Battle of the Bush Bulge

cyberman11 writes "Get out your tinfoil hats! Salon.com is running an article about Internet speculation that Bush uses an earpiece prompter and ignores his teleprompter while making speeches. Bush exhibited peculiar pauses between sentences while speaking during the debate and a large solid object appears between his shoulder blades as he leans over the lectern. He also interrupts himself in the middle of one of his responses by interjecting "Let me finish!" while he still had time remaining to answer and no one else had spoken." If Bush was wired, the receiver would be the size of a deck of cards or smaller, not some giant thing strapped to his back. Update: 10/09 16:10 GMT by J : The NYT contacted the Bush campaign and got a few answers that rule out the innocuous explanation that I had assumed.

Comments

Nothing to see here

[Shakrai]

Let's be real people. Most of us dislike George W. as much as the other guy but do you really think they would try to cheat at the debates? And don't you think that if they did cheat Bush would have done a better job? Do you really see Karl Rove (boy genius ®) couching him to say "It's hard work" over and over again?

Even Michael doubts it's true and we all how about his political leanings. As for the big thing in his back -- may I be the first to make the obvious suggestion: bullet-proof vest?

Indeed

[Yeechang Lee]

If Bush was wired, the receiver would be the size of a deck of cards or smaller, not some giant thing strapped to his back.

Indeed. Heck, there wouldn't be anything on the back at all; the earpiece would be all that's needed.

The story's veracity is also hurt by Salon running it, given its reputation for "All Bush bashing, all the time." TeeVee's terrific parody of Salon from earlier this year got that characteristic dead on.

Silly

[Watcher]

This is just as silly as all of the accusations that Kerry had a cheat sheet for the debate. Frankly, after listening to the debate a couple times, I've got to say that if Bush was cheating, he did a pretty piss poor job of it.

In defense of Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no Bush fan. I think he is about as bright as the average American, probably less. This is why I am defending him. He was clearly confused by the lights. When he said "let me finish", the green light had just turned on a few seconds earlier. I think that was "who" he was talking to - the green light.

Yes, the green light means he still has a lot of time, but this is Bush. Pay close attention to his inability to pace himself with the lights. At one point he started talking very fast in response to a green light, then slowed down realising that he still had time, but slowed down too much. Then after the light turned red he speeded back up way too late and kept talking after it started flashing.

He sure sounds like it.

[Squeeze Truck]

I heard this yesterday and then rewatched the debate.

When Bush begins speaking he spends more time not talking than talking, like he's repeating dictation. Not like a normal person at all.

Good thing the ground rules say Kerry can't come near him or speak to him directly.

Let's try a more plausible explanation

[hey!]

Let's try a more plausible explanation for Bush's weird speaking cadence. Bad debate strategy.

The Republican political technique is based on repeating a small number of simple consistent messages to the electorate. It's the "talking point" thing. Get everybody top to bottom saying exactly the same thing in the same phrases over and over and over again in every venue you can put them in, and pretty soon the message starts to stick. The pauses in the President's delivery were him thinking on his feet, trying to find a way to connect the topic to one of these small number of messages they've chosen.

First of all, he's not as skilled as the usual talking heads at this game. Furthermore, this wasn't some cable news segment, this was a presidential debate. Not only is he under greater scrutiny than the the normal talking head would be, he's under it for a lot longer. It's not five minutes of blather then cut to the commercial, it's ninety minutes of white hot attention, stacked up next to a determined opponent who has managed to eliminate all of his rivals up to this point.

As a result, the dominant impression he left was that he didn't have enough material -- exactly the opposite of what you'd expect if he were wearing a wire.

Re:"Cheating" in a debate?

[brandido]

It's significant because the debuates give Americans a chance to see the candidates "one-on-one" presenting their ideas and defending their actions. If one of them is using a audio prompt, it gives a significantly unfair advantage to the one with the technological superiority, in this case the incumbent, and misrepresents the candidates ability to think on their feet, and explain themselves.