Yes, I'm sober this time.... and I'm rewatching the debate, all hail TiVo. I started doing so because of this here rumor, but I got sucked in. I'm not sure what I can see that I haven't already seen the first time or read about in the last few days, and let's face it, I'm so partisan that all it's gonna do is solidify my leanings :), but it's pretty interesting to carefully watch Bush and how he gets more and more annoyed as time goes on.

If you're too lazy to follow links, the rumor is based on this: at one point Bush is stumbling, and says "let me finish"--but he had plenty of time left, and nobody was interrupting him. They have an mp3 of the moment. It definitely happened. The tinfoil hats come out at the explanation they offer: he was talking to someone who was feeding him answers in an earpiece. Now given Bush's relationship to the English language, I think a more parsimonious explanation may just be that he got his verbal feet tangled up in his mental thicket and tripped. But hey, it's early on Sunday morning, and I am a scientist. Let's think about it a bit more systematically. What would one need to pull this off?

--an earpiece small enough (I'm sure the technology is good enough for this by now)
--a transmitter within range (ham radio people? what say you? what sort of boosters could bush wear to increase this?)
--a person feeding the info who can unsuspiciously be scarce during the debate (got to be a ton of these)
--practice with the system, requiring at LEAST one tech dude to handle the electronics and one policy dude to handle the content (I do not think you could find those skillsets in one person.)

Who is going to be looking for this sort of thing? The debate commission? They're busy running the hall etc. The other campaign? You'd have to have a suspicion first, and they are busy enough without going on snipe hunts.

Now, on the other hand, the video doesn't support this well. He seemed to be looking at someone (Lehrer?) as he was speaking, and kept eye contact with him and even gestured when he said "let me finish". So another possibility is a misreading of Lehrer's body language (because he had at least 30 seconds left). All I have is C-Span split screen video, so it's hard to be sure.

Another point against the idea is that inside accounts seem to suggest that even campaign Republicans were surprised at how Bush bombed the debate. "Everyone", including people like me, thought Bush would do about five times better than he did, and that Kerry'd be lucky to fight it to a draw. I doubt the Bush campaign thought differently enough to be scared enough to risk this.

But even if you think my tinfoil hat is reeeeeeeeally shiny right now (with the shiny side out, more of the mind control rays are deflected), you must admit that this is EASILY within the realm of possibility. We're talking about the party who sent their interns and staffers to Miami to stop the recount in 2000 by rioting in the halls of the county building. The party that even AFTER the Florida debacle in 2000 when they KNEW they'd be under scrutiny, tried to submit fucked-up felon lists that required a subpeona to uncover. What is stopping them from doing this? What moral principle? Only a nonbinding agreement with an opponent they don't respect and a commission with no real power.
¶ 2:55 AM