Promptergate makes the NYT

Here's a round-up of the latest on the various controversies to arise from Promptergate. The questions have made the big time -- as in the New York Times. An excerpt:

When the online magazine Salon published an article about the rumors on Friday, the speculation reached such a pitch that White House and campaign officials were inundated with calls.

First they said that pictures showing the bulge might have been doctored. But then, when the bulge turned out to be clearly visible in the television footage of the evening, they offered a different explanation.

"There was nothing under his suit jacket," said Nicolle Devenish, a campaign spokeswoman.

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

Ms. Devenish could not say why the "rumpling" was rectangular.

Nor was the bulge from a bulletproof vest, according to campaign and White House officials; they said Mr. Bush was not wearing one.

First reaction: The fact that the White House felt obliged to cry "fake photos!" when no fakery occurred increases the likelihood that Bush has something to hide.

Mediachannel.org's Rory O'Connor also chatted up the White House press office on this issue. The response came from Mark McKinnon, media director of the re-election campaign:

"I love this. Am tempted to say, 'I cannot confirm or deny,' and let the story get some legs. Or, how about, 'Since we put the metal plate in his head, we have had some measure of success with audio transmissions to the President.' Or, 'Yeah, but it clearly broke down during the debate.'"

McKinnon continues: "Unfortunately, the truth is not nearly as interesting. The answer is, 'The President has never been assisted by any audio signal.'"

Of course, this is the same White House which tried to sell us on WMDs in Iraq, Yellowcake from Niger, Ahmed Chalabi as a reliable partner, and a host of other wacky notions. I'm ill-disposed to grant this administration the presumption of unquestionable credibility. Yet O'Connor's attitude seems to be: "Well, that settles that." He seems to feel that any allegation not confirmed as true by its target should be dismissed as mere theory.

O'Connor:

Any bloggers or chatters who can offer more than conspiracy theories -- see dailykos.com (Sat Jun 5th, 2004 at 18:43:30 GMT) and rense.com as well as postings on Salon.com and the Washington Monthly online -- please do so immediately. And any media professionals - like the "top Washington editor for Reuters" who reportedly told isbushwired last spring that "Sure, Bush uses an earpiece sometimes. State of the Union -- he had an earpiece for that. Everybody knows it." -- please identify yourselves.

We certainly agree about substantiating the Reuters claim, which I'll try to track down to its origin point.

Beyond that, I disagree with anyone who says that this particular theory comes unadorned by fact. We have: 1. The back bulge. 2. The mysterious ruling against photographing Bush from behind during the debate. 3. The earlier profile shot displaying an earpiece in situ. 4. The "let me finish" remark. 5. The still-unexplained audio from the D-Day observances. 6. The fact that on many (though not all) occasions, W's speeches tend to include weird empty spaces, like blank tape spliced into a spoken word cassette.

That last point is, I admit, somewhat subjective. Altogether, though, I think even good Sir William of Occam would admit that positing an "offstage helper" remains the simplest explanation. It's not as though the argument depends on the presumption of science fictional technology.

Speaking of high tech: One reader sent me this link, which introduces us to a device useful in detecting hidden radios. Only $359!

One correspondent offered this bit of history, previously unknown to me:

I'm surprised that nobody has brought up Bush's bizarre appearance on David Letterman's show during the 2000 campaign. As I recall, Letterman announced there would be a delay of several seconds in Bush's feed due to some technical condition (???) and Bush did an interview which in my opinion clearly involved prompting by some comedian who fed Bush some disastrous lines which even Letterman couldn't salvage. I bring it up because it seems to fit the pattern of Bush needing prompting in spontaneous circumstances.

Can any readers confirm this incident, which I missed? (Alas, I was going through a Leno period at that time. It ended when Jay went all out for Arnie.)

Several commentators have suggested that W wore a back brace during the first debate. Not a bad theory, since it explains both the bulge and the poor performance. (My own back goes out about once a year. A public appearance on such a day would be out of the question.) But others have offered convincing arguments that we must look elsewhere for the solution.

Finally, two readers have offered amusing alternatives to the term "Promptergate": Rohit Gupta suggests "Wiregate" and Daniel Estrin prefers "Cyrano de Bushiac."