Some folks seem to be making quite a big deal out of Obama’s use of a teleprompter, with the suggestion that (among other things) he’s not very smart, he’s actually very inarticulate, or that he’s being controlled by others in his administration.
These insinuations seem to depend on the relative novelty of using a teleprompter and/or in contrast to the apparent speaking abilities of others.
I’ve pretty much discounted these attacks as juvenile inanities or Limbaugh-like taunts (not sure if there is a difference), but thought to ask, just to be sure.
So, in reference to others calling him over-reliant on a teleprompter, did Bush (or Palin, or McCain…) not use them?
The State of the Union is probably the speech the Prez spends the most time preparing for, and Bush obviously had teleprompters there, so I’d say no, he didn’t generally memorize speeches. He has several speech writers, as all Presidents do.
So far as I recall, most modern politicians use teleprompters. Using it as a criticism of Obama is one of the more bizarre of the many attacks on the new President. The only explanation for it I can think of is that the right saw how much hay the Bush’s critics got out of making fun of Bush’s fairly poor public speaking skills and thought they could get similar miliage out of making fun of Obama’s, despite the fact that it doesn’t make very much sense (and hasn’t caught on outside of rightwing message boards).
Presidents have been using teleprompters since the 60s.
I remember Clinton giving a speech before Congress and pausing for several minutes before starting; later he said that they had put the wrong speech on the teleprompter.
I thought the right wing attacks on this issue was that Obama sounded better on a teleprompter than when he was off-the-cuff. Well, so did Bush – and he sounded much worse without a script than Obama without a script.
Obama is far more dependent on the teleprompter than Bush. As Ari Fleischer, who worked on Bush’s campaigns, said:
Bush ‘would use the teleprompter for his major big events, but when he would travel around the country or do events, he would almost always work off of large index cards.’
These index cards were rough notes, headings, etc, not every single word of the speech as with a teleprompter.
I know the left can’t bear to have their idol less than Bush in any way but face facts, guys.
Most teleprompters use phonetic cues for foreign or unusual words - it helps the delivery keep on track. Newscasters do this all of the time.
As for Obama, the criticism seems to be that he would use the teleprompter even when other politicians would go off-the-cuff, like when delivering a stump speech during the campaign that seldom changes much. And when he does go off-the-cuff he does have a tendency to make a verbal gaffe or three - like when he had to apologize to Nancy Reagan after the seance joke.
Apparently Ronald Reagan was exceptionally good at memorizing his speeches though, and I read something about how it was attributed to his well-honed skill of memorizing lines from his acting career. At the very least, Reagan was exceptionally good at making it appear as if he was not relying on cue cards or a teleprompter, and that just made his credibility of a speaker that much better because it looked more genuine and less rehearsed.
Clinton had to speak from memory when the teleprompter screwed up during his 1993 health care speech to Congress.
Bush Jr., IIRC, tended to use in-camera teleprompters, but Obama tends to use the kind that are on either side, which may make the teleprompter use more conspicuous to the TV audience. Teleprompters on the side allow you to address a live audience because you can scan the crowd for the appearance of eye contact, the in-camera once let you keep you gaze unwavering from the television audience.
So it may simply vary according to the nature of his political address. Persently, he may be using he teleprompters more than any other president to date, but I don’t think that’s much of a big deal.
The two are not even remotely comparable. Anyone who has seen interviews with one and the other or seen improvised conversations can see the obvious difference. Bush came across as the bumbling idiot that he was.
Oh, look, another thinly-veiled “Obamessiah” snark. Why, we haven’t seen one of those in minutes.
It’s not that we can’t bear to have our “idol” be less than Bush in any way… it’s just that if you’re going to compare the two, saying that *Bush *was somehow better at speaking is just ludicrous.
If your point is that Obama can’t speak eloquently off the cuff, I wouldn’t exactly point to Bush as a great example of why going off the prompter is better. Do you really think it was better for a guy to stumble around his thoughts and at times, just babble? If anything, Bush serves as an example of why using a teleprompter and prepared remarks is so important.
Or is this just part of the whole “educated = elitist snob” motif?
Regarding the OP, presidents since Warren G Harding have openly used speechwriters, and it was not uncommon earlier than that.
I said nothing at all in my post about speaking off the cuff. In point of fact Bush would probably be no better at it than Obama is (he could scarcely be worse).
My point was that he was far less reliant on a teleprompter than Obama to supply each jot and tittle of the speech. Neither would win any awards in eloquence and political oratory is almost a lost art anyway.
You know, you could take the blinkers off once in a while. I see huge faults in Bush even though I supported some of the goals of his presidency.
Why don’t you try taking the rose-colored spectacles off now and again when you look at Obama?
The point is that off the teleprompter Obama does NOT come across as the eloquent, wise, God-like teacher the left (which includes the media) has hyped him as. And they don’t pounce on his Bush-level gaffes the way they did on Bush himself.
Congratulations. You’ve found one person who says that he’s “sort of God” (you know, in a “dominating the media” way). Clearly that indicates that we all worship him. :rolleyes:
The NY Times did a pretty good article on this in March. Direct to the OP, Obama uses the teleprompter for just about everything, and others used it for just major speeches, including Bush. That doesn’t mean Bush spoke from memory, although this particular article doesn’t have much to say about Bush.
After review, I’m not seeing much reason to re-open this as a GQ thread. The OP itself frames the basic question in partisan terms, and given the subsequent political snarking I don’t think there is much hope of keeping the discussion on track within GQ.
The question ultimately relates to the relative speaking abilities of Obama and Bush, and what that might mean, and that is really better handled in GD or IMHO. I would suggest that anyone interested in pursuing this discussion start a thread in one of those forums.
