Kerry Credibility Problem?

Great Debates
21

My guess is that you are referring to this part:

The implication here is that if the Senate does not have records of the trip, it did not occur. This is 100% bull.

Think about this for 5 seconds: do you really believe that the only trips Kerry has made in the past two years have been to Charleston, SC, and a couple of foreign countries??

You’ve got to be mentally ill to believe this, seeing as how he has WON THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION BY TOURING AROUND THE UNITED STATES.

The Senate, and the State Department, keep records of official travel - as in when one travels for work, not for pleasure or for politics.

The mention that there have only been 30 official visits to the US by foreign leads since last year seems equally bogus - to use just one example, every time a Taiwanese official visits the US, it is not official, because we do not have “official” relations with Taiwan. I am willing to bet my life savings that there have been more than 30 visits, in official and unofficial capacities, of 180-plus heads of state to the US in the last two years. It’s a no-brainer.

Kerry’s statement was stupid because it is obvious that he would not name names to prove his allegation. But that doesn’t mean that the Washington Times and its axe-grinding, political hack reporters have proved Kerry wrong.

22

Ravenman, traveling abroad normally refers to outside of the country. I really don’t think he has MET with any foreign leaders while making his campaign stops.

As for all of your “I’ll bet you visits”, feel free to provide some documentation of when Kerry was with a foreign leader.

23

Oy vey! Say it ain’t so, Joe!

24

Hell, I think friend Flickster’s on to something. Or maybe he’s just on something, but still…

Let’s make “credibility” the whole focus of the election! We have this deeply suspicious and probably disloyal statement from Sen. Kerry, which may, upon examination, prove to be an exaggeration, an embellishment, if not an out and out lie!

On the other hand, we have that paragon of candor, GeeDubya. So, I guess, unless we can come up with some untruth that has passed his lips, we’ll just have to concede the election on the grounds of credibility.

Boy, this is going to be a tough one…

25

Luc, please refer to my question in the OP

I didn’t think it was really that hard of a question, but after numerous frothing responses not a single Doper has yet to address it. You have been far too busy either trying to discredit the source (without any documentation I might add), sidestep the issue altogether or just divert the attention to Bush.

IMHO, I didn’t go out of my way to hang a golden star on either one. I’m not naive enough to think that either candidate is incapable of bending the truth. Some just have a greater propensity than others.

26

or

#3 - Like most everyone in the business world, Kerry considers tele-conferences, on-line meetings, and web-conferences actual meetings, and the “in person” qualifier unnecessary.

As it relates to this issue, no.

Pash

27

This is completely disingenuous. Your question was addressed. First, if you’re so concerned with credibility, why would you not be concerned with the credibility of your source? You claimed this:

And then you go on to say:

Funny how you were able to make that judgement, w/o “enough exposure” to the WT. :rolleyes:

Want "documentation? Here:

http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/washington-times.html

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011119.html

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/031001a.html

Second, you ignored Ravenman’s point about official v. unofficial visits (whether here or abroad), and cherry picked a portion of the cite as a retort. You ignored my cite about Kerry’s well connected family abroad, diplomatic background, etc. You ignored the explanation that “foreign leaders” don’t necessarily mean presidents/prime ministers. You ignored your own cite’s assertion that “it could well be true”.

Third, your question was comparative (ie “…more than your average politician?”), yet you disdain the comparisons to the Bush admin.

Frankly, your credibility as an “innocent” (as per Milum), asking a “simple question” sinks lower with each of your replies. If you believe Kerry lacks credibility, it’s your case to prove.

28

Pash, if it’s that simple of an explanation then why don’t they just say so. The obvious reason is that it would just be another fib/lie/misstatement (call it what you will).

Is this going to be an issue the main stream media will investigate? No, the reason being they don’t want to get kicked off the campaign bus. That’s why candidates from either party can, for the most part, say what they want and promise things they can’t possibly deliver all in the name of garnering votes. There isn’t an (and hasn’t been any for years) attempt to hold anyone accountable or to investigate claims made while on the campaign trail. Sad to say that most everything heard by the general public is accepted as being factual (as long as it supports your candidate of choice).

29

Perhaps they weren’t asked? Did the known-partisan WT even try to get Kerry to explain anything that puzzled them before publishing this solemn condemnation of his credibility? Did you even think about any other possibilities before swallowing it whole?

This is going to be a long campaign. Go out at too quick a pace and you’ll be burned out long before the finish line.

30

Holy shit! I can’t believe that there is a whole entire thread on this. This is even better than all the hay made of the (exaggerated) stories of Gore’s “lies” about inventing the internet and such!

I mean, here we have a President who freakin’ lies and distorts every day. (See, for example, here and here. The latter may have distortions and other things that are not true lies but you have to consider that they publish a new one 5 days a week, plus special in depth analyses.) And, you Bush supporters are worrying about whether Kerry might have characterized something like a teleconference as having met with a leader or whether he might have included people who were not heads of state, e.g., ambassadors, as leaders?

I mean, if you really want to get picky, I’ll give you one of my little pet peeves which is when Bush said, “I read the report put out by the bureaucracy” in regards to an EPA report on global warming when it turns out that he hadn’t actually read it but had just been briefed on it. So, here he not only lied but he was incredibly disrespectful of people working under his command. (If I ran a company and a manager said something like that in regards to something prepared by people working under him, I’d fire his ass!) And, as near as I can tell, this one hasn’t even registered on the radar screen…It is not even that high on my list of Bush lies and it doesn’t seem to be on anyone else’s list.

31

Kerry Won’t Say Which Foreign Leaders Support Him

Kerry’s position makes a lot of sense, especially when you consider it in light of the white house’s retaliatory outing of CIA operative Valery Plame.

32

Ah, come on, this whole thread’s just the Republican meme of the week. I’m no particular Kerry fan, but this is just mud.

33

Ooh, serry is on the Axis of Evil. oooh.

34

That’s Kerry!

35

Because most of us Kerryites were previously Goremen (and -women) and remember all too well when Al Gore got hammered for misspeaking about his role in the commercialization of the Internet. Just like Gore, this claim was made in an off-the-cuff (but on-the-record)discussion with reporters. Just like Gore, this “controversy” hinges on the parsing of every word uttered by the candidate; substitute one essentially synonymous phrase (‘spoke to’) for another (‘met with’) and the issue evaporates like a fart on a windy day.

And we don’t see a point in trying to explain uninformed, out-of-context, or unverifiable claims made against our candidate, when the whole point of said claims is to corrosively attach them to the public’s perception of our candidate, like a limpet mine.

In other words, it doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not, whether Mr Kerry misspoke or not; it only matters whether this charge sticks to Kerry. A meme, if you will (thanks, lambchops).

So if you ask why we don’t loudly claim he misspoke–even though I suggested earlier that maybe he just talked to the foreign leaders on the phone–it’s because we greet this accusation with the same precisely calibrated amount of partisan bullshit from whence it sprung.

36

True enough, but the damage is done. Now tame pundits can off-handedly refer to Kerry’s “credibility problem” as though such a thing actually existed, without the inconvenience of proving anything. Just like Gore’s “internet invention”, it doesn’t need a basis in fact to “resonate”.

OK, that’s the bad news. The good news is that the Bushiviks would have found some basis to insinuate a credibility problem anyway, its impossible to prevent such an attack. And such insinuations only work on people inclined to think the worst of Kerry anyway. Preaching to the choir, so to speak. So its annoying, but more or less a wash.

The Bushiviks are scrambling, they have to improvise, and thats dangerous. They thought they had this one bagged, a slam dunk, running against Dean, a lot of 9/11, a little Gay Marriage, and badda-boom badda bing, an unshakeable mandate for the Shining One. They only flung out this “credibility” thing 'cause they didn’t have anything else but Jane Fonda, and only us forgotten fogies even remember what “Hanoi Jane” means!

Worse still, our bent brethren and sistren scored a coup. By depicting gays and lesbians are pretty ordinary, boring folks who want to buy wedding cakes and register patterns at Bloomies, they undermined the menace. America looks and says “Gee, these folks look pretty normal, you didn’t tell me they were pervo, I wouldn’t know. What’s everybody so worried about? OK, we want to keep the term “marriage” just for us, but surely some sort of adjustment can be made, seems only fair…” If gays arent threatening, the issue loses its menace, and only works for the already committed.

(To the aforementioned bent brethren and sistren: you’ve made your point, if you’re done now, could you get over here and help us save the rest of us? It’s kinda important…)

37

Right. But their campaign will be against Gore, not Dukakis

At least I have the good fortune to live in a noncompetitive state.

38

The administration today demanded that Kerry name these ‘foreign leaders’. He has refused.

This story has legs. Today, Colin Powell stepped up to the plate:

I can’t believe you guys are going to toe the partisan line that this isn’t an issue. Because I know damned well that if Bush came out and said, “I’ve met with foreign leaders who tell me that they hope I am re-elected because they have grave doubts about John Kerry,” you guys would be the first to demand that he name names. And if he came back and said, “I’m not going to tell you”, you’d roast him for it.

It’s a sleazy tactic. By claiming you have the support of unnamed ‘foreign leaders’ and refusing to name them, you make it impossible for the other side to rebut.

In other Kerry non-credibility news, Colin Powell also ripped him a new one over his suggestion that the Bush Administration could have settled the Libya issue earlier, but didn’t for political reasons:

If Kerry keeps saying things like this, and then refusing to back up his assertions with evidence, he’s going to be labelled a dissembler and a liar, and he’ll damned well deserve it. He wouldn’t get away with that crap on the SDMB without a cite, and I fail to see why he should get away with it in a presidental election.

39

its obvious who the leaders are France and Germany i think most people figured it out long ago i know i did

40

Drudge Reports.