Today is
Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Google Safe Search


Home > Perspective

Bizarre Idiots and Teleprompters in Presidential Debates!


In the bizarre inverse universe that is the 2012 Presidential campaign, I thought that I had heard it all. The Left running pure lies as campaign commercials, and then staunchly defending them and attempting to call the fact-checkers liars; polls juiced as never before; sycophantic Democrat Operatives with bylines writing Mitt Romney’s epitaph before October 1. I thought that the shenanigans would taper off and perhaps even end with Mr. Romney’s commanding performance in last week’s initial debate. Boy, was I ever the fool!

On October 6, 2012, the news report that flabbergasted me more than any other I have ever seen, not just in this election cycle, but in my entire life made it onto my screen, via a Facebook share. The Blaze reports that Democrats are now complaining about the “unfairness” of not allowing President Obama to use his infamous teleprompter – at the Presidential Debate! I wish that this article was a joke from The Onion or something. Alas, this is true.

Lefties in Wisconsin, at an Obama rally, demanded that the President be able to use his teleprompter during the debate. I do not know if this is reflective of actual sentiment in the Obama campaign organization or simply the opinions of the plebiscite, but it almost doesn’t matter.

These jugheads complained about the difficulty of – I kid you not – memorizing “an hour and a half debate!” The very notion that the President of the United States of America is supposed to be an automaton that answers every question with an answer pre-prepared by his handlers is offensive to the founding principles of our country. Robust discourse replaced by focus-group-tested sound bites.

Don’t these paramount nimrods understand that a debate is not just another venue where those who seek power and office simply recite what their handlers think is likely to make the people vote for them? A debate tests a candidate’s ability to think on his or her feet; to react to a stressful situation; to comprehend a problem and present a cogent solution. A debate tests the candidate’s mettle for doing exactly what he or she must do daily in office. To render a debate response into nothing more challenging than what a network news anchor reads in front of the camera is to reduce the president to a conduit for the thoughts of others.

Look at the Wednesday night debates. Mitt Romney showed his ability to think on his feet, and showed his command of the issues and his ability to communicate directly and ad-hoc. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, showed his ability to recite a sound bite, and his testiness when Mr. Romney responded with well-reasoned refutations. This was telling to everyone. Even the sycophants at MSNBC were astounded by President Obama’s horrible performance.

It is any wonder that this president caused the Congress to split into two? He cannot carry on a conversation and listen to an opposing point without becoming upset. For President Obama, it seems that it is his way – or the highway. That is divisive and counterproductive in domestic policy disputes; it is dangerous in foreign policy disputes.

President Obama has shown this exact tendency with world leaders, along with the related trait of egotism. Mr. Obama gave Queen Elizabeth II of England the “gift” of an iPod, pre-loaded with some of his speeches. The president insulted Israel and the Jewish community here by refusing a meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, as Israel faces an existential threat from Iran and its nuclear ambitions; when called on his stupidity (he chose to appear on ABC’s The View instead of meeting with our only true ally in the Middle East), he responded with pro-Israeli platitudes, and still refused to meet with Mr. Netanyahu.

Now the people received a firsthand look at just how insular and impatient the president is. If he can’t be bothered with countering Mitt Romney’s assertions with something other than a handler-prepared sound bite, how on Earth will he handle an actual, serious, international crisis? Just ask ambassador Chris Stevens, oh wait, Mr. Obama’s mishandling of the Middle East cost this poor man his life.

The debates give us the ability to see a president’s response to a microcosm of the same things with which he or she will be faced when he or she enters office. If a presidential contender, or even an incumbent, fails that test, it is a strong sign that the person is unfit for office.

You saw Mr. Obama’s debate performance. I leave his fitness for office to your judgment.