demean the sanctity of our religious tradition. I grew up in a church background in which we recited Exodus 20:7, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." I would never accuse any political party or candidate of this, but I am offended that there was any thought of the Democratic Party being less spiritual for their decision to separate the secular from religious, and I question the temerity of the Democratic Party for an awkward political reaction to a political ploy. We do an injustice to the sincerity of our moral values when we bring God to politics."
@Dave and @Shaw Thanks for your thoughtful answers relative to criticism of past Presidents and our current President. I hear what you are saying about the un-American comments.
I take the un-American comment coming from the fringe right with disappointment and a grain of salt before dismissing it as untrue. I don't make light of the fact that such comments are uncomfortable for us. But you both have a responsibility as well.
I do believe people who said nasty things about Clinton and the sex scandals thought they were true and that he was a liar if not a law breaker.
And I do believe that people who said nasty things about Bush never being a legitimate President because the election was stolen actually felt that way.
That reminds for me to feel your discomfort. But I urge you to keep these things in context. It is a small percentage of people who lose emotional control and act in bigoted ways; that small number is always loudest and gets the most attention. It is decidedly unfair to project racism or bigotry on an entire party. I will not accept that, ever.
There is enough strife and hatred in this world. I continue to show respect for your right to your opinion about both the current President and Romney. I do not use my posts to spray negativity and hatred.
I do not live on the fringe. Nor is my daily life happy or sad because of what some fringe element said about Clinton, Bush or says about Obama and Romney. Life, love and people are what are important. That is the way I live my life and help shape my community.
I concede there are bigots on the right. However, I don’t think there are more bigots on the right than bigots on the left. Both fringe elements seem to think they are entitled to their anger, ideology and racism. I refuse to make decisions based on that type of thought process (from either side).
Excellent, KP. Good advice and good words to live by.
If we agree leaders speak for their whole party, then we must look at what those leaders say, do and associate themselves with.
Bohner and McConnell both questioned the presidents birth certificate, even after Hawaiian State officials (including the Governor) produced Obama's birth certificate and swore it was official and true.
The new leader (Romney) has a close friend in Trump. Trump has supported Romney and Romney has stated that Trump is not only a friend, but a large contributor to his election campaign.
Trump has no evidence that Obama's birth certificate is forged, or not factual, but continues to say so.
Why would Romney accept support from a man who continues to spew racist lies?
Only in the face of irrefutable facts did Bohner and McConnell change their position, that Obama's birth certificate is genuine, yet, they do not speak out against those in their party that continue to spew that lie. In fact, they seek out the support of those who believe and continue to publicly repeat that lie.
The figures tell us there is no voter fraud problem in America, yet, Republiscum Governors and Republiscum State officials pass laws (voter ID, stop early voting, etc.) to stop a "no problem"; even though the facts say those laws will stop (suppress) legal, legitimate voters (overwhelmingly minority and Democratic voters) from voting.
One Republiscum official refused to implement a judges order and the judge called him to his court to explain.
The leaders of, and the whole Republiscum party support these laws.
The Republiscum party is racist.
The proof is in their official actions as elected representatives, and the discriminatory voter laws they pass.
Those laws have been overturned by courts across the country, as being discriminatory.
There are more examples and plenty of evidence that these race based, false charges are not just a few, but do represent the whole Republiscum party.
This does not represent the whole republican party Steve. Your statement is hyperbole and nothing more. Obvious and extreme hatred for all republicans says much about you..
When their leaders promote it, they put it in their platform, it is the whole party.
Yours is a poor attempt to try and say otherwise, is not backed up by the facts.
Typical Republiscum.
Anon 1:51am,
RN,
Do you ever bring facts with your name calling?
When their leaders promote it, they put it in their platform, it is the whole party.
Yours is a poor attempt to try and say otherwise, is not backed up by the facts.
Typical Republiscum.
Post a Comment