[FedCom] The hump on Bush's back

[Dave Emery]

On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 08:15:01PM -0700, Richard Crisp wrote:
> >I suppose if we ignore the hump, we still have the strange "let me finish" 
> >comment and the mysterious audio from CNN to explain. Top it off
> 
> Lots of things can cause mysterious audio to appear. Remember the 
> "colorful" language accidently broadcast on CNN when the balloons weren't 
> falling to the satisfaction of the fellow at the DNC in Boston?

	I don't place much stock in the France D-Day memorial audio
story. Considering all the stuff involved in media feeds from remote
sites, especially overseas, I have no confidence at all that was
suspicious. That kind of thing happens all the time with satellite and
direct fiber undersea delays working against each other and audio
running through tens of different studio plants...

	I'd place more credence in it if I actually heard a tape with some
other voice obviously prompting him, but this story in the absence
of that isn't very conclusive.

	And use of audio prompting for a speech is not in itself damning
as teleprompters are a usual feature everywhere...

	As for the balloon problems, I believe I know the answer.
I heard the Boston fire marshall order the Fleet Center sealed from
ALL added visitors regardless of who they were about 15 minutes before
the speech.   And it appears there were a bunch of workman related to
the balloon drop perhaps who weren't allowed in and were appealing to
the USSS and various other folks to get an override.  No dice...


> >with the "rules of engagement" specifying no shots from the rear.

> Politicians are vain people and vain people want to only be seen in the 
> best possible light. The backsides of the candidates are not their best 
> views. Most likely they didn't want to be seen from those angles.

	Perhaps, or perhaps there was another reason.  There is always
a constant tension between the political media types who want favorable
camera angles and the press which wants to cover the story as seems to
them appropriate.   Usually a specific provision such as that has a
reason and as far as I can tell Dubya's tail is no prettier than anyone
elses - he ain't fat or ugly back there I don't think.

> Both candidates agreed to the rules of engagement. Speaking of the rules, 
> what was that thing that Kerry pulled out of his jacket just before the 
> first debate? It sure looked like a piece of paper to me. Whether it was a 
> cheat sheet or a ballpoint pen like his campaign claimed, it was a 
> violation of the rules of engagement, but he seems to be getting a pass on 
> it except for Drudge.

	Carrying some notes to the debate is hardly the level of
cheating involved in using real time audio prompting from Karl or Karen.
About three orders of magnitude different.   But the claim is it was a
pen, and in the complete absence of any evidence Kerry was reading from
notes it seems like quite a fetch to make a huff over it.


> I guess others are following the ABC "Halperin doctrine" of holding the 
> Bush to a more stringent standard, right?

	This is completely absurd.   Having your speechwriters whisper 
things to say into your ear during a debate trumps carrying in a page
or so of notes by so much as to render them beyond comparison.

	At most the notes would be some points to raise in bullet form
or some figures or statistics - whilst having your political operatives
phrase your answers and feed them to you is beyond the pale.

	Most people who present arguments use that kind of notes if they
are allowed to - but using voice prompting by hidden wires is just
not done...

	And of course there is no proof that he had such notes or
refered to them.

-- 
   Dave Emery N1PRE,  die at dieconsulting.com  DIE Consulting, Weston, Mass 02493