Connecticut Senate Race

[MassHoya]

I would like to hear what McCain has to say about this. He stood up for Kerry when the River Rats, or whatever they were called, went after him in 2004.

[Boz]

I don't really think they are analogous situations at all.

You can believe the SBVT or not, but they are an outside group making claims that things Kerry said were untrue.

Blumenthal pretty demonstrably did not serve in Vietnam. He is being assailed by his own comments, not anyone else.

I imagine John McCain will very much high road this, if he says anything at all, calling Blumenthal's claims unfortunate, but saying he respects anyone who served their country in uniform.

And that's true in a sense. But it doesn't answer the question of whether or not he should serve as a Senator.

And let's not forget the Harvard thing either. True, not the level of lie as the military claim, but I think at the very least it establishes a pattern that this guy doesn't mind exaggerating at the least or allowing other people to embellish on his behalf.

Greg Sargant and some others have claimed this will amount to nothing because Blumenthal was up 30 points. I haven't seen numbers that big, I'll take his word for it, but show me a poll in a week and we'll see if he's still up by that much.

[jerseyhoya34]

The situations are not analogous, but the substance is similar enough. Many of those Bush fundraisers/Pioneers and later administration appointees who appeared in the ads claimed to have served with John Kerry, which was a fabrication of their service in Vietnam. Some of them were not even in the same region of Vietnam/Mekong Delta during the war. They had no first hand knowledge of whether he earned his medals, yet they claimed that he did not. These folks are the true dregs of American politics and to ignore them as an outside group misses an opportunity to reject their garbage and to call a lie about one's service what it is - a lie. We could simply say that a newspaper is saying that Blumenthal has not been truthful and take it/leave it similarly.

People in CT have an independent streak, but I am not sure this will really be a long-term controversy in the broader electorate any more than other newspaper controversies have been (Rezko, the McCain lobbyist link, Professor Ayers, etc.). It will whip activists into a stew in the meanwhile and annoy others.

[MassHoya]

That's the point. McCain defended Kerry who was in Vietnam and did serve honorably there, regardless of the claims of the SBVT. History can and will judge the motives of the SBVT and whether they were an outside group but the dispute is what Kerry did while he was there or why he did it, not whether he went. Blumenthal tried to give himself a status he clearly did not earn or deserve. That may invoke a quite different comment form Senator McCain, particular where he has such opposition from conservatives in his state.

[SSHoya]

Excellent opinion piece on this subject:

www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/opinion/19pressler.html?hp

[theexorcist]

May 18, 2010 19:30:09 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

The situations are not analogous, but the substance is similar enough. Many of those Bush fundraisers/Pioneers and later administration appointees who appeared in the ads claimed to have served with John Kerry, which was a fabrication of their service in Vietnam. Some of them were not even in the same region of Vietnam/Mekong Delta during the war. They had no first hand knowledge of whether he earned his medals, yet they claimed that he did not. These folks are the true dregs of American politics and to ignore them as an outside group misses an opportunity to reject their garbage and to call a lie about one's service what it is - a lie. We could simply say that a newspaper is saying that Blumenthal has not been truthful and take it/leave it similarly.

People in CT have an independent streak, but I am not sure this will really be a long-term controversy in the broader electorate any more than other newspaper controversies have been (Rezko, the McCain lobbyist link, Professor Ayers, etc.). It will whip activists into a stew in the meanwhile and annoy others.

MassHoya was wrong - that's NOT the point.

There is a vast gulf in difference between lying (if that's the case) about whether you were with Senator Kerry and lying and saying that you served in Vietnam when you didn't. In Case A, to be blunt, even if you lied, you were still getting shot at.

Ambassador, I challenge you to go up to a Swift Boater and say "you fabricated your service in Vietnam because you said that you served with John Kerry in-country". You're defending a liar - someone who took means to avoid serving in Vietnam, a monstrously divisive conflict, and who now, when it's politically expedient, is saying he did - on the slimmest of technicalities. In my estimation, he's lower than camel dung.

Veterans, in general, get really feisty and nasty when people claim to have served in the military or done things that they didn't. The electorate may consider this a speed bump, but I'd anticipate one or two conservative veterans' groups to spend a lot of money on some brutal ads.

[TC]

...and the NYT fails to do due diligence on the stuff they wrote in the article:

politicalwire.com/archives/2010/05/19/same_video_shows_blumenthal_correctly_stating_service.html

[kchoya]

May 19, 2010 13:21:43 GMT -5 TC said:

...and the NYT fails to do due diligence on the stuff they wrote in the article:

politicalwire.com/archives/2010/05/19/same_video_shows_blumenthal_correctly_stating_service.html

Well, since he only lied half the time then that's ok.

[Elvado]

Cut the guy a break. What he did was really bad, but at least he didn't lie under oath during a deposition in a Federal Trial. That would be a real scumbag. That would be someone beneath all contempt.

[jerseyhoya34]

May 19, 2010 9:52:37 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

May 18, 2010 19:30:09 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

The situations are not analogous, but the substance is similar enough. Many of those Bush fundraisers/Pioneers and later administration appointees who appeared in the ads claimed to have served with John Kerry, which was a fabrication of their service in Vietnam. Some of them were not even in the same region of Vietnam/Mekong Delta during the war. They had no first hand knowledge of whether he earned his medals, yet they claimed that he did not. These folks are the true dregs of American politics and to ignore them as an outside group misses an opportunity to reject their garbage and to call a lie about one's service what it is - a lie. We could simply say that a newspaper is saying that Blumenthal has not been truthful and take it/leave it similarly.

People in CT have an independent streak, but I am not sure this will really be a long-term controversy in the broader electorate any more than other newspaper controversies have been (Rezko, the McCain lobbyist link, Professor Ayers, etc.). It will whip activists into a stew in the meanwhile and annoy others.

MassHoya was wrong - that's NOT the point.

There is a vast gulf in difference between lying (if that's the case) about whether you were with Senator Kerry and lying and saying that you served in Vietnam when you didn't. In Case A, to be blunt, even if you lied, you were still getting shot at.

Ambassador, I challenge you to go up to a Swift Boater and say "you fabricated your service in Vietnam because you said that you served with John Kerry in-country". You're defending a liar - someone who took means to avoid serving in Vietnam, a monstrously divisive conflict, and who now, when it's politically expedient, is saying he did - on the slimmest of technicalities. In my estimation, he's lower than camel dung.

Veterans, in general, get really feisty and nasty when people claim to have served in the military or done things that they didn't. The electorate may consider this a speed bump, but I'd anticipate one or two conservative veterans' groups to spend a lot of money on some brutal ads.

I believe a lie is a lie, so we operate from a different premise. I have no doubt that Swift Boaters would not take kindly to someone who called them out on their lies. That does not make them correct and others wrong. It only suggests that they seek more care in discussions of their own service than that of others and what they describe as their service.

We'll see how folks in CT react. They must have a strong veterans community as elsewhere, but is it as strong as in VA, for example? Not a chance. I can't think of a single base in CT off hand. The Republicans stand a better chance appealing to independents off of this story.

[rosslynhoya]

May 19, 2010 15:41:59 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

We'll see how folks in CT react. They must have a strong veterans community as elsewhere, but is it as strong as in VA, for example? Not a chance. I can't think of a single base in CT off hand. The Republicans stand a better chance appealing to independents off of this story.

The Home of the U.S. Submarine Force would beg to differ with your (offhand) ignorance.

I, however, have to question your assertion that non-independents (Democrats?) won't see anything wrong with falsely claiming to have been a Vietnam veteran for thirty years. Why is that? Do they just not care about a candidate's honesty? Do they disrespect our armed forces? Or is it just that the (D) behind the name is all that matters??? (RIP Arlen Specter).

[jerseyhoya34]

May 19, 2010 16:01:18 GMT -5 rosslynhoya said:

May 19, 2010 15:41:59 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

We'll see how folks in CT react. They must have a strong veterans community as elsewhere, but is it as strong as in VA, for example? Not a chance. I can't think of a single base in CT off hand. The Republicans stand a better chance appealing to independents off of this story.

The Home of the U.S. Submarine Force would beg to differ with your (offhand) ignorance.

I, however, have to question your assertion that non-independents (Democrats?) won't see anything wrong with falsely claiming to have been a Vietnam veteran for thirty years. Why is that? Do they just not care about a candidate's honesty? Do they disrespect our armed forces? Or is it just that the (D) behind the name is all that matters??? (RIP Arlen Specter).

I think others will care and they should, just as they and others should have cared about the SBVT and have said so consistently despite the Clintonian response as to the SBVT lies. Turning this into a question about whether a voter respects or disrespects the armed forces based on an electoral choice - that cuts a little too close to the RNC fax machine for me.

Blumenthal has not claimed to be a Vietnam Veteran for 30 years. That is not a truthful account of the facts. The reporting, including Shays's comments in the NYT, indicate the fabrications emerged over the past few years.

[TC]

May 19, 2010 13:51:00 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Well, since he only lied half the time then that's ok.

The difference is that yesterday we were lead to believe that he was like the guy from Catch Me If You Can. What he did was no doubt wrong, but I'd at least like to get the facts about what he said before I make an opinion.

As for why the CT papers didn't catch this :

blogs.courant.com/colin_mcenroe_to_wit/2010/05/the-flaws-in-the-nyt-blumentha.html

I'm just guessing that Shays and Blumenthal are enemies.

[Boz]

May 19, 2010 18:05:08 GMT -5 TC said:

May 19, 2010 13:51:00 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Well, since he only lied half the time then that's ok.

The difference is that yesterday we were lead to believe that he was like the guy from Catch Me If You Can. What he did was no doubt wrong, but I'd at least like to get the facts about what he said before I make an opinion.

As for why the CT papers didn't catch this :

blogs.courant.com/colin_mcenroe_to_wit/2010/05/the-flaws-in-the-nyt-blumentha.html

I'm just guessing that Shays and Blumenthal are enemies.

And here's what none of those people, not even the last one, said:

"Since we were covering him, I took it upon myself as a journalist to look objectively into his background."

Funny that.

[SSHoya]

As of June 2009, almost 250,000 veterans lived in CT.

www1.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/ss_connecticut.pdf

Here's the thing -- even if Blumenthal says he "served" during the Vietnam era it is my understanding that he was NEVER called to active duty in his six-years of obligated service, i.e., he did a weekend a month and a two-week active duty for training (ACDUTRA) each year to get a qualifying year. IMHO, even his statement that he served during the Vietnam era is an exaggeration. I had thought he meant he was stationed on active duty somewhere other than Vietnam for at least part of his six-year obligation but now I've read he only did active duty for training. If you add up the days we are talking 144 days for his weekend a month (24 days x 6 years), and and 84 days for six years of two-week ACDUTRAs. I am waiting for a non-lazy journalist to ask Blumenthal to release his military records

IMO, Blumenthal is a poseur. An honest response about his service was to have stated that he had 5 deferments, then enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve where he was never called to active duty. People can draw their own conclusions about what that means.

[theexorcist]

SS:

Veterans would still say that someone who is reserve "served" during the Vietnam era. If you're on reserves, you're part of the force.

He's still a liar, but we need to be clear that he's a liar for a defined reason, not something generic.

[theexorcist]

May 19, 2010 16:08:42 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

May 19, 2010 16:01:18 GMT -5 rosslynhoya said:

The Home of the U.S. Submarine Force would beg to differ with your (offhand) ignorance.

I, however, have to question your assertion that non-independents (Democrats?) won't see anything wrong with falsely claiming to have been a Vietnam veteran for thirty years. Why is that? Do they just not care about a candidate's honesty? Do they disrespect our armed forces? Or is it just that the (D) behind the name is all that matters??? (RIP Arlen Specter).

I think others will care and they should, just as they and others should have cared about the SBVT and have said so consistently despite the Clintonian response as to the SBVT lies. Turning this into a question about whether a voter respects or disrespects the armed forces based on an electoral choice - that cuts a little too close to the RNC fax machine for me.

Blumenthal has not claimed to be a Vietnam Veteran for 30 years. That is not a truthful account of the facts. The reporting, including Shays's comments in the NYT, indicate the fabrications emerged over the past few years.

Really? You believe this? You think it's OK? Just that the fabrications came from the past few years?

Hat tip - the movie Wedding Crashers had some joke on their web site about printing out fake Purple Hearts to pick up girls. Veteran's groups were LIVID. The web site Stolen Valor nails people who go to their high school reunion and claim to have won medals as a one-shot deal.

You're blind. You're admitting that "the fabrications emerged over the past few years". A year of fabricating military service has gotten people named and shamed at a minimum and thrown in jail for fraud. You're excusing it based on some BS moral equivalency.

Admit it - there's no justification for this, and this guy is a scumbag.

[jerseyhoya34]

Re-read my remarks and tell me where I said there was justification for this. I am merely suggesting that if you want to attack someone's honesty (as is worthy in this case), you better have your facts right, and 30 years is off by a factor of 6 or 7, and you might also want to show respect for the details. In that context, my comment about the last few years was merely to say that - no - nobody is reporting that these distortions occurred for 30 years. Respectfully, factual accuracy is not blindness nor is it colored by a moral equivalency argument that some lying, such as that of the SBVT, is not as bad as others.

TC raises a valuable point, however, which is that you should also be familiar with his remarks beyond what is contained in a NYT piece - all of a sudden no longer the "liberal rag" that it once was in some circles. They very well may have spilled ink over a truncated portion of a speech that omitted other relevant sections discussing service in Vietnam, for better or for worse, in favor of distorted facts.

You may also remember a video of the 2004 convention where delegates wore purple heart stickers to attack the service of John Kerry on the floor of the convention in prime time. That practice was considered unseemly by many but good politics by others.

Of the veterans I've met, none would be pleased to have someone speak as though veterans think this or that or that they think this or that as a veteran. They've earned the right to speak for themselves. SS, IIRC, is a veteran or served the country in some way, so he is well-positioned to say what a veteran would say.

As I read more of this thread, I wonder whether some folks are more excited about having a competitive race in CT than they are upset about the distortions, which are now continuing with the 3 years becomes 30 discussion.

[Filo]

A few points:

1. If some swift boaters were lying about Kerry's service and/or their service in relation to Kerry, they really are no better than Blumenthal but it's just a differnent situation (obviously, a candidate lying about his service is a different kind of dishonest). But really, to even attempt to argue for someone who lies about a candidate's service in order to impugn that candidate and influence voters is just moral relativism of the lamest sort.

2. I just don't see how the first part of Blumenthal's speech hurts the NYT article -- saying I "served during the Vietnam era" isn't inconsistent with the subsequent lie that "I served in Vietnam." In fact, the intentional fuzzy wording just adds to the dishonesty and given the history here I just don't see why anyone is bending over backwards to try to defend Blumenthal. I guess differing interpretations result from different biases, but this isn't exactly the Wahington Times reporting on this issue.

3. Lost in all of this is the tragedy that Blumenthal appears to have been a real champion for veterans issues. It's a shame that he couldn't have just maintained his integrity while still championing those issues.

[kchoya]

May 19, 2010 21:26:16 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

TC raises a valuable point, however, which is that you should also be familiar with his remarks beyond what is contained in a NYT piece - all of a sudden no longer the "liberal rag" that it once was in some circles. They very well may have spilled ink over a truncated portion of a speech that omitted other relevant sections discussing service in Vietnam, for better or for worse, in favor of distorted facts.

How about becoming familiar with this:

voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/blumenthal_i_wore_the_uniform.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

"I wore the uniform in Vietnam and many came back to all kinds of disrespect. Whatever we think of war, we owe the men and women of the armed forces our unconditional support."

To satisfy The Ambassador, this was from a 11/9/08 article, which was 557 days ago.