dy156

This presidential campaign has experienced something that, to my memory, has never happened before -the internet meme.

There have always been political rumors, dating back probably as far as politics have been in existence. Rumors concerning national banks were instrumental in the Martin Van Buren/ Andrew Jackson election. Plain old word-of-mouth rumors still exist today. I posted about a wide-spread rumor in Texas about Gov. Rick Perry allegedly being gay and having hired his incompetent lover to a high state post. In retrospect, this rumor likely started when someone was talking about the New Jersey governor, but just said the governor, and someone in Texas got confused or maliciously decided to use it.

However, that's not what I'm talking about. Before the internet's maturity, voters did not have access to things like documents and videos and a wide spectrum of opinion. These things can be manipulated, it's true, but the presence of "documentation" makes the rumor, or meme far more difficult to easily dismiss as a rumor.

Neither side is immune to this phenomenon, whether the idea is true or false. Remember the reports of Kerry's affair? The 9/11 Pentagon hoax thing? The Laura Bush killed somebody thing? The Bush national guard memo thing? The Kerry cheated by bringing notes to the 1st debate thing? The Bush was wired and had a lump in his back thing? The Bush is going to reinstitute the draft thing? Kerry and Botox?

Sometimes Snopes.com addresses them, sometimes not. There are always bloggers who argue back and forth, and sometimes an eventual consesus arrives about something being generally accepted as true or false. Some of the rumors have far more to back them up than others, but regardless of the eventual facts, I bet many, if not more, people hear it first and take it to heart rather than they do the eventual consensus about whether the idea was true or false.

Sometimes there is no general consensus after the dust has settled. Sometimes the "evidence" and/or the way it is presented is compelling, even if inaccurate.

What effect do these things have on you, and what effect do you think they have on the election itself? Do you believe those that are helpful to your side and disbelieve those that aren't? Are you so jaded that you don't believe any of it?

Myself, I'm pretty skeptical, but admittedly more so about things with an anti-Bush oreintation. This thing though, really had me thinking.
It's a video of his debate performance when he was runing for Texas Governor, and is remarkably different from his recent performances.

http://home.comcast.net/~blogitics/BushTenYrs4MB.mov

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I think Bush has dementia. It might just be clever video juxtaposition coupled with a Democrat doctor making wild statements in a letter to the editor. It may also have been comparing a portion of the debate that was prepared ahead of time to the worst moments of his attempts to speak extemporaneously. Perhaps I give it added credibility though, because, as I have posted here in the past, I too find that the Bush in Washington is not the same Bush in Austin that I so admired. I never would have even thought about Bush having dementia, had I not seen this, and maybe that is the point.

I know this really might turn into a thread with two unrelated topics:
1. Bush's dementia or lack thereof, and
2. The effect of political internet-based memes.
But it was this video, and how it really made me second-guess myself that got me thinking about the political memes. Anyway, discuss.

dy156

I really can't believe no one has commented on the video.

Superbelt

potentially incendary I believe.

Anyway. My view is it is possible that he has dementia. I would like to see more than one doctors scattershot analysis of it before something like this should take off and really be discussed though.

I personally don't think Bush has ever been all that good at speaking in the last four years. The only times he ever has a good showing is when the speech was able to be coached well ahead of time. Any off the cuff things like debates all destroy Bush.
He hasn't done well in either debate yet. The first one he was woefully unprepared and the second one he either exposed "Furious George" or lied/made incorrect statements.

The Gore debates weren't any better. Gore shot himself in the foot with the sighing. Gore won the debates hands down when you don't just take the candidates words for it and research their claims. That is what is tearing Bush apart this time. He says things at the debates and the media quickly pounces on both sides lies and inconsistencies. Bush just has more, and they are more damaging. Additionally, for Gore the media took him down by repeating Republican talking points about Gore that were false.

I also don't really know what Bush was like before 1999. I don't know how much he was able to be coached before any speaking arangement and how formal the questions were in all his debates for Tx Gov. So on that, I can't speak. There, you asked for it and I said it.