Obama’s Teleprompter Has, Ridiculously, Become A Republican Campaign Issue
Barack Obama uses a teleprompter. This is not a big deal.
The silliest thing coming from the Republican candidates for President right now concerns the old, tired story of the President’s use of teleprompters:
It’s one of the very symbols of the presidency — the ultimate accessory to the ultimate bully pulpit, seemingly trumpeting to all that the words being uttered actually matter.
So why, on the campaign trail, has the teleprompter instead become a symbol of ineptitude, mocked repeatedly by Republican candidates?
Picking up on a theme that has been rippling through GOP circles for two years, Republican presidential candidates are trying to use President Obama’s reliance on teleprompters to deflate one of his biggest strengths — his oratorical skill. If Obama can’t give a two-minute speech without a screen telling him what to say, the critique goes, it’s a sign that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and can’t be trusted to do his job.
“Obama ruined the teleprompter for the rest of the politicians,” said Fred Davis, a media strategist who advised Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in his 2008 presidential run and, until this summer, Republican candidate and former ambassador Jon Huntsman Jr.
“If you use it now, you’re like Obama,” Davis said. “It’s a negative because it’s a sign of inauthenticity. It’s a sign that you can’t speak on your own two feet. It’s a sign that you have handlers behind you telling you what to say.”
Since its invention a halfcentury ago, the teleprompter has been used by presidents and presidential candidates, Republicans and Democrats alike, seeking precision and accuracy in their speeches. But this year, the Republican hopefuls are generally just winging it.
Michele Bachmann says she will never use a teleprompter and often proclaims that if she makes it to the White House, she’ll ban them. Businessman Herman Cain joked last week that he threw the teleprompter off his campaign bus to “get rid of some dead weight.” And when Mitt Romney wrapped up a town hall meeting in Florida this month, a woman approached him and observed: “You did all of this without a teleprompter. Good job!”
“You didn’t see the teleprompter?” Romney replied. “It’s in my watch, actually. I just look down.”
From a politician sometimes ridiculed as robotic that qualified as a joke.
But Romney and the other candidates do still roll out the teleprompters for certain occasions, such as when the former Massachusetts governor recently delivered a major speech on foreign affairs at the Citadel. And sometimes candidates can be seen looking down at notes.
When Obama launched his campaign in 2007, he used teleprompters. He frequently addressed audiences off the cuff but almost always delivered the big speeches of his campaign from teleprompters — at the time making him appear more presidential, if voters noticed at all.
But now, Obama’s speechmaking is constant fodder for conservative radio, cable news and Internet outlets. On Tuesday, after someone took a truck in Virginia containing some of the most symbolic objects of the presidency, including the lectern and seal, it was the teleprompter that the conservative Web site Drudge Report zeroed in on: “SPEECHLESS: OBAMA’S TELEPROMPTER STOLEN!”
It’s all very funny, or at least it was two years ago when it was a new phenomenon and even The New York Times was taking note of the new President’s seeming reliance on teleprompters for even the most mundane of prepared remarks. That was two years ago, though, now, it’s just become ridiculous and stupid.
Yes, the President uses telepompters. Ronald Reagan used teleprompters. Mitt Romney and other Presidential candidates have used teleprompters for their major policy speeches. A teleprompter is a tool, and there are reasons why one might want a President to use it:
There are clear benefits to using teleprompters. Speakers can deliver speeches just as they and their brain trust envision them. And they allow them to appear to be talking eye to eye with their audiences.
There’s a practical rationale as well. Presidents often give multiple speeches a day, covering a variety of subjects — a far tougher feat to pull off without a teleprompter than a candidate’s delivery of the same speech a couple of times a day.
Teleprompters also protect a president whose every word is picked over, shielding him from inadvertently making a diplomatic faux pas.
“It’s not that Obama’s not smart enough to be able to give a really good speech from outlined notes,” said Doris Kearns Goodwin, a presidential historian who was a White House aide to Lyndon B. Johnson, one of the first presidents to use a teleprompter.
“It’s one thing for a presidential candidate to say something stupid and cable news goes through it for a couple days,” she said. “But if a president says something that is not what he meant to say, it could be an international incident.”
That point is well-taken. More importantly, though, what’s the big deal about the fact that a President hasn’t memorized every word of an important speech? When, exactly, did this become a job requirement? If a President suddenly decided to ditch teleprompters for, say, the State of the Union Address, the story the next day would be about how badly they came across on television because they kept looking down at their notes rather than maintaining eye contact with the audience and the television cameras. To the extent you’re worried about a Presidents ability to communicate, isn’t it better that they’re actually communicating rather than reading off a sheaf of notecards?
In reality, of course, the whole teleprompter meme is just another example of partisan hackery. It’s the step-child of those on the left who maintained the meme that President Reagan was stupid, when in reality they were merely picking the man apart because they disagreed with his politics. There are plenty of legitimate things to disagree with Barack Obama about, and plenty of things he’s done in the past three years to be upset about. The fact that he uses teleprompters isn’t one of them.