A genuine question for Conservatives and others who don't like Obama

[Razgovory]

I try to understand you guys, I really do, but this one has me a bit puzzled.  What's the deal with the teleprompter thing?  Why have conservatives fixated on teleprompters?  You do a search on "Obama teleprompter" and you get tons of hits.  A few months ago some Republicans wanted to cut funding to the White House teleprompters.

http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/02/15/republican-proposes-cut-funding-obama-s-teleprompter


Incidentally, I found this while looking for examples of Obama-teleprompter stuff.   From everyone's favorite site:  Conservapedia.

This article lists examples of Bias in Wikipedia, related to Barack Hussein Obama:

   1. In a most deceitful, fascist political tactic Wikipedia's biography on Barack Obama discusses in detail his early childhood from when his parents met in 1960 to 1994 when Obama first served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Then the article skips 1995 when Obama accepted the nomination and ran as a candidate of a Marxist political party called the New Party,[1] and it jumps ahead to after "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996."[2] The stink of intellectual corruption in Wikipedia reeks of deceit, censoring an entire year of Barack Obama's life as a candidate before he got elected.[3]
   2. Barack Obama cannot give a coherent speech without reading from a teleprompter,[4] and even had two of them set up in an elementary school just to talk to reporters there. But Wikipedia's lengthy entry about Obama does not mention the teleprompter, not even once.
   3. Wikipedia lists Factcheck.org as a "non-partisan" "'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics."[5] However, two attempted edits were deleted pointing out factcheck.org falsely claims that Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Obama) has produced his birth certificate: "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate."[6] This claim contradicts the fact that the document they refer to is a copy of a Certificate Of Live Birth, produced in 2007, as opposed to a Birth Certificate. While later in the page, it states that detractors claim it is a "'certification of birth', not a 'certificate of birth'" (actually "Certificate Of Live Birth" and "Birth Certificate" respectively). Factcheck.org clouds the verbage by getting the actual terms wrong and presenting the two items as synonymous.[7]
   4. Barack Obama lost by a 2-1 margin in a congressional primary in 2000, but Wikipedia reduces that fact to merely one hard-to-find sentence amid its exaggerated praise.[8]
   5. Wikipedia's entry on Barack Obama claims that he "was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition,"[9] when in fact the Harvard Law Review has long used racial quotas for admission.[10]
   6. Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"[11] but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"[12] It has since been removed.[13]
   7. In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for "Criticism of George W. Bush,"[14] but the article for "Criticism of Barack Obama" had been deleted at least FOUR TIMES since October 2008 with excuses like "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" and "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP."[15] Wikipedia has since redirected "Criticism of George W. Bush" and added "Public image of" articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative[16] while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.[17]
   8. The article about the legitimate questions surrounding President Obama's birth certificate is entitled "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories,"[18] however one is hard-pressed to find such bold use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in articles about Dominionism[19], the 9/11 Truth movement[20], and many other conspiracy theories that the left favors. The article also describes advocates of the questions as "fringe" several times despite including the likes of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, but the same word is only used once in the 9/11 Truth movement article (and it uses it in a quote stating that the movement isn't fringe) and not at all in the Dominionism article.
   9. Wikipedia made no mention of the fact that President Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder called the United States a "nation of cowards"[21][22][23] when it comes to the discussion of race until about two weeks after Holder insulted America. [24] In typical Wikipedia fashion, it was made to sound as if only conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh objected to the attorney general's crass insult and obvious contempt for the citizens of the United States of America. As of 3/8/09, there is no mention on Wikipedia of Obama's rebuke of Holder's "cowards" insult or of the fact that Holder wants an assault weapons ban. [25]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia:_Obama

[Berkut]

Political opponents will fixate on whatever they think will provide traction. Whether it actually makes any sense or not is rather immaterial.

[The Brain]

Because teleprompters suck? Idiot boards is where it's at.

[garbon]

Sorry but I'm not fixated on his teleprompter. I rarely pay attention to him speaking.

[Valmy]

I love how unless you believe that Obama got his position at Harvard because of racial quotas you are biased.

[derspiess]

I'm not fixated upon it, but I think it's pretty obvious that as great as he is doing prepared speeches with the aid of a teleprompter, he's not so great off the cuff.  He has his moments here & there, but he's never as entertaining as Biden.

[The Minsky Moment]

Same was true for Ronnie.

[Valmy]

But who really cares?  I do not see the constitutional requirement that the President give impromtu speeches.

[Berkut]

I already answered that Valmy.

The only people who care are those who think they can get some traction out of it. They don't "really" care, just like nobody really cared if Clinton lied about getting a hummer.

[Slargos]

Ehr. Are you reading the same things I'm reading? The complaints look relatively valid if true.

Well. Aside from #5 which appears highly speculative.

[Gups]

I already answered that Valmy.

The only people who care are those who think they can get some traction out of it. They don't "really" care, just like nobody really cared if Clinton lied about getting a hummer.

If nobody cares how does the issue get traction? Is it people who don't really care about an issue pushing it in the hope that there are people out there who do care? Seems a bit arse about face, but then a lot of things do.

[Berkut]

I already answered that Valmy.

The only people who care are those who think they can get some traction out of it. They don't "really" care, just like nobody really cared if Clinton lied about getting a hummer.

If nobody cares how does the issue get traction? Is it people who don't really care about an issue pushing it in the hope that there are people out there who do care? Seems a bit arse about face, but then a lot of things do.

Nobody cares about the actual issue, they just care if they can use the issue to bludgeon someone with it. The fact that the only people who "care" don't really care, they just are happy to have something to use doesn't seem to matter much, except that it just means the issue won't get THAT far.

Of course, "not that far" in some cases (see Clinton impeachment) can be pretty far. But it is all faux outrage.

And it is not like the left doesn't pull the same shit - see the brouhaha over the Shrubbery's NG records as an example. Nobody actually cares, they just all sit around telling each other that it matter so they have an excuse to bitch and whine.

[Caliga]

I think it goes into the narrative that Obama is an 'empty suit'.  If he can't give a speech without a teleprompter, and his speaking ability is supposedly one of the major reasons why he was elected, then it props up the argument that he's all style and no substance.

[crazy canuck]

Same was true for Ronnie.

Come on, when he said that the bombers were heading to Russia that was pure gold.

[The Minsky Moment]

it props up the argument that he's all style and no substance.

Unheard of in a politician.