RUSH: Now, I happened to mention before the end of the previous hour that Obama has a history of stuttering and stammering when the teleprompter’s not around. And just as the media, in the nineties, published a number of pieces along the lines of saying white lies are good, telling lies here and there, it’s actually very nice to lie. It spares people’s feelings, and it causes people to be able to avoid anxiety. Clinton, of course, was a serial liar, and it was a negative thing so they had to come out with these pieces. Well, a columnist by the name of Meghan Daum back in May of 2011 published a piece in the Los Angeles Times, and I want to read to you just a short little excerpt.
“It’s not that Obama can’t speak clearly.” Of course not. “It’s that Obama employs the intellectual stammer.” Grab audio sound bite three. Let me precede this, for those of you welfare queens just getting out of bed, you takers just getting out of bed, may not have heard the first hour, play audio sound bite number three so you know what it is we’re discussing here.
OBAMA: If we turn against each other based on divisions of race (pause) or religion (long pause) —
OBAMA: I-i-i-if — i-i-if — if — if — if — if — if — if we — if we fall for, y’know, a — a — a bunch of (pause) okie-doke —
AUDIENCE: (smattering of laughter)
OBAMA: — just because, i-i-i-it… (gagging) Y’know, it, uhhh… (gaggling) y’know, i-i-i-i-it — it sounds (pause) funny or the tweets are (pause) provocative, then we’re not gonna build on the progress that we started.
RUSH: Okay. LA Times. “It’s not that Obama can’t speak clearly.” Of course not. No, no. “It’s that he employs the intellectual stammer. Not to be confused with a stutter, which the president decidedly does not have, the intellectual stammer signals a brain that is moving so fast that the mouth can’t keep up. The stammer is commonly found among university professors, characters in Woody Allen movies and public thinkers of the sort that might appear on C-SPAN but not CNN.”
This is not a parody piece. This woman is dead serious.
“If you’re a member or a fan of that subset, chances are the president’s stammer doesn’t bother you; in fact, you might even love him for it (he sounds just like your grad school roommate, especially when he drank too much Scotch and attempted to expound on the Hegelian dialectic!).”
Right. So, here’s this cover-up piece. Oh, no, no, no, no, that’s the intellectual stammer. He’s not stuttering. And it happens because Obama’s so smart, oh, my god, we can’t even comprehend. He’s so, so, so smart that his mouth just can’t keep up with his brain. It’s that simple. It’s kind of like people you see on C-SPAN, but you would never see them on CNN.
So it’s classic. Here you have the media covering up for Obama when he doesn’t have his prompter. Now, I’ve demonstrated the intellectual stammer to you over the course of this program. There is such a thing, by the way.
The intellectual stammer is an actual rehearsed and practiced art of speech in the intellectual world. It is done purposely, and the purpose of it is to convey serious, deep ponderances, incredibly deep thoughts. The intellectual stammer is designed as a signature, in a way, to set the intellectual way, way, way apart and above you. The intellectual stammer, as I say, is a practiced and honed speech pattern. I’ve recognized it. I have been able to learn it and mock it and imitate it. I’ve seen it frequently.
The intellectual stammer does not happen at nearly the rapid pace that Obama was stuttering in that sound bite. The intellectual stammer goes something like this. Imagine you’re watching C-SPAN and some host has an intellectual on. The intellectual is dressed in a coat and tie. He’s wearing an Oxford button-down shirt. Intellectuals never wear collars that are not button-down. I mean, if they wear coats and ties these days, the collar always has buttons; never just the standard, point collar. Always. Buttons are required.
In some cases, bald spots are a positive. The jacket will never match the slacks. You never see that if they’re seated somewhere on C-SPAN. But there’s a look. Intellectuals have a look. They have a uniform, they have a look, they have a speech pattern. Well, you’ve got the picture here. Sometimes the intellectual has rotten teeth. They don’t even have time to brush their teeth! They’re so brilliant, they’re so constantly focused, that mundane things that takes up time that’s considered a waste of time.
So the appearance is classic.
You must notice some or all of these characteristics in order to be able to just visually to spot an intellectual. There must be glasses. The glasses will either be worn at the bridge of the nose or on the forehead or the top of the head, or they will actually be worn near the eyes as though they’re being used, but they are props as well. The intellectual will always have some in his right hand — or a pen or a pointer or something. Madonna used this trick. Every press conference, Madonna — when sitting down — always had a pen in her hand.
It conveys intelligence, it conveys that you’re writing, it conveys substance. And then, of course, the host begins the questioning of the intellectual. “Tell us… Uh, tell us, Professor, what precisely should we conclude from your assertation on the fourth paragraph of your monologue that you have submitted to your publisher three-or-four nights ago? What should we conclude from your assertion that the mating habits of the Australian Rabid Bat are random and not programmatic?”
The intellectual will pause and smile, look condescendingly at the interviewer. (clears throat). “Um, well, y-y-y-y-you see, uh, w-when exploring the — the — the — the proposition that the mating habits of the Australian rabid bat…” That’s the intellectual stammer. The intellectual stammer is not “the the the the the ba, ba, ba, ba, ba.” The intellectual stammer is a (impression) considered … slow … pondering … deep-in-thought stammer, and it only occurs so the intellectual can take the needed time to properly put together and assemble his brilliant answer.
It’s to convey deep thought happening while speaking two things at the same time. “Well, you see, the mating habits of the Australian Rabid Bat? Yes, well, uh, uh, uh, I think if — if — if you deeply examine the proposition of the Australian Rabid Bat, whether or not we’re talking random, whether talking about programmatic, the problem, nevertheless, really, is: How do we know?” And you’re supposed to go, “Whoa! My God! I can’t believe I’m in the presence of such brilliance!”