Over what time period did Kerry only attend 24% of the hearings? I ask because I know that another statistic like this (perhaps for votes on the Senate floor?) only included the period when the primaries were being held, and his attendence record prior to that had been very high.
It should also be noted that there were only 36 public hearings over those many years, and hundreds of private meetings, of which Kerry’s attendance isn’t available.
I just don’t buy the whole “fake” news and “fake” newscaster spiel. The news they report is, of course, not fake. But what annoyed me is that Stewart has been on a soapbox lately about how reporters/journalists aren’t being inquisitive enough. That was the whole point of the Rob Corddry piece and it was also a point he was trying to make with Dan Rather ( I think) in an interview he gave a few weeks ago. Trying to hide behind the mantle of “fake” when you have a man who quite possibly could be President of the United States on a widely watched show doesn’t fly with me. He had the opportunity to ask the questions (I don’t agree with what Liberal wanted to hear, I wanted more on point of what he was going to do). I love the show and was very disappointed in the way Stewart handled the interview.
I’ll take as granted that Kerry is a liar. He’s a politician; that’s what they do. But I would like a cite for Jon Stewart ever being less than honest.
And since this is turning more and more GD, I’ll ask for a cite of your claim that the SBVFT served *with * Kerry in Vietnam.
I question whether you bothered to read any of the articles I linked to. Yes, Kerry contributed to the record, but by no means is he the only source of information nor could he have influenced all the info on the subject. The official Navy records, which have stood uncontested for 30+ years, as well as the accounts of independant historians all support Kerry’s claims.
On the other hand, the evidence against Kerry is spurious and riddled with inconsistancies. Of all his detractors, only one of them was actually even there (on a different boat) and he’s singing a different tune now then when he was awarded medals for the same event, back in the day . All the other accounts are merely hearsay. Account for the republican funding of these guys and it becomes pretty apparant that these guys lack any credibility and certainly aren’t deserving of the amount of press they’ve received.
An apt analogy I heard recently to the amount of coverage the claims have gotten versus the actual facts was as follows:
“A group recently came out and revealed that the world is indeed flat. Other accounts differ.”
For more info on the topic here on the boards, go here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=272436&highlight=swift+boat+veterans
or here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269680
Either of those threads would be a more appropriate place to continue this argument if you’re so inclined.
If he’d been asked, we might now know.
Hey, of course they did! In the same sense that I slept with the mayor’s wife last night.
Before you toss out a statistic and demand that someone explain it, don’t you think it’d help to know what the statistic is referring to?
8 year time period:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241
Things we know:
This covers 49 meetings (11 of which he was in attendance)
This only covers the public meetings (private meetings were much more numerous)
Things we don’t know:
His attendance at private meetings
Other members’ attendance at public or private meetings
Let the politician explain it. He is on the public dole. If reporters would get some balls like they had in the 70s, we might not even be in Iraq right now. And yeah, I know that Stewart isn’t a reporter, but he plays one on TV. And when he wants to, he is perfectly capable of asking the tough questions. If he had Bush on there, I’d bet five dollars against your ten that it would not be the kind of love-fest that he had with Kerry.
I don’t know that he came out and lied, my point is that he was not interested in the truth about Kerry. He has a partisan stake in Kerry and supports him unconditionally, therefore he is not going to press him for the truth on uncomfortable issues.
Demanding a response to a question that you don’t even understand isn’t tough, it’s just dumb. “Senator! I hear you were only around for 24% of, er, something. Can you tell me whether that’s true, and what that ‘something’ is? And while we’re at it, what’s the difference between a duck?”
And yet that’s exactly what he did with his 5 miles versus 3 miles red herring crap. Just because you didn’t know what the 24% covered doesn’t everyone else was clueless.
Do you have anything to back up that allegation of “unconditional” support? I recognize that the Daily Show has a moderate liberal bias, but outside of the interview in question, I haven’t noticed Kerry getting much of a free ride from the DS writers.
Emphasis added
I’m assuming this was a brain-fart, based on your mixing up the percentages earlier in the thread. Although you may have meant it sincerely, stating (in effect) that you have no confidence in your position.
Either way, it’s pretty damn funny.
Stewert: Mr. Kerry, why does the other side suck so much?
Kerry: I don’t know. Frankly I am just dissapointed.
Stewert: You are so right sir.
I finally saw it on Tivo, man but this show is getting hard to stomach.
I am now wanting Bush to win just out of spite for Stewert and so many like him.
Did you Stewart critics miss their coverage of the Dem Convention? They were pretty harsh, relatively speaking. All these accusations of Stewart “unconditionally supporting” Kerry seem pretty unfounded.
Sure they might not call him a “flip flopper” like every other talking point parrot in the media but they also avoid the most obvious gaffs on Bush’s behalf that the major media jumps all over. For instance, they never made mention of Bush’s last major malapropism about seeking new ways to harm the United States.
Stewart has made many remarks slamming Kerry in the past on his robot-like demeanor, his lack of vision, his campaign stunts, etc.
Like he said on Thursday’s show, they largely concentrate on the Republicans because they are the ones predominately in control of things right now. Big rule of comedy is to pick on those in power, the higher the better. Kicking the little guy isn’t nearly as funny as exposing the foibles of the big guys.
Hence the whole Globetrotters/ Generals analogy.
Meh. If he knew he would get the softball ‘Kerry treatment’, he probably would.
Exactly.
Good grief, Stewart was literally answering Kerry’s questions for him!
Considering that RikWriter still thinks the Swift Bullshitters for Bush have a shred of credibility left (especially after all the witnesses and documents that have been coming out in the last week repeatedly proving them wrong), I suspect his idea of “unconditional support” is simply disappointment that Stewart didn’t give Kerry the Ken Starr once-over. :rolleyes: