Frist!! (Are we still doing that?)

It worked so well for Bush in the Debates with Gore and Kerry, and electronics are getting smaller all the time pretty soon, all the repubs will have to do is submit to implanting a microchip device in their mouth and then they don't even need to move their lips when they spew their talking points, all they'll have to do is open their mouths.

Kind of freaky listening to that. Someone was getting a prompt from somewhere.

Noen - If it was fed to him through an earpiece, (known as an 'IFB' in the industry...) and he had the volume turned up, and the mic was on, and the "ambient" noise was low - the IFB could easily be picked up on the mic. 100%. It sounds like a perfect-storm type of event, but it's really quite easy to have pop up. So much so, that it's really audio-op 101 to check the IFB level against the mic level to make sure there is no crosstalk.

I work in the media and I can replicate this for anyone at anytime.

they didn't show any of them from the back did they?......can't trust them for one minute.

someone deffinitley whispered something loud enough for Mittens to hear the answer.And he does have the dough to buy the top of the line newest technology.hell....I even heard "taxes".....same ol same ol .....cheatin as usual

dude, wait, is Mr. Gaines suggesting Romney just said the words "Ronald Reagan" but his mic wasn't working so it sounded like a whisper?

hey Jeremy - for a Senior VP of Communications, you obviously don't know much about, like, communicating. unless Mr. Romney's lips were also temporarily malfunctioning. =\

carefulwiththatAXEeugene @ 13:

news that is here today and gone tomorrow.
nothing ever becomes of these things.
these people are above scrutiny even when they are there to be scrutinized.
the MSM is full of idiots. more concerned with their cult of personality.

Just imagine if it was Obama..

Obviously you folks aren't audio technicians, otherwise you'd know that a whisper similar to "He raised taxes" is a common symptom of a malfunctioning microphone! It happens all the time...

jeaton @ 17:

If the earpiece story is true, I can't believe MSNBC allowed it. If so it undermines any credibility the debate may have had.

What credibility? Corporate power picks the candidates that are willing to suck corporate tit? Some Democracy we have. Not.

Mittens was wired, I'd be willing to bet. It just adds to his Bush Wannabe personna.

How many events like this need to happen before someone will just admit they get fed info in ear pieces?

That whisper was said by one of the other candidates or someone on the production team. It didn't come through his earpiece because the full spectrum of frequency is picked up. Anything picked up by an earpiece into a microphone (6 inches away approx.) would sound tinny and indecipherable at best. Just pull out your ipod headphones and listen to any spoken word audio with the headphone held just two inches from your ear. That's what a microphone would record if it could. That whisper was said into a mic patched directly into the production mix. That is a dumb excuse by MSNBC but they probably didn't have a camera on every candidate all the time so there's no way to go back and see who may have said it. Any candidate taking notes could have whispered it to himself up there. I know my Mom talks her way through most movies.

Go Obama!

Yeah, Romney's mike wasn't working properly. It malfunctioned in such a way as to actually start whispering the answers to him. Yeah, that makes a heck of a lot of sense.

But I'm pretty sure the Repub audience will buy it. They'll believe anything, so NBC is off of the hook.

It was the magic underpants Mitt wears. Whenever he cuts wind or his balls sweat, they are programmed to spit out a Ronald Reagan line.

We gotta find out the frequency Mitt's earpiece receives, and during his speeches we can send messages, like:

'Mitt, some lady needs to talk to you right now, she says she's a wife, but didn't leave her name'.

'Now's the time, Mitt, 'Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran'.'

'Aw, sh*t, Mitt, your fly's open'.

These scum suckers are all the same... Who is shocked that these brainless psychopaths wear wires to assist them with trigger words so they can unleash their canned BULLSHIT!!

you'rekillingindependentgeorge @ 1:

Frist!! (Are we still doing that?)

No please stop... its been old since the first week ppl have done it..

Dog serial killer Bill "Dexter" Frist is not running for office... Use the space alloted to write something... poignant, witty, funny, or insightful...

Frankly I would rather see people write .. "FUCK" instead of frist if you have to be so banal...

kerplunk @ 28:

It was the magic underpants Mitt wears. Whenever he cuts wind or his balls sweat, they are programmed to spit out a Ronald Reagan line.

Kerplunk gets the gold star today!

And the voice was actually one of the Morman Tabernacle Underpants Barbershop trio.

Mittens a typical Republican sees a White House bid as a business venture for himself and his cronies. Republicans only seek public office to enrich their own coffers at the expense of the poor and middle class with our tax dollars while cutting programs that benefit us. This is why Mittens the Charlatan is "investing" so much of his own money into this campaign hoping he can reap much more in future returns if he slither into the White House. It's not about public service to a Republican, it's a means to enrich their own coffers and those of their contributors and business associates. Using the presidency (and vice presidency) to rob from the poor and middle class and give to the rich is Repubicanism in a nutshell. Cheney has made many times over his vice presidential salary by lying the nation into war then being in the position to steer no bid government contracts to his former company seeing his own Halliburton stock increase over 3000% from a few hundred thousand dollars to over 8 million dollars. America will not be for Americans as long as a Republican occupies the White House. Republicans pose the greatest threat out their to America's future, financial and national security. A far greater threat than any other enemy foreign or domestic.

For all those who repeatedly babble about the whisper coming from another candidate onstage, that has been debunked by MSNBC:

“Having ruled out the possibility that one of the other candidates was whispering to himself, MSNBC has added an update to its blog post concluding that someone in the audience must have been whispering near an “open mic.” http://www.democraticundergrou.....15;4203618

Moreover, it was not Brian Williams prompting Russert, as is also repeatedly claimed. Williams has personally denied this:

“Even Brian Williams professed not to know what the hell had happened:
‘With the benefit of an earpiece on stage, I distinctly heard what some viewers apparently heard. Someone said in a whisper, but audibly:
“He raised taxes…”‘ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....83348.html

So, assuming that MSNBC and Brian Williams are not lying, the claims that it was a mic picking up another candidate or that it was Williams prompting Russert can be thrown out.

So, that leaves us with the possibility that the whisper was either an open mic picking up a member of the audience, or that it was coming from a source connected with Romney. As far as the theory of an open mic in the audience, if that indeed is the source of the whisper, then the coordinators of the debate are utterly culpable for a sophmoric slip in audio engineering that at best was unprofessional and at worst helped Romney form an answer (depending on whether or not the candidates themselves could hear the whisper).

If the above is not the case, then the only logical alternative given that Williams is not lying about helping Russert, and given that MSNBC is not lying about their audio investigation, is that the source is connected to Romney.

I am not appeased with the explanations thus far, and am calling for further investigation into the matter, as I think any patriotic American should. Those who so easily dismiss citizens who actively question as “tin foil conspiracy theorists” are missing a huge fact: A whisper was clearly heard across national television, and has yet to be fully explained. There is a party responsible, and so far that party remains anonymous. If it is an audience member picked up by a mic, I think it should be revealed which mic picked it up, and who was operating that mic (and moreover WHY that mic was ‘hot’ during a question to a candidate, when it should have been inactive). This is not an unreasonable request. I am not content to leave the source unknown, when the possibility of cheating during a presidential debate looms as an alternative.

I realize that this comment will likely go unread by many, and that the “Romney Whisper” story will likely blow over in the national media within days, and thus be forgotten from the public’s mind. Yet, I felt compelled to get my feelings out…a catharsis if you will.

“The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks”.

-Samuel Adams

Why am I not surprised that this plastic POS needs someone else to tell him what to say?

And he's UGLY - I have serious issue with people who say he's perfect, beautiful, handsome, has perfect hair, etc., etc.

The expression on his face betrays the fact that there is NOTHING beneath his greasy unattractive hair-do.
*

I would love to find the frequency these ear pieces are on during a campaign event and play elevator music through them during a campaign event.

Much as I hate Romney, it doesn't make much sense. First of all, he is plenty smart enough to handle his own answers, unlike Boy Wonder.

A prompter would have said "I'm not going to raise taxes," not "he raised taxes."

Prompters wouldn't inform on facts, they (would) use the first person pronoun and say the words that the promptee could simply repeat.

I think it was someone on the stage crew, editorializing near an open mike.

Yes he was wired. Bush used one too against Kerry and still got his ass handed to him. Remember the one rule by which all goopers abide: do anything to win, anything.

Dear Paul,

Actually, I could swear that when I listen to the video, the whispered voice says "Raise Taxes...I'm not (inaudible..)". Listen to the enhanced audio circulating on YouTube, and you should hear it. Also, speculations on how intelligent Romney is lend no bearing in the question on whether he was fed prompts. You could be the smartest person in the world, but if a whispered audio is heard right before you start talking (Indeed, when the whisper seems to PROMPT your talking point), your intelligence and assumed ability to answer the question should not de facto eliminate any allegations of cheating.

Also, since when was it common knowledge that clandestine prompters never whisper, but always speak at a normal volume level? I'm not saying that there was a secret prompter helping Romney, but to dismiss the possibility based on the thought that a "prompter would not whisper. They would speak in a normal voice, since their voice is not being heard except by the promptee" is a little naive. IF someone wanted to relay secret prompts to a presidential candidate, is it beyond the realm of possibility that they might speak in a hushed voice for reasons other than being picked up by a microphone (which, in fact, is a viable reason to be speaking in a whisper as well)?

1) How is "He raised taxes, I'm not" bad prompting? If in fact it was prompting (which, I am not concluding to as of yet...I simply want answers), then don't you think that simple, consise phrase would be a perfect base to elaborate from? "Reagan raised taxes, I won't"...not a bad prompt, if it is one.

2)Enhanced audio in itself is not untrustworthy...I think you meant to say that the source of the enhanced audio may be untrustworthy. Well, luckily I work with audio engineering and have home amps and filters that have helped me enhance the audio for myself. It's really not too difficult. So, I guess I consider myself a good source...I believe what I hear.

3)See my previous comment about "a prompter has no need to whisper"

Lastly, I would just like to reiterate that I don't have a personal vendetta against Romney, but I simply am seeking answers to what seems to me a conundrum.

Lee @ 52 "Also, since when was it common knowledge that clandestine prompters never whisper, but always speak at a normal volume level?"

Since modern electronics gave us volume controls and equalizers?

Any such prompter would not be in the audience or in view or in earshot of others. They might be in a van nearby, or in an relatively distant room, since an intermediate antenna would not be hard to place.

I don't have personal experience with such things, but I'm sure there are enough sound engineers around this website to attest to the amount of modulation done for earpiece feeds.

But the main point is that no one can explain why Romney would need a prompt. He's equivocates like an expert, and does not strike one as someone with no idea how to answer an obvious question about Reagan and taxes.

trixr4kids @ 57:

Lets not forget during the debate Bush did when he insisted on commenting about something Kerry said then stood there for a good 20 seconds with his mouth open blinking and staring. I'm pretty sure he was listening to someone whisper in his ear.

I think Boy Wonder uses prompts on a regular basis, because he's an idiot. Romney is not an idiot. People who think he is for the purposes of ridicule are tricking themselves. He's dangerous -- and part of that is his abilities. But for his Mormonism, he would be the R candidate. I never thought I'd be grateful to that fakery.

Once again, his intelligence does not necessarily vindicate him. To use an analogy, say a man is caught red handed walking out of a supermarket with a stolen item...but he is in fact a fairly wealthy man. Well, just because he is wealthy and can afford to buy groceries does not necessarily mean that he didn't steal.

As far as a prompter not needing to whisper, I don't think speculation such as that is enough to call off an investigation. Like I said before, I have nothing against Romney, but what I heard and saw implores me to get answers from somebody...and thoughts such as "modern technology makes whispering secret prompts obsolete" just doesn't cut it for me...especially when the stakes are so high.

Lee @ 60:

Once again, his intelligence does not necessarily vindicate him.

The rest of the case is also highly unlikely. There is no way that a feed to a candidate would end up on the air. If it did happen, it would happen frequently (pun intended).

Romney is not dumb. This kind of prompt is not something that would be of great use to a person with his background. Indeed, if he was being prompted, I would think he would be rattling off statistics ten at a time to wow the rubes.

There's no denying that was the voice of Moroni.

StirFry @ 64:

There's no denying that was the voice of Moroni.

I think that's it!

Actually, I can't wait for Romney to pull out his seeing-stone, put it to his eye and declare to the television audience that he can see a treasure in everyone's backyard (like Joseph Smith used to do).

"Hire me to dig up the magic treasure I can mystically see in your backyard. I'm Mitt Romney, and I approved this mesage."

It would be a powerful appeal to the base.

What I heard was "raised taxes", as in "Ronald Reagan raised taxes". I didn't know what Reagan did with regards to this in 1983. Maybe Romney didn't either. This was either to point out to Romney that Reagan raised taxes because he didn't know "what Ronald Reagan did in 1983" or someone was commenting to someone else or to themselves about what Reagan did. It's hard to say, but it seems to me like someone was feeding this to him. My thoughts:

1. Lots of old people in Florida; don't want to say anything bad about social security.

2. Republican gathering. Don't want to say you'll raise taxes. Russert almost had him here. If Romney didn't know what Reagan did he may have fallen prey to the trick question and then be labelled as a tax raiser, the kiss of death for a Repub.

And, yeah, Russert seems to be working a closely-arranged script. Presuming that this suggests the network complicity, then it is then more possible that the prompt would accidentally go on air, implying a mistakenly-thrown switch (instead of the otherwise implausible interference argument).

So, I'm 180 from where I started on this.

Did I tell you the one about Republicans in New Hampshire who had to vote on paper towels?

It reminds me of the Bush-Kerry debate. In the middle of a monologue, Bush yelled "Now just wait a minute" from the depths of his "poorly tailored" suit. And remember when Jeb was debating in Florida and he said the name of the random Floridian asking the question before she said it...

Newsflash = Republicans cheat and the MSM covers for them.

Paul in LA @ 46:

Much as I hate Romney, it doesn't make much sense. First of all, he is plenty smart enough to handle his own answers, unlike Boy Wonder.

A prompter would have said "I'm not going to raise taxes," not "he raised taxes."

Prompters wouldn't inform on facts, they (would) use the first person pronoun and say the words that the promptee could simply repeat.

I think it was someone on the stage crew, editorializing near an open mike.

Paul, in some ways I'm glad it doesn't make much sense to you: it means you don't think like a cheater. :-)

Athletes don't take steroids because they can't do their prospective sport, they take them because they are looking for an edge in dealing with stiff competition. Sure Mitt could have answered the questions by himself, but having prompts would provide a little insurance and make his delivery smoother.

On another blog, someone theorized that the Mitt somehow got the questions beforehand and the voice(possibly his) was from pre-recorded prompts.
The leaking of questions, whether intentional or not, would explain MSNBC's shady explanation as they wouldn't want to call into question the integrity of the debate itself.

If he knew the questions(especially the trick questions like this one) beforehand, he could have prepared his answers around simple and short mnemonic devises like "he raised taxes." In that case, the shorter and simpler the mnemonic, the smoother the delivery of the answer. If the promptee is just repeating what the prompter says then they could get caught in a situation like Bush's "Let me finish"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBUIqgCybt4

Chris @ 73:

I'm not saying MSNBC is involved and that there's some sort of conspiracy.

It seems quite tightly timed. Russert's question yields to a hot button answer -- on review it looks entirely rigged.

Considering that Romney has just bought ClearChannel, he's not without media pals, and NBC has already proven it's love of bucks over democracy (with Kucinich).

Rather than a prompt to supply a vacant mind, this looks like a media kit, prearranged, with prompts not to supply an answer to a fool, but as stage management, to prompt the next practiced section of the propaganda, the one called 'raise taxes' in the briefing, with a specific prearranged answer linked to that rubric.

a prompter would have to be in the same room.

ever since the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction", every image you see and every sound you hear on your television, is the result of a 5 second delay from the initial command send that data from the television station, to your cable or dish network. UHF of course isn't beholden to this rule. but if you don't believe me, try this little trick. watch the Super Bowl. plug one television to the cable from the wall. get a set of rabbit ears on the 2nd. the set with rabbit ears will display data 5 seconds before the cleaner digital display.

so a prompter couldn't be offsite attempting to provide prompts, because the prompter would have to either deal with a 5 second delay, or would have to hope against hope that his UHF rabbit ears from inside his offsite van full of gadgets wouldn't fail him.

and a prompter would only see the body language and audience response that the camera man wants us to see... not the whole picture.

if a prompter were in a 2nd room offsite, with real-time live feed of the debate behind a closed door.... this would get back to us. some studio engineer would eventually get the word out "hey you know whats funny? was all those consultants with crazy radio wires, high tech walkie talkies, and studio patch cable from the live feed our studio engineers use leading into that big secret room with the one way security glass overlooking the debate..."

a prompter would HAVE to be in the same room. either behind the stage, or in the audience.

that would probably explain why we heard a whisper rather than a normal tone.

*shrug*

Its a miracle, a miracle i say.

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-6075267752026161210&total=31&sta...

Out devil Out I say: :-) Ha Ha Ha Ha

Praise to the lord!!!!

Crock of shit!

Does anyone care that NBC/MSNBC are MSM and are busy working to control the election?
.

burnt @ 77:

a prompter would have to be in the same room.

ever since the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction", every image you see and every sound you hear on your television, is the result of a 5 second delay from the initial command send that data from the television station, to your cable or dish network. UHF of course isn't beholden to this rule. but if you don't believe me, try this little trick. watch the Super Bowl. plug one television to the cable from the wall. get a set of rabbit ears on the 2nd. the set with rabbit ears will display data 5 seconds before the cleaner digital display.

so a prompter couldn't be offsite attempting to provide prompts, because the prompter would have to either deal with a 5 second delay, or would have to hope against hope that his UHF rabbit ears from inside his offsite van full of gadgets wouldn't fail him.

and a prompter would only see the body language and audience response that the camera man wants us to see... not the whole picture.

if a prompter were in a 2nd room offsite, with real-time live feed of the debate behind a closed door.... this would get back to us. some studio engineer would eventually get the word out "hey you know whats funny? was all those consultants with crazy radio wires, high tech walkie talkies, and studio patch cable from the live feed our studio engineers use leading into that big secret room with the one way security glass overlooking the debate..."

a prompter would HAVE to be in the same room. either behind the stage, or in the audience.

that would probably explain why we heard a whisper rather than a normal tone.

*shrug*

First, I don't think there's a 5 second delay for everything that goes out live. You catch a lot of sideline f-bombs from coaches at televised sporting events.

There's always a delay between when someone is "shot" and when you see it. The signal goes from camera to control board, is uplinked from that source to a satellite, back down to the network, back up to the satellite from there, back down to your local affiliate and finally to you via over-the-air technology or cable. That process takes a while.

I agree with you that the comment came from someone in very close proximity. I don't believe the Scheinhardt Wing Company's GE's explanation that it was one of their production crew. If it was, the guilty party could simply raise his/her hand and blush. This came from Mitt's personal crew.

The question I have is whether the industry makes a IFB that's completely invisible and potentially bluetooth. -I don't see a wire and would they be as sneaky or capable of putting a silicone skin flap on his neck to cover it? Also, wouldn't Bluetooth produce interference on the mics? - Like if you leave your cellphone too close to your speakers at home? Both use radio frequencies. If someone was feeding him answers it does make sense that the person in question would be whispering. Something above that might be distracting and Romney did need to pay a moderate amount of attention to the question or he'd seem like he was just robotically throwing out talking-points.. well, more robotic then usual at least.

As much as I dislike Romney, it seems like it might have been another candidate trying to throw an obstacle in his way.

Biggus Diggus @ 65:

The whisper is definitely something that went wrong for Mitt. It was intended to coach him and somehow got heard on the general audio. How do I know? Notice that Romney's answer follows the whisper's lead. It became the lead talking point for Romney's answer. Something stinks and MSNBC sounds like they are part of the conspiracy.

This sounds the most plausible IMHO. The question was ,I believe , "Would you do what Reagan did to save Social Security ? " Or something very close. The way the "whisper" popped out and Mitt's defensive answer , leads me to think that someone didn't think he knew what Reagan did. That was the prompt. The "Monkey-King" needs to be fed answers , Willard gets history lessons so he knows how to answer.

Paul in LA @ 56:

Lee @ 52 "Also, since when was it common knowledge that clandestine prompters never whisper, but always speak at a normal volume level?"

Since modern electronics gave us volume controls and equalizers?

Sorry, Paul, but you're completely ignoring the psychology of vocalization and perception. People automatically shift to a whisper when producing quiet utterances because the changes in the throat and mouth correct for the amplitude compression. Why do we do this? Because we have learned, through experience, that a quiet whispered utterance is more intelligible that a quiet non-whispered utterance.

As to the idea that Romney is too intelligent to need a prompt: nice hindsight. But would the prompter (a) trust that he knew the answer, risking the election, or (b) would an idiot like Huckabee even know what Romney knows in the first place?

I see no serious holes in the "prompting" story. The one answer I don't buy at all is that Romney's mic picked up something from his earpiece. As pointed out above, the frequencies and overtones in such would be completely different from what we heard; it would be "tinny."

Next debate is Wed. If Mittens was indeed wired up for the last debate, then he's probably weighing the risks of wearing a wire for the next debate. It will be interesting to see if he has the same composure on Wed. that he's had in previous debates.

I hate to pound this issue folks, but if it had been Hillary Clinton, this would be 24/7 coverage!!!!!!!!!

It is a repuke so they brush it under the table. It should make you wonder why these same folks are CURRENTLY big Obama cheerleaders.

Something stinks in Mudville.

As far as a prompter not needing to whisper, I don’t think speculation such as that is enough to call off an investigation. Like I said before, I have nothing against Romney, but what I heard and saw implores me to get answers from somebody…and thoughts such as “modern technology makes whispering secret prompts obsolete” just doesn’t cut it for me

People who professionally speak into microphones to give cues and prompt others who will be hearing them through earpieces - don't whisper. They speak quietly into the microphone with a normal voice. Whispering is harder to hear through earpieces, is tiring for the whisperer, and would actually carry MORE through ambient sound than a low-pitched normal voice. Someone who had a job to communicate with Romney through an earpiece would not be whispering.

Also, there is a lot of ambient noise on a set like that of the debate. The lighting units have internal fans to cool them, and there are a lot of them. No one would be trying to cue Romney by whispering.

This was news last week...

If the mic is not working there would be NO sound, not more sound. Pure BS answer.

Marco @ 87:

OK @ 43:

Watch the video a few times, it's so obvious that someone is slipping Mitt the answers. Repeat: Romney is getting the answers whispered to him.

Repeat: Mitt can't answer debate questions without offstage prompts.

Repeat: Romney is wearing a wire and is getting the answers fed to him -- oh my god, WHAT A WEASEL.

Pass it on...

Mittwit

Mitt did not receive the prompt the guy asking the question did. What is wrong with you. Listen to the whole thing. The guy asking the question left the raising of the taxes part off. After the whisper prompted him about raising the taxes he interrupted Romney and added the part about the taxes. That was an important part of the question. Someone close to him whispered to him and it was picked up by his mic not Romney's. I'm a professional engineer and sometimes I think people without technical backgrounds are as stupid as the rocks they throw.

The media guy that asked the question knows he was prompted and he is not saying anything. He is the one who should be scrutinized for not being truthful about it.

Abbywood (101), you're issue is a non-issue because Mitt was not prompted by the whisper. The guy asking the question was prompted. Is there anyone out there in LaLa-Land smart enough to figure that out?

hey dumbasses, it's mic = microphone not mike = mikerophone.

dumbassses!

Larry L @ 102:

Is there anyone out there in LaLa-Land smart enough to figure that out?

Come on out to UCLA -- we'll stuff our science books up your rear until you burp in astrophysics, ya lug.

Okay, two questions:

1) Why was Romney wearing an earpiece and...
2) Why does the voice in the earpiece keep calling him 'Gaius?'

Larry L @ 95:

The gentleman asking the question was prompted by someone that he left the raising taxes part of the question off. He promptly interrupted Romney and added the raising taxes part of the question. It is no mystery. Listen to the whole thing. First, he asks the question without the raising of taxes part and then he is prompted by the whisper that Reagan raised taxes and then he interrupted Romney to add the raising of the taxes part of the question. Listen to the whole thing. It's obvious.

Except that both Brian Williams and Tim Russert deny this scenario. So either they are lying, or the whisper is not attributable to a correction for the moderator.