ElectionAnalysis.com
Archive: 03/20/2004

Even more shocking, when a member of the public (who pays his salary) asked the senator who these "foreign leaders" were, the Democratic nominee answered it was "none of your business", then proceeded to deride and humiliate the questioner. Yet the Presidency of the United States is a public office, supported by citizen taxes, and that taxpayer had every right to ask and to know.

And as if the story could not get any worse, John Kerry also refused to disclose this information to the press, and subsequently offered multiple, conflicting versions of the story, alternately denying it happened or re-inventing the details to spin it more favorably.

Since that time, it's become known that there are indeed foreign leaders who would prefer John Kerry as president over George Bush. Their identities shed a great deal of light on why Kerry would not want it known that he had their support. Here are a few examples:

Kim Jong Il, murderous dictator of North Korea has stated openly he would prefer John Kerry over George Bush. Nice endorsement.



Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, an avowed Jew hater and supporter of anti-Israel extremists also publicly endorsed John Kerry.


Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a radical leftist, friend to Fidel Castro and supporter of the Colombian Drug Cartel, publicly praised John Kerry, stating that relations between him and the US would be better if Kerry was elected.

Then there's Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, new Socialist leader of Spain, elected after an al-Qaeda terrorist bombing bludgeoned the meek Spanish population into supporting the anti-Bush candidate. Another big Kerry fan.

Since these endorsements are coming from enemies and opponents of the United States, it's no wonder Kerry has made desperate attempts to change the subject. One can only guess how foreign leaders such as Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and Libya's Moammar Gadhafi might have voted. Considering what's happened to them under the Bush presidency, one could guess it would not be in favor of President Bush, as Emperor Hirohita and Adolf Hitler were not fans of FDR or Harry Truman.

Not much of the press has reported that on deeper analysis, the truth seems to be that John Kerry simply made the whole thing up. The Washington Times reported that Kerry has not been out of the US for over two years, and therefore could not have met with any leaders out of the US! And by comparing when foreign leaders were in the US against Kerry's known whereabouts, it appears he could not have met with them then either. The whole thing appears to have been made up out of whole cloth, then spun and lied about to cover up.

So Americans are left with a very troubling choice on this issue. Either the Democratic nominee for President of the United States has the support and endorsement of enemies of the United States, or else he is an out and out liar, who first makes up lies for political gain, then spins and weaves creates other lies to cover up the first one. Remind anyone of a recent former president?

Someone needs to explain to Senator Kerry that when you are a senator, or a president, your words are closely scrutinized, have meaning to the world, and are rightly expected to be honest, accurate, and verifiable.

So far, at least one foreign leader has alluded to his support for Kerry: Spain's socialist party Prime Minister-Elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. However, Zapatero wasn't elected until March 15th, while Kerry made the statement on March 8th. Also, I have to point out that French leaders probably haven't liked Bush much since he ended their oil, energy, and weapons deals with Iraq.

I'm inclined to wonder why Mr. Kerry would say something that he knew he could not or would not back up. While it's plausible that some foreign leaders want Kerry for president, I see little reason why they would be afraid to say so publicly, like the new socialist Prime Minister of Spain did.

Currently, certain parties are trying to change the quote from "foreign leaders" to "more leaders." If this was the case, why didn't Kerry immediately refute and correct the quote? If this was not the case perhaps we need to re-read Orwell's classic "1984". Consider for a moment: If this change in the quote is fallacious, certain parties are trying literally to change the history of what happened, as they did in Orwell's "1984". This thought is more disturbing than anything else about the silly "foreign leaders" statement.

Perhaps the saddest thing is that it's such a small issue. Whether Kerry has spoken to foreign leaders who secretly told him that they want him to win the election or he made it up in a flight of fancy speaking, the idea of foreign leaders supporting one faction or another in American politics dates all the way back to the Revolutionary War.

Worryingly, I am starting to see a pattern in Kerry making statements from which he can't - or won't - back up or back down. From his "all republicans are a bunch of crooks and liars" statement to his "foreign leaders" statement, Kerry seems to constantly be digging holes he just doesn't want to - or can't - climb out of. It's a shame and a surprise that such little things could be his downfall. Naturally, Bush isn't without his own misquotes. But, to the best of my recollection, most were handled professionally and appropriately.

I personally want a president who thinks before he speaks, choosing his words carefully to achieve maximum clarity instead of speaking then trying to obfuscate the issue. A president who considers carefully both the likely outcomes of his words and actions - as well as the ethical implications of the words and actions - then takes that thought and applies it using effective communication and appropriate policy implementation.

Thoughtfully Yours,
Moderate Mike

Sin has many tools, but a lie is the handle that fits them all.
Oliver Wendell Holmes

I'm not going to bother getting into what constitutes a world leader. Suffice it to say that he said that he "met" with them and now the GOP thinks it has this giant stick of dynamite with which to blow up John Kerry's presidential campaign. Let me express what your average American is going to say in the face of all this .... "And?"

Let's not hedge here - Kerry has been clearly captured engaging in running for political office. I can hardly believe it.

Take this as anecdotal and move on. So he misspoke and said "met" when he meant "talked to." In the current, technology-filled world, a phone call is just as much a meeting as is a face-to-face conversation. The opinions of so-called world leaders are well publicized, so it's not as if he's been repudiated for what he said. Quite the contrary, actually. In the days since the supposed debacle, Kerry's statements have been upheld and been expunged of inaccuracy and/or wrongdoing by some people who are the utter definition of world leader.

The uptight right has blown this way out of proportion. This whole situation has been a generalization - a correct one, by the way - taken out of context by a group of people (a.k.a. Republicans) who are merely looking for trivialities to overexpose as more than they truly are. If this is the best that the right can do to renounce Kerry's statements, we have a long, arduous, tired campaign trail to look forward to. If the conservative game-plan is filled with this kind of activity, they are more than welcome to continue - it's not going to endear them to the American people when they go after trivial nuisances and not the real issues.

Even as this does whatever damage it's going to do to John Kerry's campaign, it's still not enough to start denting the fenders. Rush Limbaugh, a major proponent of the Republican Nitpicker's Association - "I'm not just the founder, I'm also a client" - has been claiming that this is just another example of how Kerry is a liar and a traitor. Let's forget that Limbaugh is the king of the unadulterated buzzword and focus on how most of the things he says are flagrantly biased and out of context. And it can't be ignored (as with anything) that the source of these slings isn't free from his own character issues. Limbaugh, until recently, claimed to be the very soul of truth and virtue, all the while allegedly breaking multiple laws while draining bottles of Oxycontin dry.

Even George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, is not above your well placed generality. Um, Iraq? Intelligence community, anybody? Bush has spent the better part of his term riling up the masses with decisions he came to half-cocked and ill-informed. And I don't begrudge him any of this. As far as I'm concerned, you take what information you have, spin it as best you can, and hope things go as you wanted - this is the way things are in the American political arena.

So if the president is guilty of the crime of generalizing, why put John Kerry on trial for the same thing, and first? Kerry spoke in haste with information that is accurate in every way but how he got it. Instead of ending with a handshake, the conversations he had ended with the lowering of a telephone handset.

Honestly, what's the difference?