Obama and the Teleprompter

[BeAChooser]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/teleprompter-gone-bad-obama-thanks-irish-pm-repeats-speech/


Obama Thanks Himself, Irish PM Repeats Speech in Teleprompter Meltdown

March 18, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen was just a few paragraphs into an address at a St. Patrick's Day celebration at the White House when he realized something sounded way too familiar. Turns out, he was repeating the speech President Barack Obama had just given.

... snip ...
But Cowen was 20 seconds into his second address when it dawned on him that he was giving word for word the speech that Obama had just read from the same teleprompter.

Cowen stopped and looked back at the president to say, "That's your speech."

Obama laughed and returned to the podium to offer what might have been Cowen's remarks. In doing so, President Obama thanked President Obama for inviting everyone over.

Earlier, the president claimed an Irish ancestry to Ireland's leader and joked to Congress that his genealogy could have helped him as a once-unknown Chicago politician.


Now if Bush had done that, what would democrats be saying? Why they'd be insulting his intelligence, of course. And they'd be replaying the gaff over and over and over and over on the mainstream *news* shows. Say, have any of you seen the mainstream news networks show, much less mention, this blunder (other than Fox)? Did Jay Leno mention it in his monologue ... or was he too busy worshiping Obama? Has SNL done a skit yet lampooning the President over this? :D

Come on democrats ... admit it ... this is funny (and a little scary):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSnEMV58F8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fradioviceonline%2Ecom%2Frevenge% 2Dof%2Dthe%2Dteleprompter%2Dpart%2Ddeux%2F&feature=player_embedded

[balrog666]

So he's just another boob. Didn't we all know that already?

[BeAChooser]

So he's just another boob. Didn't we all know that already?


Well apparently, some people don't:

http://theobamaforum.com/showthread.php?t=2612&page=2 "Obama clearly the smartest president in recent history"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCV9ZoV--BY "this is a guy whose IQ is off the charts ... he's probably the smartest guy ever to become President."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/13/maher.king/index.html "he certainly is the smartest guy we've had there that I can remember."

http://www.theinsider.com/photos/1458314_Barack_Obama_Shirtless_In_Hawaii "Obama is the cutest ant smartest President ever to take office. He is incredibly popular with the American public. The only people who don't like him are ultra-right wing extremists and that's understandable because they are retarded like Sarah Palin."


http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Obama's+markets%3A+Please+be +quiet&articleId=9ca1d5f8-b299-413c-a929-d6cfc79bd697 "Obama is by far the smartest president we've had in a while"

http://randeepramesh.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-too-smart-for-president.html "Apart from race, the most important thing about the new president is that it marks the return of the Intellectual in Office. Obama is smart."

http://blog.seattlepi.com/davidhorsey/archives/161637.asp "no one can argue that he's not a hell of a lot more mentally nimble than many of his predecessors."

http://yaforobama.ning.com/profiles/blogs/whats-wrong-with-being-smart "ots of my friends can drink beer, and not one of them could get us out of this financial crisis or the trouble in Iraq. That’s why I want the smartest person in the room to be my president. And Senator Barack Obama is the smartest person in the room right now."

http://www.zazzle.com/obama_this_time_i_want_a_smart_president_t_shirt-235677253675480140

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/11/obamas_main_street_focus.html "He's by far the smartest president we've ever had and as such we should trust his judgement."

:D

[kallsop]

I hope there's video. You've got to admit though, he's a real genius with the teleprompter.

Hope and Change, says it right there on the 'promter.

[KoihimeNakamura]

.... You started a thread over this?

[GreyICE]

Straws.

You're clutching at them.

[Kevin_Lowe]

If this is the best BAC can come up with...

[jj]

I see the "down with Obama" jihad continues.

[Redtail]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/teleprompter-gone-bad-obama-thanks-irish-pm-repeats-speech/



Now if Bush had done that, what would democrats be saying? Why they'd be insulting his intelligence, of course. And they'd be replaying the gaff over and over and over and over on the mainstream *news* shows. Say, have any of you seen the mainstream news networks show, much less mention, this blunder (other than Fox)? Did Jay Leno mention it in his monologue ... or was he too busy worshiping Obama? Has SNL done a skit yet lampooning the President over this? :D

Come on democrats ... admit it ... this is funny (and a little scary):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSnEMV58F8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fradioviceonline%2Ecom%2Frevenge% 2Dof%2Dthe%2Dteleprompter%2Dpart%2Ddeux%2F&feature=player_embedded

Or... Obama was making a joke.... Oooo! Would it be better if he said "...Well..." instead of "um"? :D

Oh! better yet! Why would SNL lampoon the president on Wednesday? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12044467af2cd27d18.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6485)

[Mojo]

At least you have a president who can read from a teleprompter.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Ooooo. So this is what desperation sounds like.

I always figured it would be accompanied by a Glen Beck monologue.

[Lonewulf]

Ooooo. So this is what desperation sounds like.

I always figured it would be accompanied by a Glen Beck monologue.

*sniff* I'm sorry... it's just... *cry* I love this country.

[Undesired Walrus]

Well apparently, some people don't:

http://theobamaforum.com/showthread.php?t=2612&page=2 "Obama clearly the smartest president in recent history"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCV9ZoV--BY "this is a guy whose IQ is off the charts ... he's probably the smartest guy ever to become President."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/13/maher.king/index.html "he certainly is the smartest guy we've had there that I can remember."

http://www.theinsider.com/photos/1458314_Barack_Obama_Shirtless_In_Hawaii "Obama is the cutest ant smartest President ever to take office. He is incredibly popular with the American public. The only people who don't like him are ultra-right wing extremists and that's understandable because they are retarded like Sarah Palin."


http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Obama's+markets%3A+Please+be +quiet&articleId=9ca1d5f8-b299-413c-a929-d6cfc79bd697 "Obama is by far the smartest president we've had in a while"

http://randeepramesh.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-too-smart-for-president.html "Apart from race, the most important thing about the new president is that it marks the return of the Intellectual in Office. Obama is smart."

http://blog.seattlepi.com/davidhorsey/archives/161637.asp "no one can argue that he's not a hell of a lot more mentally nimble than many of his predecessors."

http://yaforobama.ning.com/profiles/blogs/whats-wrong-with-being-smart "ots of my friends can drink beer, and not one of them could get us out of this financial crisis or the trouble in Iraq. That’s why I want the smartest person in the room to be my president. And Senator Barack Obama is the smartest person in the room right now."

http://www.zazzle.com/obama_this_time_i_want_a_smart_president_t_shirt-235677253675480140

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/11/obamas_main_street_focus.html "He's by far the smartest president we've ever had and as such we should trust his judgement."


Seriously man, how long did this take you? A stray post on the ObamaForum for christsakes?

I'm guessing you would have considered it cheap and unfair if the left had lampooned Bush for this kind of mistake, as would I. Yet when it happens to Obama, it is fair game.

[Rolfe]

Hey, hang on a minute! Reading the quote in the OP, the impression I got was that it was Cowen who made the gaffe. He managed "several paragraphs" of a speech that not only wasn't the one he was supposed to be giving, but was in fact the one he'd just listened to, before realising his mistake. This is absolutely terrible. It suggests Cowen is in the habit of standing up and reading anything that's put in front of him, with no thought and no preparation. If I was Irish, I'd be beating my head against the wall right now.

But I totally don't see what Obama is supposed to have done wrong. He'd already given his speech, the right one. It says so right there. That's how Cowen finally realised his mistake - he realised he was repeating what Obama had just said.

Then what? Remember the story about one of the British royal family and the fingerbowl? A guest at a royal banquet didn't know what the finger bowl was for (it's for rinsing your fingers, rednecks!) and drank some water from it. The aristocracy were horrified at the ignorance of polite table manners. The king, however, picked up his own finger bowl and sipped some water from it. This is generally regarded as a shining example of savoir faire. [ETA: Trying to trace this story, I find it is regarded as apocryphal, possibly attributed to Queen Victoria, though I heard it told about one of the early 20th century kings.]

Obama seems to have done something very similar. He turned this appalling gaffe by Cowan into a joke, by pretending to deliver part of Cowan's speech, then thanking himself.

Obama is a class act, on this evidence.

Does the opening poster not realise this? From the quote he himself has posted?

Rolfe.

[Megalodon]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/teleprompter-gone-bad-obama-thanks-irish-pm-repeats-speech/



Now if Bush had done that, what would democrats be saying? Why they'd be insulting his intelligence, of course. And they'd be replaying the gaff over and over and over and over on the mainstream *news* shows. Say, have any of you seen the mainstream news networks show, much less mention, this blunder (other than Fox)? Did Jay Leno mention it in his monologue ... or was he too busy worshiping Obama? Has SNL done a skit yet lampooning the President over this? :D

Come on democrats ... admit it ... this is funny (and a little scary):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSnEMV58F8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fradioviceonline%2Ecom%2Frevenge% 2Dof%2Dthe%2Dteleprompter%2Dpart%2Ddeux%2F&feature=player_embedded

I don't know about Bush, but your intelligence would be easy to insult, if it was anywhere to be found.

This is a FAIL of REO Speedwagon proportions...

[Rolfe]

This is a FAIL of REO Speedwagon proportions...


:dl:

Oh yes! [Wipes away tears of laughter.]

I just read the whole of the article quoted in the OP, but the quoted bits pretty much cover it. Brian Cowen made a horrible gaffe, and Obama defused the situation by turning it into a joke. The actual headline is a bit misleading, but the article itself is perfectly clear.

Obama is, as I said, a class act.

Following this, I just went to find other recent threads started by BeAChooser, in search of similar hilarity. I wasn't familiar with this poster before, but he never fails to amuse, it seems.

Rolfe.

[Foolmewunz]

With apologies to Bob Dylan, there are a few Anti-Barack who fit in real well along Desperation Row.

Guys, let him do something gaff-worthy before you throw out every little news tidbit. He's going to have a blunder or mistake here and there. And then you can have yourselves a blast, slapping your thighs and guffawing all morning. In the interim, you are just making yourselves look foolish.

[richardm]

Hey, hang on a minute! Reading the quote in the OP, the impression I got was that it was Cowen who made the gaffe. He managed "several paragraphs" of a speech that not only wasn't the one he was supposed to be giving, but was in fact the one he'd just listened to, before realising his mistake.

That's right. Then Obama got up again and pretended to read part of Cowen's speech as a joke, thanking himself for inviting himself. It's not a mistake on his part. If anything, as you say, it suggests that Obama is quick witted enough to step in and minimise the embarrassment by making a joke out of it.

This is absolutely terrible. It suggests Cowen is in the habit of standing up and reading anything that's put in front of him, with no thought and no preparation. If I was Irish, I'd be beating my head against the wall right now.
... I guess so. At least he realised and stopped, rather than just ploughing on regardless, which is something.

Then what? Remember the story about one of the British royal family and the fingerbowl? A guest at a royal banquet didn't know what the finger bowl was for (it's for rinsing your fingers, rednecks!) and drank some water from it. The aristocracy were horrified at the ignorance of polite table manners. The king, however, picked up his own finger bowl and sipped some water from it. This is generally regarded as a shining example of savoir faire.My favourite is one about Winston Churchill, who supposedly spotted the woman sitting next to him slip a silver ashtray into her handbag as a souvenir. He made sure she saw him slipping a silver salt cellar into his pocket, then said "Oh dear, I think the hostess saw us - we'd better put them back!"

Edit: No doubt if Obama tried something similar today it would be represented as "Obama is ignorant of table manners and makes off with the silverware"

[Jeff Corey]

Rolfe,
I had the same reaction- until I realized that the OP thought that Obama was running the teleprompter.

[Upchurch]

I thought maybe Obama was pulling a save, too, when I read this last night. But, I was waiting to see the video to know for sure how it went down.

The laughing is something of a give away, however.

[Jeff Corey]

This is a classic. The first four posters apparently interpreted the whole incident as a gaffe on the part of Obama. One called him "... just another boob". So we have confirmation bias error and projection at the same time.

[Rolfe]

This is a classic. The first four posters apparently interpreted the whole incident as a gaffe on the part of Obama. One called him "... just another boob". So we have confirmation bias error and projection at the same time.


It's not clear that anyone before Redtail's post (no. 9) realised that Obama had actually behaved like "an officer and a gentleman" in the face of a serious gaffe by a senior politician from a foreign country. Even after Redtail's laughing dog, the misinterpretation seems to be continuing, right up to post 13.

That's why I went back and read it twice, and then read the actual news report, just to check I wasn't missing anything.

But no. First impressions confirmed: Obama is a class act.

Other impressions confirmed: Balrog 666 posts according to his prejudices, rather than the evidence.

Rolfe.

[WildCat]

With apologies to Bob Dylan, there are a few Anti-Barack who fit in real well along Desperation Row.
It's Desolation Row (http://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/desolation-row).

[Cleon]

The Taoiseach embarrasses himself, Obama has a bit of fun with it, and somehow, in BAC-land, this makes Obama look stupid?

There are times when I wish words could accurately convey my current facial expression, which could best be described as a mix of puzzlement, incredulity, amusement, and pity.

[joobz]

It's not clear that anyone before Redtail's post (no. 9) realised that Obama had actually behaved like "an officer and a gentleman" in the face of a serious gaffe by a senior politician from a foreign country. Even after Redtail's laughing dog, the misinterpretation seems to be continuing, right up to post 13.

That's why I went back and read it twice, and then read the actual news report, just to check I wasn't missing anything.

But no. First impressions confirmed: Obama is a class act.

Other impressions confirmed: Balrog 666 posts according to his prejudices, rather than the evidence.

Rolfe.i'd like to see the actual event, but what you said is exactly what my gut reaction was.

Remember, there's nothing in the OP claiming Rule 12 breach removed.

Do not alter usernames.

[Rolfe]

Does Breach of Rule 12 removed. ever revisit these threads he starts?

Rolfe.

[maxpower1227]

Following this, I just went to find other recent threads started by BeAChooser, in search of similar hilarity. I wasn't familiar with this poster before, but he never fails to amuse, it seems.

Ask him about Ron Brown and Vince Foster :boxedin:

[joobz]

Does Breach of Rule 12 removed. ever revisit these threads he starts?

Rolfe.
Yes. He's definitely presistent. He made a thread awhile ago claiming that OBama lied about the economy, when he said that it's the worst economic crisis since the great depression. Since then, when OBama's statement was provn true BeAChooser refused to admit error saying, "When Obama said that it wasn't bad...." BAC has a simple world view
Obama is bad. Truth doesn't matter.

[Foolmewunz]

It's Desolation Row (http://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/desolation-row).

Uh, yeah. "Apologies to" generally means you're taking liberties with someone's work or lines.

[Foolmewunz]

Does Breach of Rule 12 removed. ever revisit these threads he starts?

Rolfe.

Generally, yes.(and revisits and revisits and revisits... sort of like the Energizer Bunny from the John Birch Society...)

But he usually at least has a single leg to stand on, and I can't see that for this one. He'll likely avoid this one.

[Rolfe]

Hmmm. I'm having way too much fun with this. I don't suppose Balrog will comment either.

Rolfe.

[Foolmewunz]

Hmmm. I'm having way too much fun with this. I don't suppose Balrog will comment either.

Rolfe.

Sorry, Rolfe. No staying power, that one. Nor Kallsop. They're kind of hit-and-run posters and they've both pretty much exhausted their witty repartee, above.

(Who, me? Baiting?)

[Darat]

...snip...

The laughing is something of a give away, however.

No the laughing also proves that Obama is a very, very bad man.

New Obama Policy: We will be giving everyone in the USA a gold dollar coin!

BeAChooser's thread: Obama passes law to force people to accept toxic metal into their home.

[Upchurch]

No the laughing also proves that Obama is a very, very bad man.
Well, naturally. Obama giving a saucer of milk to a hungry kitten would also prove that he is a very, very bad man.

...and a commie.

...and possibly Kenyan.


But I'd still like to see the video before passing judgement.

[Monketey Ghost]

This is hilarious... simply tasty. Weak, ill-informed attempt at mocking turns stoopid. HA!

[DC]

aslong he does not "misstakenly" belive some foreignt country has stock piles of WMD's i could forgive him this minor misstake..... well if he atleast was misstaken, but he wasnt...

[DC]

(and a little scary)

how did you survive the last 8 years????

[Mojo]

Obama seems to have done something very similar. He turned this appalling gaffe by Cowan into a joke, by pretending to deliver part of Cowan's speech, then thanking himself.

Obama is a class act, on this evidence.

Does the opening poster not realise this? From the quote he himself has posted?


I think this may be relevant: Somewhere in the CT forum someone said that CTers don't have any sense of humour. They attributed this to the fact that seeing the funny side of something requires being able to work out how things would normally relate, and then seeing the humour in the incongruous relationship made in the joke. Not actually being able to make any logical connections in the first place rather puts a crimp in all this.

[Jeff Corey]

Being as dumb as a stump could also contribute to that.

[Vic Vega]

Yeah, the OP makes only one person look dumb... And it isn't the President or the Irish Prime Minister.

[Megalodon]

Please stop offending stumps... at least they have the sense to keep quiet ;)

[ParanoidAndroid]

... admit it ... this is funny (and a little scary)...


Yes...quite...

[Rolfe]

Yeah, the OP makes only one person look dumb... And it isn't the President or the Irish Prime Minister.


If I were the Taoiseach, I'd be helluva embarrassed. I suppose he was probably tired, and on autopilot as well as autocue. But still, getting 20 seconds into a speech that wasn't his before he realised it does rather suggest the brain was completely out of it. Which isn't really how you want a Prime Minister to be except when he's actually unconscious.

But you know what? This doesn't seem to be playing in Ireland at all. Nobody's that bothered. I could only find one mention of this in the Irish Times (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0318/breaking28.html) and that was just factual, and didn't lay into Mr. Cowen at all. Even the people whose PM really did make a gaffe, are taking it in good part.

ETA: And this one (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0319/1224243068325.html).

When Cowen rose to speak, he began by welcoming us to St Patrick’s Day at the White House – which seemed an odd thing to do given that it was not his house.

“We begin by welcoming today a strong friend of the United States,” he said. Then he stopped, looked first at the teleprompter and then at Obama. “This is your speech,” he said to roars of laughter and applause. “Who said these things were idiot-proof?”

When he regained his bearings, Cowen noted the work of Irish architect James Hoban on the White House. “We were always good in the construction business,” he said. “America does ambition well, ambition to succeed, ambition to build a better future. America does pride well, justifiable pride. America does change well, and does hope pretty well, as well. Ireland does connection well, the proof is here.”

When the Taoiseach was finished speaking, the president stepped up to the microphone and, copying his guest’s opening line difficulties, said: “First, I’d like to say thank you to President Obama . . . Happy St Patrick’s Day, everybody.”


Just treated as a joke. Which suggests it wasn't actually all that bad, because what newspaper can resist putting the boot into one of their own politicians? From this account, it's possible he noticed as soon as it got past the sort of general platitudes he probably says about ten times every day.

Rolfe.

[Renfield]

He's a boob for reading his speeches? Are you serious?

[Lonewulf]

So we have BAC jumping in with, "OMG! Obama actually makes gaffe! He covers up for the mistake of someone else, and this is horrible!"

Then kallsop and balrog apparently don't bother reading and immediately jump in with, "ME TOO! ME THREE!", instead of actually reading the article -- because, as we know, anything that justifies their viewpoints must automatically be true, no scrutiny necessary.

And yet we're supposed to make fun of Obama's intelligence.

Kallsop, balrog666, and BAC...

http://jmn.fadainc.com/funnypics/failboat.jpg

[Undesired Walrus]

There a video of this anywhere? Can't find it, try as I might.

[gdnp]

Please stop offending stumps... at least they have the sense to keep quiet ;)

Worthy of a pith nomination....

[Rolfe]

So we have BAC jumping in with, "OMG! Obama actually makes gaffe! He covers up for the mistake of someone else, and this is horrible!"


Uh, you seem almost to be letting BAC off the hook with this. There's no evidence at all that he understood that Obama had actually feigned the "gaffe" in order to turn someone else's gaffe into a joke. I'm certain he thought that Obama had seriously "thanked himself".

Look at the headline and strap line of the article BAC linked to.

Obama Thanks Himself, Irish PM Repeats Speech in Teleprompter Meltdown

Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen reads word for word a speech that Obama had just read from a teleprompter, while the president apparently thanked himself for the invitation.


That's quite ambiguous. It also seems to overstate what Cowen did by quite a bit, if we go by the report in the Irish Times. I think BAG just jumped to the conclusion that Obama had seriously thanked himself from the teleprompt, and didn't even stop to read the clip of the acticle that he quoted - which was actually perfetly clear.

Epic fail.

Rolfe.

[Upchurch]

Just to be fair:
Now if Bush had done that, what would democrats be saying? Why they'd be insulting his intelligence, of course.
If it were this early in Bush's first term, I would have blinked a couple of times, done a cartoon-like head shake, and gone online to find out what had actually happened not trusting the buffoonish account you were presenting here.

A couple of years of buffoonish Bush behavior later, I would not have given this another thought as it would be completely in character. And I would have felt like an idiot for not checking when I found out there was a possibility he was only joking.

How are you feeling there, BAC?

[dudalb]

Ya know, this coming from somebody who a Sarah Palin supporter is the funniest thing ever.

[Meadmaker]

I was pretty impressed that Obama managed to pronounce Taoiseach correctly.

I never had much sympathy with people who tried to learn English, until I tried to learn Irish. Every other language I learned had pretty regular spelling and pronounciation. If there was a letter, it made a noise, or had the decency to be always silent. Or was French, and you just stopped talking before you got to the end. Not too difficult. Then I got to Irish. Much bigger problem. I can only imagine how hard English must be, with hardly any regular pronounciation at all.

Oh...and as for the contents of this thread. Ummmm....yeah. Whatever. Rush has been yammering on about this for the last two days as well.

[Rolfe]

Really? What has Rush been saying? Do tell!

Rolfe.

[applecorped]

Thank god Obama's not blind.

[Meadmaker]

Really? What has Rush been saying? Do tell!

Rolfe.

Pretty much the same thing BAC has been saying. Go figure.

[gdnp]

Pretty much the same thing BAC has been saying. Go figure.

Really? At least BAC had the good sense to let it drop rather than to try to defend the indefensible.

[BeAChooser]

Or... Obama was making a joke.... Oooo!

You really think he was making a joke? Talk about desperation. :rolleyes:

Why would SNL lampoon the president on Wednesday?

Well let's see if they do on Saturday. Fair enough? Then we will see who get's the last laugh. :D

[quixotecoyote]

Really? At least BAC had the good sense to let it drop rather than to try to defend the indefensible.

That's BaC for you, can't stand to let you be right about anything!
:con2:

[BeAChooser]

If this is the best BAC can come up with...

I did come up with something better.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136438&page=1

But you didn't come to the party.

[BeAChooser]

Ooooo. So this is what desperation sounds like.

Check this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136438&page=1

That's what desperation ... on the part of the Obama defenders ... looks like. :D

By the way, I see nothing wrong with pointing out the hypocrisy of democrats and the mainstream media. Because when Bush made the slightest flub, they were immediately making it national news, Jay Leno monologues and insulting his intelligence. But Obama ... gives a speech where he thanks himself for being invited to America ... and there's not a peep out of the same people. The hypocrisy doesn't get any thicker.

[Shalamar]

Check this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136438&page=1

That's what desperation ... on the part of the Obama defenders ... looks like. :D

By the way, I see nothing wrong with pointing out the hypocrisy of democrats and the mainstream media. Because when Bush made the slightest flub, they were immediately making it national news, Jay Leno monologues and insulting his intelligence. But Obama ... gives a speech where he thanks himself for being invited to America ... and there's not a peep out of the same people. The hypocrisy doesn't get any thicker.

It was a deliberate joke. The Irish PM flubbed starting the Obama speech, embarrassing himself. Obama defused it, by doing the end of the Irish PM's speech. They laughed, and tension was removed. An excellent move on Obama's part.

Then again, BAC, I know you Hate Obama with the burning passionate hate of a thousand buring hateful suns.

Whenever you complain about Obama, its a good chance that Obama did something good.

[Lonewulf]

You really think he was making a joke? Talk about desperation. :rolleyes:

From your article:

But Cowen was 20 seconds into his second address when it dawned on him that he was giving word for word the speech that Obama had just read from the same teleprompter.

Cowen stopped and looked back at the president to say, "That's your speech."

Obama laughed and returned to the podium to offer what might have been Cowen's remarks. In doing so, President Obama thanked President Obama for inviting everyone over.

I'm not sure how you can see it as anything else without ingesting a lot of drugs, or being mentally incompetent in several ways.

Sorry.

[BeAChooser]

Hey, hang on a minute! Reading the quote in the OP, the impression I got was that it was Cowen who made the gaffe. He managed "several paragraphs" of a speech that not only wasn't the one he was supposed to be giving, but was in fact the one he'd just listened to, before realising his mistake.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031809/content/01125107.guest.html


In the middle of bonuses and a recession and an economic downturn, big parties at the White House last night, and the teleprompter totally embarrassed the president of the United States. I've read accounts of this in the US Drive-By Media, and they pretty much present Obama as a guy who saved the day with his cool, his aplomb, his calm demeanor.

The British newspapers skewer Obama on this incident. Here is what happened. "Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen was just a few paragraphs into a [speech] when he realized something sounded way too familiar," and it was. He was repeating the speech that the teleprompter had told Obama to say mere moments ago. The teleprompter forgot to change speeches from Obama's to Cowen's. So Cowen stopped, he turned to the president and said, "That's your speech." I'm surprised it took him 20 seconds to figure out it wasn't his. So Obama started laughing, and Obama went back to the podium to take over, but when Obama got there... This is hilarious! When Obama got there, the teleprompter had then switched back to the Cowen speech. ... snip ...

So when Obama then reached the podium to try to "coolly, calmly" save the day, he ended up thanking himself for throwing a huge party because he ended up reading the speech the teleprompter wrote for the Irish prime minister. The script had been switched, and Obama ended up thanking himself for inviting everybody to the party. Now, stop and think of this. It's a party. It's a party! You have to assume that the adult beverages are flowing. I don't know about the president, and don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting anything here, but it's a party. It's a St. Patrick's Day -- Shamrock Day -- party. You gotta assume this. So here comes the Irish guy, goes up to make a speech after Obama, and the teleprompter plays a little game on everybody, doesn't switch the speeches. So the Irish guy gives the same speech for 20 seconds that Obama gave, and suddenly realizes, "Wait a minute. I just heard this."


So he turns to Obama and says, "That's your speech." Obama says, "Huh, duh, ha, ha," comes back to the podium. While Obama is on the way to the podium, the teleprompter (very craftily, very shiftily) put in the right text for the Irish guy, and Obama starts reading that, and he continues to read it until he thanks himself. Because the Irish guy's message in the prompter was, "I want to thank President Obama..." So Obama thanked himself! At some point, do you not realize that? Don't you just stop, before you get to the point where you thank yourself? And of course the British papers talk about, "What is this guy's dependency on the teleprompter here?"


Now did you look at that videoclip I linked? Don't you see what I was getting at? Or have you no sense of humor? :D

[BeAChooser]

Guys, let him do something gaff-worthy before you throw out every little news tidbit. He's going to have a blunder or mistake here and there. And then you can have yourselves a blast, slapping your thighs and guffawing all morning. In the interim, you are just making yourselves look foolish.

Except most of these folks won't debate the serious stuff. As indicated by their failure to show up on my thread on Obama's impending deficits (serious stuff!) that I linked in a post above. And those that did show up mostly ignored the OP. If they won't defend him from the serious stuff, we might as well just have fun poking fun at the gaffs. And you have to admit he's looking a little dependent on the teleprompter. :D

[linusrichard]

I'm not sure how you can see it as anything else without ingesting a lot of drugs, or being mentally incompetent in several ways.
Sorry.
Or, you know, both. As in:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031809/content/01125107.guest.html

Now did you look at that videoclip I linked? Don't you see what I was getting at? Or have you no sense of humor? :D

Ah! You appear to be one of those who judges a sense of humor based on the number of things one finds funny. The more things you find funny, the more of a sense of humor you have. It is not so. A good sense of humor allows one not only to laugh at what is funny, but also to distinguish it from what is not funny. I didn't find that videoclip funny (full disclosure: I didn't watch the whole thing) not because I don't have a sense of humor, but because I do.

[D'rok]

Except most of these folks won't debate the serious stuff. As indicated by their failure to show up on my thread on Obama's impending deficits (serious stuff!) that I linked in a post above. And those that did show up mostly ignored the OP. If they won't defend him from the serious stuff, we might as well just have fun poking fun at the gaffs. And you have to admit he's looking a little dependent on the teleprompter. :D

Just so we're all clear...you're still spinning this as a gaffe by Obama? Really?

[joobz]

Just so we're all clear...you're still spinning this as a gaffe by Obama? Really?
He still thinks Obama Lied about the economy.

[BeAChooser]

He made a thread awhile ago claiming that OBama lied about the economy, when he said that it's the worst economic crisis since the great depression. Since then, when OBama's statement was provn true BeAChooser refused to admit error saying, "When Obama said that it wasn't bad...."

Go ahead ... keep repeating this dishonest claim. You will only end up embarrassing yourself. The fact is Obama was not correct in saying "we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression", AT THE TIME HE MADE THAT STATEMENT (which was February 5th). At the time he made that statement, this recession was not worse than the one in 1981-82 on many, many levels. I proved this by comparing specific figures (unemployment rate, inflation rate, the delta in real GDP, the delta in industrial production, the 30 year mortgage rate, and the "misery index"). I can't help but notice that you have never contested any of those figures in the thread where that topic was discussed: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135124 . And I can't help but notice that this recession is still not as severe as the 1981-82 recession with regard to those criteria (for example, national unemployment is still less).

As I pointed out to you the last time you made this spurious claim, even the February 27th issue of the leftist New York Times supported my statement:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/business/economy/28recession.html?_r=1


the Commerce Department gave a harsher assessment for the last three months of 2008. In place of an initial estimate that the economy contracted at an annualized rate of 3.8 percent — already abysmal — the government said that the pace of decline was actually 6.2 percent, making it the worst quarter since 1982. ... snip ... Current conditions are not even as poor as during the twin recessions of the 1980s, when unemployment exceeded 10 percent


You are only embarrassing yourself, joobz, and proving what a dishonest poster you are. But be my guest.

By the way folks, when I remarked to joobz that


I can't help but notice that you don't want to discuss how deficits under the Obama budget are projected NEVER to drop below half a trillion dollars and will be over 700 billion in 10 years and climbing.


his response was "Don't care." See what I mean about Obama supporters not wanting to discuss the serious stuff, so we might as well laugh at every little gaff Obama does? :D

[joobz]

Go ahead ... keep repeating this dishonest claim. You will only end up embarrassing yourself. The fact is Obama was not correct in saying "we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression", AT THE TIME HE MADE THAT STATEMENT
I know. your amazing defense is that it wasn't true then. But obviously Obama was referring to the chain of events that was already in motion.
Your argument amounts to saying, It's not a catatrophy until the boat fully sinks.



You are only embarrassing yourself, joobz, and proving what a dishonest poster you are. But be my guest.
I'm completey happy standing by my statements. When I"m wrong, I admit it. I have integrity. Some people can't say the same thing, can they?

By the way folks, when I remarked to joobz that

his response was "Don't care."
You never explained why I should care? Definitely, it's something we'll have to deal with, but we have an immediate problem. I don't remember hearing you complain about the spending during out Iraq war.

Oh, but that's right, you don't believe we ahve an economic problem right now, do we? Or do you finally agree that Obama was right?;)

ETA: ANd that NYTimes article...It's whole argument isn't that the economy isn't as bad as Obama said, they fear it's worse.
I'm confused, How do you reconcile that with your silly claims that Obama was wrong on his Doom and Gloom view of the economy?

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/moodys_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) Economy.com (http://economy.com/), now places the odds of “a mild depression” at 25 percent, up from 15 percent three months ago. In that view, the unemployment rate would reach 10.5 percent by the end of 2011 — up from 7.6 percent at the end of January — average home prices would fall 20 percent on top of the 27 percent they have plunged already, and losses in the financial system would more than triple, to $3.7 trillion.
Allen Sinai, chief global economist at the research firm Decision Economics, sees a 20 percent chance of “a depressionlike possibility,” up from 15 percent a week ago.

I suggest actually reading what an article says and not what you wish it says.

Or your libel to make some more...gaffes.

[BeAChooser]

how did you survive the last 8 years????

Easy.

No terrorist attacks in the homeland.

The economy was excellent through most of it, despite attempts by democrats to wreck it.

And when the recession did hit at the end, it probably did so in large part because democrats worked tirelessly to protect the crooked democrats who ran Fannie and Freddie and Acorn (who caused the recession).

Now I just want to survive the next decade (or just the next 8 years).

But that might be hard with Obama policy causing deficits to be excess of $500 billion every year throughout that decade. Obama lies and calls that a halving of the deficit from what it was during Bush's years (when in fact for 7 of those 8 years the deficit was never over $500 billion or even close to $500 billion).

That might be hard with Obama policy making the current recession much worse than it had to be (based on ample historical data).

That might be hard with Obama policy eliminating the word "terrorist" from our vocabulary. You can't fight something you refuse to name.

[D'rok]

Ahem?

Just so we're all clear...you're still spinning this as a gaffe by Obama? Really?

That is, if you can manage to stop derailing your own thread long enough to answer.

[BeAChooser]

There a video of this anywhere? Can't find it, try as I might.

Yeah. Isn't that odd. ;)

[joobz]

Ahem?



That is, if you can manage to stop derailing your own thread long enough to answer.
Stop asking about what he thinks of reality. It's not nice.

[BeAChooser]

There's no evidence at all that he understood that Obama had actually feigned the "gaffe" in order to turn someone else's gaffe into a joke.

I've seen no proof that Obama "feigned the gaffe" to make a joke. If he was so talented at joking, you'd think the mainstream media, idolizing him like they do, would have shown the video ... that it would even be on youtube.

And you missed the entire point of the OP (no sense of humor?) I ask again, did you look at the video clip I linked at the bottom of the OP post? Don't you think that's funny ... and relevant to this incident?

I think BAG just jumped to the conclusion that Obama had seriously thanked himself from the teleprompt

It's BAC ... and the news reports indicate Obama did get far enough into Cowen's speech to actually read the line thanking Obama for the invite. I also think you are the one jumping to conclusions here. :D

[D'rok]

Stop asking about what he thinks of reality. It's not nice.
Slippery fellow, isn't he?

Too bad he doesn't realize that admitting error is actually +1 for credibility.

[BeAChooser]

Ya know, this coming from somebody who a Sarah Palin supporter is the funniest thing ever.

I'm curious, did you bother to look at the video at the bottom of the OP post? Or did you jump to conclusions, like Rolfe and so many others, and simply miss the point of the post? By the way, at least Sarah never had seemed addicted to teleprompters. :D

[BeAChooser]

It was a deliberate joke.

Prove it. Link us to the video clip of the speech. Don't make me have to depend on a media that idolizes Obama and covered for all the crimes committed by the Clintons and democrats the last few decades.

Whenever you complain about Obama, its a good chance that Obama did something good.

Well if you really believe that, then why don't you visit that thread I linked above where I complain about the deficits that are predicted thanks to Obama policy. You can tell us there why adding $8.5 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years will be "good". :D

[linusrichard]

I'm curious, did you bother to look at the video at the bottom of the OP post? Or did you jump to conclusions, like Rolfe and so many others, and simply miss the point of the post? By the way, at least Sarah never had seemed addicted to teleprompters. :D

You have an obsession with teleprompters. Do you think Palin had a teleprompter for her much-celebrated RNC acceptance speech? Before you answer that question, here's another. What do you think of the fact that Sarah Palin's RNC acceptance speech was almost entirely written before she was nominated? And which of these two questions seems more relevant?

[BeAChooser]

I didn't find that videoclip funny

:rolleyes:

[Lonewulf]

I'm curious, did you bother to look at the video at the bottom of the OP post? Or did you jump to conclusions, like Rolfe and so many others, and simply miss the point of the post?

There's a point to the post?

Content in violation of rule 12 removed.
Attack the argument, not the arguer.

[Lonewulf]

:rolleyes:

Yet another post chock full of content and serious debate by BAC! So enlightening, believe me.

[linusrichard]

Yet another post chock full of content and serious debate by BAC! So enlightening, believe me.

You don't get to post with the insight you want, you have to post with the insight you have.

[BeAChooser]

I know. your amazing defense is that it wasn't true then. But obviously Obama was referring to the chain of events that was already in motion.

It wasn't true. Here's exactly what Obama claimed (which I objected to):


"we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression."


Even a sixth grader would interpret that to mean that the recession IS CURRENTLY (on February 5th when he said that) the worst since the Great Depression.

And there are other Obama quotes from that period to prove that's exactly the lie he was trying to make the public believe. For example:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a3YMkstD3JzA


Jan. 11

... snip ...

“Whether it’s retail sales, manufacturing, all of the indicators show that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression,” Obama said on ABC.


That by the way, is an outright lie ... since sales and manufacturing indicators at that time (and even now!) were not worse than they were during the 1975 and 1981 recessions.

Your argument amounts to saying, It's not a catatrophy until the boat fully sinks.

Your argument is nothing but spin.

I'm completey happy standing by my statements.

So am I, which is why I, unlike you, linked folks to the thread where you claim I was proven wrong. I invite everyone to go read that thread. They will see you are wrong. They will see that neither you or anyone else challenged the veracity of the data showing the earlier recessions were worse than the current one. Even now, those statistics were worse during the earlier recessions. The fact is that Obama's rhetoric and policies are responsible for deepening this recession. He may even succeed in turning this downturn into a depression if he insists on applying discredited Keynesian ideas.

I have integrity.

Yeah. Sure. :rolleyes:

You never explained why I should care?

LIAR. I've stated quite clearly why doubling the debt and making deficits of over $500 billion the norm would be a bad thing.

I don't remember hearing you complain about the spending during out Iraq war.

Because I looked at the opportunity costs ... in detail.

Oh, but that's right, you don't believe we ahve an economic problem right now, do we?

LIAR. I've never once suggested that. I've only said that Obama's policies and rhetoric have made a bad situation much worse.

ETA: ANd that NYTimes article...It's whole argument isn't that the economy isn't as bad as Obama said, they fear it's worse.

LIAR. That article clearly stated that "Current conditions are not even as poor as during the twin recessions of the 1980s".

I'm confused

No, you're just a partisan who will defend Obama to your dying breath (in any matter I suspect).

[gdnp]

I've seen no proof that Obama "feigned the gaffe" to make a joke. If he was so talented at joking, you'd think the mainstream media, idolizing him like they do, would have shown the video ... that it would even be on youtube.
Let's see: the invited guest is tripped up by a wayward teleprompter and starts giving Obama's speech.

Obama gets up and says "I'd like to thank president Obama for inviting me".

Now honestly, BAC, level with us. Do you REALLY think that Obama was thanking himself? Does that really sound likely? :rolleyes:

And you missed the entire point of the OP (no sense of humor?) I ask again, did you look at the video clip I linked at the bottom of the OP post? Don't you think that's funny ... and relevant to this incident?

I did look at the video at the bottom. Mildly amusing in the Teleprompter dialog. The video of the town meeting where all of the text was edited out except for the stuttering and "uhs" was a bit disingenuous. You did notice that that segment was spliced at least a dozen times, didn't you?

(I know this seems obvious, but you don't necessarily seem to pick up on the obvious, now do you?):D

[Meadmaker]

I'm curious, did you bother to look at the video at the bottom of the OP post? Or did you jump to conclusions, like Rolfe and so many others, and simply miss the point of the post? By the way, at least Sarah never had seemed addicted to teleprompters. :D

It's kind of strange. This election cycle lasted longer than any in history, and during the Democratic primary season (which was the real election this time around, anyway) I think he went through something like 40 debates, none of them with a teleprompter.

As a speaker, the guy is good, with or without a teleprompter.

[Meadmaker]

Whenever you complain about Obama, its a good chance that Obama did something good.

I don't think that's fair. When BAC complains about Obama, it usually means BAC is awake, in the literal sense of the word.

To suggest that BAC complains more about the good stuff than the bad stuff suggests a degree of judgement, conscious or otherwise, for which there is really no evidence.

[Foolmewunz]

BaC,

I'm a big fan. Seriously, babe! You've got some of the most creative fantasies I've read in ages. We gotta hook up when you get out to the coast. Have your girl call my girl - we'll do lunch at Wolfgang Puck's new place. We can talk all about scripting some of your other fantasies then. But for right now..... Could you stick within the framework of your OP. Do continue, with nothing but speculation and Rush's big mouth, to show how this quite clever recovery from a technical gaff is indication of all or any of the following:

Sarah Palin is a genius because her speeches are carved on moosehide scrolls and not yukkie new-fangled e-lec-tronic devices.

Barack is a boob because the Irish leader made a mistake in automatically reading what was in front of him on the screen.

Rush Limbaugh has an IQ higher than that of a rhodendron bush.

"Well, Rush says it, it must be true."


Ya know, there's a recording from like the early 60s (maybe even late 50s) of Harry Belafonte at Carnegie Hall. After one of his numbers he launches into a brief anecdote to introduce a number,
Bellafonte: "When I was a small boy in Jamaica...." (brief pause) ....
"I already said that."
(Rousing laughter from audience.)
Belafonte: "I wasn't always a small boy in Jamaica, sometimes I....."
(Uproarious laughter from audience.)

Great recovery by a charming man. Much like Obama's recovery this week. For that waste of protoplasm, Limbaugh, to imply that they were all well into the sauce, so it was evidence of evil-doings, is just pathetic.

I'm trying to recall what Franken said about Rush.... "Rush Limbaugh is a portly smart fellow"? Naaaah, not that. Something like it, though.

[Undesired Walrus]

Yeah. Isn't that odd. ;)

Are you suggesting the Obama Administration is suppressing this video?

[Rolfe]

I was quite wrong, and I admit it.




















It's BAC ...


Indeed it is. I did spot the typo, but not until after the two-hour editing window had closed. Sincere apologies.

Rolfe.

[Lonewulf]

Are you suggesting the Obama Administration is suppressing this video?

I took it more as, "You're so biased you're not even looking!"

[Rolfe]

Pretty much the same thing BAC has been saying. Go figure.


Oh dear. I'm presuming BAC just isn't very bright, as well as being partisan to the point of blind obsession. Now why would Limbaugh be spinning the same line?

I don't believe Limbaugh isn't very bright. You don't hold down that sort of job if you're as stupid as BAC's posts would suggest he is. Breach of Rule 11 removed. It's all very well for random internet posters to come out with this sort of dreck, but when someone who is patently bright enough to realise what's really going on is peddling it on prime-time TV, guys, I think you have a problem.

Partisan to the point of blind obsession, I suppose he must be. Is it healthy for the country to have that sort of bile shovelled into your homes on a regular basis?

[Caveat. I never heard of Limbaugh before I read the background to episode 12 of Babylon 5 (http://www.ntua.gr/lurk/countries/master/guide/012.html).]

Funny. When I was in the USA during the presidential campaign, I was actually quite impressed by the quality of the political commentary on TV. But then, my hosts didn't seem to watch Limbaugh.

Rolfe.

[D'rok]

[Caveat. I never heard of Limbaugh before I read the background to episode 12 of Babylon 5 (http://www.ntua.gr/lurk/countries/master/guide/012.html).]

From the link:

"The Rush Act was named after conservative American television and radio commentator Rush Limbaugh."

Woah. Totally didn't clue in to that. +1 to JMS.

[joobz]

It wasn't true. Here's exactly what Obama claimed (which I objected to):

Even a sixth grader would interpret that to mean that the recession IS CURRENTLY (on February 5th when he said that) the worst since the Great Depression.
And your saying that the recession of Feb5th is a different one from now?
It was quite clear to me that he was speaking of the crisis we are in and face yet. When the titanic was sinking, it still was a major catastrophe when it first hit the ice berg. It didn't need to fully sink to say that it was a catastrophe..



LIAR. I've stated quite clearly why doubling the debt and making deficits of over $500 billion the norm would be a bad thing.Certainly you said that, but you made no convincing case. You need to prove that the deficit will be a worse issue than had we done nothing. IN that thread, you simply said how horrible it is to run up the deficit. But when Upchurch kept asking for alternatives to improve the economy, you were amazingly silent.

You seem to believe that inaction is a proper solution. I disagree.


LIAR. I've never once suggested that. I've only said that Obama's policies and rhetoric have made a bad situation much worse.You said the economy wasn't as bad as in 1980. It seems you think otherwise now. Obama wasn't wrong. Your only complaint is that he was aware of the true problems well before you were. Don't hate Obama because he's smarter than you.



LIAR. That article clearly stated that "Current conditions are not even as poor as during the twin recessions of the 1980s".
Seriously, you hurt your credibility when you falsely accuse others of lying. I can read the article. I can read exactly what it says. I posted a quote from that article that explains it's full meaning. You seem to enjoy taking statements out of context and pretending that it's an honest tactic. That's called quote mining and is a behavior done by the pathologically dishonest.



No, you're just a partisan who will defend Obama to your dying breath (in any matter I suspect).
:rolleyes: If you say so. You have no credibility, so your labels are meaningless.

[Rolfe]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031809/content/01125107.guest.html

Now did you look at that videoclip I linked? Don't you see what I was getting at? Or have you no sense of humor? :D


OK, looked at the videoclip. Silly me, I thought it was going to be a clip of the actual indicent being reported. Oops, no.

Juvenile is being polite. Infantile is closer. Most of it just white text scrolling on black background, against total silence, presenting some attempt at a joke on what Obama's teleprompter might be saying. Cute - from a schoolkid, if it had been better executed. And a couple of clips of heavily-spliced Obama footage leaving on only the er-ums. With the second one you can see how spliced it is by the way the words on the ticker at the bottom jump. Didn't even raise a smile I'm afraid.

This is standard teenage stuff. You can do that with any clip of anyone at all speaking extempore. Everyone speaks with er-ums, and particularly when they're having an unscripted dialogue with hecklers, which is what was happening in the second clip. Edit out everything else, and we can all be made to look extraordinarily silly. Puerile. (The problem with Bush, as far as I could see, that you could get the same effect just by pointing a camera at him, with no need to bother with all that pesky editing part.)

OK, that's that. Now what's Rush Limbaugh saying?

The British newspapers skewer Obama on this incident. Here is what happened. "Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen was just a few paragraphs into a [speech] when he realized something sounded way too familiar," and it was. He was repeating the speech that the teleprompter had told Obama to say mere moments ago. The teleprompter forgot to change speeches from Obama's to Cowen's. So Cowen stopped, he turned to the president and said, "That's your speech." I'm surprised it took him 20 seconds to figure out it wasn't his. So Obama started laughing, and Obama went back to the podium to take over, but when Obama got there... This is hilarious! When Obama got there, the teleprompter had then switched back to the Cowen speech. [....]


Now this was confusing me. Because I've seen no mention of this at all in Britain. Nothing. So I decided to go and look.

There are six quality newspapers in England and Scotland, and I searched the online versions of all six, plus the BBC, for references to "teleprompter". I got nothing at all about the incident from the BBC, The Herald or the Telegraph (note, the Telegraph is the most right-wing of all the papers). This might explain why I'd seen nothing, because I watch the BBC and read the dead-tree Herald. So what did the four references I found actually say?

The Independent, Obama's speech recycled by Cowan (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obamas-speech-recycled-by-cowen-1648419.html). By Rupert Cornwell in Washington.

At a reception capping Tuesday's festivities in Washington, Brian Cowen was a few paragraphs into a speech scrolling on the Teleprompter when he realised he was using the one just delivered by the President. Abruptly, the Irish prime minister stopped and looked at Mr Obama, saying, "that's your speech".

Entering into the spirit of things, the latter went back to the microphone and ad-libbed what Mr Cowen might have said – producing the spectacle of Mr Obama thanking himself for being invited to the White House.

The confusion appears to have stemmed from the fact that the Irish leader was to give the same speech at two separate functions. But it is surprising nonetheless. In his brief time in the White House, Mr Obama has become famous for a reliance on scripted remarks at public occasions, read from Teleprompters. Such errors should by now have been ironed out.


That's quite clear. Obama did it on purpose, and didn't read anything from the teleprompter at that point. The following paragraph is simply suggesting that because Obama uses teleprompters a lot, they should have managed to get the technology working in the White House by now. And note, that report clearly states that the journalist who wrote the article was there. Unlike any of the others.

The Guardian, 'That's your speech': Teleprompter feeds Irish PM Obama's words (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/18/barack-obama-irish-prime-minister-teleprompter). Helen Pidd and agencies.

Cowen was around 20 seconds into the wrong speech before he realised his gaffe. He stopped suddenly and looked back at the president to say: "That's your speech."

Obama laughed and returned to the podium to offer what might have been Cowen's remarks. In doing so, Obama thanked Obama for inviting everyone over.

Obama is becoming known as the "tele*prompter president" for his reliance on the prompting screens, which retract when speeches are finished.


Again, the report is quite clear that Obama was acting deliberately, and making a joke. The wording of this report is so similar to the Fox News clip quoted in the OP that it seems to have been taken from the same press release. And again, we have the statement that Obama uses the teleprompter a lot, but there is no suggestion that he was caught out by in on this occasion. This time, though, the location of the journalist is not given, and credit is explicitly also given to unnames news agencies. Yes, journalism by press release.

The Scotsman, Irish PM in White House speech gaffe (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/world/Irish-PM-in-White-House.5084041.jp). No attribution at all.

IRISH prime minister Brian Cowen was just a few paragraphs into his address at the white House St Patrick's Day celebration when he realised something sounded way too familiar.

It turned out the premier was repeating the speech President Barack Obama had just given.

Mr Cowen was set to speak twice at the White House last night because there were two different parties going on at the executive mansion. No matter – he would give the same speech to the two different audiences.

But he was 20 seconds into his second address when it dawned on him that he was giving word for word the speech that Mr Obama had just read from the same teleprompter.

Mr Cowen stopped and looked back at the president to say: "That's your speech."

Mr Obama laughed and returned to the podium to offer what might have been Mr Cowen's remarks. In doing so, Mr Obama thanked President Obama for inviting everyone over.


Breach of Rule 11 removed. Note again the identical wording of the salient paragraph (the last one). Identical to the Guardian, and to the Fox News article. It's now quite obvious that neither the Guardian not the Scotsman (nor Fox news) actually had anyone there, and they have merely published the same press release issued by a central agency.

Interestingly the Scotsman article has comments open and these contain a lot of stuff assuming that Obama made a gaffe. That is, the ones that haven't been "removed by administrator". But this is clearly not supported by the article itself. The Scotsman comments are notoriously troll-infested, and this looks very like a bunch of people (almost certainly American) pushing the same agenda as Limbaugh.

Let's just refresh our memories about the Fox News article quoted in the OP, as it's so similar.

Fox News, Obama Thanks Himself, Irish PM Repeats Speech in Teleprompter Meltdown (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/teleprompter-gone-bad-obama-thanks-irish-pm-repeats-speech/). AP

Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen was just a few paragraphs into an address at a St. Patrick's Day celebration at the White House when he realized something sounded way too familiar. Turns out, he was repeating the speech President Barack Obama had just given.

Cowen was set to speak twice at the White House on Tuesday night because there were two different parties going on at the executive mansion. No matter -- he would give the same speech to the two different audiences.

But Cowen was 20 seconds into his second address when it dawned on him that he was giving word for word the speech that Obama had just read from the same teleprompter.

Cowen stopped and looked back at the president to say, "That's your speech."

Obama laughed and returned to the podium to offer what might have been Cowen's remarks. In doing so, President Obama thanked President Obama for inviting everyone over.


Yes, that is the exact quote from Fox. Essentially word-for-word what is in the Scotsman, and the Guardian come to that. And Fox News attibute it to - AP. Associated Press (http://www.ap.org/). The agency that supplied the press release.

I now understand the discrepancy between the Fox headline and the text. The headline was written because the journalist wanted to imply that Obama had made a gaffe, but he obviously couldn't be bothered to rewrite the press release to back up that suggestion.

Unlike someone else....

The Times, Irish PM Brian Cowen left red-faced after delivering Obama speech at White House (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5931422.ece). David Byers [no location given]

Finally, paydirt. Looks as if we have found Limbaugh's source.

As the Irish Taoiseach delivered his St Patrick's Day speech at a White House dinner party, it emerged that he was accidentally reading off the teleprompter one made by President Obama only minutes earlier.

"We begin by welcoming today a strong friend of the United States," he began and continued in that vein for about 20 seconds before - realising he was experiencing more than the usual case of déjà vu - he looked back at the US President and said: "That's your speech!"

Mr Obama is becoming known as the 'teleprompter president' for his excessive use of the prompting screens, which retract when speeches are finished.


So far, much the same as the previous three, and again including the comment about Obama using the teleprompter a lot. Note the identical wording of that last sentence to the press release. This is conclusive evidence that they're again using the same press release (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_SPEECH_MISTAKE?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT). But then the Times goes on to say something quite a bit different from all the other papers.

On this occasion, as a laughing Mr Obama returned to the podium, the script was belatedly switched over to the Taoiseach's text – leaving Mr Obama inadvertently thanking himself for inviting everyone, to further laughter. "First, I'd like to say thank you to President Obama!" the President said.


This is the only report there is which actually states that that the teleprompter showed Mr. Cowen's speech, and Obama inadvertently read that. But David Byers wasn't there! If he had been, first the paper would have said so, and second, he wouldn't have used large chunks of the Associated Press press release in his article.

It appears that David Byers has misread/misunderstood the AP text, and has assumed what wasn't said and wasn't so, that the teleprompter did the dirty on a misled Obama. I don't believe this was deliberate. The Times is a reputable newspaper. But anyone can make a mistake, and David Byers seems to have made one here.

It would appear that Limbaugh has seen the Times article, and (perhaps) not realised that he was reading a mistake made by a journalist who wasn't there misinterpreting a press release and in effect making stuff up. And then he's gone to town with a wild accusation that "the British newspapers skewer Obama...."

But we can see that all the above sources except the Independent were just quoting/paraphrasing the same AP press release (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_SPEECH_MISTAKE?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT). Not quoting all of it here because of copyright, but yes, there's the same identical phrase.

Obama laughed and returned to the podium to offer what might have been Cowen's remarks. In doing so, President Obama thanked President Obama for inviting everyone over.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy (http://apdigitalnews.com/privacy.html)..


The Guardian, the Scotsman and Fox News printed it as it stood. David Byers of the Times simply goofed when he tried to rewrite it into something a bit more original. (Interestingly the Times also has comments open on that article, but apart from a single one-liner, they're all arguing about the date and place of birth of St. Patrick. So no more support there for Limbaugh's assertion that Obama is being "skewered".

Now, who was actually there? Rupert Cornwell of the Independent, that's who. It says so right at the top of his article. And how does he describe the incident?

Entering into the spirit of things, the latter [Obama] went back to the microphone and ad-libbed what Mr Cowen might have said – producing the spectacle of Mr Obama thanking himself for being invited to the White House.


"Entering into the spirit of things" - "ad-libbed".... Entirely different from David Byers' version. Still, I'm not entirely convinced that Rupert didn't have a peek at the AP article as well. It's all his own words, but there are still a lot of similarities. Maybe we need to hear from someone else who was actually there.

Who else might have been there, I wonder? Oh yes. The Taoiseach is Irish. Maybe the Irish press actually sent journalists who were warm and breathing?

Oh, maybe they did.

The Irish Times, Obama brings buzz back to Washington St. Patrick's bash (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0319/1224243068325.html). .... writes Denis Staunton in Washington.

This is a completely different article from all the others. It's structured differently and it highlights different things. It bears no resemblance at all to the AP text. It begins with the description of the green champagne, and then reports Obama's speech in quite a lot of detail, before moving on the the gaffe.

When Cowen rose to speak, he began by welcoming us to St Patrick’s Day at the White House – which seemed an odd thing to do given that it was not his house.

“We begin by welcoming today a strong friend of the United States,” he said. Then he stopped, looked first at the teleprompter and then at Obama. “This is your speech,” he said to roars of laughter and applause. “Who said these things were idiot-proof?”

When he regained his bearings, Cowen noted the work of Irish architect James Hoban on the White House. “We were always good in the construction business,” he said. “America does ambition well, ambition to succeed, ambition to build a better future. America does pride well, justifiable pride. America does change well, and does hope pretty well, as well. Ireland does connection well, the proof is here.”

When the Taoiseach was finished speaking, the president stepped up to the microphone and, copying his guest’s opening line difficulties, said: “First, I’d like to say thank you to President Obama . . . Happy St Patrick’s Day, everybody.”


Now I'm convinced by this one. This journalist was actually there. He was there to report the actual speeches, including that of his own Prime Minister, which he did. Note that he describes what none of the others did - that the Taoiseach went on to complete the delivery of his correct speech before Obama did anything at all. He doesn't say that it was on the teleprompter by then, but it's obvious it must have been.

Only then, did Obama return to the podium. And now we have actual quotes, by someone who was actually there, whose job it was to report what was actually said.

.... the president stepped up to the microphone and, copying his guest’s opening line difficulties, said: “First, I’d like to say thank you to President Obama . . . Happy St Patrick’s Day, everybody.”


That's what all this hoo-hah is about. No mention of Obama reading from a teleprompter. No mention of the teleprompter showing Cowen's speech at this point. No mention, even, of Obama trying to ad-lib Cowan's actual speech - a bit pointless in any case, because Cowen had already delivered his speech by then. What happened? He ....

.... offer[ed] what might have been Cowen's remarks. In doing so, President Obama thanked President Obama for inviting everyone over.


.... said: “First, I’d like to say thank you to President Obama . . . Happy St Patrick’s Day, everybody.”


Put together like that, it's quite obvious that the two reports are describing exactly the same thing. Obama, extempore, said, "First, I’d like to say thank you to President Obama . . . Happy St Patrick’s Day, everybody." That's it! All of it!

Associated Press, in their press release, have used slightly ambiguous wording. Slightly. Well, not really, but it does seem to have confused David Byers. (Also, the filename of the AP article contains the string "OBAMA_SPEECH_MISTAKE", which might also confuse the unwary.) And David Byers has embroidered this into a tale about a second teleprompter boo-boo, and Limbaugh has run headlong with this mistake into "the British newspapers skewer Obama...."

And BeAChooser fell for it. Hook, line, sinker and rowboat.

Congratulations.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

By the way, I've telephoned the Times, but David Byers is away from his desk till Monday morning. So I sent him an email describing what Limbaugh seems to be making of his little slip-up.

You never know, something might come of that.

Rolfe.

[Shalamar]

Prove it. Link us to the video clip of the speech. Don't make me have to depend on a media that idolizes Obama and covered for all the crimes committed by the Clintons and democrats the last few decades.

Prove it WASN'T a joke. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Knowing Obama, and how well spoken he is, and how well he reads from the teleprompters, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.



Well if you really believe that, then why don't you visit that thread I linked above where I complain about the deficits that are predicted thanks to Obama policy. You can tell us there why adding $8.5 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years will be "good". :D


I'll let you know in 10 yearts, if your claim is accurate or not.

But then, you do really really really hate Obama, and thus, your statements are rather.. hmm.. biased, and thus, untrustworthy.

[tomwaits]

Teleprompter? I barely know her!

[Shalamar]

I don't think that's fair. When BAC complains about Obama, it usually means BAC is awake, in the literal sense of the word.

To suggest that BAC complains more about the good stuff than the bad stuff suggests a degree of judgement, conscious or otherwise, for which there is really no evidence.

I think its just as fair as BAC's claims. He's not interested in discussion, as seen when his claims are shown to be false. He just wants to point and laughs 'Haw Haw! You stupid librul Obama worshipers are sooooo dumb! Lookee what he did NOW!'

Obama could end up pooping solid gold bricks, and BAC would laugh and call out evil liberals for being so stupid. He's rather singleminded in his burning hate for Obama and Liberals.

[Darat]

Folks - remember your Membership Agreement, especially Rule 12: Attack the argument, not the arguer......

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Rolfe has pretty much covered it, but the Irish broadcast media response to this has pretty much been that Biffo made a mistake and Obama gracefully made light of it, it hasn't really been made much of, I think because no-one really wants to emphasise the Taoiseach looking silly on a world stage.

[Regnad Kcin]

Easy.

No terrorist attacks in the homeland.

The economy was excellent through most of it, despite attempts by democrats to wreck it.

And when the recession did hit at the end, it probably did so in large part because democrats worked tirelessly to protect the crooked democrats who ran Fannie and Freddie and Acorn (who caused the recession).

Now I just want to survive the next decade (or just the next 8 years).

But that might be hard with Obama policy causing deficits to be excess of $500 billion every year throughout that decade. Obama lies and calls that a halving of the deficit from what it was during Bush's years (when in fact for 7 of those 8 years the deficit was never over $500 billion or even close to $500 billion).

That might be hard with Obama policy making the current recession much worse than it had to be (based on ample historical data).

That might be hard with Obama policy eliminating the word "terrorist" from our vocabulary. You can't fight something you refuse to name.Er, you do realize this is a forum dedicated to critical thinking, right? Just checking to make sure.

[Rolfe]

Rolfe has pretty much covered it, but the Irish broadcast media response to this has pretty much been that Biffo made a mistake and Obama gracefully made light of it, it hasn't really been made much of, I think because no-one really wants to emphasise the Taoiseach looking silly on a world stage.


I'm interested in the fact that the source for the Limbaugh rant appears to be the David Byers article in the Times. It's fairly clear that Byers simply misread the AP bulletin which everybody else printed verbatim, and erroneously reported the teleprompter hiccuping a second time and Obama being caught on the hop.

Limbaugh has chosen to believe this report over all the others which have not misinterpreted the press release, presumably because it shows Obama in a bad light.

Any doubt at all is removed by the Irish Times article, which goes into far more detail and was obviously written by someone who was actually there.

Obama gives his speech
Cowen begins to speak, but once he's past the general platitudes realises that the teleprompter is repeating Obama's speech instead of moving on to his.
Cowen makes a joke of it, abetted by the crowd, and goes on to deliver his correct speech, presumably from the now-fixed teleprompter.
Obama then rises, goes to the podium, and says off-the-cuff, "First, I’d like to say thank you to President Obama.... Happy St Patrick’s Day, everybody."
And that was all.

Wow. Limbaugh certainly is a piece of work.

Rolfe.

[jmercer]

Ok, folks - attack the argument, not the person.

[Rolfe]

There's something else intrigues me about all this, though as I have to go off in ten minutes to get to the David Colquhoun lecture I may not have time to hunt it down.

Limbaugh speaks as if it is the British press who are accusing Obama of using the teleprompt far too much. (This is of course completely unrelated to the Cowen episode.) Limbaugh says....

And of course the British papers talk about, "What is this guy's dependency on the teleprompter here?" The US media is talking about his quick wittedness and his aplomb.


Well, that's right, the Brit papers are saying that. But where are they getting it? Look.

In his brief time in the White House, Mr Obama has become famous for a reliance on scripted remarks at public occasions, read from Teleprompters. Such errors should by now have been ironed out.


Obama is becoming known as the "tele*prompter president" for his reliance on the prompting screens, which retract when speeches are finished.


Mr Obama is becoming known as the 'teleprompter president' for his excessive use of the prompting screens, which retract when speeches are finished.


These last two are identical, which again suggests a common press release source. But it's not in the AP one, which ends with the bit about Obama thanking Obama. The Guardian does credit "agencies" in the plural. No real time to search for the souce of that one now, but I'll get back to it.

I'd have assumed from these press statements that Obama was indeed getting a name for over-using the teleprompter. This isn't necessarily a bad thing if he's good at it, and that's the way he works. But I'm getting intrigued now. Is he really getting that reputation in America, or is it just that a press agency has put out a report which says so, and so now everebody's saying so?

Wow. I just googled "excessive use of the prompting screens", a phrase which definitely suggests a common origin, and got 70 returns. Including a Wikipedia article which is marked for possible deletion. Everybody is repeating this, and I want to know where it came from ! Anybody got time to chase this up while I go and hear about what rubbish homoeopathy and acupuncture are?

Rolfe.

[Cain]

Obama totally copied Prime Minister Cowen!

[gdnp]

Obama totally copied Prime Minister Cowen!

Did Not! You take that back!

[GreyICE]

The argument is stupid, intellectually dishonest, grasping at straws, and of no redeeming social value. It would be safe to say that this argument is, on a scale from desperate to hopeless, around the same point as Khrushchev and his little shoe-banging incident.

Fortunately the arguer was such a wonderful person that they almost counterbalanced. I am thankful and relieved that the argument and the arguer share no common characteristics.

[BeAChooser]

And your saying that the recession of Feb5th is a different one from now?

:rolleyes:

Would another Obama defender care to explain this to joobz? :D

Certainly you said that, but you made no convincing case.

:rolleyes: Let's just say you didn't contradict any of the points I made in my case so how could I know you weren't convinced. :D

You need to prove that the deficit will be a worse issue than had we done nothing. IN that thread, you simply said how horrible it is to run up the deficit.

No, I quoted many knowledgeable people, including some important democrats and even Maynard Keynes (whose name Obama supporters are chanting to justify Obama's budget plans), warning about the destructiveness of large long term deficits. You simply ignored what THEY said, joobz.

But when Upchurch kept asking for alternatives to improve the economy, you were amazingly silent.

LIAR. I have stated the alternative many times ... with links to many others who agree. You just refuse to understand what I write ... as the first line in the post to which I'm responding demonstrated.

You seem to believe that inaction is a proper solution.

LIAR. That is not what I've suggested. Again, if you won't even try to understand my responses, or completely distort them as you did in your last post, there really is no point in continuing a debate with you. Again, I invite any readers to go visit these two threads: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135124 and http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136438 , and make up their own mind about whether I'm right and whether my concerns about the debt and deficit are justified. If they don't think so, then they can go ahead and invest on that basis. My bet is I'll have the last laugh, if we do indeed continue down this $500 billion (plus) a year, every year, into the foreseeable future, deficit path.

You said the economy wasn't as bad as in 1980. It seems you think otherwise now. Obama wasn't wrong.

You've not only misstated what I said, you misstated what Obama has said. If you are going to be completely obtuse, then debate with you is pointless.

Seriously, you hurt your credibility when you falsely accuse others of lying. I can read the article. I can read exactly what it says. I posted a quote from that article that explains it's full meaning. You seem to enjoy taking statements out of context and pretending that it's an honest tactic.

LIAR. I took nothing out of context. At a time well after Obama stated that "all of the indicators show that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression", the New York Times, quoting government statistics, stated (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/business/economy/28recession.html?_r=2 ) "Current conditions are not even as poor as during the twin recessions of the 1980s". The truth is that Obama wanted his porkulus bill passed, no matter what, so he was willing to lie to the public to justify it.

Now in a post above, you quoted a portion of the article that quotes a couple of economists speculating on the probability that the recession might turn into a depression. You apparently agree that the situation is that serious and want us to believe that so does Obama. But if that's true, then explain to everyone here, another fact noted in that article (a fact which you failed to mention); namely: "in drawing up the budget, the White House assumed the economy would expand by a robust 3.2 percent in 2010, with growth accelerating to 4 percent over the next three years." How can the budget be based on those assumptions, if you believe that Obama thinks we are headed for a depression?

And if he does really believe that, then we have another case where he and his administration have LIED in order to make their agenda more palatable. Why do I say that? Because the article goes on to state that "If, as is widely anticipated, the economy grows more slowly than the White House assumes, revenue will be lower, forcing the government to cut spending, raise taxes or run larger deficits." So, joobz, why don't you tell us which of those we should do if that should happen? Cut spending, raise taxes or run even larger deficits? (Or has the cat got your tongue?) :D

[gdnp]

:rolleyes:

Would another Obama defender care to explain this to joobz? :D

:rolleyes:
Let's just say you didn't contradict any of the points I made in my case so how could I know you weren't convinced. :D


No, I quoted many knowledgeable people, including some important democrats and even Maynard Keynes (whose name Obama supporters are chanting to justify Obama's budget plans), warning about the destructiveness of large long term deficits. You simply ignored what THEY said, joobz.



LIAR. I have stated the alternative many times ... with links to many others who agree. You just refuse to understand what I write ... as the first line in the post to which I'm responding demonstrated.



LIAR. That is not what I've suggested. Again, if you won't even try to understand my responses, or completely distort them as you did in your last post, there really is no point in continuing a debate with you. Again, I invite any readers to go visit these two threads: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135124 and http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136438 , and make up their own mind about whether I'm right and whether my concerns about the debt and deficit are justified. If they don't think so, then they can go ahead and invest on that basis. My bet is I'll have the last laugh, if we do indeed continue down this $500 billion (plus) a year, every year, into the foreseeable future, deficit path.



You've not only misstated what I said, you misstated what Obama has said. If you are going to be completely obtuse, then debate with you is pointless.



LIAR. I took nothing out of context. At a time well after Obama stated that "all of the indicators show that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression", the New York Times, quoting government statistics, stated (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/business/economy/28recession.html?_r=2 ) "Current conditions are not even as poor as during the twin recessions of the 1980s". The truth is that Obama wanted his porkulus bill passed, no matter what, so he was willing to lie to the public to justify it.

Now in a post above, you quoted a portion of the article that quotes a couple of economists speculating on the probability that the recession might turn into a depression. You apparently agree that the situation is that serious and want us to believe that so does Obama. But if that's true, then explain to everyone here, another fact noted in that article (a fact which you failed to mention); namely: "in drawing up the budget, the White House assumed the economy would expand by a robust 3.2 percent in 2010, with growth accelerating to 4 percent over the next three years." How can the budget be based on those assumptions, if you believe that Obama thinks we are headed for a depression?

And if he does really believe that, then we have another case where he and his administration have LIED in order to make their agenda more palatable. Why do I say that? Because the article goes on to state that "If, as is widely anticipated, the economy grows more slowly than the White House assumes, revenue will be lower, forcing the government to cut spending, raise taxes or run larger deficits." So, joobz, why don't you tell us which of those we should do if that should happen? Cut spending, raise taxes or run even larger deficits? (Or has the cat got your tongue?) :D









Originally Posted by joobz View Post
And your saying that the recession of Feb5th is a different one from now?

:rolleyes:

Would another Obama defender care to explain this to joobz? :D

Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Certainly you said that, but you made no convincing case.

:rolleyes: Let's just say you didn't contradict any of the points I made in my case so how could I know you weren't convinced. :D


Originally Posted by joobz View Post
You need to prove that the deficit will be a worse issue than had we done nothing. IN that thread, you simply said how horrible it is to run up the deficit.

No, I quoted many knowledgeable people, including some important democrats and even Maynard Keynes (whose name Obama supporters are chanting to justify Obama's budget plans), warning about...

Wait a minute. That's your post.... :o

[Monketey Ghost]

I have to fart, hold your breath

[BeAChooser]

OK, looked at the videoclip. Silly me, I thought it was going to be a clip of the actual indicent being reported. Oops, no.

You mean to say that you've created post after post attacking me and you hadn't even looked at the punch line of the OP until now? And you complain that I jump to conclusions? And even more laughable, you apparently still don't get it. :rolleyes:

That's quite clear. Obama did it on purpose, and didn't read anything from the teleprompter at that point.

Why can't we just see the video and decide for ourselves? Afterall, everything else this President has done that has been remotely great has been played over and over and over on the nightly news and then put into youtube format for future generations to admire. Why is this one just not available even though what the Irish Times describes sounds like a gem? :D

Speaking of which, thanks for your in-depth research on the source of the news report. Now if only you'd apply such thoroughness to Obama's budget and deficit plans. I invite you to join the recession and deficit threads I linked in my last post to joobz. Afterall, you do want to discuss serious issues ... don't you? :D

And BeAChooser fell for it. Hook, line, sinker and rowboat.

Still missing the punch line, aren't you. Soooooo serious. :rolleyes:

Here, maybe these will help you get it:

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2009/03/20/obamas-teleprompter-goes-on-strike/ "OBAMA’S TELEPROMPTER GOES ON STRIKE"

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/03/18/chaos-in-the-white-house-obamas-teleprompter-blows-up/ "Chaos in the White House - Obama’s teleprompter blows up"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/opinion/18dowd.html?_r=2 "Barack Obama even needs a teleprompter to get mad."

http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/"Barack Obama's Teleprompter's Blog"

Rolfe, you should just be glad I'm talking about teleprompters rather than AIG, $500 plus billion dollar deficits, $8.5 trillion dollar national debts, inflation worries and the printing of a TRILLION dollars by the Fed a couple days ago.

:D

[jj]

Still calling for the reactionary revolution, I see.

[BeAChooser]

BeAChooser:
You can tell us there why adding $8.5 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years will be "good".

I'll let you know in 10 yearts, if your claim is accurate or not.


Claim? That's not a claim. That's what the government's Office Of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated the effect of Obama's budget plans would do to the deficit and national debt over the next 10 years. That's all discussed in the threads I linked above. Apparently, like all the rest, you don't want to discuss something as serious as that because you never showed up. You'd rather wallow in ignorance of the real situation.

And it just keeps getting more and more serious. Here's what the Congressional Budget Office concluded:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget


March 20, 2009

... snip ...

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush's presidency, congressional auditors said Friday.

... snip ...

By CBO's calculation, Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year of red ink over 2010-2019.

Worst of all, CBO says the deficit under Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product, a dangerously high level.


By the way, there's a quote in that link by Mark Zandi, who joobz quoted earlier in this thread as a *expert* on this crisis:


"I think deficits of 5 percent (of GDP) are unsupportable," said economist Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "It will lead to higher interest rates to the point where it will force policymakers to make changes."


Maybe the reason he's making predictions about a depression have something to do with Obama's massive spending plans. ;)

But then, you do really really really hate Obama, and thus, your statements are rather.. hmm.. biased, and thus, untrustworthy.

Tell us, Shalamar, do you think the AP and Washington Post (which is reporting the same thing) "really really hate Obama"? :D

[BeAChooser]

Obama could end up pooping solid gold bricks

Hey, I'll stand in line behind him with my hands out ... like all the rest of you are now doing ... if that is what he really proves he can do.

But based on history, I don't think there's much chance that will happen. :D

[BeAChooser]

Rolfe has pretty much covered it

Amazing how many posters have shown up to comment on this totally silly thread topic ... yet couldn't find the time to post even once on the far more serious threads I started on the recession and deficit. I wonder what that says about those posters? :D

[BeAChooser]

Er, you do realize this is a forum dedicated to critical thinking, right? Just checking to make sure.

And which of the items I listed do you think is untrue? Just checking to make sure YOU are a "critical think"er. :D

[BeAChooser]

Still calling for the reactionary revolution, I see.

Still avoiding posting on the really serious topics, I see. :D

[Megalodon]

Maybe it was the Clinton's Flying Ninja that stole the tape, so that right-wing blowhards would end up looking like... well, right-wing blowhards.

Oh my... so much fail... the horror, the horror...

[gdnp]

Amazing how many posters have shown up to comment on this totally silly thread topic ... yet couldn't find the time to post even once on the far more serious threads I started on the recession and deficit. I wonder what that says about those posters? :D

As one of said posters, let me explain to you my reasoning. By way of example.

Let us say there is a candidate's debate. They agree to have one person ask a question followed by a rebuttal, taking turns.

The first candidate asks a question in 2 minutes, the second gives a 1 minute rebuttal, the first gives a 5 minute answer, with the other a 5 minute rebuttal, a 1 minute follow-up, and a 6 minute answer, and so on.

In the middle of the debate the first candidates launches into a 90 minute diatribe, disjointed, misleading, poorly organized, mostly a bunch of cherry picked references pasted together, some of which contradict the current opinions of the experts he is attempting to quote. He then folds his hands and, with a big grin, waits for his opponent to respond.

What he does not realize is that his opponent walked out after 15 minutes. Candidate 1 has changed the unwritten rules of the game, and candidate 2 has decided not to play.

Candidate 1 then looks towards the audience, and tries to claim victory as his opponent has left the field of battle, only to discover that the audience has almost all left as well.

Leaving candidate 1 standing at the podium declaring "I win!, I win!" to an empty room

Later, he tries to arrange additional debates, and can't figure out for the life of him why no one else will sign up. :D

[sackett]

Shure 'n if Barry O'Bama hadn't as yet taken the wee drop like the Taoseach himself, 'tis no wonder he caught the mishtake 'n made a play out of it, bedad.

Or do Oi mean begorrah?

[BeAChooser]

Funny thing, gdnp ... I don't think anyone who is actually open minded and actually reads the two threads I linked earlier will come to your conclusion. I think EVERYONE can see you've run from the issue of $500 billion dollar plus deficits being the norm. Because you really don't have a response. You have nothing to argue against the historical facts I cited. And even the discredited economist you tried to use to support your views, Maynard Keynes, abandoned you when it comes to inflation. Which is why I suspect you'll beg out of the question about what we should do if inflation raises it's ugly head ... which more and more folks are predicting. Speaking of which, did you see the Fed printed a trillion dollars a few days ago? A trillion here ... a trillion there ... and before long your currency is next to worthless.

[sackett]

Rolfe, I don't know about the finger bowl, but the tale is told that one day at lunch Queen Victoria was eating her asparagus sword-swallower style (she wasn't any kind of Victorian, she was a Georgian born and bred!) when a priggish little girl who had been allowed to sit at table exclaimed, "Oh, piggy piggy!" Her Majesty is said to have laughed and laughed.

[Rolfe]

You mean to say that you've created post after post attacking me and you hadn't even looked at the punch line of the OP until now? And you complain that I jump to conclusions? And even more laughable, you apparently still don't get it. :rolleyes:


If that's your idea of a punch line, don't give up your day job. It wouldn't even have been funny if it had been done to Bush. (Just easier.)

Why can't we just see the video and decide for ourselves? Afterall, everything else this President has done that has been remotely great has been played over and over and over on the nightly news and then put into youtube format for future generations to admire. Why is this one just not available even though what the Irish Times describes sounds like a gem? :D


Frankly, my dear, I haven't a clue. At a wild guess, because nobody but a few loons who watch Rush Limbaugh for something other than laughs actually gives the proverbial damn?

What the Irish Times describes? Remember, that is the one newspaper which sent a warm, breathing actual journalist to the event, and the one report that is not a barely (or not at all) concealed copy/paste of the AP press release. What did their journalist say?

When the Taoiseach was finished speaking, the president stepped up to the microphone and, copying his guest’s opening line difficulties, said: “First, I’d like to say thank you to President Obama . . . Happy St Patrick’s Day, everybody.”


That's what happened. According to the guy who was actually there. The sheer non-event nature of that might perhaps be a bit of a clue why video isn't being rushed out. (That, and perhaps not wanting to embarrass the foreign dignitary who actually did make a gaffe.)

Speaking of which, thanks for your in-depth research on the source of the news report. Now if only you'd apply such thoroughness to Obama's budget and deficit plans. I invite you to join the recession and deficit threads I linked in my last post to joobz. Afterall, you do want to discuss serious issues ... don't you? :D


My dear chap, I discuss what I want to discuss. Not what you dictate that I should discuss. Getting completely pwned on one point can't be shrugged off by demanding that the subject be changed.

Still missing the punch line, aren't you. Soooooo serious. :rolleyes:

Here, maybe these will help you get it:

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2009/03/20/obamas-teleprompter-goes-on-strike/ "OBAMA’S TELEPROMPTER GOES ON STRIKE"


Dated today, 20th March, two days after the event and quite blatantly just picking up Limbaugh's line without deviation.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/03/18/chaos-in-the-white-house-obamas-teleprompter-blows-up/ "Chaos in the White House - Obama’s teleprompter blows up"


Just another description of what actually happened. Obama's teleprompter blows up all right, but only Cowen is described as being the victim. As for Obama,

Not missing a beat, when President Obama returned to the podium he returned the favor.

“First, I’d like to say thank you to President Obama,” Obama said to much laughter.


I agree, the following demands for media exposure of this and publication of video footage are a bit strange, but maybe the writer just hates Fianna Fail for some reason.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/opinion/18dowd.html?_r=2 "Barack Obama even needs a teleprompter to get mad."


Sorry, closed article. Registration required. I don't give my details online to read newspaper articles. Maybe you can check yourself that this one actually supports your assertion. Your track record so far isn't so good.

http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/"Barack Obama's Teleprompter's Blog"


I just wasted five minutes I'll never get back, reading through that puerile attempt at "humour". So someone whose wit is suffering from arrested development and should clearly be in protective custody started a blog on 18th March, written as if from the point of view of Obama's teleprompter. How droll. The only reference to the events of 17th March are in the very first entry, and there isn't even any attempt to describe what happened. Nothing but a link to the Fox news article you quoted in your OP, the one taken from the AP press release, and this is where we came in.

So, nothing there that even begins to support the version of events you'd like to promote. The only one of the four that came close was the first one, and that was obviously just a Limbaugh clone, repeating His Master's Voice two days late and a dollar short.

Got any more?

Rolfe, you should just be glad I'm talking about teleprompters rather than AIG, $500 plus billion dollar deficits, $8.5 trillion dollar national debts, inflation worries and the printing of a TRILLION dollars by the Fed a couple days ago.

:D


So, you got your troubles. We got our troubles. Permit me to decline your attempt to change the subject again.

If you have any evidence at all that supports your preferred version of events that isn't obviously just parroting Limbaugh's cherry-pick of Byers' sloppy journalism, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.

Rolfe.

[Meadmaker]

Funny thing, gdnp ... I don't think anyone who is actually open minded and actually reads the two threads I linked earlier will come to your conclusion....

No, I think he pretty much hit the nail on the head. By the way, I didn't read the rest of the post I quoted from above.

ETA: My mistake, sort of. You referred to people who actually reads the two threads. GDNP's point is that darned near nobody would actually bother reading the two threads.

[Foolmewunz]

BaC - you're right, of course! Those are brilliant threads. And you should go over to them and discuss your thoughts on the matter.

This thread, though, is about your rush (tee hee) to smear Obama when everyone else in the world who can think can clearly see what happened.

Please continue to defend that position and stop derailing your own thread with attempts to give yourself credence. ("Oh, yeah! Well I posted somefin' real smart over there! Yeah! I did!")

If you're going to top the REO/Elton thread you're going to have to defend more vociferously.

[Rolfe]

I dropped this thread about 5.45 to go down to the university buildings to attend David Colquhoun's lecture on quackery. I got into my car, and the radio was tuned to Radio Scotland. They were in the middle of a sketch apparently imported from the US, lampooning Obama for making a gaffe. I was intrigued, because I was by now well aware that Obama hadn't made a gaffe on Tuesday. And if he had, Friday was a bit late to be getting humorous about it.

Obama made a real gaffe on Friday. Or maybe Thursday, the time difference does my head in. The full details were on the main news bulletin. And apparently he immediately apologised, but he's definitely getting stick.

That's what tends to happen when things actually, well, you know.... HAPPEN. As opposed to when they don't.

Rolfe.

[Meadmaker]

I must ask something, though. I have seen, quoted in this thread and in a few other references, a lot of discussion about Obama relying heavily on the teleprompter. Is that a fair comment? To me, it seems just the opposite. I don't watch a lot of TV or internet videos, so maybe I haven't noticed, but it seems to me that he isn't really a major teleprompter guy. He has made more appearances than other presidents, including more speeches, so there's more footage of him with a teleprompter, but on the whole he seems to not rely on it excessively. Maybe I just haven't noticed.

[joobz]

No, I quoted many knowledgeable people, including some important democrats and even Maynard Keynes (whose name Obama supporters are chanting to justify Obama's budget plans), warning about the destructiveness of large long term deficits. You simply ignored what THEY said, joobz.
Given your clear demonstration of quotemining within THIS thread, in both the OP and the article I referred to, there's really no reason to trust anything you say or quote. I'm not going to waste time going through your post vomit. You have no credibility



LIAR...
LIAR...
LIAR.
This is called projection. Feel free to label me how ever you see. I've been nothing but honest.

[Rolfe]

I must ask something, though. I have seen, quoted in this thread and in a few other references, a lot of discussion about Obama relying heavily on the teleprompter. Is that a fair comment? To me, it seems just the opposite. I don't watch a lot of TV or internet videos, so maybe I haven't noticed, but it seems to me that he isn't really a major teleprompter guy. He has made more appearances than other presidents, including more speeches, so there's more footage of him with a teleprompter, but on the whole he seems to not rely on it excessively. Maybe I just haven't noticed.


Please see my earlier post on this. 103 I think.

There's something else intrigues me about all this, though as I have to go off in ten minutes to get to the David Colquhoun lecture I may not have time to hunt it down.

Limbaugh speaks as if it is the British press who are accusing Obama of using the teleprompt far too much. (This is of course completely unrelated to the Cowen episode.) Limbaugh says....

And of course the British papers talk about, "What is this guy's dependency on the teleprompter here?" The US media is talking about his quick wittedness and his aplomb.


Well, that's right, the Brit papers are saying that. But where are they getting it? Look.

In his brief time in the White House, Mr Obama has become famous for a reliance on scripted remarks at public occasions, read from Teleprompters. Such errors should by now have been ironed out.


Obama is becoming known as the "tele*prompter president" for his reliance on the prompting screens, which retract when speeches are finished.


Mr Obama is becoming known as the 'teleprompter president' for his excessive use of the prompting screens, which retract when speeches are finished.


These last two are identical, which again suggests a common press release source. But it's not in the AP one, which ends with the bit about Obama thanking Obama. The Guardian does credit "agencies" in the plural. No real time to search for the souce of that one now, but I'll get back to it.

I'd have assumed from these press statements that Obama was indeed getting a name for over-using the teleprompter. This isn't necessarily a bad thing if he's good at it, and that's the way he works. But I'm getting intrigued now. Is he really getting that reputation in America, or is it just that a press agency has put out a report which says so, and so now everebody's saying so?

Wow. I just googled "excessive use of the prompting screens", a phrase which definitely suggests a common origin, and got 70 returns. Including a Wikipedia article which is marked for possible deletion. Everybody is repeating this, and I want to know where it came from ! Anybody got time to chase this up while I go and hear about what rubbish homoeopathy and acupuncture are?


Rush Limbaugh picking up on one journalistic error is one thing, but the British press being systematically fed a line so that they will print it, and can then be used as sources to prove the original case, is quite another. I think there is evidence that that is happening here. That segment is not in the AP press release. The repetition by at least two journalists (one admittedy working from press releases) suggests it's in another.

If it's true, then that's fine. But I'm getting a sense it isn't. Look, it's late here and I've done a lot on this. Can nobody help me out? Just google "retract when speeches are finished" and you get 70+ links. Somewhere in there is the original. Who is it, and what is their motivation for putting out that info? Truth, mistake, or deliberate attempt to get the British press to back their agenda?

Rolfe.

[gdnp]

I must ask something, though. I have seen, quoted in this thread and in a few other references, a lot of discussion about Obama relying heavily on the teleprompter. Is that a fair comment? To me, it seems just the opposite. I don't watch a lot of TV or internet videos, so maybe I haven't noticed, but it seems to me that he isn't really a major teleprompter guy. He has made more appearances than other presidents, including more speeches, so there's more footage of him with a teleprompter, but on the whole he seems to not rely on it excessively. Maybe I just haven't noticed.
With or without a teleprompter, people are going to make mistakes when public speaking. More so when speaking off the cuff. Obama, it seems to me, gives a lot of speeches, and not only to friendly audiences, and is far more accessible to answer questions than Bush was. Obama seems much more articulate, honest, and intelligent than any president in my lifetime. I get the impression that he understands what he is saying, rather than just reading from a script written by his handlers.

[BeAChooser]

If that's your idea of a punch line, don't give up your day job.

I see from your last post that you STILL don't get it. Oh well. :rolleyes:

Sorry, closed article. Registration required. I don't give my details online to read newspaper articles.

Odd. I don't give mine either (and you can be sure I wouldn't give it to the NY Times), yet I have no problem opening that link and reading that one. :D

[Rolfe]

With or without a teleprompter, people are going to make mistakes when public speaking. More so when speaking off the cuff. Obama, it seems to me, gives a lot of speeches, and not only to friendly audiences, and is far more accessible to answer questions than Bush was. Obama seems much more articulate, honest, and intelligent than any president in my lifetime. I get the impression that he understands what he is saying, rather than just reading from a script written by his handlers.


And that's exactly my point. That's my impression.

I'm suspecting that one (or more) press releases may have been deliberately issued by someone in a position to do that, with the object of getting exactly that accusation into reputable newspapers, so that these articles can then be cited as evidence that Obama doesn't have an original thought in his head.

What better way to smear someone who is showing up the previous inarticulate and gaffe-prone incumbent every time he opens his mouth. There's something to find here, sceptics, and it's the middle of the night GMT. Please, USians, just look at the 70 links with "retract when speeches are finished" in the text and see if you can see which is the primary source!

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I see from your last post that you STILL don't get it. Oh well. :rolleyes:

Odd. I don't give mine either (and you can be sure I wouldn't give it to the NY Times), yet I have no problem opening that link and reading that one. :D


So what does it say, genius? Some of us are smelling bigger fish here that want frying.

Rolfe.

[BeAChooser]

Obama seems much more articulate, honest, and intelligent than any president in my lifetime.

I take it you weren't around during Reagan? And although I'll agree that Obama is articulate, I don't agree that he's more honest and intelligent than other Presidents, even of late. I think he's demonstrating extreme naivety on matters such as the economy and national defense, and a crafty sort of dishonesty that is only successful because he has the media in his pocket. But each of us is entitled to his/her opinion ... so carry on. :D

[Rolfe]

OK, small progress. The agency is given by six of the myriad news papers and pages that copy that as "ANI".

However, ani is a name and a common abbreviation, and I can't find a news agency in the squillions of links. It's not my first thought, "Associated News International", though I bet that's close. www.ani.com (http://www.ani.com) is something completely unrelated.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find the original "ANI" press release, and the date, and figure out what the basis is for the accusation.

ETA: I found this blog dated 9th March (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/3/6/-obama-and-the-teleprompter-dont-buy-the-conservative-talking-points.html), talking about a campaign to smear Obama with the tag of a teleprompter user. The author reports that it's been a subject of conservative conversation for some time. OK, so it's not a new thing. Maybe the ANI press release has just picked up on this persistent innuendo rather than deliberately disseminated the notion. It's still amazing how far it's got. Dozens of newspapers and scores of blogs, all reporting it verbatim. Actually, it's amazing how many blogs have simply pasted the unattributed quote in as if it were original work.

Rolfe.

[Meadmaker]

Please see my earlier post on this. 103 I think.



Thanks. FWIW, I never heard anything about Obama and teleprompters before this incident. Of course, I don't always pay attention to the "right" sources, so maybe someone was saying it before, but I never heard it.

Moreover, it doesn't seem right to me. He seems to speak off the cuff a great deal. Perhaps other presidents, when giving prepared remarks, were more likely to use printed pages from a lectern, while Obama is more likely to use teleprompters. I don't see that as a significant difference. He also uses e-mail, myspace, and blackberries, unlike previous presidents.

[Rolfe]

Sigh. Does anyone know how these news agency things work? All I'm getting are squillions of repeats of what more or less seems to be the entire David Byers article, mostly unattributed or crediting the blogger/inhouse journalist, some crediting "ANI". Byers gets a couple of name-checks too.

Now let's be clear. Helen Pidd (Guardian) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/18/barack-obama-irish-prime-minister-teleprompter) is the honest one. She states that she has used "agencies", in the plural. She includes the "Obama thanked himself" quote from the AP agency. And she includes the "teleprompter president" quote also used by Byers. This is clear evidence that Byers' source was an agency. But we don't know that he used AP at all. So he may have got all the nuttery about Obama reading Cowen's speech from there too, rather than simply invented it when elaborating on a more factual account. (Helen Pidd, on the other hand, chose the AP article as her source for that section of her account.)

So where is this agency story? The AP one was easy to find. But all I'm getting here is what look like Byers' own version, rocket-propelled. It looks as if this libel on Obama is so popular that its propagation is obscuring its original source.

Which could be ANI, or ANI could just be disseminating Byers.

ETA: Damn, it's the latter. ANI is an Asian news agency (http://www.aniin.com/). And indeed, the pages that credited them where mostly Asian. They're just relaying Byers' article, presumably by arrangement with the Times.

But we know that was from an agency to start with, because Pidd used the same one.

It's a mess.

Rolfe.

[joobz]

Sigh. Does anyone know how these news agency things work? All I'm getting are squillions of repeats of what more or less seems to be the entire David Byers article, mostly unattributed or crediting the blogger/inhouse journalist, some crediting "ANI". Byers gets a couple of name-checks too.
Hi Rolfe,
Keep up the good work. I'm finding your research fascinating.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Hi Rolfe,
Keep up the good work. I'm finding your research fascinating.

Ditto. I try and limit what links I click on at work otherwise I'd try and track down...

... o.k. I did a little searching and lookie here: Freep already has it as a keyword that shows up on Google (http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/teleprompter/index).

No help, but more evidence it's a temespt in a right wing teapot.

[joobie]

Thanks. FWIW, I never heard anything about Obama and teleprompters before this incident. Of course, I don't always pay attention to the "right" sources, so maybe someone was saying it before, but I never heard it.

no normal person has really ever worried about the POTUS using a teleprompter:

Dear Cecil:

When the President makes speeches you often see two squares of glass mounted on stands on either side of the podium. What are they for?

— Jim L., Phoenix

Dear Jim:

They're teleprompters--you didn't think the Prez actually memorized all those speeches, did you? The glass squares, which are called "beam splitters," are coated in such a way that they act as mirrors for the person at the podium while appearing transparent to people in the audience. They're carefully angled so that they pick up the text of the speech off TV monitors lying face up on the floor and reflect it toward the speaker.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/584/what-are-the-glass-squares-on-either-side-of-the-presidential-podium

notice the date, notice who was president then...yeah, "the great communicator."

[UnrepentantSinner]

Ditto. I try and limit what links I click on at work otherwise I'd try and track down...

... o.k. I did a little searching and lookie here: Freep already has it as a keyword that shows up on Google (http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/teleprompter/index).

No help, but more evidence it's a temespt in a right wing teapot.

There's a number of references to Rush in this thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2209532/posts

[Rolfe]

I don't know why I'm so interested in this, but mysteries intrigue me. I think it's the fact that the British press seems to be being set up as patsies here, in order to support the right-wing assertion that "everybody is talking about" Obama's teleprompter usage.

In a sense, what the papers are saying isn't wrong. There is talk going round in certain sections of US society criticising Obama's teleprompter usage. That is what the British papers have said. What they haven't said (but what appears to be the case) is that these sections of US society are the more rabid GOP-supporting ones, desperate to find something to smear Obama for.

Now these same sections of society are pointing to the British press reporting of their own POV, and saying, "look, we're right, even the Brits have noticed how much Obama uses the teleprompter!!!" No, dummies, these reports are noting that you have remarked on this.

This seems to be being facilitated by the issuing of press release or news agency material which specifically makes reference to Obama and teleprompters. In the newspaper material I've examined there are three articles mentioning it. The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obamas-speech-recycled-by-cowen-1648419.html)one may have been independently written, as that journalist was noted as being in Washington, and the wording is original. It does have a whiff of the same agency material about it though.

The confusion appears to have stemmed from the fact that the Irish leader was to give the same speech at two separate functions. But it is surprising nonetheless. In his brief time in the White House, Mr Obama has become famous for a reliance on scripted remarks at public occasions, read from Teleprompters. Such errors should by now have been ironed out.


However, there can be no doubt that the other two references have a common source. The Guardian one (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/18/barack-obama-irish-prime-minister-teleprompter).

Helen Pidd and agencies
guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Wednesday 18 March 2009 18.49 GMT
About this article
Irish prime minister Brian Cowen repeats Barack Obama speech as White House teleprompter fouls up
This article was first published on guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/) at 18.49 GMT on Wednesday 18 March 2009. It was last updated at 18.49 GMT on Wednesday 18 March 2009.

Obama is becoming known as the "teleprompter president" for his reliance on the prompting screens, which retract when speeches are finished.

Although used for more than half a century, the device was previously employed mainly for set-piece speeches. The current president, however, often uses them for making small introductory statements at the beginning of press conferences.


And the Times version (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5931422.ece).

March 18 2009
David Byers

Mr Obama is becoming known as the 'teleprompter president' for his excessive use of the prompting screens, which retract when speeches are finished.

Although used for more than half a century, the device was previously employed mainly for set-piece speeches. The current President, however, often uses them for making small introductory statements at the beginning of press conferences.


Both published on the same day. In rival newspapers. By different journalists. Using identical wording. One did not copy the other - not at that stage. This is agency or press release material. But unlike the AP material, which was used by many papers, including the Guardian, the source of this lot cannot be traced.

This is the entire sum and substance of the assertion that the "British press" have got Obama sussed, have nailed him, and are skewering him. None of the other papers which just used the AP material (or the Irish Times, which published an original report) mentioned the matter at all.

This has now been copied across the web in scores of places, including foreign newspapers, online news sites, and blogs. Some use the Pridd version, others the Byers one. Many are unattributed, allowing the assumption that they are original work.

I'd dearly love to know what sparked this off. Maybe an email to Helen Pidd is in order....

ETA: I note that when I copy/paste the Guardian version, the word "teleprompter" comes out as "tele*prompter", though it does not show like that in the article. This does not happen with the Times version. In the source code for the page in the Guardian, the word appears as "teleÂ*prompter". Otherwise the excerpts are identical. Hmmmm. (Looks like code for a soft hyphen, possibly. May be irrelvant in that case.)

Rolfe.

[Wildy]

BeAChooser

May I just ask, do you believe that the Republican Party is infallible? Or that whatever they do is the right choice?

[gdnp]

I searched Reuters, since it is the only large press service I know other than AP, but it doesn't even mention the incident, at least under "teleprompter" or "obama cowen". The best I could find there is a link to the skynews blog (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Barack-Obama-Thanks-Himself-In-Teleprompt-Blunder-During-Address-With-Irish-PM-On-St-Patricks-Day/Article/200903315243932?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_A rticle_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15243932_Barack_Obama_Thanks_Himself_I n_Teleprompt_Blunder_During_Address_With_Irish_PM_ On_St_Patricks_Day) which repeats the apparent error that Obama's comments were a mistake, rather than a joke:

A laughing Mr Obama returned to the podium to take over but it seems the script had finally been switched and the US president ended up thanking himself for inviting everyone to the party.

Mr Obama is an accomplished orator but is becoming known in America as the "teleprompt president" over his reliance on the machine when he gives a speech.

2 additional comments:

1) has anyone ever heard of Obama being referred to as the "teleprompt president?" When I searched "teleprompt president" in google the first 3 pages all seem to be rehashes of this same (misinformed) blog post. Not a lot of critical thinking going on among those that have drunk the kool-aid.
2) Is it possible that there is no video of this "gaffe" because it was not filmed? I know in this day of cell phones and 24/7 news the idea that the president would say something in public without a video camera rolling seems remote, but I don't have any better explanation.

[Foolmewunz]

2 additional comments:

1) has anyone ever heard of Obama being referred to as the "teleprompt president?" When I searched "teleprompt president" in google the first 3 pages all seem to be rehashes of this same (misinformed) blog post. Not a lot of critical thinking going on among those that have drunk the kool-aid.
2) Is it possible that there is no video of this "gaffe" because it was not filmed? I know in this day of cell phones and 24/7 news the idea that the president would say something in public without a video camera rolling seems remote, but I don't have any better explanation.

Try "teleprompter president". There's even a website

http://www.teleprompterpresident.com/2009/03/st-patricks-day-blooper.html


It's been a minor meme since the campaigns, but picked up in recent weeks. The general thrust seems to be, "See, he's no great speaker, he's a great reader. We need someone who can think on their feet."

Had these guys been around in the 1860s, they would've called Lincoln the "Envelope President". He didn't just make up the Gettysburg Address, he wrote it down ahead of time!! Bah! What an idiot.

[gdnp]

Try "teleprompter president". There's even a website

http://www.teleprompterpresident.com/2009/03/st-patricks-day-blooper.html


It's been a minor meme since the campaigns, but picked up in recent weeks. The general thrust seems to be, "See, he's no great speaker, he's a great reader. We need someone who can think on their feet."

Had these guys been around in the 1860s, they would've called Lincoln the "Envelope President". He didn't just make up the Gettysburg Address, he wrote it down ahead of time!! Bah! What an idiot.

Another site parroting the original skynews blunder...

[Foolmewunz]

Another site parroting the original skynews blunder...

Yeah, I wasn't recommending their content or even commenting on it. I was just using it to answer your question about the nickname. I think Politico brought this all to the forefront about thirty days ago and the right wing blogs have picked up on it and it's just gotten a little viral.

[Rolfe]

gdnp, that's interesting, but it's not the same wording of course. It's dated around noon on 18th March, which is before the newspapers - the Guardian at least went online in the evening and would presumably have been in the dead-tree edition of 19th March, if it made it into print. The Times was probably similar. It does mention "teleprompter president", but it also claims that Obama was mistakenly reading the thing when he thanked himself. So it could have been the source for David Byers' mistake. Except that doesn't explain where Byers and Pidd got the identical wording from.

I think I'll email Helen Pidd, though again I'll probably have to phone the paper to get the email address. She has acknowledged using agency sources, and may be willing to say what the non-AP bit was. The Guardian is notoriously left-wing, so if indeed they have been suckered into printing a right-wiing libel on Obama as if it were fact, they may not be happy. Particularly if the purpose of all this was to allow their material to be used as "independent" evidence to support the libel.

At lunch time today I was listening to a very serious and long-running political discussion programme on Radio 4 (Any Questions). The discussion was about whether Gordon Brown should go on talk shows like Obama. Several panellists pointed out how hard it is for a politician to do that and not have the wheels come off, and doubted GB could hack it. In the course of that I heard Obama referred to as "silver-tongued", and "a great orator of the old school", and several speeches and performances of his praised highly for their presentation as well as their content.

I mentioned the story to a few people during the day, and everyone expressed surprise that there was any comment on Obama's teleprompter use. Nobody had noticed whether he was using one or not. Most praised his public speaking ability. There's no question of Obama being lampooned in Britain for using the teleprompt. Nobody has noticed or thinks anything of it. (And yes, most people had heard about the "special Olympics" gaffe on Friday, thus demonstrating that when stuff actually does happen, it is reported and registered.)

And why should they? We live in an increasingly technological society. And Obama is a relatively young man, especially compared to Bush and McCain. It's only natural he would tend to use technology more than them, or earlier presidents - just as young lecturers use Powerpoint more and more easily than older ones who grew up with slides and overhead projectors and blackboards.

The Wiki situation makes it obvious that there is a group of Republicans trying to get this "teleprompter president" label stuck to Obama, and they've been at this for a little while. It's also pretty transparent that the reason is that Obama's oratorical skills are providing a truly painful contrast with Bush's fumbles and slips and "Bushisms". Getting three serious English dailies to print that has been a major coup for the campaign, as it appears to give the accusation external validity. And of course it provides sources/references for people to rely on when they want to get the thing into Wikipedia.

I may be wrong, but my gut feeling is that this material was somehow fed to Pidd and Byers (and probably others who didn't use it) in the form of a press agency report, for exactly that purpose. It can't be that hard to organise if you've got the supporters the GOP has. Devious, underhand, and something to be very wary of, if they try to do it with something more important.

Rolfe.

[gdnp]

sounds practically Rovian. ;)

[Rolfe]

I had to google that....

Oh, it's probably reading too much into it. But there's only one way to find out, and that's to test the hypothesis. It does seem very convenient that the right-wingers have been trying to get this label pinned on Obama for months, and then suddenly it's in three serious, major English newspapers apparently via news agency material, and immediatly the right-wingers are pointing to this saying, look, the Brits have noticed the same thing quite independently.

If it had been Brown at the White House, of course the press pack would have been there too and nobody would have been using agency material. But Cowen isn't a story in Britain, so the press pack stayed home and had to rely on secondary sources. Convenient.

I note nobody has either edited me back on that Wiki article, or deleted the whole damn thing (which was what I was hoping would happen). I may have to rewrite the entire article (and do it better) if they aren't going to can it.

Rolfe.

[Foolmewunz]

Rolfe,
Watching basketball (in America the NCAA tournament is on and it's got me up at weird hours) early this morning, I did a few google combinations on this to kill time, and because I'm equally interested.

I thought maybe I could find an early US article with that same wording and trace it back to perhaps a single paper or wire service.

Sorry - I went through about forty full pages of google links and came up with the articles you've already mentioned, the Sky News which is not the same wording, and then just blog after blog after blog.

I'm curious, too. Is there some conservative-spin wire service out there? (Don't let Skeptigirl see that question, please!) Or is this archive material from a month or so ago, explaining the new Teleprompter President meme in a background file, and they both picked it up and chose the pertinent paragraphs. I'd vote Reuters or AFP if it's the latter. I can envision that they'd have background files to explain away certain buzzwords that European journalists might need background on.

[UnrepentantSinner]

The stench of desperation on the part of the right wing is even more pervasive now.

[Rolfe]

Rolfe,
Watching basketball (in America the NCAA tournament is on and it's got me up at weird hours) early this morning, I did a few google combinations on this to kill time, and because I'm equally interested.

I thought maybe I could find an early US article with that same wording and trace it back to perhaps a single paper or wire service.

Sorry - I went through about forty full pages of google links and came up with the articles you've already mentioned, the Sky News which is not the same wording, and then just blog after blog after blog.

I'm curious, too. Is there some conservative-spin wire service out there? (Don't let Skeptigirl see that question, please!) Or is this archive material from a month or so ago, explaining the new Teleprompter President meme in a background file, and they both picked it up and chose the pertinent paragraphs. I'd vote Reuters or AFP if it's the latter. I can envision that they'd have background files to explain away certain buzzwords that European journalists might need background on.


Thanks very much for that.

I don't see that it would necessarily take a right-wing wire service. All you'd need would be one sympathiser who decided to slide something in.

I've written an email to Helen Pidd, which I'll send tomorrow when I get her email addy. The Guardian is notoriously left-wing, and I don't suppose she'd be thrilled to think she'd been used as a catspaw by the US hard-line Republican spin machine. Also, she didn't propagate the line that Obama had blindly "thanked himself" off a teleprompter screen, and she was completely upfront about basing her article on agency material, so she has nothing to be embarrassed about (unlike David Byers).

Rolfe.

[UnrepentantSinner]

And the meme spreads. From Sunday's Dallas Morning News letters to the editor:
Our 'celebrity' president
After Thursday's Tonight Show with Jay Leno, what's next for our celebrity president -- a stint on Dancing With the Stars? Banter with Jon Stewart? Maybe cooking up a favorite family recipe with Rachael Ray?
Someone needs to tell President Barack Obama that he won the election and does not have to resort to guest appearances on television shows in an attempt to woo the American public. But then, considering his heavy reliance on teleprompters, perhaps this an ideal fit for the president of the United States, who seems more concerned with remaining a media darling than acting like the leader of the free world.


Lisa A. Fox, Plano

[Rolfe]

Huh. I emailed Helen Pidd (the Guardian front desk kindly gave me her email address when I telephoned), but

I will be out of the office starting 19/03/2009 and will not return until 29/03/2009.


I did cc the message to both the home and foreign newsdesks though, so perhaps someone there will pick up on it.

I note my clumsy and hurried edit of the Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleprompter_usage_by_Barack_Obama#cite_note-usnews-1) hasn't been reverted. So I think I'll try to rewrite the whole article and see who flames me.

Rolfe.

[Alex Libman]

I hate Obama about 90% as much as I hated Bush, but the man's charisma (by the mainstream American standard), verbal skills, and ability to think on his feet are irreproachable. Any claims to the contrary are as counter-productive as the "Bush is stupid" delusion. It's not the actors that I have the problem with, it's the script!

[Rolfe]

I just rewrote the Wiki article. Nobody has flamed me yet, and all I notice is that after I made my original rather hurried edit, there have been comments suggesting the article should be kept as it is well-referenced and meeting the "notability" criterion.

Damn. That wasn't actually my intention. I hoped to get them to ditch it by showing that Limbaugh was spinning a journalistic error. However, it's possible that demonstrating this is itself considered worthwhile.

I notice BAC hasn't returned.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

[applecorped]

I hate Obama about 90% as much as I hated Bush, but the man's charisma (by the mainstream American standard), verbal skills, and ability to think on his feet are irreproachable. Any claims to the contrary are as counter-productive as the "Bush is stupid" delusion. It's not the actors that I have the problem with, it's the script!


My parrot has those same skills.

[Rolfe]

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.


Yeah. It's had that there all the time. I was hoping to help it along its way to the great bit-bucket in the sky. However, more recent comments have shifted for retention. I'm coming round to that one myself, now, because I find the saga of the Limbaugh spin quite interesting.

Rolfe.

[applecorped]

Dont think sorrys easily said
Dont try turning tables instead
Youve taken lots of chances before
But Im not gonna give anymore
Dont ask me
Thats how it goes
Cause part of me knows what youre thinkin

Dont say words youre gonna regret
Dont let the fire rush to your head
Ive heard the accusation before
And I aint gonna take any more
Believe me
The sun in your eyes
Made some of the lies worth believing

Chorus:
I am the eye in the sky
Looking at you
I can read your mind
I am the maker of rules
Dealing with fools
I can cheat you blind
And I dont need to see any more
To know that
I can read your mind, I can read your mind

Dont leave false illusions behind
Dont cry cause I aint chnaging my mind
So find another fool like before
Cause I aint gonna live anymore believing
Some of the lies while all of the signs are deceiving

[Rolfe]

You know what's also quite funny about this? The difficulty in finding any serious criticism of Cowen, who actually did commit quite a major flub.

At the weekend I stumbled on one or two Irish blogs laughing at him, mostly more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger, but really very little. I tried again today, specifically searching on his nickname Biffo ("Big Ignorant Fellow From Offaly", apparently), in the hope of winnowing out the Irish contingent. Nope. Most of the comment I found was still about Obama.

Maybe someone in Ireland with a Google setup that will only deliver "pages from the Republic of Ireland" (as mine will deliver "pages from the UK" if I check the box) could get a better result?

It does look as if the Irish have a better sense of proportion than the Yanks about the doings of their top politicos.

Rolfe.

[gdnp]

Uh-oh. The teleprompter president is holding his second hour long prime time news conference tonight. Which probably matches the number of unscripted question and answer sessions that Bush held in his second term. ;)

If this keeps up he may need a new nick-name. The accessible president? The accountable president? The unscripted president?

Maybe the Great Communicator?

[Rolfe]

I see there's still no sign of BAC.

He's fallen victim to something that happens quite often round here. Enthusiastic proponent comes rushing with piece of "evidence" he finds totally compelling for his point of view, wanting to display it for our approval/admiration/chagrin. Forumites take a long hard look at the proffered item, find it wanting, shred it to ribbons, then find out where the item is being discussed/revered, and publish the shredding for all to see.

I'm used to seeing it happen with homoeopathy papers, but it seems it works in politics too. Warning. If you don't want to see your treasured "evidence" completely pwned in public, don't show it to the posters at JREF.

Rolfe.

[maxpower1227]

Warning. If you don't want to see your treasured "evidence" completely pwned in public, don't show it to the posters at JREF.

*yoink* :p

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I tried again today, specifically searching on his nickname Biffo ("Big Ignorant Fellow From Offaly", apparently)


Rolfe.

Nearly, you got the third word wrong, would you like another guess?:)

I'll have a search through the Irish blogs tonight to see if I can find anything, but as I said before, it's not really being made much of, I think because of concerns it would come across as 'dumb Irish' rather than 'dumb Taioseach'

[Guybrush Threepwood]

There's an article in The Tribune I hadn't seen before, which blames the White House for the gaffe, so it is Obama's fault after all BAC was right!

Irish Tribune (http://www.tribune.ie/news/international/article/2009/mar/22/smiles-and-blarney-keep-the-serious-issues-at-bay/)

And with a cavalier disregard for cliche and tired old canards, the matter of Cowen's teleprompter malfunction was put down to the fact he was "either taking on delusions of grandeur or had over-indulged in St Patrick's Day drinking". In fact, the gaffe was due to the bungled loading of the teleprompter by White House staff, and by that point, after a day of photo-opping and back-slapping and gushing mutual admiration, the Taoiseach and the US president appeared so joined at the hip they may as well have been joined at the head. They were literally reading from the same page.

The rest of the article is a bit OTT on the new 'Special Relationship' but worth reading.

[Rolfe]

Nearly, you got the third word wrong, would you like another guess?:)

I'll have a search through the Irish blogs tonight to see if I can find anything, but as I said before, it's not really being made much of, I think because of concerns it would come across as 'dumb Irish' rather than 'dumb Taioseach'


:D

There's an article in The Tribune I hadn't seen before, which blames the White House for the gaffe, so it is Obama's fault after all BAC was right!

Irish Tribune (http://www.tribune.ie/news/international/article/2009/mar/22/smiles-and-blarney-keep-the-serious-issues-at-bay/)

The rest of the article is a bit OTT on the new 'Special Relationship' but worth reading.


Well of course somebody bungled the programming of the thing! The question is, how "tired and emotional" do you have to be not to realise that the speech you're starting to read isn't yours? But we're all human. Maybe he was jetlagged.

ETA: That article is fun! It's refreshing to read commentary from the non-Yank side of it. Especially as a non-fan of GB. In all senses of the abbreviation.

Rolfe.

[Ocelot]

You know what's also quite funny about this? The difficulty in finding any serious criticism of Cowen, who actually did commit quite a major flub.

At the weekend I stumbled on one or two Irish blogs laughing at him, mostly more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger, but really very little. I tried again today, specifically searching on his nickname Biffo ("Big Ignorant Fellow From Offaly", apparently), in the hope of winnowing out the Irish contingent. Nope. Most of the comment I found was still about Obama.

Maybe someone in Ireland with a Google setup that will only deliver "pages from the Republic of Ireland" (as mine will deliver "pages from the UK" if I check the box) could get a better result?

It does look as if the Irish have a better sense of proportion than the Yanks about the doings of their top politicos.

Rolfe.

You know you can go to www.google.ie (http://www.google.ie/) and get those options just as easily as anybody in Eire. Running this search (http://news.google.ie/news?hl=en&q=Cowen%20Teleprompter%20Gaffe&cr=countryIE&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn) on the Irish google news yields as second result, early uncontaminated reporting with a pretty unequivocal headline for those who read no further.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1574491/obama_thanks_himself_to_cover_for_teleprompter.htm l?cat=9 (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1574491/obama_thanks_himself_to_cover_for_teleprompter.htm l?cat=9)

"Obama Thanks Himself to Cover for Teleprompter Gaffe"

[Rolfe]

Oh thanks, I didn't know you could do that.

ETA: That's an odd article. It starts by describing what clearly happened, but then goes on to discuss as if Obama had actually made a gaffe. The Comments section can't decide which side it's on, though someone does quote the Irish Times article for reference.

Rolfe.

[Shalamar]

I don't get it. What is the big deal with Obama using a Telepromter all the time? Most presidents have people who write their speeches for them, and Obama seems to prefer the teleprompters to ensure he gets the message across promptly and succinctly. If Bush had used one more often, I'm willing to bet he would have had far fewer flubs and gaffes.

Or is it just a conservative spin along the lines of 'Har Har! That stooopid librul has to *read* his own speeches! stooopid librul!'

Then again, maybe conservatives aren't bright enough to read off of a teleprompter?

[Rolfe]

Or is it just a conservative spin along the lines of 'Har Har! That stooopid librul has to *read* his own speeches! stooopid librul!'


I think that's about the size of it.

Rolfe.

[Cicero]

I don't get it. What is the big deal with Obama using a Telepromter all the time? Most presidents have people who write their speeches for them, and Obama seems to prefer the teleprompters to ensure he gets the message across promptly and succinctly. If Bush had used one more often, I'm willing to bet he would have had far fewer flubs and gaffes.

Or is it just a conservative spin along the lines of 'Har Har! That stooopid librul has to *read* his own speeches! stooopid librul!'

Then again, maybe conservatives aren't bright enough to read off of a teleprompter?

Obama can read a speech better than any Democrat since FDR. But when he is speaking extemporaneously he is susceptible to the same foibles as the rest of us humans.

When his words have not been filtered through a committee of speech writers, policy wonks, SIG's, etc, there is a possibility he may offend even his most staunch supporters. Keith Olbermann was distraught over Obama's innocuous "Special Olympics" remark. I have yet to get an explanation why this was considered a "gaffe." It is just more pc run amok.

[BeAChooser]

I see there's still no sign of BAC. He's fallen victim to something that happens quite often round here.

No, Rolfe. I just decided to go back to posting on the important subjects ... like Obama's massive, unsustainable deficit spending. You know, a subject you're not interested in at all. But if you change your mind about that, you come over and try your hand at dismissing my concerns here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135124 or here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136438 . But I suspect you won't do that ... because you know you'll get publically "pwned". And for the record, I also invite all the others on this thread who showed up on this one but seem to have studiously avoided those two. ;)

And, by the way, I can't help but notice that you STILL don't see what's funny about Obama's teleprompter escapades. :D

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zF7p9nIK3dI/SbFntAAMQ-I/AAAAAAAAACU/IJ5MrlKaUSs/s1600/obama%2Bprompter.jpg

Speaking of which ... I've just been contacted by Obama's teleprompter. It wants to say something on this thread. I yield the floor ...

***************

One




Big




Awful




Mistake




America


****************

:D

[jj]

Once again, the extreme rightwingers try to justify their calls to revolt with lame plays on others' names.

That's more than they really have to offer, but the danger in such calls to revolt is that somebody might believe the lies that ignited this OP in the first place.

Surely, given the evidence, even the poster of the OP must know by now that the whole "issue" is based on what is obviously an intentional lie on the part of an "unnamed source".

[Rolfe]

You know you can go to www.google.ie (http://www.google.ie/) and get those options just as easily as anybody in Eire.



Fun search. A number of discussion threads having a go at Cowen, with several people having to be corrected on the idea that Obama had also gaffed. (It. Was. A. Joke. as one poster put it.)

http://www.politics.ie/current-affairs/53701-cowan-obama-press-conferance-3.html

http://www.politics.ie/fianna-fail/53875-cowen-makes-incredible-gaffe-white-house-function.html

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055515474

No blogs or pages dedicated to lampooning Cowen on this single issue though.

I found another possible eyewitness account which is also fun. How Brian's cock-up in the US has made him an American Idol (http://www.herald.ie/national-news/how-brians-cockup-in-the-us-has-made-him-an-american-idol-1678313.html), in the Herald of Ireland.

It was Biffo's St Patrick's Day Homer Simpson moment.

And the American media has been poking good humoured fun at Taoiseach Brian Cowen for accidentally stealing Barack Obama's speech.

The Taoiseach fell victim to technology as he stood to address a gathering in the White House that was meant to bring an orderly close to the St Patrick's Day celebrations.

Begorra
It was to be his big moment in front of hundreds of invited guests -- then, about 20 seconds into his speech, he realised something was wrong.

"Begorra! Irish PM trips over White House speech," is the headline jumping off the San Francisco Chronicle after the gaffe. [....]

The reason for the gaffe was that the Taoiseach had already given his actual speech to one party inside the White House before moving to a second gathering to repeat the same words.

"Mr Cowen was 20 seconds into his second address when it dawned on him that he was giving word for word the speech that Mr Obama had just read from the same teleprompter," notes the Washington Times.

The Taoiseach had risen to his feet and begun: "It seems particularly fitting that we gather tonight in a house that was, after all, designed and built by an Irish architect.

"We've had a wonderful day that began by meeting with a strong friend of the United States ... "

Then, sudden dead air when the bemused Taoiseach turned to Mr Obama and announced: "That's your speech," and asked: "Who said this was idiot proof?"

The President seemed happy enough to work a role reversal, taking the podium again to thank himself for organising the day when Washington well and truly turned green.


The Irish seem a lot more philosophical than the Yanks.

Rolfe.

[Shalamar]

I only start to worry and be concerned over such 'gaffes' when they become commonplace.

I can see a tired or distracted person just start reading from a teleprompter only to realize a couple moments afterwards that they have the wrong speech. Less a gaffe from the speaker, and more of a problem of the person who set up the teleprompter in the first place.

[Matthew Best]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/teleprompter-gone-bad-obama-thanks-irish-pm-repeats-speech/



Now if Bush had done that, what would democrats be saying? Why they'd be insulting his intelligence, of course. And they'd be replaying the gaff over and over and over and over on the mainstream *news* shows. Say, have any of you seen the mainstream news networks show, much less mention, this blunder (other than Fox)? Did Jay Leno mention it in his monologue ... or was he too busy worshiping Obama? Has SNL done a skit yet lampooning the President over this? :D

Come on democrats ... admit it ... this is funny (and a little scary):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSnEMV58F8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fradioviceonline%2Ecom%2Frevenge% 2Dof%2Dthe%2Dteleprompter%2Dpart%2Ddeux%2F&feature=player_embedded

Just reminding everyone what BAC originally posted. He calls it a "gaff", a "blunder" and a reason to "lampoon the President", when in fact it was a sign of the President's quick-wittedness and sense of humour.

[gdnp]

Obama can read a speech better than any Democrat since FDR. But when he is speaking extemporaneously he is susceptible to the same foibles as the rest of us humans.
What, better than JFK? ;)
When his words have not been filtered through a committee of speech writers, policy wonks, SIG's, etc, there is a possibility he may offend even his most staunch supporters. Keith Olbermann was distraught over Obama's innocuous "Special Olympics" remark. I have yet to get an explanation why this was considered a "gaffe." It is just more pc run amok.perhaps because the special olympics are for people with intellectual disabilities, not physical disabilities, and it is considered gauche to poke fun at those with intellectual disabilities.


One
Big
Awful
Mistake
America


****************

:D
Would it be a violation of my membership agreement to post

Biased

egotist,

Aggravatated by

Clinton,

hating

obama,

offering

snide

erroneous

replies?

;)

[Darat]

I don't get it. What is the big deal with Obama using a TelePrompter all the time? ...snip...

And it is after all a TelePrompter, I doubt very much if Obama doesn't practice his speeches beforehand; a teleprompter is just an advance on having your notes in front of you.

[Rolfe]

No, Rolfe. I just decided to go back to posting on the important subjects ... like Obama's massive, unsustainable deficit spending. You know, a subject you're not interested in at all. But if you change your mind about that, you come over and try your hand at dismissing my concerns here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135124 or here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136438 . But I suspect you won't do that ... because you know you'll get publically "pwned".


How can you know what I'd say, on a subject where I haven't ventured an opinion? I'll leave it to you Merikans to worry about your own deficit spending, thank you.

And, by the way, I can't help but notice that you STILL don't see what's funny about Obama's teleprompter escapades. :D


No. You're right. I somehow stopped finding primary-school level jokes funny after I was about 12. Can't think why.

And in all seriousness, can't you see you're being completely ridiculous about this? If you take your head out of your little right-wing mutual admiration society for a minute, you'll realise that the rest of the world hasn't even noticed whether Obama is using a teleprompter or not. Outside this self-referential discussion, it's not an issue. I heard a political commentator on an English radio programme use the words "silver-tongued" and "a great orator of the old school" to describe him, only four days ago. NOBODY HAS NOTICED.

And even if it's pointed out, the only normal reply is, so what? He's a politician. Politicians have been reading from notes since about the time papyrus was invented. Obama is a generation younger than any US president before him. He's technology-savvy. If he's using the technology for situations where his predecessors might not, then is that all that surprising? And another thing. It takes skill and practice to use the thing effectively. Maybe that's a skill certain predecessors couldn't quite get the hang of?

And yet another thing. He prepares his speeches, even for relatively minor occasions. Does this not suggest a degree of conscientiousness and application to the job in hand that certain predecessors could have benefited from?

And has it still escaped your notice that the only "escapade" that happened in relation to the subject under discussion, was Cowen's?

You lost.

Give it up.

Rolfe.

[BeAChooser]

Just reminding everyone what BAC originally posted.

I'll just ask you to answer the question I asked. If Bush had done that ... even if he was proving he was just quick on his feet like you assert Obama was ... , what would democrats and the media now be saying? Try to be honest, Matthew. :D

[Upchurch]

I'll just ask you to answer the question I asked. If Bush had done that ... even if he was proving he was just quick on his feet like you assert Obama was ... , what would democrats and the media now be saying? Try to be honest, Matthew. :D
Ya know, I responded to this and you never answered my question.

[Cleon]

Ya know, I responded to this and you never answered my question.

Well, he's got himself three days in the penalty box (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138342) now, so he's not going to. (Not that he would anyway.)

[Lonewulf]

I'll just ask you to answer the question I asked. If Bush had done that ... even if he was proving he was just quick on his feet like you assert Obama was ... , what would democrats and the media now be saying? Try to be honest, Matthew. :D

care

[Upchurch]

Well, he's got himself three days in the penalty box (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138342) now, so he's not going to. (Not that he would anyway.)
I missed that. Thanks for the heads up.

[Rolfe]

Hmmm, what would we have done if Bush had done that? Smiled and moved on, thinking slightly better of him for having some sense of humour?

I'm not even convinced that Obama was quick-witted. Staunton makes it clear that his contribution followed Cowen's entire speech. So he had plenty time to think, what can I do that will both acknowledge that something happened, and make light of it? So after Cowan had finished, he closed the proceedings by "thanking himself", and wishing everyone a happy St. Patrick's Day.

This is such a non-event. How did it blow up into such a storm?

Rolfe.

[Upchurch]

To reiterate my earlier post:
If it were this early in Bush's first term, I would have blinked a couple of times, done a cartoon-like head shake, and gone online to find out what had actually happened not trusting the buffoonish account you were presenting here.

A couple of years of buffoonish Bush behavior later, I would not have given this another thought as it would be completely in character. And I would have felt like an idiot for not checking when I found out there was a possibility he was only joking.

How are you feeling there, BAC?

[Professor Yaffle]

This is such a non-event. How did it blow up into such a storm?

Slow news day?

[Cicero]

What, better than JFK? ;)
perhaps because the special olympics are for people with intellectual disabilities, not physical disabilities, and it is considered gauche to poke fun at those with intellectual disabilities.


When you mention JFK is that considered a thread derail, or is it only when I do it?

I have never heard this distinction by the pc police. So if the Special Olympics were for people with physical disabilities not even Olbermann would consider Obama's remarks a "gaffe?" But since you are fluent in pc speak, I'll just have to defer to your characterization.

This is such a non-event. How did it blow up into such a storm?
Rolfe.

The same way the Brits blew up Diana's car accident into the greatest catastrophe since the Suez Crisis.

[joobz]

I'll just ask you to answer the question I asked. If Bush had done that ... even if he was proving he was just quick on his feet like you assert Obama was ... , what would democrats and the media now be saying? Try to be honest, Matthew. :D
Unfortunately, this is as close to an admission of error as you are like to see from BAC.

[Darat]

Derail about Diana's death moved to its own thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138361

[Rolfe]

OK. You see, the British have a reputation for being stoic, hence stiff upper lip, yet when Diana died as the result of a car accident, they blew her death out of all rational proportion to what she was in life. While British stoicism is not in play here, Fleet Street blowing a story up out of all proportion is not a novelty.


Fleet Street, however, did nothing of the sort on this occassion. Most of the articles were small, and although I didn't see any of the dead-tree versions, they were the sort of thing that gets used to fill the end of a column. All the headlines bar none attributed the gaffe to Cowen. Nearly all the articles just repeated the AP agency material, with its single one-liner making it clear that Obama had thanked himself in jest.

Two sources only (out of many) mistakenly said that Obama had also been confused by a teleprompter error, but even there the (mis)information was a sentence or two buried in the articles.

Three sources (again out of many) made reference to Obama being known for frequent use of the teleprompter, two of these references being identically worded, raising the probability that all came from the same unatributed source.

Nobody would even have noticed if it hadn't been for Limbaugh cherrypicking these second-hand agency-material reports and declaring that these people and these alone had somehow divined the Truth, and all the eyewitness reports and all the repeats of the accurate AP material were Obama's press fan-club covering up for him.

The rest is just Limbaugh's right-wing fanboy club desperate to be fed some material they can use to denigrate Obama, getting several times around the world before the truth got its boots on.

I'm still curious as to where the English journalists got the inaccurate version of what Obama did, and the information that he was known as the "teleprompter president". Innocent misunderstanding, or deliberate planting? Nevertheless, they blew nothing up.

Limbaugh and his fans did that all by themselves.

Rolfe.

[Cicero]

Fleet Street, however, did nothing of the sort on this occassion. Most of the articles were small, and although I didn't see any of the dead-tree versions, they were the sort of thing that gets used to fill the end of a column. All the headlines bar none attributed the gaffe to Cowen. Nearly all the articles just repeated the AP agency material, with its single one-liner making it clear that Obama had thanked himself in jest.

Two sources only (out of many) mistakenly said that Obama had also been confused by a teleprompter error, but even there the (mis)information was a sentence or two buried in the articles.

Three sources (again out of many) made reference to Obama being known for frequent use of the teleprompter, two of these references being identically worded, raising the probability that all came from the same unatributed source.

Nobody would even have noticed if it hadn't been for Limbaugh cherrypicking these second-hand agency-material reports and declaring that these people and these alone had somehow divined the Truth, and all the eyewitness reports and all the repeats of the accurate AP material were Obama's press fan-club covering up for him.

The rest is just Limbaugh's right-wing fanboy club desperate to be fed some material they can use to denigrate Obama, getting several times around the world before the truth got its boots on.

I'm still curious as to where the English journalists got the inaccurate version of what Obama did, and the information that he was known as the "teleprompter president". Innocent misunderstanding, or deliberate planting? Nevertheless, they blew nothing up.

Limbaugh and his fans did that all by themselves.

Rolfe.

Now that you omitted your obiter dictum about "D," you will escape the Lonewulf castigation.

[gdnp]

Let us all watch Obama's prime time press conference tonight and see if we can spot the teleprompter.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

OK, this is a derail, but BAC is in the naughty corner, I think most of the juice has been sucked out of the OP and I don't think this is really worth a thread of it's own.

Obama should be happy he doesn't have to deal with this.

Nudey Biffo (SFW) (http://overthebridgeni.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/a-complete-lack-of-respect/)

Watch the news clip underneath for the gory details.

[Rolfe]

OK, this is a derail, but BAC is in the naughty corner, I think most of the juice has been sucked out of the OP and I don't think this is really worth a thread of it's own.

Obama should be happy he doesn't have to deal with this.

Nudey Biffo (SFW) (http://overthebridgeni.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/a-complete-lack-of-respect/)

Watch the news clip underneath for the gory details.


:dl:

Now my sides hurt! That's some class lampoon!

Beats puerile blogs and YouTube edits of er-um by an embarrassingly long way.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Now that you omitted your obiter dictum about "D," you will escape the Lonewulf castigation.


What? I omitted the original PS about D because I saw the thread had been split and it was no longer relevant.

I have also commented in the other thread.

Castigate away, oh supercilious one.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Let us all watch Obama's prime time press conference tonight and see if we can spot the teleprompter.


Good idea. I'd genuinely like to know how he gets on extempore. Since I never noticed the teleprompter before, indeed I didn't know what one looked like till yesterday, then I don't know whether I've seen him "off the cuff" before or not.

I expect him to be perfectly rational.

Rolfe.

[Cicero]

What? I omitted the original PS about D because I saw the thread had been split and it was no longer relevant.

I have also commented in the other thread.

Castigate away, oh supercilious one.

Rolfe.

Yes. Lonewulf is supercilious.

[Rolfe]

Yes. Lonewulf is supercilious.


Must take one to know one.

Now, back to the matter at hand (though I have to say I preferred Nude Biffo, one of the funniest things I've seen all week...)

Let me simplify this for you:
Why did you feel Diana's death was remotely relevant to the Obama teleprompter story?


That question is not relevant in this thread. Better go back to the TelePrompTer thread.


So here we are. I'm curious too. What on earth did DianaMania have to do with Rush Limbaugh and the TOTUS story?

I already ran through the reasons why the answer to that was "nothing", but my post was quoted and superciliously dismissed. Care to try again?

Rolfe.

[Jeff Corey]

OK, this is a derail, but BAC is in the naughty corner, I think most of the juice has been sucked out of the OP and I don't think this is really worth a thread of it's own.

Obama should be happy he doesn't have to deal with this.

Nudey Biffo (SFW) (http://overthebridgeni.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/a-complete-lack-of-respect/)

Watch the news clip underneath for the gory details.
It doesn't look like he was hung well in the gallery.

[applecorped]

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=104&pictureid=785

[Rolfe]

You have a point? Might be good to make it.

Rolfe.

[Cicero]

So here we are. I'm curious too. What on earth did DianaMania have to do with Rush Limbaugh and the TOTUS story?

Rolfe.

This is such a non-event. How did it blow up into such a storm?
Rolfe.

Who said it had anything to do with Limberger? The British press is 'blowing up this non event into a storm," as they went overboard with Diana's car crash.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5931422.ece

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0318/breaking28.htm

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Irish-PM-delivers-Obamas-speech/rssarticleshow/4289758.cms

[Rolfe]

Who said it had anything to do with Limberger? The British press is 'blowing up this non event into a storm," as they went overboard with Diana's car crash.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5931422.ece

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0318/breaking28.htm

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Irish-PM-delivers-Obamas-speech/rssarticleshow/4289758.cms


Now that is just hilarious. Especially as only the first of these three links is even a British paper!

The first link is the only reference (bar a short entry on the Sky News site) which actually states that Obama inadvertently read from Cowen's speech. That reference is buried in the middle of the article, which has a headline "Irish PM left red-faced...."

Nobody would even have noticed this insignificant (and erroneous) article if Limbaugh hadn't decided to anoint it the sole teller of the Truth, and spin it even further at length and in detail on his show. Which was kind of my original point.

The second link isn't even to the main Irish Times article on the subject, but to a preliminary "breaking news" version. The main story is the best eyewitness account of the event. And why shouldn't it be a reasonably prominent article in an Irish paper? It was their PM that was involved, after all, which is why they sent actual warm breathing journalists instead of relying on agency material.

And the third one? Why pick that? Just one of about a squillion papers round the world, neither British nor American, that carried a short, accurate account of the event derived from agency sources.

Have you even been reading this thread? Do you even know which papers are British and which arent? (Clue, the Times of India and the Irish Times are kind of obviously in the "aren't" category.)

Everybody says this has everything to do with Limbaugh. Including the OP, which was finally revealed to have been posted because the poster had seen (or read) and believed Limbaugh's version.

You clearly have absolutely no conception of what the British press looks like when it's "blowing something into a storm". It looks like big, front-page headlines about the actual subject, with "more coverage on pages 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10". Day after day after day. In every single one of at least a dozen big titles and a load more local dailies.

What it doesn't look like is about 30% of the papers not mentioning it at all, and most of the ones that do merely parroting the same brief agency report because they don't have a reporter on the case. What it doesn't look like is single short articles, about the length that would fill in a spare column inch or so on page 6, on one day, and the subject never mentioned again. What it doesn't look like is headlines suggesting the articles are about something else, in this case a gaffe by Cowen, when you're suggesting they're blowing up a gaffe by Obama. And what it especially doesn't look like is only one paper even touching on the subject under discussion, in one paragraph in one small article, which is never followed up on.

I will repeat my earlier post which you quoted but clearly didn't read.

Most of the articles were small, and although I didn't see any of the dead-tree versions, they were the sort of thing that gets used to fill the end of a column. All the headlines bar none attributed the gaffe to Cowen. Nearly all the articles just repeated the AP agency material, with its single one-liner making it clear that Obama had thanked himself in jest.

Two sources only (out of many) mistakenly said that Obama had also been confused by a teleprompter error, but even there the (mis)information was a sentence or two buried in the articles.

Three sources (again out of many) made reference to Obama being known for frequent use of the teleprompter, two of these references being identically worded, raising the probability that all came from the same unatributed source.

Nobody would even have noticed if it hadn't been for Limbaugh cherrypicking these second-hand agency-material reports and declaring that these people and these alone had somehow divined the Truth, and all the eyewitness reports and all the repeats of the accurate AP material were Obama's press fan-club covering up for him.

The rest is just Limbaugh's right-wing fanboy club desperate to be fed some material they can use to denigrate Obama, getting several times around the world before the truth got its boots on.

I'm still curious as to where the English journalists got the inaccurate version of what Obama did, and the information that he was known as the "teleprompter president". Innocent misunderstanding, or deliberate planting? Nevertheless, they blew nothing up.

Limbaugh and his fans did that all by themselves.
So. One small paragraph in one article (headlining the Cowen gaffe) mistakenly saying that Obama also read a bit of someone else's speech. That's it. No more. No headlines about Obama's gaffe, no discussion of Obama's gaffe, no follow-up coverage at all.

And this and two other papers also mentioning in passing that in the US there has been some comment on Obama's use of the teleprompter, obviously all just reproducing the same agency copy.

In the course of small "foreign news" space-fillers.

Then about 65% of the rest of the titles printing an accurate account of what happened, again just reproducing agency copy. Again in very short space-filler articles, and again no follow-up.

And 30% of the titles ignoring it entirely.

If you think this is blowing up a storm, you're smoking something.

Nobody would even have noticed if it hadn't been for Limbaugh deciding that the single mis-reported paragraph was the Truth, and puffing it on his show, and decrying the papers that printed the accurate version as Obama puppets.

What planet are you orbiting? Is it in this actual galaxy?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Just found this article, dated today. This is from the Telegraph, one of the papers that didn't report the St. Patrick's Day event at all, though it's a blog rather than an actual article - indicative of the importance the paper puts on it.

The truth about Barack Obama's Irish teleprompter "gaffe" (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/03/24/the_truth_about_barack_obamas_irish_teleprompter_g affe)

Dozens of readers emailed me to ask why I hadn't include the teleprompter mix-up at last week's St Patrick Day event in my top 10 gaffes by Barack Obama and Joe Biden (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/03/20/top_10_gaffes_by_barack_obama_and_joe_biden_) when the president supposedly thanked himself for hosting the event because the wrong speech was loaded onto the machine.

Well, it seemed a bit fishy to me and there was no video. And upon further investigation - Obamaphobes and dittoheads brace yourselves for a big disappointment - I can confirm that there was no gaffe by the president.

This is what happened. [....]

The most authoritative account I can find was from pool reporter William Englund of National Journal. His pool report stated: [....]

When he ended, at 8:12, Obama stepped to the microphone and said, 'First, I'd like to say thank you to President Obama...(much laughter). Happy Saint Patrick's Day, everybody.' Then we were escorted out."[....]

Ironically, therefore, Obama was ad-libbing rather than mindlessly reading the wrong speech from a teleprompter.

I've exchanged emails with Englund and he confirmed this was the case and kindly supplied me with an audio file of the event that removes all doubt.

In the recording, Cowen begins speaking by ad libbing, saying: "Good evening everybody and welcome to St Patrick's Day at the White House. And I think it's particularly fitting that we gather tonight at the house that was, after all, designed and built by an Irish architect."

Then he goes into Obama's speech, and realises his boob 18 words into it: "We have had a wonderful day that began by meeting with a strong friend of the United States...that's your speech."

After Cowen got his act together - amid uproarious laughter - and completed his speech, Obama returned to the microphone for his little joke, as per the pool report.

Somehow, somewhere this all got mixed up, inadvertently or otherwise. The Associated Press reported it this way (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jC6Kb61F1jYG_ewWHCqHCO9iqoOwD9704SE81). Accurate enough - though very sparse and including the slightly ambiguous line: "In doing so, President Obama thanked President Obama for inviting everyone over."

This was transformed into Obama making a mistake, as in this account (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5931422.ece), in the Times, written in London by an online reporter for their website.

[Snip again, but this implies that offending article wasn't even in the dead-tree paper! Some storm!]

Here's the hay that Rush Limbaugh gleefully made with the botched version of the story:

[Insert YouTube clip of Limbaugh, which is priceless, but unfortunately just audio with static images. This, guys, is the storm.]

It's rubbish, of course, to argue that Obama cannot speak without a teleprompter. On the campaign trail, Obama often spoke off the cuff and did so remarkably well. Anyone denying that is not living in the real world and his political opponents are deluding themselves if they think he is not a good - at times, superb - speaker.

He had off days on the campaign trail but on top form he was a campaigner without rival. I remember him at the height of his campaigning powers at an event in Alexandria, Virginia last February. Here's a sample of what I saw (note he is not using a teleprompter):

[A YouTube clip of Obama giving an off-the-cuff speech without notes or teleprompter, without deviation, hesitation or repetition, for well over "Just a Minute".]

[....]


The Wiki article was deleted in the end, which is probably for the best, especially if stuff like this is coming out to make its way to the top of the searches. I was thinking of adding a short version of the incident to the (already rather bloated) Limbaugh article on Wiki, and this just makes that idea a great deal easier.

Harnden is slightly disingenuous in saying that Cowen only read 18 words of Obama's speech, because the part he claims was ad-libbed at the very beginning is very very simmilar to the start of Obama's real speech, available in transcript. But he emailed an eyewitness and got the audio file, and that's the end of the argument I think.

Now, Cicero is going to tell us again how this isn't about Limbaugh, and the British press blew it up a storm....

Rolfe.

[Matthew Best]

I'll just ask you to answer the question I asked. If Bush had done that ... even if he was proving he was just quick on his feet like you assert Obama was ... , what would democrats and the media now be saying? Try to be honest, Matthew. :D

Well, it would probably depend on whether they read an accurate description of what had happened, or your description.

[Lonewulf]

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=104&pictureid=785

This poster makes no sense. So there is no way to enact policies if you use a teleprompter?

Or is it just saying that Obama should be the first person to not use a teleprompter in history? Because, you know, let's focus on something important, like the teleprompter! That's what people will remember centuries from now... that Obama used A TELEPROMPTER! (gasp!) -- And then the little kids dive under their beds, old men and women cross themselves, and we all know, that was when the End of Times began.

[Rolfe]

OK, this is a derail, but BAC is in the naughty corner, I think most of the juice has been sucked out of the OP and I don't think this is really worth a thread of it's own.

Obama should be happy he doesn't have to deal with this.

Nudey Biffo (SFW) (http://overthebridgeni.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/a-complete-lack-of-respect/)

Watch the news clip underneath for the gory details.


I'm just awestruck by the classy lampoon shown in that link, in contrast to the puerile jibes at Obama. No wonder Cowen isn't getting huge stick for the teleprompter thing, his critics are a lot more inventive! OK, it still doesn't say anything substantive, but it's a hell of a lot more amusing. Even the gallery spokeswoman can barely keep a straight face while she's being interviewed about it.

The US Republicans will have to up their game. LOLcat posters don't cut it.

Rolfe.

[Cicero]

The second link isn't even to the main Irish Times article on the subject, but to a preliminary "breaking news" version. The main story is the best eyewitness account of the event. And why shouldn't it be a reasonably prominent article in an Irish paper? It was their PM that was involved, after all, which is why they sent actual warm breathing journalists instead of relying on agency material.

And the third one? Why pick that? Just one of about a squillion papers round the world, neither British nor American, that carried a short, accurate account of the event derived from agency sources.

Have you even been reading this thread? Do you even know which papers are British and which arent? (Clue, the Times of India and the Irish Times are kind of obviously in the "aren't" category.)

What planet are you orbiting? Is it in this actual galaxy?

Rolfe.

While India hasn't been a part of the British Empire since 1947, on this 3rd planet from the Sun, the term British refers to all citizens of the United Kingdom including Welsh, Scottish, English and Northern Irish. The Irish Times is published out of Dublin, so yes, that would be The Republic of Ireland, not the U.K.

Why are some Brits now critical of Obama?

Tim Shipman of The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/tim_shipman/blog/2009/03/21/tonguetied_barack_obama_is_turning_into_jimmy_cart er


I wonder if the Brits are using the non-stories of the TelePrompTer and Special Olympics as an opportunity to get back at Obama for sending back to the British Embassy a "bust of Sir Winston Churchill that had occupied a cherished spot in President Bush's Oval Office."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/185839

[gdnp]

I wonder if the Brits are using the non-stories of the TelePrompTer and Special Olympics as an opportunity to get back at Obama for sending back to the British Embassy a "bust of Sir Winston Churchill that had occupied a cherished spot in President Bush's Oval Office."


Yeah, I was wondering that myself....(...backs away slowly...)

[Lonewulf]

Rush Limbaugh: British Agent.

[Cicero]

Rush Limbaugh: British Agent.

Limberger is no Lionel Crabb.

[Rolfe]

While India hasn't been a part of the British Empire since 1947, on this 3rd planet from the Sun, the term British refers to all citizens of the United Kingdom including Welsh, Scottish, English and Northern Irish. The Irish Times is published out of Dublin, so yes, that would be The Republic of Ireland, not the U.K.


Right, so you only posted one link to one short online article about the St. Patrick's Day incident. The single article containing the erroneous paragraph stating that there had been a second teleprompter switch. The article that was actually about Cowen's flub (see headline), but was considered so unimportant that they let a staff hack write it up from an agency submission, and nobody noticed he'd made a mistake.

Nobody except Rush Limbaugh that is, who decided to anoint this as The Truth, and base a whole segment of his show on it. Which is why this is about Rush Limbaugh, who did that on purpose, and not David Byers, who just made a small mistake in an insignificant online article.

Why are some Brits now critical of Obama?

Tim Shipman of The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/tim_shipman/blog/2009/03/21/tonguetied_barack_obama_is_turning_into_jimmy_cart er


"Some" Brits are critical of Obama? Way to change the subject! Trying to split the thread with another derail already?

You were trying to defend your ludicrous assertion that the British press had blown the nonexistent teleprompter incident out of all proportion, remember? Your first attempt to derail that by dragging the Princess of Wales into it was split off. Now you want to switch to some general assertion that "some" Brits are critical of Obama?

News flash. The population of Britain is about 60 million. Obama is one of the most prominent figures on the planet. You think maybe it's possible for there to be no British commentator who's prepared to say something critical about him? Again, could I ask what you're orbiting?

And to support this, you cite - one blog article by a journalist on the most right-wing newspaper in the land!!! Who simply appears to be parroting right-wing blogs from US commentators. (And as an aside, the Telegraph, despite its right-wing slant, was one of the papers that didn't cover the teleprompter non-event at all.)

But it did host the only (so far) follow-up piece on that that I've seen in any actual newspaper. So, I see your Tim Shipman blog, and raise you Toby Harnden's blog (again). The truth about Barack Obama's Irish teleprompter "gaffe" (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/03/24/the_truth_about_barack_obamas_irish_teleprompter_g affe) The only article I've been able to find that has taken the trouble to figure out what happened and set the record straight. And even find some video of Obama speaking well and fluently, without a teleprompter.

I wonder if the Brits are using the non-stories of the TelePrompTer and Special Olympics as an opportunity to get back at Obama for sending back to the British Embassy a "bust of Sir Winston Churchill that had occupied a cherished spot in President Bush's Oval Office."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/185839


You know, there aren't enough laughing dogs for this one. Evidence that the "Brits" are doing any more reporting of the Special Olympics thing, and with any sort of different spin, than anybody else? Now, we've established that the teleprompter thing didn't even register, never mind get blown up in any way (remember, only one paragraph buried in one obscure online article saying that Obama had made a mistake, not headlined, not followed up on by anyone but - Limbaugh....). So where's the hype about the Special Olympics?

Now that one actually happened. He did say it. I heard it covered on two radio programmes. The first rebroadcast a US comedy skit about it, but the commentators decided that Obama could be forgiven for the lapse. The second was a serious political discussion, and in that I heard Obama described as "silver-tongued" and "a gifted orator of the old school" before the panel concluded that no way in hell should Gordon Brown be allowed within 100 miles of any chat-show - because unlike Obama, he couldn't hack it.

So you do have some evidence that the British press have reported on this in any more depth than, say, the US press? Or with any more negative spin?

No?

And - a bust of Churchill??!! First I heard about it. Anybody else seething about this? No? Sure? An opinion piece, but it does state that the Telegraph (the most right-wing paper in the land, remember) and the Times (the runner-up) covered the story. Apparently some diplomats might be upset. Possibly. But when they were asked, no, not really.

Population of 60 million, remember. Dozens of different newspapers. All with reporters and columnists and commentators who have to write something if they want paid. And that's all you can find?

You expect every single British journalist and commentator to be unfailingly flattering to Obama, or else this is "blowing up a storm" and "getting back at Obama" for something he apparently didn't do and nobody either knows about or cares about even if he did?

And all this is in some way supposed to be relevant to the FACT that the British press ignored the teleprompter story about as comprehensively as it's possible to ignore anything?

If this is deliberate trolling just to provoke a detailed and painstaking reply to a pack of unthinking nonsense, then fine, you got me, can we move on now?

If you're serious, kindly say something worth taking seriously.

Rolfe.

[joobz]

Wow, Rolfe. That was brutal. I don't think I've ever seen such a complete destruction of another person's post. Good job.

[Rolfe]

(And as an aside, the Telegraph, despite its right-wing slant, was one of the papers that didn't cover the teleprompter non-event at all.)


Oops, I admit error. I originally searched all the online versions of the serious British newspapers on the word "teleprompter". The Telegraph (like the Herald, the paper I read myself) drew a blank, so I assumed there was nothing there. However, I was reading the foam-flecked rants in the comments section of Toby Harnden's blog, and noticed one of the posters state that the Telegraph had actually covered the original incident, and done it accurately.

I repeated the "teleprompter" search, and again got nothing later than January. So I searched on "Taoiseach", and found it. The reason the original search didn't get it was that the instrument is called an "autocue" throughout, which is the term more familiar in Britain.

Irish prime minister Brian Cowen uses Barack Obama’s speech (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5015200/Irish-prime-minister-Brian-Cowen-uses-Barack-Obamas-speech.html)

During an address at the White House to mark St Patrick's Day, guests at formal meal were astonished to hear the Irish Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, open his remarks by saying "We begin today by welcoming a strong friend of the United States."

Just as it appeared he was either taking on delusions of grandeur or had over-indulged in St Patrick's Day drinking, Mr Cowen realised that the autocue he was using was delivering the same script that Mr Obama had made just minutes before. The Irish leader then stopped mid-sentence and looked at Mr Obama, saying, "that's your speech".

Luckily, this being St Patrick's Day, the assembled audience of 300 was quick to see the funny side - as indeed was his host. As Mr Cowen lamented aloud that autocues were not "idiot proof", the president took the microphone again and pretended to carry on the confusion, saying: "First of all I'd like to thank President Obama".


Just for the record. Yet another British newspaper (not) "blowing up a storm" about the teleprompter non-event. And getting it right on the day. Like they all did apart from the Times. (OK, this one, like virtually all the synoptic accounts, doesn't realise that Cowen's entire speech separated the Cowen flub from the Obama joke, but otherwise it's bang on.)

I now see people commenting on blogs including Fox News in the guilty parties, and saying that the Associated Press report was "ambiguous". This is just clutching at straws. The version presented to us in the OP was actually taken from the Fox News account. And it was just one more copy/paste of the AP material. Like a dozen others. And that was the wording that everybody here read, and realised pretty quickly was describing a deliberate pleasantry.

But no, any excuse but just admit you jumped to conclusions, guys....

Rolfe.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Hey, hang on a minute! Reading the quote in the OP, the impression I got was that it was Cowen who made the gaffe.

That's what I've been trying to figure out.

BAC is grasping at straws, and even so it looks like he got this one wrong. Why should comedians be lampooning Obama? Because someone sharing the podium with him started to read his speech by mistake?

[Cicero]

News flash. The population of Britain is about 60 million. Obama is one of the most prominent figures on the planet. You think maybe it's possible for there to be no British commentator who's prepared to say something critical about him? Again, could I ask what you're orbiting?


Do I think it is possible? From reading the rhapsodic posts on Obama by U.K JREFer posters, I was beginning to wonder.

And to support this, you cite - one blog article by a journalist on the most right-wing newspaper in the land!!! Who simply appears to be parroting right-wing blogs from US commentators. (And as an aside, the Telegraph, despite its right-wing slant, was one of the papers that didn't cover the teleprompter non-event at all.)

Are the opinions of "right-wing" U.K. journalist any more or less credible than "left-wing" ones? Do the U.K. "left-wing" journalists not parrot the talking points of the U.S."left-wing"

And - a bust of Churchill??!! First I heard about it. Anybody else seething about this? No? Sure? An opinion piece, but it does state that the Telegraph (the most right-wing paper in the land, remember) and the Times (the runner-up) covered the story. Apparently some diplomats might be upset. Possibly. But when they were asked, no, not really.

Had Bush 43 returned it, I imagine you would have.

You expect every single British journalist and commentator to be unfailingly flattering to Obama?



Now you are describing JREFer U.K. posters.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Wow, Rolfe. That was brutal. I don't think I've ever seen such a complete destruction of another person's post. Good job.

I agree completely :) .

[Rolfe]

That's what I've been trying to figure out.

BAC is grasping at straws, and even so it looks like he got this one wrong. Why should comedians be lampooning Obama? Because someone sharing the podium with him started to read his speech by mistake?


Because Rush Limbaugh decided to tell it like it wasn't (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031809/content/01125107.guest.html).

.... and the teleprompter totally embarrassed the president of the United States. I've read accounts of this in the US Drive-By Media, and they pretty much present Obama as a guy who saved the day with his cool, his aplomb, his calm demeanor.

The British newspapers skewer Obama on this incident. Here is what happened. "Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen was just a few paragraphs into a [speech] when he realized something sounded way too familiar," and it was. He was repeating the speech that the teleprompter had told Obama to say mere moments ago. The teleprompter forgot to change speeches from Obama's to Cowen's. So Cowen stopped, he turned to the president and said, "That's your speech." I'm surprised it took him 20 seconds to figure out it wasn't his. So Obama started laughing, and Obama went back to the podium to take over, but when Obama got there... This is hilarious! When Obama got there, the teleprompter had then switched back to the Cowen speech. The teleprompter switched back to the Cowen speech while Obama of his laughing and heading to the podium.

So when Obama then reached the podium to try to "coolly, calmly" save the day, he ended up thanking himself for throwing a huge party because he ended up reading the speech the teleprompter wrote for the Irish prime minister. The script had been switched, and Obama ended up thanking himself for inviting everybody to the party. Now, stop and think of this. It's a party. It's a party! You have to assume that the adult beverages are flowing. I don't know about the president, and don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting anything here, but it's a party. It's a St. Patrick's Day -- Shamrock Day -- party. You gotta assume this. So here comes the Irish guy, goes up to make a speech after Obama, and the teleprompter plays a little game on everybody, doesn't switch the speeches. So the Irish guy gives the same speech for 20 seconds that Obama gave, and suddenly realizes, "Wait a minute. I just heard this."

So he turns to Obama and says, "That's your speech." Obama says, "Huh, duh, ha, ha," comes back to the podium. While Obama is on the way to the podium, the teleprompter (very craftily, very shiftily) put in the right text for the Irish guy, and Obama starts reading that, and he continues to read it until he thanks himself. Because the Irish guy's message in the prompter was, "I want to thank President Obama..." So Obama thanked himself! At some point, do you not realize that? Don't you just stop, before you get to the point where you thank yourself? And of course the British papers talk about, "What is this guy's dependency on the teleprompter here?"....


He's picked up on the fact that David Byers of the Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5931422.ece) made a mistake when he wrote up the press agency material, and said that Obama was also reading from the teleprompter when he "thanked himself". A similar mistake was made in an unsigned article on the Sky News website (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Barack-Obama-Thanks-Himself-In-Teleprompt-Blunder-During-Address-With-Irish-PM-On-St-Patricks-Day/Article/200903315243932?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_A rticle_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15243932_Barack_Obama_Thanks_Himself_I n_Teleprompt_Blunder_During_Address_With_Irish_PM_ On_St_Patricks_Day), whether independently or not we don't know.

Add to that Byers' additional statement that Obama was being called the "teleprompter president" in the US, a straight quote from agency material this time, which can also be found in two other (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/18/barack-obama-irish-prime-minister-teleprompter) articles (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obamas-speech-recycled-by-cowen-1648419.html) that didn't make the "Obama flubbed" mistake", and you have it.

Two mentions of the "Obama flubbed" version, both from people who weren't there writing up agency copy. Three mentions of "teleprompter president", ditto. Four articles in all. And on the other hand, a fairly respectable number of actual eyewitness accounts (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0319/1224243068325.html) from journalists who attended the event, another fair number of semi-original articles (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5015200/Irish-prime-minister-Brian-Cowen-uses-Barack-Obamas-speech.html) from journalists working from pool copy, and an eye-popping number of articles that simply copy/pasted the Associated Press agency copy (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_SPEECH_MISTAKE?SITE=PASCR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT), all of which were accurate.

So Limbaugh decides that all that last group are "US Drive-By Media" shills covering up for their darling Obama, and only Byers and the anonymous Sky News website report have the real story. Even though they're writing little, obscure web reports and they weren't there. Add the two other articles which refer to the "teleprompter president" thing, and even though these are simply reporting on a US perception, and we have "the British newspapers skewer Obama! They're the ones talking about his dependency on the teleprompter!!!"

Oh and by the way, Obama actually read his way all through Cowen's whole speech. Because he was blind drunk.

An extra little wrinkle seems to have arisen because Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/teleprompter-gone-bad-obama-thanks-irish-pm-repeats-speech/), apparently Limbaugh's preferred news outlet, was one of the many which just reprinted the Associated Press material. Which was accurate. So Limbaugh just decided to spin it as if that wording,

Obama laughed and returned to the podium to offer what might have been Cowen's remarks. In doing so, President Obama thanked President Obama for inviting everyone over.


actually supported his version of events. Which takes a lot of spinning. (Perhaps the filename of the AP material contributed to the misunderstanding, because it contained the string "OBAMA_SPEECH_MISTAKE".) But that's where the OP came in.

It's an interesting object lesson in the lie that can be twice round the world before truth has got its boots on.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Now you are describing JREFer U.K. posters.


Is that your problem? Well, I submit that it's your problem and yours alone. I couldn't care less whether you approve of the particular spread of opinions represented in JREF or not.

It's hard to reply when someone misuses the quote function like you just have, but I'll try.

Do I think it is possible? From reading the rhapsodic posts on Obama by U.K JREFer posters, I was beginning to wonder.


Some people have one opinion of Obama, some have another. And yet others think something different, and more take a fourth position. If you don't like the distribution you see, that's not my problem.

Are the opinions of "right-wing" U.K. journalist any more or less credible than "left-wing" ones? Do the U.K. "left-wing" journalists not parrot the talking points of the U.S."left-wing"


I don't see your point. I accused you of cherrypicking a few quotes one quote from a (reputable) right-wing paper. You respond by saying that it's equally possible to cherry-pick opposite quotes from other papers. This is perfectly true. And it advances your argument (which seemed a page or two ago to be that the British press had an anti-Obama thing going) not one nanometre.

Had Bush 43 returned it, I imagine you would have.


I'm not responsible for your fevered imagination, I'm happy to say. I didn't know there ever was a bust of Churchill in the White House. I don't care if it stays there, gets sent back, or is used as a paperweight by a nomad in Timbuktu. Nor do I care who decides.

Now, if you could decide whether you hate the Brits because they're all attacking Obama over non-stories, because they're upset about some drawing-room ornament, or because they're all "rhapsodic" in praise of Obama, it would be helpful. I'm getting whiplash trying to follow you.

Joined-up thinking is an achievable skill, if you just work at it for a bit.

Rolfe.

[UnrepentantSinner]

:bigclap

[Kevin_Lowe]

:bigclap

Seconded, this is the kind of thread that makes the JREF forums such an amazing resource.

[DC]

oh my goodness, i feel sorry for cicero.
Rolfe are you a woman?

[Foolmewunz]

oh my goodness, i feel sorry for cicero.
Rolfe are you a woman?

DC, you've been a fairly good boy for a while, so I'll ask this nicely...

What does that have to do with anything?

Yeah, maybe my post has been tempered by the enlightened feminism that's been going around for a few days, but it really does just strike me as a weird non-sequitir of a question.

[DC]

DC, you've been a fairly good boy for a while, so I'll ask this nicely...

What does that have to do with anything?

Yeah, maybe my post has been tempered by the enlightened feminism that's been going around for a few days, but it really does just strike me as a weird non-sequitir of a question.

nothing really, just reading his/her posts i was thinking she might be a woman. there is like no way arguing with his/her posts in this thread.

[BeAChooser]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/03/g20-barack-obama-nick-robinson-question "The question that flummoxed the great orator"

Darn that teleprompter ... where is it when you really need it? :D

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh hi BAC, didn't see you down there at the bottom of the barrel.

[Rolfe]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/03/g20-barack-obama-nick-robinson-question "The question that flummoxed the great orator"

Darn that teleprompter ... where is it when you really need it? :D


Actually, that's genuinely funny.

Unfortunately, however, the idea that Obama is thirled to the autocue and can't speak for toffee doesn't seem to be catching on. He practically walks on water round here.

Just noticed the Radio Times blurb for what was on the other channel while I was watching Antiques Roadshow this evening.

Yes We Can! The Lost Art of Oratory
The momentous election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States was propelled as much by his exceptional oratorical skills as by any other factor....


I feel your pain.

(In fact, my own political party was using the "Yes, we can" slogan before Obama cottoned on to it, but what the heck, he's welcome - we want it back for 2010 though. :D )

Rolfe.

[Ocelot]

(In fact, my own political party was using the "Yes, we can" slogan before Obama cottoned on to it, but what the heck, he's welcome - we want it back for 2010 though. :D )

Rolfe.

You vote for Bob the Builder?

QQCjelGK-JU

[Professor Yaffle]

You vote for Bob the Builder?

QQCjelGK-JU
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Qa5so0BSKttGhM:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_z5hT1P0X79c/R0XoIbgYi4I/AAAAAAAABFE/QvHB5smgAJM/s320/alexsalmondsaltire.jpg (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_z5hT1P0X79c/R0XoIbgYi4I/AAAAAAAABFE/QvHB5smgAJM/s320/alexsalmondsaltire.jpg&imgrefurl=http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html&usg=__GuSlW0LUjJ4j1iP0EsNk8BWWYY8=&h=250&w=200&sz=15&hl=en&start=12&sig2=BZZY0kpHswhFSsJx-SoDCQ&um=1&tbnid=Qa5so0BSKttGhM:&tbnh=111&tbnw=89&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dalex%2Bsalmond%2Bbuilder%26hl%3Den%26 rlz%3D1T4GFRB_enGB226GB226%26um%3D1&ei=FczZSeyQA43LjAec4q2XDQ)http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:g2V28q8tlTnOgM:http://images.broadwayworld.com/upload/38640/bob-the-builder-printable-invitation.jpg (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://images.broadwayworld.com/upload/38640/bob-the-builder-printable-invitation.jpg&imgrefurl=http://broadwayworld.com/article/HIT_Announces_Debut_Of_SPUDS_BIG_MESS_BOB_THE_BUIL DER_Tour_20090206&usg=__RK18gODJvRSQD5ygQ_vrbJlIZQo=&h=389&w=300&sz=24&hl=en&start=1&sig2=mkYbDgS2JOamkx9QiBWjIw&um=1&tbnid=g2V28q8tlTnOgM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbob%2Bthe%2Bbuilder%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3 D1T4GFRB_enGB226GB226%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1&ei=vMvZSaPjHqLQjAe3nbGXDQ)

There is a slight resemblance...

[Rolfe]

I never noticed! You're quite right. :D

I think we used the slogan in 1997 but we didn't do that well in that election so it got dropped. I doubt if it'll be revived now.

Rolfe.

[elbe]

Has BAC ever admitted he was wrong about anything? Even something little?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Has BAC ever admitted he was wrong about anything? Even something little?

I seem to recall that once or twice after having been shown incontrovertible proof he was talking total bollocks, he has changed the subject.

[applecorped]

Another fine performance by the teleprompter yesterday!

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/04/27/obamas-teleprompter-commits-mutiny-during-major-science-speech/

When the president was announcing the members of his science and technology council, the teleprompter froze up.
Not having note cards, what else could the president do but admonish the TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States) to knock it off.
“In addition to John…. sorry, the….. I just noticed that I jumped the gun here,” Obama said.
Then he laid the smackdown on the teleprompter.
“Go ahead and move it up,” he demanded of his machine. “I’d already – I’d already introduced all you guys.”

[Lonewulf]

...........


.......

...What? That's it?

Someone's easily amused. Here, have a piece of string.

[Ocelot]

ooh String!

Look how it's jiggling and wiggling. Must be alive. Wonder what it tastes like. Stealthy... carefull... wait for it... big wide eyes and... POUNCE! Claw! claw! claw! BITE! That should do it. Wait a moment though....

It's jiggling and wiggling again. Must still be alive. Wonder what it tastes like. Stealthy... carefull... wait for... it big wide eyes and... POUNCE! Claw! claw! claw! BITE! That should do it. Wait a moment though....

At this point the felines attacking shoelaces and the JREFers reading this are probably thinking much the same thing.

WHY WON'T THIS STUPID THREAD DIE!

[applecorped]

I wonder.

[Lonewulf]

I wonder.

Somehow I doubt that. Wondering implies having thinking processes.

[technoextreme]

Another fine performance by the teleprompter yesterday!

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/04/27/obamas-teleprompter-commits-mutiny-during-major-science-speech/

When the president was announcing the members of his science and technology council, the teleprompter froze up.
Not having note cards, what else could the president do but admonish the TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States) to knock it off.
“In addition to John…. sorry, the….. I just noticed that I jumped the gun here,” Obama said.
Then he laid the smackdown on the teleprompter.
“Go ahead and move it up,” he demanded of his machine. “I’d already – I’d already introduced all you guys.”
I've read that speech. As a scientist/engineer I will say with 100% certainty that only brain dead retards would adlib that speech or criticize Obama for using a teleprompter in that case. And I love DarthCheney's response:
Of course, the teleprompter is the key issue here. Who cares ’bout all dat stoopid science gobbledygook? How do math help in mah everyday life?

Anytime the guy gives a substantive speech that departs from the tomfoolery of his predecessor, the wingnut naysayers immediately bust out this worn-out red herring. Time to put it away people. It’s old and smelly already.

[Rolfe]

The entire subject seems to have died the death in the wider media - at least those parts of it I read/watch.

All I've come across recently have been references to Obama's "formidable oratorical skills" and suchlike.

Rolfe.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

ooh String!

Look how it's jiggling and wiggling. Must be alive. Wonder what it tastes like. Stealthy... carefull... wait for it... big wide eyes and... POUNCE! Claw! claw! claw! BITE! That should do it. Wait a moment though....

It's jiggling and wiggling again. Must still be alive. Wonder what it tastes like. Stealthy... carefull... wait for... it big wide eyes and... POUNCE! Claw! claw! claw! BITE! That should do it. Wait a moment though....

At this point the felines attacking shoelaces and the JREFers reading this are probably thinking much the same thing.

WHY WON'T THIS STUPID THREAD DIE!


In a related story, Ocelot chewed off part of the string and swallowed it. If he doesn't hork it up by morning, we'll have to take him to the vet.

I'm just glad that this thread didn't have one of those nasty little jingle bells in it!

[Rolfe]

Bump, just to say....

Oops! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8149320.stm)

Rolfe.

[BeAChooser]

Bump, just to say....

Oops! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8149320.stm)

Rolfe.

Fortunately, Obama had a backup. :D

[Ocelot]

Fortunately, Obama had a backup. :D

What was that, looks to me like he carried on the speech from memory.

[bit_pattern]

I wonder if the Brits are using the non-stories of the TelePrompTer and Special Olympics as an opportunity to get back at Obama for sending back to the British Embassy a "bust of Sir Winston Churchill that had occupied a cherished spot in President Bush's Oval Office."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/185839

I wonder if leprechauns dance the jig in my underwear drawer at night.

[Rolfe]

OMG!! Zombie thread!

I know I linked to a post in this thread, because someone else brought up the Churchill bust thing. But you didn't have to undead it!

Rolfe.

[bit_pattern]

I didn't realise that until I'd posted, I had half a dozen tabs open and was high at the time, took a few minutes just to figure out how I'd got to this thread in the first place and then I couldn't delete the thread so I just left it there.

[BeAChooser]

Obama used notecards for his toast to the queen:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/video/obamas-toast-queen-turns-awkward-13678496

Guess there was no teleprompter handy. :D

[Bilbo]

Obama used notecards for his toast to the queen:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/video/obamas-toast-queen-turns-awkward-13678496

Guess there was no teleprompter handy. :D

Wow! you dug this one outta the deep dirt.

You are my favorite necrophiliac!

/didn't the queen read from some papers as well