Just after the last debate, there was some talk about how Bush’s back had a bulge in it, and that this probably was evidence that he had some sort of wire transmitting radio signals to him throughout the debate. At the time, I dismissed it as a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
What gives? This theory still seems ridiculous to me, for two reasons:
Surely the president could get a wireless bug, if that’s what he wanted; and
Surely the president could get a better debater to prompt him, if that’s what he wanted.
On the other hand, the photograph looks very strange to me. The earlier hypothesis, that it was an artifact of the body armor he was wearing, now seems pretty implausible.
I think it’s a mind control device. It was supposed to project a cone of “stupid” at Kerry, but the technician that installed it into Bush’s back (ouch!) was himself affected by the device so he forgot to turn it on.
They’ll have the bugs worked out of the system by tonight.
Right, and that’s kinda my point: would they really go to that much bother, only to have such a crappy debater prompting him over the microphone?
At the same time, that line running up his back sure looks like a wire to this untrained eye, and if Salon is to be believed, the debate commission says they’re not responsible for any wire under his coat.
Then again, surely if they were going to run a wire on the president (assuming they couldn’t get a wireless microphone), surely they would have disguised it better than that.
If he did wear a wire, I thought it helped him a lot.
For the first time he seemed to realize Sadam and Bin Laden were different people and it was the later not the former who was responsible for the 911 attacks. Now that’s a welcome improvement.
But that doesn’t explain what the bulge is, and why it’s there. To a rational person, there simply must be some rational explanation for what we’re seeing. So, what is the rational explanation? I admit that I’m stumped, but that’s not a good enough reason to say, “Oh, well, it’s just nothing. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”
It’s interesting that the White House hasn’t made any comment on it (AFAIK). If there’s some perfectly sensible explanation, I would think it would be in their interest to trot it out, rather than let speculation run rampant.
Out of curiousity, why does the body armor theory now sound implausible?
It sounds MORE plausible to me than a remote prompter.
[snarky comment] It wasn’t a remote earpiece, it was just a pager type buzzer on his back. One buzz meant say “Hard work”. Two buzzes meant say “Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place.” Three buzzes meant stare blankly into the camera. [/snarky comment]
(BTW, the servers at electoral-vote.com seem to be out of commission at the moment, perhaps being swamped with hits. Do not adjust your set.)
The “body armor” theory doesn’t make a lot of sense. This was hardly an insecure, public venue. This was a well-controlled environment, where the attendees could be carefully screened (and I’m pretty sure they were).
I can’t say for sure what it was, but who knows… maybe the time I spent during the debate imagining a small alien crawling out of the back of Dubya’s head, throwing its earpiece microphone to the floor and muttering defeatedly to itself before boarding a nearby spaceship and leaving Earth in a frustrated huff was actually time well spent.
In and of itself, perhaps not. But I think when one considers A) the immense political risk entailed by cheating in the debate and B) Bush’s previously noted poor debate performance, it seems unlikely and probably unreasonable that he was wired. How would Bush have gotten sound, anyway? He would have needed an earpiece, which would potentially be visible. There was just too much political risk to make wiring the President worth it, IMO. I’m not saying it’s impossible he was wired, but I think it extremely unlikely.
It’s interesting that the White House hasn’t commented on the latest internet rumor? Why would they? Commenting on it would help legitimize the rumor, and that’s the last thing they want (whether it’s false or true.) They’ll only comment if the rumor blows up the way the false draft rumor emails did.
Perhaps the bulge he displayed last year on the aircraft carrier polled (poled?) so well Karl Rove decided to add additional bulges on the candidate to see if it’d give them a bump in the polls?
A - I don’t believe it was exactly “cheating” – I thought the rules didn’t expressly forbid an earpiece
B - So because such a gambit failed, that absolves him of the crime (again, not “crime”, since it wasn’t expressly forbidden)? That logic doesn’t hold up. If people observe me, an ordinary not-in-great-shape American, shooting up with steroids in the months before a big race with Lance Armstrong, my losing the race to him doesn’t absolve me of the crime of taking steroids.
Hell, if I had to face Kerry at a debate, I’d lose even if I had an earpiece, teleprompters, written notes, and big charts to illustrate my points. Just because something enhances your performance doesn’t mean you can win.
Okay, thanks for the info. I had heard on another thread somebody say that some bulletproof vests have a loop on the back, possible for hanging them on hooks. My knowledge of such things is pretty small, so I took that as a plausible answer.
Frankly, if the President isn’t wearing some protection when he makes a public appearance I would be surprised. The lack of official response would be consistent with him wearing a vest because, as they say on The West Wing, “The White House does not comment on protection issues.”
It’s pretty clearly not a loop. There’s a bulging line that starts midway up his spine; somewhere around the level of his armpits, it curves sharply off to the right, then travels north again up to the right side of his neck.
It just looks so weird, which is what confuses me. I mean, maybe it could be an emergency wire, through which they’d tell the president if a national security emergency occurred while he was onstage, so that he wouldn’t be stuck debating when he should be off scrambling jets or something. I dunno.
All right, let me put it another way. There was nothing in Bush’s gestures or responses that indicated he was wired/receiving outside information. For example, pausing for inordinately long periods of time during responses (waiting for incoming information), or the ability to recite an impressive number of precise statistics.
The more important contention is still that the political risk (election losing scandal) was not worth the political reward (somewhat improved debate performance.)
