Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
I see that rather than discuss the issue, the liberals are doing what they do best, deflect.
Pathetic.
|
Is the issue here filibusters or the use of a prompter?
So far, no one has said much about why a filibuster is done.
The objects of a filibuster are: to stall legislation, which allows time for votes to be gathered, votes to be switched, or to bring an issue into prominence it had not gotten before.
Filibustering speeches do not have to make sense, or even address the issue in question beyond a few moments. When members of Congress were required to actually be present and actually deliver, anything could be said. One Senator in the 19th century spend 2 days reading Dicken's Pickwick Papers aloud. All that matters is physical tenacity and the fact that no other business can be done until the filibusterer has finally worn out.
A prompter isn't needed at all to accomplish a successful filibuster.
Any politician who does not have a prompter on hand for an important speech is a fool.
Important speeches are always written down and memorized, but anyone, no matter how well prepared, can have a mental lockup at an unexpected moment, or can get flummoxed by a mis-spoken word.
Reagan was an actor, and the biggest part of his job was memorizing lines. He knew how to memorize, but he also knew there would be no re-takes during a live speech, so he took no chances. The prompter was there if he needed it, even when he did not need any prompting.
The same is true with every politician who delivers an important live speech. Every single one of our Presidential candidates and Presidents, and all politicians who give live speeches on TV use them.
In pre-recorded speeches there is always the possibility of a do-over. As many as needed. Anyone who thinks a recorded speech is done flawlessly on the first take is naive. Just as in the movies, we never see the out-takes in the finished product.
The only alternative in a live speech is to carry the written speech in some form to the podium, and this has been accepted forever. The only difference is the speaker, when using a prompter, can keep his head up, delivering good eye contact with his audience instead of needing to continually glance downward then finding his visual contact again, over and over.
The only thing that's pathetic is trying to make the use of a prompter an issue in the first place. If any of our founding fathers had them back then, they would have used them. All they are is an less obtrusive way of delivering a good, well written, speech effectively.
Ironically, Sarah Palin, the most scatterbrained live speaker ever, is one of the best speakers ever if she has a prompter. Her TV experience paid off every time she had good words to speak on her prompter, and she was as relaxed as Reagan when she used one.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
