In Connecticut, is a "liar" electable? Fit to serve?

[AZhitman]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... p=obinsite

Discuss.

[ScrapMetal]

I heard about this on the news, don't know if it was yesterday or the day before. Blumenthal is an embarrassment and I actually rofl'd when I heard about him giving his little press conference, in which he didn't really apologize.

I wouldn't vote for that douche.

[AZhitman]

I like how he gathered up some veterans to stand around him at the news conference. Wonder how much he paid them?

[srellim234]

Americans in general are a very forgiving lot, willing to forgive in most circumstances. A person like Blumenthal, however, has based his justification and qualifications on the lies he propogated and therefore has forfeited his right to serve.

Ensign, on the other hand, could be forgiven if he were not a Republican. That is the party that promotes itself and insists it is the moral compass for America. Violations of sacred vows on a personal level when you are making those types of claims leads to too much distrust in your leadership. Blumenthal should take his cue from Ensign and resign immediately.

It's too bad that none of these people are capable of just following the simplest of concepts that I learned while growing up and have had presented in company ethics training multiple times:

"If your mom, wife and kids would not be proud to see what you've done or said on the six o'clock news, don't do or say it!"

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Heh...go look up "Sam Adams" for Portland Mayor. He had sex with a 17 year old boy and paid him to lie about not having sex with him. AND HE'S STILL MAYOR.

[bigbadberry3]

I think they're are all liars but it's simply a matter of degree. This one I feel is pretty darn large though as no one should ever represent themself as someone who served this country as that entails so much.

[BusyBadger]

Americans in general are a very forgiving lot, willing to forgive in most circumstances. A person like Blumenthal, however, has based his justification and qualifications on the lies he propogated and therefore has forfeited his right to serve.

And yet...
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/05/2 ... lumenthal/

[88Z+2010Rogue]

I wish I could understand the brain of a democrat voting person because I don't get how some of their congressman/senators are voted it in time and time again.

[srellim234]

It applies to Republicans as well, as demonstrated by the Larry Craig guilty plea and the Republican defense of him after that. Both the Republican and Democratic parties put party before country and party before ethics.

[stebo0728]

Lol, in intellect, Atlanta has em all beat with Hank Johnson.....has Guam capsized yet, does anyone know?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9R-cQ_A_6w

[AZhitman]

Americans in general are a very forgiving lot, willing to forgive in most circumstances. A person like Blumenthal, however, has based his justification and qualifications on the lies he propogated and therefore has forfeited his right to serve.

And yet...
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/05/2 ... lumenthal/

Holy damn.

As if I needed another reason to despise that clown and his a$$ Administration.

[IBCoupe]

Americans in general are a very forgiving lot, willing to forgive in most circumstances. A person like Blumenthal, however, has based his justification and qualifications on the lies he propogated and therefore has forfeited his right to serve.

I'm sorry, but he hasn't. The quotes were taken from a speech given at a charity fundraiser for veterans and their families ("in Vietnam") and to a group of veterans ("when we came home").

The local media here in CT have blown this way out of the proportion, and even Rob Simmons (who just dropped out because McMahon has him beat financially), a legitimate war hero, stated that he's never known Blumenthal to be anything but explicit in his recounting of his service during the Vietnam War.

And more to the point: if you watch the entirety of the video (including the last few minutes that the McMahon campaign conveniently left out of their feed to the New York Times), you see two things. First, prior to the "in Vietnam" statement, Blumenthal clearly explains that he served in the Marine Corps Reserves. At the end of the speech, he praises veterans who did see combat, because otherwise "I wouldn't be here today." With these surrounding statements as a context, is it too hard to imagine that "When I served in Vietnam," was shorthand for "When I served in the Vietnam War?"

And is it so hard to imagine that "When we came home" as spoken to a group of veterans was used as the rhetorical "we?"

The national media got swindled by a corporate candidate, and y'all ate it up. Not entirely your fault, too - the Times sort of dropped the ball on fact-checking the piece.

Edit: In the aftermath of this PR snafu, Blumenthal dropped from having a 30-point lead to a 25-point lead over McMahon, and that's after McMahon's primary competitor threw in the towel. It helps to be immensely popular before you screw up.

[AZhitman]

That's all well and good, but that one speech wasn't the first time he insinuated that he served out-of-country OR that he served IN Vietnam.

[IBCoupe]

That's all well and good, but that one speech wasn't the first time he insinuated that he served out-of-country OR that he served IN Vietnam.

You've come to this conclusion on the basis of other two-second soundbites from ten minute speeches, I suppose? Think it would be terribly hard to find context around each of those that doesn't make it as ridiculous as the national media wants it to be?

[AZhitman]

Think it'd be terribly hard to find a veteran who has no problem referencing very clearly when and where he/she served?

Here's FOUR occasions where he COULD have been clear. He wasn't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/nyreg ... nthal.html

Whoops. There were more than four:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyreg ... nthal.html

Coincidence that this guy has done it more than once? Or does he just play fast-and-loose with his words? And if that's the case, politics might not be his calling.

[IBCoupe]

Unfortunately, I can't access the NYT from my workplace. Comes up as "not found."

Without knowing exactly what you're referencing to, I can't quite give an adequate counter. I would, however, urge you to inquire as to the preceding and following language used around the statements in question. The one that caught the national spotlight could be cleared up by listening to the entire ten minute speech. Are these situations similar?

These are questions I can't currently answer, and I apologize for that. But, as to your assertion that he might have played "fast-and-loose" with words, it seems unlikely that he'd do so in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Connecticut for the last umpteen years.

[mattblancarte]

It's hard for me to form an opinion one way or the other here...

My dad is a Vietnam combat veteran (if you've seen "We Were Soldiers" you understand his deployment) and he pretty much won't even talk about it. Seems to be a similar case with other Vietnam (and other wars/conflicts) vets I know/have known... you really have to pry information out of them.

My dad wouldn't even describe the firefights and near-death scenarios to me until I really bugged him when I was a teenager.

Anyways, I just find it odd when politicians try to tout military service. Seems like the ones who really endured combat keep it close to the chest.

[AZhitman]

Unfortunately, I can't access the NYT from my workplace. Comes up as "not found."

Without knowing exactly what you're referencing to, I can't quite give an adequate counter. I would, however, urge you to inquire as to the preceding and following language used around the statements in question. The one that caught the national spotlight could be cleared up by listening to the entire ten minute speech. Are these situations similar?

Nope. These are pretty blatant.

I respect and appreciate a position of "benefit of the doubt", especially given his veteran status. He's obviously been held in high regard.

However, the more I read, the more I was convinced that these weren't "missteps". He intentionally led people to believe he served IN COUNTRY, and certainly made no effort to clarify UNTIL he was called out. Hell, his own staffers were under the impression that he served in Vietnam.

But, as to your assertion that he might have played "fast-and-loose" with words, it seems unlikely that he'd do so in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Connecticut for the last umpteen years.

Methinks thou trusteth too much.

His position certainly doesn't mean a thing to me. He's the AG of a small state - not impressive. Hell, more important men than him have lied.

"I did not have sex with that woman." "Iraq has WMD." "No new taxes." "[insert Obama's campaign speeches]"

[stebo0728]

Actually Iraq did have WMD

[AZhitman]

Was an example of something commonly perceived as a "lie", and an attempt to be "bipartisan". Wrong thread.

[stebo0728]

Ya we can start a new thread on WMD if you like lol

[AZhitman]

You can, I won't. It's an old topic.

[IBCoupe]

While I don't want to accuse you of bias, I imagine that it's easy to come to the conclusion the author wants you to come to on those quotes (now that I've had a chance to see them at home) if you're in a position where you want to do so. Once again, I don't see the context around those quotes.

Here's a test: take each of those quotes, and imagine that they are each immediately preceded by the phrase, "Though I wore the uniform, I was lucky enough not to leave the United States in the Vietnam War." Then see if they make sense.

I think this first one is indicative. He uses "in Vietnam" interchangeably with "during the Vietnam War." I get this from the fact that I don't think it was the taunts and insults they were worried about enduring in Vietnam, the country. At a 2007 Memorial Day Parade:
"In Vietnam, we had to endure taunts and insults, and no one said, 'Welcome home.' I say welcome home."

At a 2008 Speech:
"We have learned something important since the days I served in Vietnam."

To a military audience:
"When we returned, we saw nothing like this. Let us do better by this generation of men and women."

This one seems to implicitly state that he didn't come back. At a 2008 Veteran's Day Parade:
"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."

This one's similar to the first one. At a 2008 Veteran's Memorial speech:
"I served during the Vietnam era. I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse."

The rest of the second article appears to be criticisms related to how he's been portrayed by newspapers and magazines. The guy who wanted to be his main opponent in November stated that he's only ever known Blumenthal to be clear about the extent of his service.

Out of context, these are ambiguous statements, at worst. Taken in context, they might be crystal clear.

[IBCoupe]

Attorney General's no laughing matter - it's chief lawyer. Words matter in a job like that. And as for small state, it's got more than half the population of Arizona with less than 5% of Arizona's square mileage. Small state nuthin'.

Are you guys referring to the chemical weapons Hussein used before? Or are you in the crowd that thinks they all got moved to Syria?

[AZhitman]

While I don't want to accuse you of bias, I imagine that it's easy to come to the conclusion the author wants you to come to on those quotes (now that I've had a chance to see them at home) if you're in a position where you want to do so. Once again, I don't see the context around those quotes.

Here's a test: take each of those quotes, and imagine that they are each immediately preceded by the phrase, "Though I wore the uniform, I was lucky enough not to leave the United States in the Vietnam War." Then see if they make sense.

I think this first one is indicative. He uses "in Vietnam" interchangeably with "during the Vietnam War." I get this from the fact that I don't think it was the taunts and insults they were worried about enduring in Vietnam, the country. At a 2007 Memorial Day Parade:
"In Vietnam, we had to endure taunts and insults, and no one said, 'Welcome home.' I say welcome home."

At a 2008 Speech:
"We have learned something important since the days I served in Vietnam."

To a military audience:
"When we returned, we saw nothing like this. Let us do better by this generation of men and women."

This one seems to implicitly state that he didn't come back. At a 2008 Veteran's Day Parade:
"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."

This one's similar to the first one. At a 2008 Veteran's Memorial speech:
"I served during the Vietnam era. I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse."

The rest of the second article appears to be criticisms related to how he's been portrayed by newspapers and magazines. The guy who wanted to be his main opponent in November stated that he's only ever known Blumenthal to be clear about the extent of his service.

Out of context, these are ambiguous statements, at worst. Taken in context, they might be crystal clear.

If it takes ^ THAT ^ much work to explain away, it's misrepresentation.

I had NO prior bias against this guy. I just hate phoneys. He could EASILY have come out and set the record straight OR been clearer. He didn't.

p.s. I know what the AG is, I meet with ours about 6-8 times annually. If words are that critical, he'll choose his more carefully. I remain unconvinced that his omissions and lack of clarity were unintentional.

[AZhitman]

In Vietnam, we had to...
I served in Vietnam...
When we returned...
I wore the uniform in Vietnam...

The ONLY context that could precede those statements and make them valid would be:

"A real veteran once said to me...:"

[IBCoupe]

It doesn't actually take much work at all. Most of the work was finding the quotes in the articles you linked to. They're surprisingly buried.

AZ, I don't think it's possible to get you to admit that there's more than one meaning to the phrase "in Vietnam," so I'm going to stop trying. I will, however, leave this here:

In my Contracts class this past semester, we discussed ambiguity in a contract's language, and what to do with it in a dispute (read: "during a dispute between the contracted parties"). Before taking any of the measures that we laid out in that class, however, we established that in most States a court must determine that there is actual ambiguity in the contract's language. The professor asked us, "So, what would an example of an unambiguous contract be? What if I gave you a contract that said, 'I will pay you twenty dollars for a dozen widgets?' Ambiguity there? What if the contract involves a baker?"

My point: context absolutely matters, and the meanings of the words and phrases we use every day change change depending on when, where, and to whom they are used. You probably didn't need me to explain that, but, if nothing else, it just goes to show how stubborn you're being.

[stebo0728]

Not really intending to jump in the middle of this one, but I did have this on my mind. And its mostly opinion, but I believe the guy was intentionally being misleading, trying to instill in himself a few more brownie points by "seeming" to have been directly involved in Vietnam, and I think he was naive to assume it would just fly under everyones radar. Lets just be adult and admit that politicians have two edged tongues, I believe career politicians are probably born with them. They know how to slip the small things in, in an effort to glean a portion of the voters subconscious. For instance, when the president made the coy little remark about the AZ immigration bill, about being in an icecream parlor and being asked for your papers. That was diliberately misleading, not in a "I did not have sex with that woman" sorta way, but still the problem is people have become so used to the slight dishonesty that its common place, and ignored most of the time. Thats all I have to say on it. Yes there are other meanings to phrases, but what do MOST people think he meant when he said that, and was that what he intended them to THINK he MEANT?

[IBCoupe]

I'm perfectly willing to admit that Blumenthal will do anything to grab attention - that's certainly the reputation he's built in CT among those who don't like him.

But I'm not willing to condemn a man for soundbites.

[AZhitman]

There's NO ambiguity if a man says, "I served IN VIETNAM."

Not "during". Not "in the VIetnam era". Not "while the war was being waged in Vietnam".

I have a confession to make:

I was recently in bed with your wife. It's true. And it was amazing.

See, I was in bed here in AZ, and she was in bed there in CT, so by your logic, we were in bed together. Same thing.

Tell her I said HI.