Thursday, January 24, 2008

The Great Romney "Whisper in His Ear" Puppet Show

UPDATE: Friday, January 25, 2008. A POSSIBLE SECOND WHISPER is discovered! I have added the video of that alleged second whisper below! Y es, that's right, there are now two whisper clips! The first one says "raised taxes" and the second seems to whisper "support." Listen to them both.

UPDATE: Saturday, January 26, 2009. On that first, "raised taxes" whisper, if you turn your volume up really loud, you can hear what sounds like more of that whisper, continuing as Romney begins to speak. Sounds like the full whisper is "raised taxes, I'm not." The "I'm not" part of the whisper comes as Romney begins to speak, so it is not as easy to hear. If the whisper is in fact saying "raised taxes ... I'm not" then that cuts against the notion that it was someone whispering to Russert to help him finish his question - that would not make sense.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

In MSNBC Florida debates, when Romney is asked a question about Ronald Reagan - "will you do for social security what Ronald Reagan did in 1983"- you can hear a voice whisper "raised taxes" and then Romney says "I'm not going to raise taxes, what I'm going to do ..."

Watch this video, and listen for the clearly audible whispering voice, telling Romney what to say:



While the above clip replays the "raised taxes" whisper several times, below is a version that plays more of the exchange between Romney and Russert, and it is all the more clear that Romney's entire answer revolves around the catch term "raise taxes," as in "I'm not going to raise taxes, " while Russert uses different language:



Some have speculated that the whisper is a prompt for Russert to add on the rest of the question, "raised taxes," to what Russert said about Reagan, but listen to how incredibly fast the whisper comes after Russert finishes his sentence. Seems mighty fast to have been someone trying to get Russert to finish the question - how does the whisperer know that Russert is done? It sounds much more like a prompt for Mitt.

[Added Saturday January 26, 2008] Additionally, if you turn your volume up really loud, you can hear what sounds like more of that "raised taxes" whisper, continuing as Romney begins to speak. Sounds like the full whisper is actually "raised taxes, I'm not." The "I'm not" part of the whisper is not as loud as the "raised taxes" part, and comes as Romney begins to speak, so it is not as easy to hear. If the whisper is in fact saying "raised taxes ... I'm not" then that cuts against the notion that it was someone whispering to Russert to help him finish his question - that would not make sense. It makes far more sense that it was meant for Romney, and Romney alone.


THE SECOND WHISPER!

And now, an additional whisper has been discovered, this time when Romney is responding to Huckabee's question about why Romney supported and signed an "assault weapons" bill while Governor of Massachusetts and said he supported the federal assault weapons ban, and would have signed it's renewal, just as Bush would have (damn good question, by the way). Right in the middle of Romney's response, you can hear someone whisper what sounds like "support."

Here is the clip. Listen very carefully:




Did you hear that? The word "support" is whispered. Is that a prompt to Romney, picked up by his microphone, or is it another microphone picking up someone in the audience, or one of the moderators, as has been asserted by some people in response to the first whisper? Sounds to me like it is a yet another prompt to Romney. The whisper says support, and then Romney says support.

His defenders are decrying all of this as conspiracy theory, and dismiss it as nonsense, saying that it was someone else talking and not talking to Romney. I might have bought that for one whisper, but two? And both related directly to his answer? Come on! This is getting ridiculous.

And what is so outlandish about suspecting that one of the tools up on that stage is wired? Everyone up there (except for Ron Paul, who is his own man and thinks for himself during debates) has handlers telling them what to do and say at every turn. Why would it be such a shock if that was not just happening before the debate, but during the debate? Those men are nothing but mouthpieces anyway. But "they" don't want you to know that!

"They" don't want you to know that the men on the stage are puppets in a friggin puppet show. The puppet masters want you to think that the plastic, dancing Ken doll that is Romney is actually just answering the questions on his own.

New! From Romco! The Mitt Romney doll! You don't need to pull a string to hear him talk, just whisper what you want him to say in his ear, and he repeats it! Every time! Amazing! He'll even act like a real Mormon ... on command! Delight and fool all of your Mormon friends! They'll think Romney hears the voice of God, but they will never know it is really your voice the little puppet is obeying! (Blackwater national security advisor sold seperately).

That the Romney doll puppet is thinking and speaking on his own is all part of the grand illusion, and it just spoils all the fun whenever you see the strings, the bulge in some puppet's back, or hear the whispered answer.

What a shame! It was such a realistic, convincing puppet show! The McCain doll, the Giuliani doll (which comes with a prom dress), the Huckster preacher doll -they almost looked real! That was amazing!
And who can forget the Bush doll with that clever communications pack on its back, hidden under its cloths!


The JulieAnni puppet doll all dressed up in the deluxe queen of the ball ensemble (Jack boots and black leather "freedom is authority" undergarments sold separately).

Politicians have long been called puppets, but most folks took that as a metaphor, not a literal description. Oh, we many, we happy many, we band of suckers, to live in such an age, when puppets walk the earth, talking, blinking their eyes, smiling, and turning their empty plastic heads just like real boys!

Stewart Rhodes



ADDED COMMENT ON THE LDS CHURCH (MORMONS) AND HOW SO MANY SUPPORT ROMNEY

An anonymous poster has accused me of insulting LDS church members by supposedly assuming that they "follow the leaders of the church like sheep."

So, I want to make a couple of things clear. First, I do not think LDS are mere sheep, who will follow whatever the church says. As another commenter pointed out (correcting my error), the Mormon church has issued a statement declaring its neutrality, so there is no command from the church for members to follow, even if they were so inclined. Even before I was clear on that, I knew not all Mormons support Romney.

There are many members who do not support Romney. I am a member of the LDS church myself, though I no longer attend, and I do not support Romney. I support Ron Paul. Further, I know a considerable number of very devout LDS who do not support Romney. Instead, they also support Ron Paul. They consider Romney a wolf in sheep's clothing sent to fool the church.

Watch this video to hear the thoughts on one very strong member of the LDS church, Joel Skousen, speaking to other church members, on why he does not support Romney and supports Ron Paul, and why:



LDS who who do not support Romney are very disappointed in how many LDS do support Romney, despite the fact that he is a big government fake conservative who has supported gun control, socialized medicine, and a host of other very non-conservative positions, and will continue the destruction of our Republic.

Those LDS who support Romney can point to nothing about Romney that would convince me that Romney will be any different than the big government, pro gun control Bush. As Mitt admitted in the debate, he signed a state version of the "assault weapons ban" and would have signed a federal version, just like Bush would have! So, Romney is as at least as soft on gun rights as Bush, and likely even worse! In fact, I see nothing in Romney that tells me he will be any better a defender of the Republic than Harry Reid has been.

One of the things I like most about LDS members is they tend to be staunch constitutionalists, and to have a real reverence for our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As such, it is all the more sad to see so many LDS not support Ron Paul, a man who is beyond a doubt the staunchest, most strict construction constitutionalist since Jefferson. Why do they forsake such a man of principle and devotion to the Constitution?

Part of the answer may be that like other conservatives, they have adopted the Bush Administration, standard GOP establishment views on the war in Iraq and the "war on terrorism" and just cannot see past their disagreement with Ron Paul on those issues. While I think such LDS are making a grave mistake in doing so, at least that is a reason based on a difference in sincere opinion on what is best for the nation (though still not adhering to the Constitution, in my opinion).

But the tremendous number of LDS who turned out for Romney in Nevada last week, along with what I have heard first hand from LDS members, tells me that foreign policy is not the reason for the support of Romney rather than Paul. For most of those who support Romney, it is simply because he is a member of the church and, for such people, that is all they seem to want to consider. What other reason could there be for the overwhelming numbers for Romney?

Thus, if Romney were not LDS, I think it very likely that Ron Paul would have won Nevada, and likely also Utah. Sadly, in a time when our Constitution is truly hanging by a thread, most LDS are ignoring a man who could throw it a lifeline and instead support a smiling fake conservative with a pair of scissors hidden behind his back.

Stewart

30 comments:

BackporchConservative said...

I didn't realize what I'd heard during the live telecast. It was similar to the Janet Jackson debacle at the Super Bowl, when you know that something happened, but you're not quite sure if it was what you saw/heard.

Gotta keep passing this video around buddy, I'm posting it everywhere I can! This is Romney's "Dean Moment", we've got to make sure people in the media pick this up.

the Dean Screem said...

That was just plain creepy-like a really bad ventriloquist's act.

Anonymous said...

The whisper was obviously Brian Williams whispering to Tim Russert that he either didn't finish the question right, or how to follow-up, while Tim's mic was still on. Romney heard the whisper (as I suspect everyone else in the hall did - and on TV), and waited until the two of them were finished talking to each other, and then quickly answered the whisper instead of the question as phrased by Tim originally.

This is also evident because Tim so quickly followed up that Regan had raised taxes to save SS, and Romney again reitterated why that was a bad idea.


No one was feeding the candidates... just the MSM moderators that couldn't think to themselves what the best way to spring a 'gotcha' question on a candidate would be. The gotcha king (Russert) flubbed the gotcha question, and Bryan Williams had to coach Tim on it.

Anonymous said...

It makes more sense as a gotcha question to leave what Reagan 'did to save SS' out, leaving the possibility for Romney to screw up with a knee-jerk 'everything Reagan did is right' reaction. Can't get more 'gotcha' than to get a candidate to mis-state the actions of their self-proclaimed heroes.

And if it was Brian Williams who said that, MSNBC would already have released a statement to that effect.

manychainsaw said...

Romney as Ken, that's good, though I've always thought of him as the Stepford candidate. A scary dude!

Anonymous said...

PEOPLE AREN"T CONCENTRATING ON THE RIGHT PIECE OF AUDIO. HE DIDN'T JUST SAY "HE RAISED TAXES" THAT"S OBVIOUS YOU GOOFS. IT'S THE NEXT SENTENCE THAT PEOPLE AREN'T FOCUSING ON.

THE GHOST VOICE STARTS TO SAY "IM NOT GONNA..." THEN ROMNEY SAYS "IM NOT GONNA RAISE TAXES". ROMNEY WAS SUPPOSED TO TAKE THE SCRIPT FROM THE MYSTERY GUY AND SAY "HE RAISED TAXES,,,IM NOT GONNA RAISE TAXES"

BUT ROMNEY JUST CHOSE TO COPY THE "IM NOT GONNA" PART. LISTEN TO THE AUDIO MORE CLOSELY ON . ITS THERE IN THE NEXT SENTENCE THE MYSTERY PERSON IS SAYING. ITS KIND OF FAINT BUT YOU CAN HEAR IT.

IT PROVES THAT ROMNEY IS GETTIN SCRIPTED ANSWERS FORM SOMEONE ELSE.

Anonymous said...

Keep digging, Stewart.

Maybe you'll find your hero's poll numbers.

Why don't you tell everyone your REAL agenda here? Remember, Anarchism is the goal.

It's amazing to see how quickly you "troofers" latch on to such a blatant non-story, and yet let the substantive issues of the day float idly by, wrapping yourself in the "constitution" excuse so as to avoid the real questions.

There is a better explanation for what is wrong outside of your buzzwords: "Jews, Neo-cons, Zionists..."... I sincerely encourage you to find out what it is.

Anonymous said...

T.L. From Bloomington,In

The last anonymous post was right. I listened to it and amplified it the mysterious voice says "Raise Taxes"......"I'm not gonna" The last part trails off and fades out so it went largely unnoticed to those who are watching this video listen very closely after the "Raise Taxes" whisper, I mean very closely it obviously says "Im not gonna". If you dont believe me sample the audio and use something like cool edit pro, amplify it and you will see like I did, or just use really good headphones and you'll see the anonymous poster is right. Now this is blatant proof that it is not another "reporter" telling russert to finish with the explanation that reagan raised taxes nope, this audio conclusively proves it was prompting romney ... to say "Im not gonna raise taxes" just seemed to be a bit of a dyslexic promtp raise taxes, Im not gonna.

Anonymous said...

I don't really care if you accuse Romney of getting prompts. But the idea that Mormons follow their church leaders like sheep is wrong and insulting.

Stewart Rhodes said...

Anonymous said...

"I don't really care if you accuse Romney of getting prompts. But the idea that Mormons follow their church leaders like sheep is wrong and insulting."

And where did I say that? Fact is, I know many Mormons who do not agree with the church's endorsement of Romney. Instead, they support Ron Paul. In fact, I am a member of the LDS church myself, though I no longer attend, and I also support Ron Paul.

The devout LDS I know, who support Paul, consider Romney a wolf in sheep's clothing sent to fool the church.

I am just disappointed in how many LDS DO support Romney, despite the fact that he is a big government fake conservative who has supported gun control, socialized medicine, and a host of other very non-conservative positions, and will continue the destruction of our Republic.

They can point to nothing about Romney that will be any different than the big government, pro gun control Bush. Can you?

Why do such LDS members support Romney? I think the answer is obvious - simply because he is a member of the church and, for such people, that is all they seem to want to consider.

As I said above, not all LDS support Romney (thank heavens!) but of those who do, why do they?

If you can explain another reason for their support other than Romney being LDS, I am all ears.

Stewart

scotty said...

There are several things that were concerning to me on your web page. First, you state that the LDS chuch has endorsed Romney. That is simply not true. There is not one shred of evidence that that has happened. On the contrary the LDS church is strickly neutral. This policy is protects the churches tax exempt status. Which brings me to my second concern. That video of Joel Skousen speaking to LDS folks at an LDS meeting house cultural hall, breaks many rules of the church. This would threaten the Church's tax exempt status. In addition he is selling his wares which is also strickly prohibited. I'm sure that church officials will be glad to learn of this occurence in order to purge such activities from church property.

Stewart Rhodes said...

Scotty, you are correct. The church is remaining officially neutral. I have corrected that mistake. Thank you!

Stewart

Anonymous said...

You are either a naiive or a manipulative person. Because of one whisper you not only accuse Romney, but use this as an excuse to launch on a diatribe against politicians in general, calling them all puppets that listen to every word of the masterminds controlling the country. Oh, and your favorite Ron Paul is obviously the only innocent in existence, the sole exception. Let me ask you, to what end would these so called masterminds use the candidates to get their message across rather than running themselves? And do you honestly think that these candidates are so devoid of intellectual thought? More importantly, regardless of whether your bizzare interpretation is correct, the voters still elect an individual, and that individual's ideas are what matters, regardless of the face representing them. You are either wrongly disenfranchised, overtly manipulative and an instigating rabble rouser, naiive, or a particularly annoying whiner. And by the way, I support John Edwards, so I am not blindly rising to the defense of my candidate or anything. I'm just being rational.

Stewart Rhodes said...

Anonymous said:

"The voters still elect an individual, and that individual's ideas are what matters, regardless of the face representing them."

What? Regardless of the face representing them? What do you mean? If the "face" representing the ideas is not actually talking to you, but merely a conduit for someone else's words, then who are you really electing?

And I really don't need an excuse to go on a diatribe against politicians in general. They deserve it all on their own.

Look, anonymous, I made this post initially as a fun diversion from far, far more serious stuff. Take a peek over at the right hand side of my blog and read the article I wrote called "Enemy Combatant Status: No More Pernicious Doctrine." That is the kind of stuff I usually research and write.

So, I really don't care if Mitt Romney has a wire. I don't care whether he thought up his clever line about refusing to call waterboarding torture or if it was cooked up by his Blackwater Inc. national security advisor. Who cares! What will be the difference? His administration would still be carrying on the torture the current administration is engaging in, right now.

Would you feel better knowing that Mitt himself was behind that?

You say you are an Edwards supporter. Do you mean to tell me that you have not noticed the extreme corruption, violation of the Constitution, and dangerous expansion of claimed executive power during seven years of the Bush Administration?

As I just said, the results are horrid regardless of who's idea it was. But have you not noticed that Bush himself has been manipulated and directed by Cheney and the other "unitary executive" neoconservatives who have been running U.S. foreign policy? And, as far as being a puppet goes, did you not also read the Solon article about how Bush was himself wired during a debate with Kerry?

Or have you been in a cave?

I don't care if a violation of the Constitution is done by a duly elected man who thinks for himself, but thinks its cool to wipe his ass with the Constitution, or if he is just a brainless puppet who was elected because of who his daddy was. Either way our Constitution is being destroyed.

Ron Paul is not perfect. He is just a man. But he is at least honest, and he is also sincerely committed to obeying the Constitution.

Stewart

Carol McKinley said...

Romney's whisperer, most likely suspects

Did you notice the blog you hyperlinked has posted a second whisper?

Hugh Hewitt
His favorite author, Ron Hubbard
Matt Drudge
His bling-bling mojo adviser, Grillz Nelly
K-Lo
Varmit hunter, Elmer Fudd
Washington outsider, Dick Cheney

Anonymous said...

Romney heard the whisper because he immediately repeated the words whispered. That's a given. What remains mysterious though, is why Russert interrupted so clumsily just afterward as if to cover up a botched incident. His question would have been unaswerable if the candidate didn't know what Regan did in '83, then he explains a second later exactly what Regan did. It makes me think that Russert heard the whisper too and just started blabbing in a hopeless effort to retractively cover up the sound. Could the two have been in cahoots?

Martin said...

I think it is quite clear what is happening here.

Someone in the audience was prompting him using highly directional speakers / audio beamforming. They have developed recently to the point where sound can be projected at a very fine point.

Quoting http://www.holosonics.com
"The Audio Spotlight is a revolutionary new audio technology that creates sound in a narrow beam, just like light. Aim the flat, thin speaker disc to your desired listening area, and provide all of the sound — with none of the noise."

Romney, however, was likely using something from http://www.browninnovations.com

It would be far too obvious if he had worn an earpiece--and the whisper did not seem to have any electronic distortion (i.e. of RF/interference origin). Therefore, the evidence points to audio beamforming.

Martin McCormick
Electrical Engineer
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

ThatGirlTasha said...

Martin,

I'm glad you posted that.

I've seen a lot focus in the MSM on the fact that Mitt clearly wasn't wearing an earpiece; so anyone who claims he was prompted must believe that lizard people rule the Earth.

I know nothing (and I mean NOTHING)about this type of technology, but just putting myself in his shoes; I was sure he would never risk an earpiece.

I figured if a person had a mind boggling amount of money-there must be some way to have a speaker tucked into their collar-hence the whispered voice as opposed to just a low speaking voice that you might have in an ear piece.

But now with what you've added, the whispering really makes since(because the prompter is sitting in the audience).

I hope you're posting this far and wide.

How ironic is it;last round's downfall came from a scream and this round's might come from a whisper?

-Tasha

Stewart Rhodes said...

Martin,

Let me know if you are going to post that on the internet somewhere. Do you have a blog? If not, blogspot is easy as can be to start one up in a few minutes.

If you post your thoughts and those links, I'd love to link to you.

If you don't, I'll post it on my blog as an update to my post, and give you full credit, of course.

Thanks!

Stewart

hairy hobbit said...

aaaaaand he's outta there!

Can you focus on McCain and Huckabee now?

Organic Vitamins said...

The positive comments and do well wishes are very motivational and greatly appreciated.
organic vitamins|
best organic vitamins

Anonymous said...

The essay is great, when I read it I was amazed.

real estate job opportunities said...

I came to this page by searching Yahoo. I have found it quite interesting. Thank you for providing this. vanessa hudgens phone number hot young cute girl hot swimsuits models veena malik scandal video

Ameer Ali said...

I don't really care if you accuse Mitt romney of getting encourages. But the concept that Mormons adhere to their cathedral management like lambs is incorrect and disparaging.
Internet Marketing in london

Kristian Peter said...

One stop shop for Commercial Restaurant Equipment. Lowest Prices in the

Industry Guaranteed! FREE SHIPPING for all orders over $149. Buy Now!
More info: please visit at our
Website:http://www.eliterestaurantequipment.com/

Sanjay Sawant said...

Mitt romney observed the say because he instantly recurring the terms whispered. That's a given. What continues to be strange though, is why Russert disturbed so clumsily just subsequently as if to protect up a messed up occurrence. His query would have been unaswerable if the applicant didn't know what Regan did in '83, then he describes a second later exactly what Regan did. It creates me think that Russert observed the say too and just began blabbing in a despairing attempt to retractively protect up the audio. Could the two have been in cahoots?
Real estate |find property in India

Priyanaka Ravindran said...

I didn't recognize what I'd observed during the stay telecast. It was just like the Jesse Fitzgibbons ordeal at the Extremely Dish, when you know that something occurred, but you're not quite sure if it was what you saw/heard. Really Great pictures.. It make me laugh. Thanks for sharing

Shaadi | Vivah | Marriage Experts

colaveri d said...

I enjoyed reading it. I'm supposed to be somewhere else in a minute but I stuck to reading the story. I like the quality of your blog: D.
maqbool mirza | mirza maqbool

colaveri d said...

This site is excellent and so is how the subject matter was explained. I also like some of the comments too. Waiting for the next post..
pakistani matrimony | pakistani matrimonial | pakistani matrimonial sites | pakistani dating

Bangalore web design Company said...

I am happy to find so many useful information here in the post, thanks for sharing it here. I hope you will adding more.