Obama Without Teleprompter Is Like A Bicycle Without Wheels

I have not listened to the first presidential debate live (I do not stay up late for a flip-flopper, much less for Hussein Hitler) but this morning, when the ultra-liberal Classic FM* mentioned the debate without saying who was the evening’s winner I understood Hussein Hitler must have had an unpleasant evening.

Reading some article during the day, and looking at some short video during the evening, it became more and more apparent that the President suffered certainly not a complete meltdown, but probably a major accident. Hussein O. made on me the impression of one who still can’t really believe he made it to the White House in 2008,  and has no idea what to do in 2012. The parts I have seen show a man so rigid and artificial, so – if you allow me the pun – authentically fake  you wouldn’t believe there are people ready to consider him a great orator. I think their opinion of Obama’s teleprompter must have increased a lot in the last 24 hours, though.

The much-celebrated Romney certainly made a better impression and was pleasantly assertive compared to the verbose, hesitant, unconvinced, unconvincing, rigid (Italians say “woody”) Obama; but to this European Romney also looked construed, artificial, and efficacious by rote rather than by heart. You saw this by the pathetic marriage anniversary wannabe “jokes” (embarrassing, on both sides) and by the extreme  studiousness of the gestures of both candidates, though Romney was certainly the better actor, and Obama unable to follow the script as he should have.

One could clearly see every gesture and facial expression had been carefully planned and rehearsed infinite times, and this lack of spontaneity is probably what kills the pleasure of many Europeans watching such debates. Still, one could not avoid noticing that Obama still hasn’t learned to avoid saying “er” every two and a half seconds, looked lost sometime and unassertive at all times, talked too much and exuded no statesmanship, and probably was too lazy to apply himself and learn the lesson as Romney did (don’t tell me he has a job; he seems to work from the golf course, when he works; then he goes around says he has killed Ob, oops, Osama).

The most vivid impression the bits of debate I have seen have left on me was, though, the one that Obama without a teleprompter is like a fish out of the water: he is just plain lost, and can’t articulate himself halfway decently ( I believe he never could, and was created by the Democratic marketing machine because his black skin and white background made of him the ultimate liberal weapon), let alone exude that aura of leadership one would expect from a President. The German Chancellor Helmut Kohl defeated several opponents in part because every kg of him (and he had many of those) looked and felt the part.  Ditto Blair. Obama seemed as if he were looking on his notes hoping to find a teleprompter, and as if he would have loved to be everywhere else.

Hussein Hitler obviously also has the huge problem that one thing is to blabber on change and hope to the undiscerning masses, another one to explain how his 1-trillion-dollar deficit a year would be, er, Bush’ fault. Tough one to sell, this.

The change wasn’t good and the hope has gone, and what we clearly saw yesterday is a rather mediocre former social worker still unable to cope with a job so much bigger than himself.

He can thank allah (small a; Mundabor’s daily contribute to the culture of insensitivity…) his rival is a flip-flopping Mormon running against him. A man of conviction would have made mincemeat of him, Romney could only show he is smarter and better prepared. I don’t think it will be enough.

I’ve seen David “Chameleon” Cameron running for the leadership of the Conservative party promising to be just a sleeker version of traditional Toryism, and transforming the party in a bunch of liberal poofs in just a few years. That’s what flip-floppers do. They’ll tell you what you want to hear, and change their mind when it’s convenient to do so.

Romney already has a past on this, and I can’t see why he would change. If he is elected, I frankly do not even see why he should.


* alas, not fast enough in changing radio channel before the news

Posted on October 4, 2012, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. Obama got clobbered in this debate and I know many like myself who were praying like mad that God would tie up his tongue and give him brain freeze so that he would not be allowed to keep lying! Mitt stopped his lying at one point when he said “Look, I have five boys, I’m used to people saying something that isn’t always true and keep on saying it hoping
    ultimately I will believe it.” You can see the clip below!

    A focus group from Fox News made up of undecided voters was interviewed after the debate and most of them had really had an epiphany of Romney knowing what he was doing and liking him a LOT and when asked said they were going to vote for him and did so very wholeheartedly!

    I had to laugh today because Al Gore tried to reason the bad performance with the fact that Romney had been in Denver for some days practicing his speech and Obama had just gotten there 2 hours before and thus the high altitude effected his brain!!! HAHAHAHA!
    So GLAD that GORE is not in this time!!! Mr. Gore, I hate to tell you this but the REAL reason for his failing is #1 He is horrible without a teleprompter and #2 THOUSANDS were praying and pleading to God that he would NOT do well as he lies and is an enemy of the Church! The BRIDE of CHRIST!


    • All fine, Elizabeth, I just hope you don’t hope too much, then I am afraid you might be disappointed.

      Still, if Romney had failed yesterday I think it’s fair to say he would have been seen as the probable loser, a fatal perception one month before the vote. As it stands, he stayed in the game and improved his chances somewhat.


      P.s the “five boys” part was good, and again the difference in body language very telling.

  2. Mundabor,
    I watched the debate and came to the conclusion that it was basically a draw. Romney tried to run away from everything that even seemed like conservatism, flip-flopped again after his “severe conservatism” of the primaries; was unable to explain what he would do if he became president, and could not offer any convincing arguments why Romneycare is any better than Obamacare (apart from the tired states’ rights argument – which neither Obama nor Romney actually believe in). Worse, he defended all kinds of federal education policies meddling in the affairs of parents, local schools, school districts and states. After this, I do not see how anybody could see in him an advocate of states’ rights or federalism (in the european sense).

    On the other hand, Obama seemed a little tired. He was about as articulate as usual without a teleprompter. He said all the things a liberal Democrat is expected to say nowadays.

    After watching the debate I watched the reactions to it. I was genuinely surprised that anybody could treat it as a clear Romney win. I was absolutely baffled that even many Democrats declared Romney the winner. For the first half of the debate, I actually saw Obama as a little bit superior, but Romney got better after this and fought the president to a draw. No more, no less.

    • Catocon, I think your expectations about Obama must have been very low ;), but in the US so many consider him a person of superior intelligence and rhetorical faculties that to see that rigid, boring, vaguely scared man must have been a shock.

      Romney was, of course, very much himself: a flip-flopper, and if he wins we have four years of anger in front of us. I wonder how one can complain Obama wants to tax and spend and then say he himself will not reduce the taxation for the rich, who pay the greater part of them. Today he made some rather abject apology about the 47% remark, just flip-flopping again on his previous stance and on what he should have actually used as an issue perhaps not elegantly expressed, but very much on the table. He is a six pounnd note like Cameron, and no mistake.

      Still, whilst I think Romney was – from what I could see – vastly superior in the aura, the attitude, the statesmanship, and obviously the economic competence, I am more and more persuaded if Romney is elected we’ll have four years of flattening on the democratic positions, by still remaining just a bit more – just a tiny bit – on the conservative side.

      I shudder at thinking what we will hear when the matter of discussion are social issues. I have seen him swearing about “women’s right to choose” (it wasn’t twenty years ago, it was when it was running for governor in Massachusetts) and frankly I think he will start to “evolve” the day he is elected.

      Having said that, I am surprised you gave such a mild judgement when all Liberal america was hands on face… 😉 again, I think it is a matter of expectations. Four years ago, Obama could do nothing wrong and his very blackness was an automatic trump card, whilst McCain was certainly less “prepared” (I mean as an actor) than Romney, and screwed it egregiously with the Banking crisis. Obama was rhe carrier of a message everyone wanted to hear, and it helped him to appear brilliant as an orator. No reality to cope with, you see. This year is different.

      I still can’t see Romney winning, though. I think the televised debates cause a short movement in polls, but Obama will have to be very bad at least a second time before his advantage is seriously dented.


%d bloggers like this: