The right leaning press needs to be a little more careful with its attack pieces. If too many of them bounce off, they’ll leave Kerry with a nice teflon coating.
Kerry has a credibility problem to the extent that he has credibility. GeeDubya has no such problem.
Gleeful sarcasm aside, Kerry’s “credibility problem” was minted in Karl Rove’s office. There was no such issue to discuss until Bush’s chihuahua attack-dog ads tried to make it one. To my gimlet eye, it reeks of desperation. The attempt to paint him “Jane Fonda hippy protestor” didn’t work, the paint in that bucket dried up years ago. Hell, Bill Clinton actually was a draft-dodger, and hardly anybody cared.
The Bushiviks were lazy. They figured the game was bagged, the defense got drunk. They figured they could run on maudlin and lachrymose patriotism, drape GeeDubya in the bloody flag and sing hymns to his bold leadership. But that first delicate dipping of the toe into the water resulted in a toe snapped in half by piranha. They’ll think twice before they dip thier collective scrotum.
Gay Marriage? About all they got left. Can’t pump up a Japanese condom into a dirigible. I see hints that the Gay Agenda’s propaganda has had some positive effect: showing gay people as middle aged, middle class…ordinary, normal, and dull as dish water… who just want to get married hits us right in the sentimental. Awwww, isn’t that cute? Well, heck, why the hell not? Those look like pretty nice folks, they want to sit around in the living room and argue over Star Search or Matlock, why not? (Note to bent brethren and sistren: if that was a plan, it was friggin’ brilliant. When you’re done, could you help us save the rest of us?)
The Rightards have a gazillion bucks. They can afford a thorough investigation, right down to shoe size and belly-button lint. They know everything there is to know about John Kerry. And what they got is D-for-diddly-squat.
Interesting sources, none of which carry any more credibility than the Washington Times.
Plus popularity polls do not equal a leader. The question remains - just who are these foreign leaders that Kerry is referring to that he has met. IMHO, they don’t exist nor did the meetings ever take place.
As for the link you included regarding Libya, what does that have to do with Kerry’s credibility question?
There is a difference between “met” and “spoke to on the phone”. It may be a case that he just “mis-spoke”, but if that were true seems to me that it’s something that could have easily been corrected by his staff. To date, that has not happened. All they have done so far is side-step the issue.
“Leader” may not mean “head of state.” “Influential person in his country.”
Bogus? Maybe. Provably false? No.
My own guess is it’s based primarily on Kerry’s desire to make it known that people in other nations don’t like W. Why that should make me want to vote for him is less clear.
So shall we agree that non are particularly credible and it is a non-story? Or they’re all credible? Or one is more credible?
Well, I’m actually perfectly willing to believe that they are not Heads of State (Kerry is a leader, for instance, despite not being the President) and that Kerry tried to play it up despite that fact, or even that he is flat out lying about meeting with them and is going by stated public opinions of foreign leaders. If he actually met with them, though, I would not expect him to give out names, especially if they were leaders of countries that we are currently working with in Iraq.
It is directly related to the Times article’s questioning of his credibility:
What confuses me about this is that according to the link Libya made the offer in May 1999. If true, the Clinton administration found something in the offer not worthy of action as well. So what exactly is Kerry’s beef?
Emphasis mine. Does that clear it up for you? Can you think of any reason why the Bush admin would not be interested in a quicker resolution of this situation through diplomatic means at a time when they were pushing a unilateral invasion of Iraq?
** Does Kerry have a more pronounced problem with credibility than your average politician? **
And while most of the straight dopes here answered by cussing the Washington Times, and accusing President Bush of grandstanding, and claiming that Poor Kerry was just misunderstood, no one answered by addressing the pointed question… –> Did or did not Candidate Kerry secretly meet with foreign leaders and
discuss matters of state with these instruments of foreign self interest?<–
My guess is no! We Americans don’t like our presidential candidates consorting and conspiring with foreign politicians behind closed doors
and discuccing our our national policies; and even though Senator Kerry ain’t very smart, he ain’t that dumb.
So then why, in the interest of credibility, don’t the people who speak for Mister
Kerry, simply say that he misspoke?
Before I begin let it be known that I am a conservative, (or Liberal in the classical sense as per Milton Friedman), a registered Republican, a donor to my local GOP, and a GOP Team Leader.
Whatever Kerry’s “credibility problems” are, they are not as important as the current admin’s “credibility problems.”
Why is our current presidential administration so demonstrably averse to pursuing investigations that’re essential to the long-term health and well-being of our republic?
This aversion, in and of itself, renders the discussion of carefully spun “credibility issues” of Kerry’s almost, but not entirely moot.
Milum, politicians meet with foreign leaders all the time, and they are not always public about it. What’s your point? Kerry’s a politician? We already knew that, my friend.
That’s not really a fair question. As you say, the answer to that particular question is doubtless “no.” But that doesn’t mean that his ill-considered statement was nonetheless true. Kerry is a multi-lateralist type and has extensive contacts in the diplomatic community, ee’s been to Davos several times, etc. And, of course, he’s been a possible or real candidate for president for some time. It’s entirely possible, even probable, that some of the “international leaders,” who need not be heads of state, gave him a call or encouraging email after he announced or privately told him they supported him prior to his announcing his candidacy.
As far as I’m concerned, this is a pretty stupid non-issue. A silly, irrelevant statment worthy of an equally silly, irrelevant retaliatory taunt and then quickly forgotten.
Our elected officials maintain detailed travel records which if you bothered to read the linked article in the OP you would see that Kerry’s records do not account for any recent meetings with foreign leaders but yet he makes a public statement to the contrary. Now there are only two options -
either #1 - he was telling an outright lie hoping the media would just run with it without question like they usually do.
or #2 - he misspoke and should have said I have talked to foreign leaders instead of met with foreign leaders.
Option #2 has a very easy fix which all his camp has to do is admit the slight error and move on. Funny thing is they have refused to do this which makes people really think the problem is option #1 which is not an easy fix and does cloud his credibility.