OK, let's get serious here: using an earpiece in a debate would be near IMPOSSIBLE.

Bicoastal

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Oct-02-08 07:08 PM
Original message

OK, let's get serious here: using an earpiece in a debate would be near IMPOSSIBLE.

Let's just think about the many reasons why this scenario is clearly bogus:

First of all, the person on the other end would have to be an EXPERT debater; the stand-in would only be as good as the voice in their ear. This person would have to know the candidate's positions on the issues better than the candidate themselves, and be able to speak as if they themselves were actually in front of an audience, not in a bunker or a parked van somewhere nearby--along with transmitting equipment and a realtime video broadcast of the debates, as well as a couple other people from the campaign monitoring the situation. It seems like that personnel and technology would be enormously and needlessly expensive to any presidential campaign. But if you buy that much...

One would assume that there would be HAVE to be a bit of a lag between the voice in the earpiece and the debater's own voice. Have you ever tried to repeat someone's words in real time? It's really quite difficult. You need a couple of seconds to hear what they're saying before you can repeat it yourself--and then, you have to stop and listen again, because you can't hear what they're saying while you're talking. If this was actually done, it would sound something like this:

"My opinion on the bailout crisis...is that congress has an obligation...to assist the country's banks...in making absolutely sure..." etc.

And so forth. Completely obvious. Even if the person in the ear didn't speak for the candidate and just spat out short reminders of legislation or statistics, you would notice if a person always waited 5 seconds before answering the question.

Finally, the candidate would have to be one HELL of an actor to fool the moderator and the audience into believing that all of this was spontaneous and natural. Whenever you find yourself merely REPEATING sentences or phrases dictated by someone else, your eyes tend to glaze over or look upwards. Also, because you don't know when the other person will end his or her sentence, your voice begins to take on a repetitive cadence, such as:

"I BICOASTAL--solemnly SWEAR--that I will support and DEFEND--the Constitution of the United STATES--against all ENEMIES--foreign and DOMESTIC..." etc.

This person would have to be a brilliant performer to make any of it sound natural and spontaneous--remember, the whole point of this operation would be to make the person sound as if each sentence was coming out of their brain and into their mouths instantaneously. And most politicians couldn't do that--hell, most ACTORS couldn't do it--without sounding exactly like they were being fed lines out of an earpiece. And the stakes of being caught in the act would be astronomically high, since being found out would almost definitely lose the candidate his or her election that very evening--so that's even more pressure. Would ANY of this be worth the trouble when you could just as easily participate in the debate for real, after some rigorous practicing and rehearsing ahead of time?

For all these reasons and more, I would kindly ask DU to stop talking about hidden earpieces and wires--the entire premise is simply absurd.