Posted on 10/08/2012 7:34:13 AM PDT by SE Mom
Romney should hang a simple sign under any podium he speaks from....”Experienced Job Creator”
no fancy seal required.....just black and white, simple font.
Teleprompters are fine- I really don’t have a problem with them on particular occasions. But they do not need to be EVERYWHERE, ALL THE TIME, unless you’re O. He cannot FUNCTION without one.
I see him as being caught in a trap. He CANNOT say what he REALLY thinks (witness- you didn’t build that, spread the wealth, etc.) without EVERYONE finding out he really IS a marxist and -he doesn’t know HOW to say what’s true and real. That trap makes it vital that he use a teleprompter- and it should have long ago raised eyebrows. Seriously.
I was at Romney’s rally in Apopka FL on Saturday. He spoke for about 15 minutes or so- not a teleprompter in sight.
Wow! Keep praying, folks.
Speech transcript:
Video excerpt
I watched it on the CSPAN site and I thought it was good - not great, perhaps, but very solid and very specific.
As for the teleprompters, remember, these devices were just supposed to prompt; that is, if a speaker got lost, distracted by a question, etc., his planned remarks would be visible.
It looked to me as if Romney had rehearsed carefully and while he may have had the teleprompters, he really didn’t need them. He was moving his head because he wanted to take in the entire audience (when I give talks, I do this too), but he didn’t move his eyes and was not reading.
Romney’s a little odd looking personally and stiff in his speech, and he’s never going to be completely natural and fluid in his delivery. But then, Obama is positively freaky looking and a horrible, confused speaker unless he is hiding under some radical leftist black imam persona, which is where he seems to get his groove. But that’s obviously for a very limited audience, and when Bambi speaks even extemporaneously to other audiences, he is clearly looking for his teleprompter. He’s full of stammers, stutters, “uhs” and silences. Romney isn’t.
And as for content, there’s no comparison: Romney is saying the right things and willing to be specific (although I want to know more about his idea of arming the Syrian “rebels,” because they are not necessarily on our side). Obama is saying nothing, and saying it badly.
And for my part, I say this all as somebody who didn’t like Romney and was very depressed when I realized that he was the prearranged GOP-E victor. But I think he does have a core belief (which is that he doesn’t hate and in fact likes the US) and he’s risen to the challenge very well. I have no reservations about voting for him now.
Still, I think we should all write to his campaign and tell him that we don’t want to go on arming the “Arab Spring,” which is nothing but an Al Qaida/radical Islamic front that would kill us as soon as look at us.
Thanks for that SE Mom. Appreciate you posting that link. I sent it to many after reading the text, and Mrs. RQSR will be reading it when she gets home from work this evening. I know those I sent it to will also be passing it on to others.
Most likely.
Almost all politicians would use a teleprompter (or notes) when delivering a speech of this calibre.
I don't think he's odd looking at all. He's actually quite handsome.
And his wife is lovely.
I think he looks very artificial, but I think the same thing about Obama, who actually looks like an android. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. And the press, which is devoted to Obama and considers him incredibly handsome, is clearly in need of a vision check.
But my point is that a candidate doesn't have to be ravingly good looking or a brilliant speaker, but simply somebody you can trust and somebody you think means what he's saying and that he's saying what he means.
Obama obviously doesn't do either, and without the press to promote him, he would have been laughed off the stage.
Romney, on the other hand, does mean it, although I think he's probably needed a bit of instruction from other people in his campaign on how to express it, because he has always come across as a bit wishy-washy until now. But at least he was smart enough and humble enough to go and get help.
Don't forget Shakespeare's famous words in Twelfth Night: ...some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.
Assad has rivers, oceans of blood on his hands now. I think Romney believes a line has been crossed in Syria. The whole world has seen Assad’s henchmen military attack whole neighborhoods of citizens where he believes some of his opponents are, and wipe out everyone there and destroy the buildings, infrastructure, etc. The days of ever being able to help keep Assad in power such as we did Mubarak in Egypt, if only Assad would sway our way instead of Iran’s, are over I think Romney believes. I think he’s right. We can’t go back and unring the bell.
But right now the situation there is an unholy mess, a disaster, a catastrophe. There ARE apparently some Assad opponents who have more decent intentions than either Assad or al qaeda (who, just like they have in Libya are flowing in there). And don’t forget the Muslim Brotherhood has already taken complete control of Egypt and his been in consultations with Iran to form an alliance. And Iran is about to get nuclear weapons and wants to exterminate Israel.
It’s building up to something incomprehensibly horrible, looks like, even by ME standards.
You were hoping Romney didn’t express wholehearted support to the anti-Assad movement. From my hearing, he didn’t. He expressed qualified support for an element that is way better than the other two power elements there, Assad the Iranian puppet bloody tyrant vs. al qaeda.
I think he's gonna talk a lot about China too.
Agreed. Qaddafi and our ally Mubarak didn’t slaughter their opposition on anywhere near the scale that Assad has. Also, he’s never been held accountable for Hariri’s murder.
I just now had time to read the transcripts. Outstanding! This man has a vision and specifics. And words to the Allies to step up to the plate as well. We don’t have a choice.
My singular issue has always been National Security. Without it, there is noting else. I am liking our next President more and more every time he speaks.
Romney sees a deteriorating situation that can only lead to further horror in that region. In Syria he sees an Iranian puppet, Assad, conducting a bloody reign of terror against Syrian citizens. He sees al qaeda flowing in there to take advantage of the chaos and misery.
Recall that in the speech he also mentioned Libyans, primarily young, going in the streets to protest the al qaeda-connected armed militia that attacked our consolate and murdered the Americans, then marching to that militia’s headquarters, attacking IT and burning it down. He seemed to be connecting some dots...if there are elements that intend well for Libya, for Syria, we will help them. That is a big if. It was all qualified by numerous qualifiers and tests to see if some are worthy of our support, THEN we would help them.
I believe Romney understands that Assad the Iranian puppet’s bloody reign of terror has made him someone we can never go back to looking the other way on, just because he keeps some we like even less, under control.
If you examine it carefully, he’s seeing Assad vs al qaeda as the competing power centers in Syria, and he sympathized with Syrians who want NEITHER of those options and are being slaughtered by the thousands. He said THOSE people are upset with America for doing nothing. (I think the situation there is so bad, doing nothing is not any more viable than doing x, y or z, whatever they are.)
This is what Romney means by providing American LEADERSHIP to a world going to hell in a handbasket without it.
I think it’s quite telling that Romney never once used the words, Arab Spring.
He is taking a different look at this, not following McCain’s naive formula much less Obama/Hillary’s.
I wrote as much as I can offer about it in my prior post to you. There’s nothing more I can add.
Assad is horrible, and so was Saddam.
But we should learn from our mistakes in unseating Saddam, because we then opened up Iraq to attacks from his opponents - not the “freedom loving” group, but the Islamic radical group.
Under Saddam, Christians and minorities were tolerated depending on their political affiliations.
Some of his enemies had been radical leftists. While they were no friends of ours, we tried to empower them - however, it was not Saddam but the Islamists who wiped them out.
And then we approved letting the new Iraqi government enshrine Islam in their constitution. Were we crazy or were we crazy?
Since then, they have done nothing but kill each other. An enforced secular constitution would have prevented this.
The Islamic radicals who are taking over the ME appear to tolerate nobody, and I think we have to be very careful in dealing with Syria.
My approach would be to outbid Iran on Syria. Offer the Assad government more money and more support solely on the condition that it joins us in evicting Islamic radicals and supporting things like the equality of women, freedom of religion, etc.
The Islamists are never going to support the US and neither are the Communists. But they are the “Arab Spring” that has come back to bite Obama.
We have to take a very different, pro-active approach to the situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.