« Run and Hide | Main | Stay The Course? »

George W. Bush: Liar and Cheaters

I didn't put much stock into allegations that Bush was cheating in the first debate (his performance was just so bad) but now that we learn his goons have been lying about the incident one has to give a reasonable amount of credence to the notion that this is a cover up. After all, while it wouldn't be fair to say that Bush has relied on cheating to accomplish everything he's ever gotten done in life, he certainly has broken the rules remarkably often. This is the president who can't pass a Medicare reform without bribing people on the House floor, breaking the voting rules, etc. But at least his Supreme Court won't bring back slavery. Awesome.

October 9, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83459f48069e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference George W. Bush: Liar and Cheaters:

» Gift Basket from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 6:16:02 AM

» Gift Basket from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 6:18:06 AM

» Gift Basket from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 6:20:14 AM

» Gift Basket from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 6:22:02 AM

Comments

This rumor is entirely a product of the internets.

Posted by: Dan | Oct 9, 2004 12:40:25 PM

Radio tranceivers between the shoulder blades? Preposterous.

Such devices would normally be worn at the waist.

Let's squash this rumor now, especially since it's unprovable, inconsequential, and silly.

Posted by: Grumpy | Oct 9, 2004 1:11:16 PM

The Dred Scott reference by W. was about as lame as it gets. It was so off the wall I laughed out loud.
Does anyone have a clue where that came from?
Being from Burnt Stump, just south of Goosepecker Hollow, I have always been in awe of people with Ivy League educations. W. has cured me of that.

Posted by: oldgold30 | Oct 9, 2004 1:18:15 PM

Matt,

I'm confused. Where in the story you linked to did Bush's goons lie? The only way you could infer they lied is if we actually knew there was something on his back. Unless I've just missed it, we don't have any evidence other than silly internet conjecture and rumor. Have I overlooked something?

Using the term "lie" in ridiculous instances such as this strains your credibility when you do have a legitimate complaint.

Posted by: CBS | Oct 9, 2004 1:29:01 PM

It's finally time - we can now say that Derrida is rolling in his grave every time the President butchers another concept. Oh, like, say, "coalition," "grave and gathering threat," and "strong and getting stronger."

RIP, Jacques.

Posted by: Winston Smith | Oct 9, 2004 1:43:03 PM

Where in the story you linked to did Bush's goons lie?

It seems evident that their lips were moving and they were making sounds.

Posted by: abb1 | Oct 9, 2004 1:50:12 PM

_But at least his Supreme Court won't bring back slavery._

Why, because he said so? That seems awfully credulous. He says lots of things. Anyway, he has NEVER said that he wouldn't support a Constitutional amendment to bring back slavery, only that he doesn't want it brought back by activist judges.

Posted by: jdw | Oct 9, 2004 1:59:58 PM

I'm confused. Where in the story you linked to did Bush's goons lie?

Let's see. It was lying to claim the photograph had been doctored, and unless you can look at that picture and see "a wrinkle in the fabric," I'd say that makes two.
Even if it isn't a radio transmitter, I think this could still be filed under Matt's "Why the hell would they lie about this," a la the Cheesesteak "whiz with" bullshit.

Posted by: Philadelphian | Oct 9, 2004 2:02:27 PM

Well, if he was wired you know now that his only mistake was hiring such lousy prompters.

Posted by: Fcb | Oct 9, 2004 2:51:17 PM

Let's hope he doesn't bring back slavery for his sake. Otherwise, Clarence Thomas won't be able to vote for him in the Supreme Court anymore.

Posted by: Lord Fairfax | Oct 9, 2004 3:23:23 PM

The Dred Scott reference has nothing to do with Dred Scott, racism, or slavery. It has everything to do with abortion. Dred Scott is code for Roe v. Wade. Seriously. Google this: +abortion +"Dred Scott"

Bush promised the anti-choice people, in code on national television, that he would appoint Justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

He promised in code, because he can't say that on national television -- it would freak out every moderate voter in the country.

Posted by: paperwight | Oct 9, 2004 3:23:54 PM

If Bush had been wired during the first debate, of course, the one thing that his minders would have told him was to stop the smirking and scowling.

Posted by: Bob H | Oct 9, 2004 3:44:38 PM

And the secret decoder ring makes it's appearance again. Look, Bush doesn't HAVE to use secret codes refering to abortion, because his position on abortion is quite popular.

Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Oct 9, 2004 3:49:08 PM

"But at least his Supreme Court won't bring back slavery."

I'd feel better about this if (1) I could think of a few examples of him telling the truth about something, and (2) it wasn't the same thing he said about the draft.

Posted by: rea | Oct 9, 2004 3:50:42 PM

Actually, he would have to use a code to refer to overturning Roe v. Wade, because THAT is NOT popular.

Posted by: paperwight | Oct 9, 2004 3:54:53 PM

Bush doesn't HAVE to use secret codes refering to abortion, because his position on abortion is quite popular.

Evidentely not popular enough for him to be upfront about it.

Posted by: Anon | Oct 9, 2004 3:59:40 PM

Bush promised the anti-choice people, in code on national television, that he would appoint Justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

Beat me to it!

I figured this out for myself last night. I was so proud of myself.

Posted by: David Tomlin | Oct 9, 2004 4:00:01 PM

I'm surprised that Bush's people would deny he was wearing armor. I dimly recall a similar case with President Ford, and the official answer was "neither confirm nor deny". The papers that reported the rumor also got some criticism for breaching security (from the public, not the government).

If Bush is paranoid, it would be hard to diagnose. Just think of all the real enemies he has.

Posted by: David Tomlin | Oct 9, 2004 4:09:22 PM

If he has been using some cheating mechanism during the debates then he needs to stop, because it appears to be feeding him really bad information.

Posted by: Waffle | Oct 9, 2004 4:17:13 PM

Brett, can you please provide any, er, evidence for your claim?

Posted by: Scott | Oct 9, 2004 4:37:51 PM

I think the story about Bush wearing a receiver is preposterous.

But if you want to play Tinfoil Hat, it explains why his performance was so horrible at the first debate: Bush didn't prepare much because he was relying on the receiver, and the receiver didn't work.

Posted by: Oberon | Oct 9, 2004 5:18:48 PM

OK, I suggest a more intriguing plot: Kerry people have a mole in the Bush organization. They obtained the frequency and blocked the transmission.

No, wait, not only they knew the frequency - they also got the encryption key. They blocked Karl Rove's transmission and fed Bush their own answers to make him look like an idiot.

Yeah, that's it. Not only did they feed him crap into his earplug, but they would also start yelling into his ear every time he tried to ignore it - that's why he had to beg: please don't interrupt me, please let me finish.

Poor bastard. Why can't we just let him go to Crawford play with his chainsaw?

Posted by: abb1 | Oct 9, 2004 5:40:15 PM

Roe v Wade, while a constitutional reach, wasn't that bad in itself. It recognized that abortions became more problematic as the fetus develops, and that regulations which were outrageous at one month would be perfectly sensible at eight.

It was the subsequent rulings that established elective abortion as a right up to the moment the cord was cut, forbade parental notification or waiting periods, that were crazy, and are wildly unpopular. But those cases aren't instantly recognizable by name, are they? Check out this poll, for instance; It's pretty representative:

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Note that, even among Democrats, a majority thinks that abortion should be either illegal, or more strictly regulated. And between the first trimester and the second, public support for making elective abortions illegal goes from 29% to 68%.

Look, it's just a fact that virtually everybody in this country wants abortion more strictly regulated, in many instances MUCH more strictly regulated, than the courts allow. Bush doesn't need to use code words to advocate a position that's got two-thirds plus public support. It's Kerry, who's taken a position that even the average Democrat disagrees with, who has to be evasive on this topic.

Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Oct 9, 2004 5:42:29 PM

The irony, (And it's not lost on Republicans, you may be sure.) is that if the courts ever DID stop treating abortion like some kind of religious sacrament instead of a medical procedure, even a minimal amount of regulation would satisfy the majority of the public, the Right to Life movement's membership would implode, and the Republican party would be in a serious world of hurt. Holding the line on this issue is costing you folks an awful lot.

Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Oct 9, 2004 6:09:01 PM

now that we learn his goons have been lying about the incident one has to give a reasonable amount of credence to the notion that this is a cover up

I don't think that that's quite right. We know that this is a cover up, they've been caught lying about it. The interesting question is what it is that they think they're covering up; given that BC04 appears to lie reflexively, even about things of little to no import, it might actually just be nothing (kevlar vest, for example). I'd like to know which it is.

Posted by: NBarnes | Oct 9, 2004 6:46:18 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.