Bush/Kerry TV Debate

[John Simkin]

John Kerry clearly won the debate against George Bush. However, Bush was more articulate than I expected. He seemed to have learnt the answers by rote. On a couple of occasions he was thrown by the question and instead repeated the answer of an earlier question.

Rumours are beginning to circulate that Bush wore a concealed earpiece during the debate.

This is what one website says:

The technology certainly exists. Both the Letterman and "Man Show" stunts made use of a device that has since become commonplace in Hollywood productions, when actors may not have time to memorize lengthy scenes of dialog. You can pick one up yourself for two or three grand from any number of online spy gear outlets. Billed as the "new generation of covert communication," the device is a tiny wireless receiver "worn comfortably and invisibly in the ear canal." The casual observer can neither see nor hear the device, which boasts a sophisticated squelch circuit and an automatic gain control.

Is it possible that George W. Bush has become the electronic-age equivalent of tongue-tied Christian from "Cyrano De Bergerac," wooing not Roxanne but the American electorate with sweet, grammatical poetry fed to him remotely by Ari Fleisher, Dick Cheney or Karl Rove? I'm not the only one to so speculate. Documentary filmmaker Jay Weidner has used wireless earpieces in his work, and thinks Bush is doing the same. "As I watched Bush give his recent speech," he recently stated in an article posted at www.rense.com, "his eyes wandered from right to left and from left to right. It was obvious that he was not reading from a TelePrompTer. Also I noticed that there were long pauses between his sentences. ... As a Film Director I recognized immediately what was happening" - namely, a concealed earpiece. "Is this what Bush is doing? My answer is a definite 'yes'. During this same speech I watched as he immediately corrected a word that he had just mis-spoken. I have encountered this before during film shoots using the earpiece prompt. This is done because the speaker has gone slightly ahead of the earpiece prompt. He makes the mistake and then hears the correct word in his ear. He then corrects himself and goes on like nothing happened."

This is an earlier comment on RadioFree.

Was Bush wearing an earpiece during today's Meet The Press Interview? Consider the following excerpt:

Russert: "In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you believe the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity?"

President Bush: "I think that's an interesting question. Please elaborate on that a little bit. A war of choice or a war of necessity? It's a war of necessity. We-- in my judgment, we had no choice when we look at the intelligence I looked at that says the man was a threat."

When Bush said "please elaborate on that a little bit" he did not appear to be asking Russert to elaborate the question. He seemed to be talking almost to himself. Perhaps he was just momentarily confused by an unexpected question. However...

If Bush was wearing an earpiece the odd statement makes more sense. An unseen handler would have had an excellent reason to say "please elaborate on that" to encourage Bush to give more of an answer than "I think that's an interesting question." Seen in this light, when Bush said "please elaborate on that" he mistakenly repeated an instruction from an unseen handler.

This one small incident alone is (obviously) not proof. But there have been others. Consider this quote from a December 15th press conference (italics added):

George Bush: "See, without the tax relief package, there would have been a deficit, but there wouldn't have been the commiserate -- not 'commiserate' -- the kick to our economy that occurred as a result of the tax relief."

Again... he could have just said "not commiserate" by mistake. But why? A less contradictory explanation would be that an unseen handler tried to correct him and instead of understanding the correction, Bush simply repeated what he heard in his earpiece.

Early in the Bush administration, commentators poked fun at his frequent verbal gaffes and his inability to accurately read a teleprompter. Then he seemed to improve. Perhaps Bush simply learned to speak more coherently.

But an earpiece connected to a room of unseen handlers also explains this change.

[Jonathan Freedland]

John Kerry was declared the winner of last week's TV debate not only because of his concisely expressed criticisms of the invasion of Iraq, but also because of his demeanour. He displayed that elusive, indefinable quality: he looked presidential. The timbre of his voice, his posture and bearing, gave him an aura of steady authority. George Bush, by contrast, looked tetchy - and that was when he wasn't smirking. Still, Bush has other strengths to draw on. He is so determined, so ruthless a fighter that there is almost no trick he won't pull between now and November 2 to get elected. He's proved that before - in the 2000 primaries against John McCain, the Florida stand-off that year, and the mid-term elections of 2002. The methods might have been foul - full of dishonesty, cynicism and hypocrisy - but they worked. Bush won.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Colum...1320626,00.html

[Raymond Blair]

I'd hate to think that cyber cheating would have kept Bush in sucha bad poition throughout the debate. I thought his performance was fiarly horrid throughout considering he was trying to stick to points made routinely in his stump speech that he gives multiple times daily.

I think the Bush Administration revels in the depiction of the president aws a bumbling idiot. It sets the expectation so low that if Bush doesn't emit random bodily functions for answers he will be seen as holding his own.

On the other hand they protray Kerry as a skilled master debater.

[John Simkin]

AP Poll: Kerry Holds Small Lead Over Bush

Oct 7, 12:37 PM (ET)

By RON FOURNIER

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. John Kerry holds a slim lead over President Bush, according to an Associated Press poll that shows the Democrat gaining ground while Bush lost support on personal qualities, the war in Iraq and national security.

Fewer voters than a month ago believe Bush is the best man to protect the country and fight the war.

The AP-Ipsos Public Affairs poll, completed on the eve of the second presidential debate, charted a reversal from a month ago, when the Republican incumbent had the momentum and a minuscule lead. Since then, bloodshed increased in Iraq, Kerry sharpened his attacks and Bush stumbled in their initial debate.

Nearly three-fourths of likely voters said they had watched or listened to the first presidential debate last week, according to the poll. Only 8 percent came away with a more favorable view of Bush while 39 percent said they felt better about Kerry.

Among 944 likely voters, the Democratic ticket of Kerry and Sen. John Edwards led Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney 50 percent to 46 percent. The Oct. 4-6 survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The race was tied 47-47 percent among all voters. Others polls show the race just as tight.

While national polls gauge the potential popular vote, the White House will go to the candidate who wins the state-by-state race for 270 electoral votes. The race is close by that measure, too, with analysts saying a slight shift in the race is capable of swinging several states from one candidate to another.

[John Simkin]

I wonder how much the Iraqi Survey Group report will influence the election. I suppose it depends to a large extent how much people understand the issue. For example, I read today that the latest Gallup poll shows that 62% of Republicans still believe that Saddam was behind 9/11. Where do people like this get their information from? Can a democracy function properly with large sections of the electorate are politically illiterate?

[Chris McKie]

I wonder how much the Iraqi Survey Group report will influence the election. I suppose it depends to a large extent how much people understand the issue. For example, I read today that the latest Gallup poll shows that 62% of Republicans still believe that Saddam was behind 9/11. Where do people like this get their information from? Can a democracy function properly with large sections of the electorate are politically illiterate?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is a worrying, but hardly surprising statistic. What should be done to redress the problem? Are you suggesting that the electorate in the USA (and indeed in any other country) should be made to sit and pass a 'political awareness' examination in order to be eligible to vote? This would surely further cut back the turnout figures. However, your statistic highlights one of the fundamental reasons why I am personally against the Australian system of making voting compulsory. I suspect that the USA is not alone in this problem, although the issues will vary from country to country.

[John Simkin]

John Kerry clearly won the debate against George Bush. However, Bush was more articulate than I expected. He seemed to have learnt the answers by rote. On a couple of occasions he was thrown by the question and instead repeated the answer of an earlier question.

Rumours are beginning to circulate that Bush wore a concealed earpiece during the debate. color]

This story has now reached the mainstream media. For example, this is what the BBC is saying this morning:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3730364.stm

A bulge in the back of President George W Bush's suit jacket during the first TV debate with John Kerry has triggered rumours that he was wired to get help.

Internet websites alleged the apparent bulge, during last week's debate in Miami, was a radio receiver feeding him answers from an offstage aide.

The Bush campaign dismissed the claims, saying it was just a wrinkle in the presidential jacket.

It also denied some web reports that Mr Bush was wearing a bullet-proof vest.

"People have been spending too much time dealing with Internet conspiracies. It's ridiculous," Bush campaign manager Scott Stanzel was quoted as saying by the AFP news agency.

Another campaign official said it was nothing more than a question of tailoring.

"There was nothing under his suit jacket," Nicolle Devenish, the Bush campaign's communications director, told the New York Times newspaper.

"It was most likely a rumpling of that portion of his suit jacket, or a wrinkle in the fabric," Ms Devenish added.

President Bush's tailor later said that the bulge was nothing more than a pucker along the jacket's back seam, according to the Seattle Times newspaper.

Georges de Paris, who made the suit worn by Mr Bush, said the bulge was accentuated when the president crossed his arms and leaned forward.

[John Simkin]

The Times today has an interview with William Hunt, a tailor from Saville Row: He says: "Without a shadow of a doubt, I would say that he had some kind of wire running up his back underneath his clothing. Not even the seams on a cheap suit would look like that. It must have been some sort of transmitter."

[Tim Carroll]

The Times today has an interview with William Hunt, a tailor from Saville Row: He says: "Without a shadow of a doubt, I would say that he had some kind of wire running up his back underneath his clothing. Not even the seams on a cheap suit would look like that. It must have been some sort of transmitter."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bush is so crooked he has to screw his pants on. He and the power elite he represents already stole the presidency as surely as those who killed JFK, and with very similar results. There is nothing Bush won't do. (I wanted to post a photo of Bush with a rectangular object showing on his back at the debate, but I don't see where to go to do attachments)

Tim