When you are as interested in politics as we are at Kriswatch, you develop a sense for what is true, and what is, well, B.S. For those of you with sensitive ears, we'll refer to B.S. as "Barely Supported."*
You may remember we commented once already about this profile of Kris Kobach in the Topeka Capital-Journal. Today, we are commenting on this paragraph alone:
"He water-skied competitively. Rowing came later, mostly at Oxford. Kobach said he tried but failed to make the U.S. Olympic team as a rower, his team coming in second."Hmmmm... when you claim you tried to make a U.S. Olympic team and fell just short, particularly when running for public office during an Olympic year, the bells and whistles on the old B.S. meter make quite the racket.
It isn't like this is a matter of pressing national urgency, but we were curious and we did some checking.
Now, we want to be very careful with where we go with this, because we are not making any claims and we are not making allegations; we are simply reporting what we have found so far, and asking you, the Kriswatch reader, to assist us by providing further information that we don't currently have access to.
A search through the relevant and reputable sources we have been able to come up with finds no record of Kris Kobach competing in either the 1992, 1996, or 2000 U.S. Rowing Olympic Trials.
In 1992 and 1996 the four- and eight-man boats were determined in camps, not in races, which could lead one to conclude he finished second in a two-man competition. Yet, we find no record of a two-man boat including Kris Kobach as a competitor finishing second in a 1992, 1996, or 2000 U.S. Rowing Olympic Trials finals race.
It's entirely possible, of course, Kobach was misunderstood or misparaphrased in the article, and/or that he participated in one of the camps which determined the four- and eight-man boats and was one of the last people cut from those boats. That isn't synonymous with "his team coming in second," but it could be the case.
This is the sum of the information we have been able to collect.
We have exhausted our available sources, yet our B.S. meter continues to clang away. Therefore, we are looking for anyone who can to come forward and either refute or confirm this second place finish. (Or who can tell us that we are just political observers, not researchers, and we don't know what the heck we are talking about.)
This includes you, Kobach campaign. We know you weren't shy about e-mailing Taffwatch with information on Taff during the primary, so feel free to drop us a line now. Seriously. If you request it, your anonymity will be protected.
Stay tuned -- hopefully we'll have a final determination on this issue in the near future.
* We also welcome your advice as to the kindest way to define the B.S. for our B.S. meter. We aren't married to "Barely Supported," and we have already tossed aside "Borderline Specious." Any suggestions which don't involve "Bovine Secretions" will be considered.
