Yeah, but in order to hear the audio you would need close body contact. A receiver in a packet wouldn’t do it. One strapped closely to your spine might.
http://www.lovenstein.org/report/ His not being able to think on his feet is perhaps more than just that.
You’re going to have to do better than that. 
Looking at the site you linked, it’s pretty obvious from a quick glancing over that its’ a Bush-bashing website, even before looking around to see if there’s any content to it, and I’m not even one of Bush’s biggest fans.
Ahh, and after taking a quick glance through the Lovenstein website, it goes from obvious to glaringly apparant that it’s not even making a serious effort to pretend to be a legitimate think tank website. :rolleyes:
From the above mentioned Salon article:
If it were CNN there must be a clip of this somewhere… Anyone have a clue?
And is there any possible explination for this? Or, if a clip can be found, is it a dubbed over hoax?
And the Salon article does mention the “Let me finish” remark that Mr. Bush seemingly said to nobody in particular when he had plenty of time on the clock to debate… I remember hearing about this at the time of the debates but had forgotten about it since then. Has there been any explination made for the comment?
Ok, now this thread is getting interesting. I’m in. I’d like some answers to a few relevant questions that have recently been posted.
Those photos are ‘bootleg’ photos – the Bush debate team insisted that the ‘rules’ prohibit the network cameras from shooting the candidates from behind.
Is there any other possible explination for this demand? I know they get picky about random things, maybe they’re afraid that Kerry’s ass would look better, but really… Could there be a legit reason for the Bush team to insist on this?
And if their anti-stammering device was there… why not put it in a better place? Would there be any other part needed on the body except for deep in the ear? As is mentioned above, I’m sure they could’ve found something smaller than that.
And I don’t buy the “badly tailored suit” argument. He’s the president of the United States. He’s got a few damn good tailors… especially for something so important as the debates.
See? That’s the logical explanation! They inexplicably ended up with a bunch of badly tailored suits, and insisted on no from-behind shots so as to try and hide it. 
I’ve seen clips of Bush speaking seemingly impromptu while governor of Texas in debates and to the press and he spoke swiftly, clearly, and intelligently (well, you may disagree with his positions, but he didn’t sound like a nervous 7th grader giving a speech).
I tried to find some youtube clips but alas. I remember seeing a good one from a debate of some sort which made my jaw drop at how lucid he was.
I’ve seen two arguments put forth – either he adopted an “awww shucks” demeanor to woo the “I’d like to have a beer with him” vote or he is exhibiting early signs of some sort of neurological disorder related to aging or past substance abuse. Maybe it’s a little of column A, a little from column B…
Zowie! This thread has found me looking back to that Salon article and then following all sorts of links and I’m back to wondering about all the “evidence” that the Shrub is wired. And, as alluded to above, there’s also a theory that he has petit mal seizures, which explain some bizarre sorts of lapses in his prosody. On Ishewired.com there’s a brief clip from a 2005 press conference in which he appears to stop talking, look down for a moment, mumble something (maybe “in a minute”) and then continue. But this particular behavior can also be exactly the type of thing that someone with that type of epilepsy could do. Or, it could be his response to someone whispering in his hear. There’s also a reference in that Salon article to the fact that ABC had actually talked to some people in the administration who admitted that he is wired. But there was never a story about it. At this point, it’s still He said, She said. It’s all so strange. Only a little less than two years, now.
Methodology and who did it was explained in the site.
I remember seeing replays of chats from pre Texas gov. days and one in which he seemed bright and articulate. I do not know what happened. At that time I merely disagreed with his politics . I now think the whole cabal has been dangerous for the country and the world.
Which site, the hoax one you posted, or one of the three I posted explaining how it was a hoax?
For what it’s worth, it seems to be a joke originating from http://www.linkydinky.com/ that someone went and took seriously.
I can see JFK speechwriter and historian Ted Sorenson possessing a 154 IQ, but JFK at 174 defies credulity. Testing from private school suggests JFK’s IQ was about 30 percent lower than that.
A bona fide 174 IQ would place JFK among his generation’s most “intelligent” (whatever that means) men, and Bill Clinton’s supposed 182 IQ puts him higher than probably 98 percent of history’s Nobel laureates, Ivy League professors, and think-tank analysts.
They judged by papers written, vocabulary used and writing while in office. Do you disagree with that.?
Gonzo, I think what Raguleader is saying, is that they did nothing of the sort.
http://www.linkydinky.com made up a joke and it got circulated round the internet, and someone went and put the http://www.lovenstein.org site up to make it seem more real, after the report was all over the internet. The methodology would work in theory, but they never really did it
Yes. Did you even read any of the links I posted? :dubious:
True, but as the Salon article says, Fox put cameras behind them anyway. The bulge is visible in the video footage.
It’s a stupid place to put any secret equipment. The lower back would make more sense. There it would be completely hidden by the coat and never show a bulge unless he bent over to pick something up off the floor.
It was a precautionary measure. There was a persistent fear in the Bush camp that Kerry was going to slip a “kick me” sign on the President’s back during the handshake.