Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on More on the Romney Whisper

1

no way it was an earpiece.

Posted by ghostlawns | January 27, 2008 12:49 PM
2

MSNBC, on its website, reports that it was an open microphone in the audience - and that Romney couldn't hear it. Case closed.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | January 27, 2008 1:08 PM
3

If it was an earpiece, it would have to have dangled down directly in front of his mike, and even then the sound quality wouldn't be the same.

Posted by Fnarf | January 27, 2008 1:22 PM
4

How in the world could a whisper from an audience member be picked up so clearly?

I strongly suspect the audience member explanation is bullshit.

Posted by Ryan | January 27, 2008 1:31 PM
5

Nothing personal to the guy, but sound dude must have been drunk or high that night. Lots of the guys were poorly miked and there was a lot of echo.

It would not surprise me that Mr. Sound Dude was slacking and left somebodies mike on. It could have been some pundit guy or moderator with the list of questions and was, rather cynically, whispering to their buddy "oh yeah... I know what this jackass is gonna say...".

To not attribute to malice what you can to stupidity... or something like that.

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | January 27, 2008 2:54 PM
6

The comments on RedState confirm my suspicion that only retards are Republicans.

And my fears that our country is fucked because we have so many of said retards.

User "weak": And ask yourself, how could the MSNBC audio have picked up audio between Mitt and his staff

Someone needs to introduce that particular retard to the invention of the transistor radio.

Posted by K | January 27, 2008 2:54 PM
7

Remember that bulge on Bush's back during the 2004 debates with Kerry? My goodness, how technology changes in just a few years.

Maybe the Republican candidates should just set up a Punch and Judy stage and have their debates using hand puppets.

Posted by RainMan | January 27, 2008 4:54 PM
8

I suspect the "audience member" explanation is bullshit.

I'm not sure I think it's that big of a deal if he does wear an ear piece. I mean, it makes the guy look like he's incapable of having his own opinion, but as far as I'm concerned, anything that discredits a republican is good.

Posted by Jo | January 27, 2008 6:26 PM
9

Im confused... why are people so interested in the whisper beyond "haha.. what the heck was that?" Is there some kind of evil happening I'm not aware of?

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | January 27, 2008 6:38 PM
10

@3: Someone needs to take you to a cellphone accessory store, and show you some modern earpieces. Along with the RedState guy I quoted earlier.

What are these wires you speak of?

Posted by K | January 27, 2008 8:32 PM
11

It IS important if the public is led to believe that the candidates are speaking from their own knowledge and hearts, and they're actually being prompted by staff.

Posted by mhays | January 27, 2008 8:49 PM
12

The Angel Moroni was telling him he has to become the new prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Posted by Osmond SuperFan | January 27, 2008 9:49 PM
13

pro-hint: only somebody who is naive would think the candidates are speaking freely. Every single one of them that wants to win will have gone over every line of their message prior to the debate. Every line will have been tested on focus groups to make sure it is well understood.

I'm not saying their *message* is based on focus groups and market research, though some might be. What I'm saying is good candidates will hire people that make sure their message is understood by the right demographics and is said in a way that will not get them in political hot water later on during the process. These things are not evil or wrong. If you want to see what happens when you *dont* do these things, look at the internet pretty boy R__ P___. That guy can ramble!

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | January 28, 2008 8:21 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).