“We created an environment!”
[pause….pause…pause…]
“For the entrepreneurial spirit to be strong!”
We all take breaks to gather our thoughts while speaking. And we all have verbal tics. But George W. Bush has one particularly odd verbal tic which manifested itself many times during tonight’s third debate – a strange form of verbal staccato which I, for one, have never heard from any other public speaker.
Time and again, W will finish a statement half-way through, sometimes even putting an exclamation mark at the end of a clause. Then, as if realizing that the phrase makes no sense on its own, he belatedly adds “the rest of the story.”
“We ought to make an aggressive effort!”
[pause…pause…pause…]
“To make sure people are educated!”
I’ll be the first to admit that other speakers (including gifted ones, such as Jesse Jackson) sometimes interrupt their verbal flow with unusual caesuras. Jimmy Carter did that a lot, and it always bugged the hell out of me. But I’ve never heard anyone else do it quite the way Dubya does it.
Earlier today, I spoke with a well-known writer about standards of evidence. We both agreed: Photographs of the “mystery bulge” (which popped its way back into our consciousness this night) definitely count as evidence of something. But (many would argue) when we turn the discussion to an assessment of the President’s speaking style, haven’t we entered the realm of the subjective?
Yes. On the other hand: If most people who hear Bush come to a similar conclusion, then -- arguably -- we leave the realm of individual opinion and enter the place of consensus.
The CNN online poll (last time I had a chance to check it) reported that 88% of the respondents believe that Bush uses an earpiece. I know full well that all online polls are unscientific and unreliable. Even so, that number is striking. You might have a hard time getting 88 out of any 100 Americans to agree that H20 is water.
That number would not be nearly so high if Bush’s speech patterns did not alternate between verbal freight trains and oddly-placed aural vacuums.
“We came here to Washington!”
[pause…pause…pause…]
“To change the way things were done!”
(By the way, the last two examples are taken from memory. The wording may not be quite accurate, but if you check the audio, you will definitely hear the pause…pause…pause…)
Other sites will post pictures of this night’s bulge. So will I, and soon. (But probably not tonight: My ISP is acting funky, and I’ll be damned lucky to get even these words online.) Either Georges de Paris has filled whole closets with sloppy work, or something truly odd is up. Maybe one of Geiger’s aliens has made a nest between the presidential shoulder blades…?
That’s an issue for tomorrow. Right now, I’d like to hear from readers about the broader question – the issue of evidentiary standards.
We are not in court, and thus need not insist on courtroom-quality proof. But just what sort of evidence should we use in discussing a controversy such as Promptergate?
In my view, our president certainly acts as is if he is receiving off-stage messages half-a-sentence at a time. But does my view amount to no more than one man’s opinion? Or is my assessment widely shared? And if other people do react to this “verbal tic” as I do, can we fairly count the presidential speech pattern as evidence?
I’d love to hear your responses.
Oh...and as for the debate itself: Kerry kicked butt. I felt, however, that Bush had a stronger closing statement, especially when he mentioned a living painter by name. Being something of an artist myself...
[pause...pause...pause...]
...I appreciated that.
14 comments:
Evidence... well, honestly, we all have to admit there isn't any EVIDENCE that isn't shrouded by bad tailoring, or obfuscated by low quality compressed pixels... But what we do know is that the bulge DOES exist, despite denials by the White House. We also know that Bush has some rather strange ways of speaking... and its not because he's from Texas. We know that there are SEVERAL stories about audio "bleeds" that sound like coaching in the past, and we know what we have SEEN during the debates.
So, we can add up the CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence and come to our own conclusions. If the conclusion is that he wears a wire in the debates, then the question seems to be SO WHAT? Is it important? Do you care? I do, because it has a lot to do with what kind of person is running this country, and a "wire" would speak volumes about this President's character.
Anyway, the wired/bulge theory isn't too "out-there" once you have a good look at all the "evidence". Its far more plausible than simple bad tailoring or that Bush is an ALIEN (this coming today from a Bush campaign manager).
Cheers
Icone
http://bushwired.blogspot.com/
check out the latest BULGE news, pics, polls, etc. Updated frequently.
I never would shy away from giving credit where credit is due. But I just watched a rebroadcast of this third debate and it sounds to me that he says regarding the painting:
"[...] named [pause... pause... pause...] by ARTISTS_NAME"
I find it thus amazing that he can remember the artist's name yet forget the structure of his previous sentence fragment and create a rather confused statement. Perhaps the struggle to remember the artist's name was so intense that all else faded away. Could someone point me to the transcripts to confirm that what I heard was correct or not ? Assuming that the transcripts actually accurately record what is being said or not said. Alternatively if anyone heard or didn't hear the same thing I would be happy to know.
One last thing while I have the soapbox. Why does he always smile when talking about the deaths of american soldiers ? He gets a strange grin whenever he is talking about deaths or misfortunes of american people. I haven't read anyone else commenting on this. However mentioning this to a couple of people, I have only found agreement.
PS: he = President Bush
You can go to Truthout or CSPAN and watch the debates with the sound off and see the same effect discussed here. You don't even need to hear the words to see the rhythm. You can watch his UN speech on the WH site and it is strikingly different. He has a notebook where he turns the pages but never looks, so was he reading teleprompters then? Also, watch his eyes in the debate and think about how we look when we are thinking and how we look when we are listening. I think the spontaneous generation of details is very telling.
I think he did better with long sentances on each successive debate. Practice, practice, practice! I want to see how he does on campaign spots, he usually sounds very strong on those sound bites, but how do they work as a whole....
RegardIng Bush's smiles, the very first comment made in the NYTimes' real-time analysis was something akin to: "He should not be smiling while describing the multitude of Americans without health insurance."
As to "Wiregate", I feel that the issue is unfortunately dying out. This is probably due to a number of reasons:
1. The Bush administration isn't addressing the reality of a poorly conducted, meaningless war with dead Americans soldiers, civilian Iraquis, and millions of dollars wasted, so why should anyone be concerned about their not addressing the reality of a moronic president, who needs a little assist in getting his message across. For opponents, its basically a case of priorities.
2. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the viewing media (TV), don't feel particularly upset about someone being wired, as much as it forms a part of their staffs' everyday experience. "Wiregate" coverage seems to have peaked on net blogs with descending levels to net "mags", then comedy, late night TV shows, then a few mentions in the written press, and then virtually, nothing on television news channels and cable. While the CNN site has had an article on the subject, not once have I heard it mentioned on CNN cable.
3. Another reason for the apparent relaxed acceptance or even feigned ignorance by just about everybody in Washington DC may be akin to the press' relationship with FDR and his wheelchair, or Kennedy and his philandering. Maybe they can't afford to inform the American people of the true intellectual capacity of our president without damaging the institution at large or initiating a wholesale panic. In a similar vein, it may be that everyone is acutely aware of Bush's limitations and is entirely supportive (in a patriotic way) of maintaining any subterfuge which will get him through these difficult, public appearances and back into his cage.
In short, I think the issue is important, but I also think it's not going anywhere.
Either, Kerry wins and the subject is moot, or Bush wins, and we have a much worse situation to worry about.
Despite the above, one has to admit that the identification of the deception, its continued exploration, and open public participation, all being done on the web in individual blogs, mags, and chat rooms is really astounding. It cannot say too much about how Democracy is being threatened on one hand by fixed, intransigent powers, and on the other being being nurtured by the internet.
manowar
I'm the guy who wrote the comment above.
Despite my "dead issue" stance, I was really pissed off in going to Salon.com and seeing "The Bulge returns" (center column and viewing of commercial required for free read). Talk about "in your face".
I made a conscious note of looking for the bulge, but as the article notes, Bush's back was not viewed at all during the debate. Kerry's back was. However, they evidently caught our "Lider" afterwards in the family get-together.
manowar
Posted at bobfertik.comJoseph Cannon is right on the mark - Bush's pauses are an important part of the evidence that Bush is wired.
The lines that Bush "delivers" are necessarily presented to him in bite-sized nuggets. Bush has mastered the art of delivering each nugget with an appropriate intonation, so that the series of nuggets can connect (in the audio processing part of our brains) as a "natural" sentence.
(The effect is just like the streaming packets that travel the Internet along separate routes as separate nuggets, but get reassembled by our streaming player software to seem like a continuous stream.)
The problem here is proving it.
I think the best proof comes from the Chirac tape, which exposes the process by which Bush first hears a line and then delivers it with a slight delay. But the problem with citing the Chirac tape as evidence is proving that it is authentic and real-time, not a technical malfunction.
- Bob
Two comments on your "Pause -- Or Proof?" article:
Watching the PBS Frontline special on the biographies of Kerry and Bush (Tuesday, Oct 12), I was surprised at how much more articulate Bush was earlier in his political career. Even when he was running for governor, he could articulate a full sentence and make a coherent statement. Maybe he should never have stopped drinking! (That is a joke, ok, I don't advocate the use of alcohol in politics.)
Also, as I watched Bush last night, the left side of his mouth seems to droop. Even when he smiles, the left side doesn't curl up as much. Could this be a sign of a stroke? Could this be what has made Bush's speech (and thinking) be reduced from his earlier efforts? I'm not implying that Bush was ever a powerhouse of a speaker or thinker or politician, but looking at him on the Frontline special, he seems to have lost something.
Second, to add a bit of humor to Cannonfire's statement:
>Oh...and as for the debate itself: Kerry kicked butt. I felt, however, that Bush
>had a stronger closing statement, especially when he mentioned a living
>painter by name. Being something of an artist myself...
Did you notice that before he could utter the artist's name he paused, and even changed the grammatical structure of this sentence? Almost like someone had to feed him the name and did it in a different sentence structure than Bush started out with!
Eric in Michigan
I thought the mouth thing was odd too. I thought that was new in this debate. I wondered where it came from as well.
In response to those wondering why Bush might wear a receiver on his back, rather than somewhere more discrete... Perhaps this helps to eliminate the the chance of the microphones in front of him of picking up any of the transmissions, e.g. like in this press conference http://musiccoop.org/Bush-Chirac.mpg, where even Chriac reacts visibly to hearing the mics pick up Bush's prompts...
Just goes to prove that with enough coaching and practice even Bush is presentable. So is a trained monkey, while still looking and acting every inch the monkey.
-Matt
San Diego, CA
the funny thing is.. i was blissfully ignorant of this controversey. i did not see the bulge. i watched all debates and commentary on pbs (also flipped through to see what the other "news" stations had to offer)... but did not see mention of this.
here's why its funny. I was convinced, truly convinced without having heard/read about it elsewhere, that he was being fed lines through a wire, but had no idea how. the blinking, the verbal stop gap, mid-sentence switching, look of confusion and disconnection.
I was convinced of this also during his "great landing" on the aircraft carrier last spring. His speech pattern during the "press conference" (pre-submitted questions, pre-formed answers that he evidently couldn't even memorize) was so off-the-wall.
what an absolutely beyond pathetic excuse for a human-being. Words cannot even describe. does mortification, utter unbelievable horror, i can't even begin. Is anyone else completely and utterly stupefied???????????? completely.
He could be wearing body armor or a brace, but that doesn't change the fact that he was oviously being fed lines in his right ear. Forget about the bulge, his speaking style and mannerisms made it completely obvious that he was listening to something. It seemed to me that there was some interference or confusion with his connection that made for some very awkward pauses. The kind of pauses a person speaking what they were thinking wouldn't make, they were the kind of pauses made by someone who was speaking what they were listening to. We all saw it. The truth cannot be denied!!!!
You are quite right to be concerned about evidentiary standards. Alone, the charge that Bush would cheat during the debate is big - going further and exploring issues of health and well-being, or his on- or off-the-wagon status is a whole other realm entirely.
Personally, I believe he's wired, and I would believe he's hit the bottle, but they're just that: beliefs. I believe he's wired because the photos are convincing that something is going on, and I find it believable that he would cheat, thus I arrive at belief in the easiest explanation for both: he's wired for the purpose of cheating.
However, that wouldn't hold up in a court of law, and it wouldn't hold up in a respectable news story. To say he might be is one thing, but to say he IS is another thing entirely. My opinion as someone trained in rhetoric, frankly, is that he might well be showing verbal tics resulting from substance abuse but it could also just be that he sucks at giving a speech. When someone speaks persuasively about an issue that seems obvious to them, something about which they feel so passionately that they do not grasp someone else's opposition to their point of view to the point that they view that opposition not just as wrong or ill-informed but as inherently stupid, it's easy for that speaker to slip into an exhasperated and lazy mode of speech, one where they don't even consciously think of what they're saying, don't think they even need to finish the thought - the mere suggestion of their point of view should carry enough obvious legitimacy to convince the listener. It would be all too easy for me to believe that Bush speaks in that way because he just thinks it's obvious that what he's saying is right, that others understand what he's saying, and that he can persuade them with just a few words. He believes so strongly in himself that he thinks just a touch of the hem of his persuasive garment will heal whatever makes someone disagree, perhaps. I dunno. I'm just thinking outloud.
Some rhetorician I am. Anyway...
So really, the question of evidence is dependent on what you're trying to prove. Are you trying to prove there's a possibility of something, or the thing itself? Do you want to PROVE that Bush was wearing an earpiece, or that Bush has serious health issues? Or do you want to prove he MIGHT? One is very different from the other. It takes nothing but a doubt to raise a question, but it takes solid, documented evidence to prove the doubt itself.
Given the context in which you've discussed the issues, one of speculation coupled with genuine desire for clear answers, I'd say you're on safe ground right now - but you'll never get Ted Koppel to go on Nightline and swear the President must have had a stroke because he talks funny and he has a weird smirk. If that's all the proof needed, there were some jocks in my high school who need to see a neurologist.
--Robust McManlyPants
I've always had doubts about Dubya's ability as a public speaker, his first presidential debate left me with a lot of questions about his suitabilty as a presidential candidate, and the time betwixt hasn't convinced me otherwise.
It boggles the mind that some Americans had to see him debate now against someone of the obvious debate calibre of John Kerry to see his many and myriad shortcomings when It comes to public speaking.
But coming to the question of wether we beleive he might have used a listening device or not, without calling the man names, I don't beleive he could have come up with most of the answers to those questions asked In the debate forum, and answered them with any semblance of coherrence without an outside prompt.
But like the previous writer says, It's just my beleive, It may be true, but without evidence to proove It, It remains In the realm of conjecture, regardless of the how likely It Is to be accurate!
Tumelo - South Africa
Post a Comment