G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
The Whisper Was for Romney
By David Swanson
Created Jan 28 2008 - 9:06am
Some of you may recall the powerful evidence in 2004 that George W. Bush was
cheating in the debates by wearing an earpiece. The New York Times famously
(well, at least somewhat famously) documented the evidence and then refused
to print it because it might have had an effect on the election [1].
A few of you may be aware of the extensive evidence that Bush has worn an
earpiece and been prompted with answers [2] at speaking events for the past
three years.
This background is reason to believe a candidate might cheat and that it is
technologically feasible. It is also reason to believe the media would kill
the story. It is not reason to know that Mitt Romney cheated in the MSNBC
debate this week. But there are other good reasons to believe that he did.
In case you haven't heard about this at all, during the debate, Tim Russert
asked Mitt Romney a question, then everyone watching heard a whispered voice
say "he raised taxes." Then Romney answered the question by saying "I'm not
going to raise taxes." Watch the short video clip [3].
It looked like Romney was being prompted. I don't think anyone ever imagined
that the noise in Romney's tiny hidden earpiece (assuming he had one) could
have been so loud as to be heard on Romney's microphone without leaving the
candidate writhing on the floor in pain. If that's what happened, I'm
inclined to vote for the man. The theory is that somehow the transmission to
Romney from his assistant got picked up. I don't know how this could have
happened, and I doubt that Romney's assitant sat near an open-mic intended
for audience questions. But I do know that Bush wore that box on his back in
order to try to avoid something like this happening.
Now, Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic has posted a comment from one of his
readers [4], which I cannot confirm, that reads:
"Some people have enhanced the first 'he raised taxes' whisper using audio
technology and have discovered that there was actually more to it than just
'he raised taxes'. They've disconvered [sic] that more can be heard: 'He
raised taxes, I'm not gonna...'. Listen to the full enhanced audio yourself.
Go out and get a tape and enhance it yourself if you think this is wrong."
Clearly that needs to be investigated. But even without that, there is good
reason to believe that Romney was prompted.
The leading you're-a-bunch-of-conspiracy-nuts explanation yesterday was that
it was OBVIOUSLY one of Russert's staffers prompting HIM. But the whisper
begins too early for that to make sense. And two NBC staffers, when they
heard the whisper, and when they read comments about it from viewers on the
MSNBC blog, Emailed a third staffer a blog post wondering what it was. The
third staffer posted this and then later deleted it. If Russert was getting
prompts through an earpiece, these people would probably have known it and
not blogged it.
On the other hand, MSNBC's efforts to kill the story, including the deletion
of the blog post and the readers' comments (which I suspect was directed by
someone higher up) would fit with covering up Russert's cheating. And in one
version of the MSNBC blogger's explanation for deleting the post, his
colleagues never intended it to be posted. The timing and the wording of the
prompt (especially if Sullivan's reader is right) do not make sense as a
prompt for Russert. But probably only a threat to Russert's ego will
motivate MSNBC to investigate Romney, so I'm happy to keep that possibility
out there. Please tell all your friends it was a prompt for Russert, and
call NBC to ask about it in those terms.
Sloppiness and possibly reflexive covering up do not tell us what is being
covered up, but MSNBC originally gave Raw Story an explanation that
explained nothing, saying Romney's microphone was not working. That's funny:
during the whisper, Romney's lips aren't moving [5]. What difference would
it have made in any way for his microphone to have been working or not
working?
Next MSNBC posted a new blog post [6] acknowledging that people wanted to
know what happened but not offering any explanation.
The post claimed that MSNBC did not know whose voice is heard whispering,
and that MSNBC was reviewing tapes of each of the candidates in order to
determine whether it was one of them. This would tend to suggest that MSNBC
does not think it was one of their staffers in a control room, and does not
think it was one of their staffers feeding ideas to Russert. (I'm still
unable to find the readers' comments on this on the MSNBC blog, and if they
were deleted the new post says nothing about restoring them.)
So, today the leading you're-a-bunch-of-paranoid-whackos position is, of
course, NOT that it was obviously a prompt for Russert. Why? Because MSNBC
says that's not what it was. Instead the leading position is something
stranger than that, and it is the leading position because MSNBC says it's
what happened.
Having ruled out the possibility that one of the other candidates was
whispering to himself, MSNBC added an update to its blog post concluding
that someone in the audience must have been whispering near an open mic.
This is apparently based on nothing other than MSNBC's inability to come up
with any other explanation, other than the obvious one. Nobody claims to be
the whisperer. Nobody claims to know why a mic was open then and not at
other times. There's no substance to the theory. It may, in fact, be true.
But, for now, it's just a baseless theory, and a less probable one than that
Romney was cheating.
MSNBC's position now reads like a report on an election result that varies
wildly from the exit polls. Such a result (if in the United States, abroad
the opposite would be true) clearly proves that the exit polls must have
been wrong! How do you know? Why, by ruling out the possibility that the
discrepency was caused by Huckabee whispering to himself.
In case shame takes over and the latest MSNBC conclusion gets purged, here
it is:
"After reviewing the tapes, NBC determined that an open mic picked up a
whisper from the audience. It is unclear who it is that says it, but it was
not said by any of the candidates, was not heard in the hall and, more
importantly, not heard by the candidates."
How do we know it was not heard by the candidates (not even the one who
appears to hear it and repeat it)? Why, because MCNBC tells us so. And how
can MSNBC possibly know that? At best (and, I doubt this is even true) they
asked one or more of the candidates or their staff, and those candidates
said they didn't hear it.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By David Swanson
Created Jan 28 2008 - 9:06am
Some of you may recall the powerful evidence in 2004 that George W. Bush was
cheating in the debates by wearing an earpiece. The New York Times famously
(well, at least somewhat famously) documented the evidence and then refused
to print it because it might have had an effect on the election [1].
A few of you may be aware of the extensive evidence that Bush has worn an
earpiece and been prompted with answers [2] at speaking events for the past
three years.
This background is reason to believe a candidate might cheat and that it is
technologically feasible. It is also reason to believe the media would kill
the story. It is not reason to know that Mitt Romney cheated in the MSNBC
debate this week. But there are other good reasons to believe that he did.
In case you haven't heard about this at all, during the debate, Tim Russert
asked Mitt Romney a question, then everyone watching heard a whispered voice
say "he raised taxes." Then Romney answered the question by saying "I'm not
going to raise taxes." Watch the short video clip [3].
It looked like Romney was being prompted. I don't think anyone ever imagined
that the noise in Romney's tiny hidden earpiece (assuming he had one) could
have been so loud as to be heard on Romney's microphone without leaving the
candidate writhing on the floor in pain. If that's what happened, I'm
inclined to vote for the man. The theory is that somehow the transmission to
Romney from his assistant got picked up. I don't know how this could have
happened, and I doubt that Romney's assitant sat near an open-mic intended
for audience questions. But I do know that Bush wore that box on his back in
order to try to avoid something like this happening.
Now, Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic has posted a comment from one of his
readers [4], which I cannot confirm, that reads:
"Some people have enhanced the first 'he raised taxes' whisper using audio
technology and have discovered that there was actually more to it than just
'he raised taxes'. They've disconvered [sic] that more can be heard: 'He
raised taxes, I'm not gonna...'. Listen to the full enhanced audio yourself.
Go out and get a tape and enhance it yourself if you think this is wrong."
Clearly that needs to be investigated. But even without that, there is good
reason to believe that Romney was prompted.
The leading you're-a-bunch-of-conspiracy-nuts explanation yesterday was that
it was OBVIOUSLY one of Russert's staffers prompting HIM. But the whisper
begins too early for that to make sense. And two NBC staffers, when they
heard the whisper, and when they read comments about it from viewers on the
MSNBC blog, Emailed a third staffer a blog post wondering what it was. The
third staffer posted this and then later deleted it. If Russert was getting
prompts through an earpiece, these people would probably have known it and
not blogged it.
On the other hand, MSNBC's efforts to kill the story, including the deletion
of the blog post and the readers' comments (which I suspect was directed by
someone higher up) would fit with covering up Russert's cheating. And in one
version of the MSNBC blogger's explanation for deleting the post, his
colleagues never intended it to be posted. The timing and the wording of the
prompt (especially if Sullivan's reader is right) do not make sense as a
prompt for Russert. But probably only a threat to Russert's ego will
motivate MSNBC to investigate Romney, so I'm happy to keep that possibility
out there. Please tell all your friends it was a prompt for Russert, and
call NBC to ask about it in those terms.
Sloppiness and possibly reflexive covering up do not tell us what is being
covered up, but MSNBC originally gave Raw Story an explanation that
explained nothing, saying Romney's microphone was not working. That's funny:
during the whisper, Romney's lips aren't moving [5]. What difference would
it have made in any way for his microphone to have been working or not
working?
Next MSNBC posted a new blog post [6] acknowledging that people wanted to
know what happened but not offering any explanation.
The post claimed that MSNBC did not know whose voice is heard whispering,
and that MSNBC was reviewing tapes of each of the candidates in order to
determine whether it was one of them. This would tend to suggest that MSNBC
does not think it was one of their staffers in a control room, and does not
think it was one of their staffers feeding ideas to Russert. (I'm still
unable to find the readers' comments on this on the MSNBC blog, and if they
were deleted the new post says nothing about restoring them.)
So, today the leading you're-a-bunch-of-paranoid-whackos position is, of
course, NOT that it was obviously a prompt for Russert. Why? Because MSNBC
says that's not what it was. Instead the leading position is something
stranger than that, and it is the leading position because MSNBC says it's
what happened.
Having ruled out the possibility that one of the other candidates was
whispering to himself, MSNBC added an update to its blog post concluding
that someone in the audience must have been whispering near an open mic.
This is apparently based on nothing other than MSNBC's inability to come up
with any other explanation, other than the obvious one. Nobody claims to be
the whisperer. Nobody claims to know why a mic was open then and not at
other times. There's no substance to the theory. It may, in fact, be true.
But, for now, it's just a baseless theory, and a less probable one than that
Romney was cheating.
MSNBC's position now reads like a report on an election result that varies
wildly from the exit polls. Such a result (if in the United States, abroad
the opposite would be true) clearly proves that the exit polls must have
been wrong! How do you know? Why, by ruling out the possibility that the
discrepency was caused by Huckabee whispering to himself.
In case shame takes over and the latest MSNBC conclusion gets purged, here
it is:
"After reviewing the tapes, NBC determined that an open mic picked up a
whisper from the audience. It is unclear who it is that says it, but it was
not said by any of the candidates, was not heard in the hall and, more
importantly, not heard by the candidates."
How do we know it was not heard by the candidates (not even the one who
appears to hear it and repeat it)? Why, because MCNBC tells us so. And how
can MSNBC possibly know that? At best (and, I doubt this is even true) they
asked one or more of the candidates or their staff, and those candidates
said they didn't hear it.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson