"When I served in Vietnam...."
A Democratic candidate's self-inflicted war wound
"When I served in Vietnam...."
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
I had planned to preview some of the marquee elections on tap for today; aside from the Specter-Sestak Senate smackdown, we have the special House election to fill deceased powerhouse John Murtha's seat in western Pennsylvania, as well as the Kentucky Senate Republican primary (starring tea party favorite Rand Paul) and the Arkansas Senate Democratic primary (where incumbent Blanche Lincoln is being challenged from the left). But I decided otherwise, for two reasons:
1. The key questions about those races likely will be answered within 12 hours anyway, once the actual votes are tallied.
2. The political story that just broke in Connecticut has to take precedence. It's impossible to ignore such a self-inflicted wound.
If the Democrats hope to retain control of the U.S. Senate, they obviously need to keep the seats they currently hold in blue states such as Connecticut. And they have generally assumed that Connecticut is safe; the baggage-laden Chris Dodd was yielding the Democratic nomination to state attorney general (and former U.S. attorney) Dick Blumenthal, a well-regarded guy who literally has been awaiting His Turn for decades. Blumenthal would keep the seat in the Democratic column. Finally, his moment had arrived...
But what do we have here today: A New York Times investigative report that threatens to torch his candidacy.
It turns out that Blumenthal has repeatedly stated in public that he served in Vietnam - whereas, in reality, he never did. Quite the contrary, he received at least five military deferments and took various steps to avoid being sent.
He told a veterans group two years ago that "we have learned something important since the days when I served in Vietnam." He has reminisced at public events about how he and other Vietnam veterans returned home, only to be spat upon. Indeed, over the years, Connecticut newspapers have repeatedly described him as a Vietnam vet - yet there's no evidence he ever tried to correct the error. And it was a doozy of an error, considering his five deferments - and the fact that his 1970 stint in a stateside Marine Reserve unit was quite benign; as The Times wryly noted, his unit did stuff like "fixing a campground and organizing a Toys for Tots drive."
Hello, character issue.
This morning, Blumenthal's PR people are predictably denouncing The Times story as "an outrageous distortion" - which is absolutely priceless spin, given the fact that The Times gained access to Blumenthal's Selective Service records via a Freedom of Information request; and that Connecticut newspapers have frequently reported on his Vietnam reminiscences (The Shelton Weekly, 2008: Blumenthal "was met with applause when he spoke about his experiences as a Marine sergeant in Vietnam"). Nevertheless, the Blumenthal team essentially seems to be saying: Yeah, but what about all the times when he didn't say he served in Vietnam?
Vietnam has long been a touchy topic for baby-boomer candidates; it's the old "what did you do in the '60s" question. Bill Clinton's '92 presidential bid was nearly torpedoed by his maddeningly elusive remarks about the various measures he took to avoid the draft - but at least he never claimed to have served in Vietnam when the truth was the opposite. Connecticut voters may well view Blumenthal's behavior as evidence of a serious veracity deficit. He'll need to engage in major damage control if he hopes to soldier on; he'll undoubtedly stand at a podium today surrounded by as many supportive military vets as his spinmeisters can muster. That's the usual drill...And sure enough, there we go: a midafternoon press conference, with Blumenthal surrounded by vets, and the candidate doing what Dick Nixon used to call the modified limited hangout route - a defiant sorta confession, in which Blumenthal admits to having spoken "a few misplaced words."
This story is a potential gift for the normally bereft Connecticut Republicans. One GOP contender for the Senate seat is ex-congressman Rob Simmons - an actual Vietnam veteran. The other, wrestling mogul Linda McMahon, has already posted a video of Blumenthal talking publicly about his so-called service in Vietnam. Yes, there is video. And as we've already seen this spring in Pennsylvania, a candidate is most imperiled when he imperils himself with his own words.
-------
Speaking of Pennsylvania...In the Senate Democratic primary, the consensus is that Arlen Specter imperiled himself when he was caught on video saying, "My change in party will enable me to be re-elected." Challenger Joe Sestak is still featuring that soundbite in a TV ad, and most observers agree that the ad itself is potentially devastating.
On CNN yesterday, however, host Rich Sanchez insisted that the ad was unfair to Specter because Sestak's media team had cut the rest of the Specter quote. The entire quote, aired by Sanchez, goes like this: "My change in party will enable me to be re-elected - and I have heard that again and again and again on the street. 'Senator, we're glad you'll be able to stay in the Senate, to help the state and the nation.'"
Sanchez concluded: "It's effective, the ad. But it's not true."
I disagree. The ad is essentially true. As I have mentioned previously, Specter in the other venues had made it quite clear that he was leaving the GOP because his electoral prospects were blocked, and that he was joining the Democrats because they offered a path to re-election. As for the full quote cited above, that's just the standard political rap. Candidates always claim to have found people "on the street" who miraculously say exactly what the candidates want to say about themselves.
Meanwhile, I'm due to talk about the race results tonight on Philadelphia National Public Radio, from 9 to 10.
Pdiddy and still... First of all my name is Phil Checchia, not a rapper, not a description. That is my name. What are yours? I devoted 25 years of my life to helping all the people of the city, many of them black. I probably did more in a single 4-12 tour than most liberals do in their lifetime. And to have two people, afraid to disclose their names tell me I'm a racist infuriates me. I hate the democratic party, your party and their most egregious conduct is directed at blacks. Obviously you're all right with all of this. Shows me what kind of people you are. And still, your reference to your two black neighbors is sickening. How patronizing. Identify yourselves and what you do, then talk to me.— Phil Checchia- Looks like we've had a hiccup on this board tonight.— JimR
- Phil, you're getting foolish now. "And Jim R you may have worked on an outreach and helped a black kid or two, but that doesn't nearly compensate for the damage your political party does." I've worked with many more than two kids and I'm not a Democrat. Rizzo granted 12+% raises to the employees during his re-election campaign, federal jobs program had 12000 people standing in the rain for jobs that had been doled out by the committee people through city hall, hiring loads of sycophants. And I'm the one re-writing history?? I was there too. BTW, your assumptions about me are 0 for 9. -------"I probably did more in a single 4-12 tour than most liberals do in their lifetime" That's a pretty confident statement to make when you know nothing of those about whom you write. I'm sure that even the deep conservatives on this board will buy that.— JimR
- Moving away from this territory, 3 weeks ago I never would have imagined Spector would have lost to Sestak. Most voters do not follow politics like many do posting in political blogs (whatever your leanings), but I keep being impressed with how well they grasp basics. Sestak did run a few simple, but brilliant ads, but Spector just looks really old & frail. And, his forgetting which Party he's in makes him look even more like Grandpa Simpson!— yobill626
- If you're stupid enough to use your real name on a political message board, that's your problem.— p-diddy
@CutterMcCool: Seriously? Even other, fairly liberal, journalists recognize that the NYT leans left (quite strongly at that). I don't know why people freak out over the commentary/opinion shows on FOX since, even the hosts acknowledge their primary goal is entertainment and ratings. Keeping news articles free of the opinions their authors is becoming increasingly difficult for all papers, Besides, those who pursue journalism tend to favor the left anyway so self-policing doesn't always do the trick.— Ilmare- Phil Checchia: I'm the one the one that's being patronizing? Gimme a break. Yes, you spent 25 years helping the poor, defenseless black folk. Great. I have no doubt you did lots of good while on the force - most cops do. Maybe you're so jaded from your experience that you are completely unable to recognize that it's far from universal. You, sir, are the one that coninually harps on Democrats (of which I am not one, nor have I voted for a Democrat in a national or statewide election since 2000) and basically says that blacks support them because they're too stupid or gullible to do otherwise. I gave you two real world examples that I see every day of very successful, very intelligent, very aware blacks that came from the exact circumstances you describe that STILL vote for Democrats. It never occurrs to you that maybe they feel that the D's better align with their value system? That they feel that the R's don't? You, sir, are the one assuming that they are incapable of making an informed decision. That's pretty racist. Please tell me some of the great Republican programs aimed at helping the black community. And before some says school vouchers, know that besides not working, they are aimed at boosting enrollment at private religious schools. If blacks happen to also reap the "benefits", so be it. Stop acting as if being a retired cop is some sort of 'get out of jail free' card for racism. I have three police officers in my immediate family, and several more in my extended family. Through them, I know a lot of cops. Guess what? Some of them are racist. "I probably did more in a single 4-12 tour than most liberals do in their lifetime" is about as sanctimonious as it gets. And finally, referring to parts of the city as a "jungle" is racist statement whether you helped some poor black widow in the 70's or not.— still_independent
- I'm shocked Blumenthal managed to get away with it as long as he did. I think it was known for a while and this was the best time to spring it...— Grazman
- Still Ind... If your mouth is moving your lying. I see your posts, you are a liberal democrat and I dont believe a word you say. Pdiddy, I'm an idiot because I use my correct name. And your the smart guy using a rapper's name. That tells me you hide behind a blog name to say what you want. And yea, it is a little annoying for liberals to know that they live in an ivory tower, never being exposed to real life. And never being able to do some overt good, instead of empowering the socialists to redistribute wealth. If this country goes under, and it may, you idiot liberals will have a part of it because you voted for socialists like Obama.— Phil Checchia
- Phil--I'm enjoying your rap--best barstool political philosophizing I've heard in a while; but you need to take a breath or two. I know that everything you believe in is based on what youve experienced, and that's fine, but you need to step back and take a longer view. As for housing projects, you need to take a drive around the city's bad neighborhoods. There are still a few of the older projects, but most of them have been built since 1980, with federal money, from Republican administrations. This may not fit with the way you look at things, but it's a fact.— liberal
- NE--good to see you back. This idea that liberal policies are simply a conspiracy to buy off the poor and make them dependent on government is a weak argument. First of all, it's certainly not my motivation in adopting liberal values, and I don't know any other liberals who I could plausibly believe were so motivated. Some liberal politicians are of course power-grabbing sociopaths, as are some conservative politicians as well. This is irrelevant to the validity of either political philosophy. You can't make any kind of coherent political case unless you start from the assumption that the other guy is sincere. Unless, of course, you have proof otherwise--like arguing with Vince Fumo, for example. But for as much as conservatives argue the liberalism-as-power-grab theory, they never come up with any proof of this, they just start with it as an assumption. Weak.— liberal
- Mike Welbourn--I wasn't personally present when Reagan told his tall tale to Shamir and Simon Wiesenthal, but the story was reported in the Washington Post in 1984 and the reporter confirmed it with members of Shamir's cabinet and with an American rabbi who was present with Wiesenthal when the statement was made. The news report was picked up in the Morris book, which in fact excused Reagan on the basis that this was a small issue. But I guess the story has to be wrong because it's supposed to be wrong in the Orwellian rightist-line world.— liberal
- Phil Checchia: way to take the easy way out. Just claim the other guy is lying. As if using your real name proves anything you're saying. I guess it makes it easier when you avoid looking in the mirror... As far as my voting record, I'd be perfectly happy to tell you who I've voted for for president, governor, and senator for the past 8 years if you wish. none were democrats. and as I've said to you in the past, I didn't realize that a desire for evidence and factual-based reality makes one a liberal democrat. short of pointing out your racism, what liberal philosophies do I espouse? Lower taxes? All for them, just don't pretend they pay for themselves. School choice - all for it as it costs little. School vouchers? show me some evidence that they actually work, and we can talk. Strong military? All for it. Smaller government? All for it - I can name several departments to axe right off the bat. I'll admit to being more liberal on some social issues, although I'm actually mroe libertarian on them.... None of which has anything to do with your racism.— still_independent
- lib, glad to be back:) I can agree that liberal politicians have good intentions to do the right thing for poor people, but their policies never do anything to help & almost always hurt the poor. The Great Society was intended to help the poor out of poverty, but instead it caused the poor to lose motivation to work & lose personal responsibility for a whole generation. When Clinton finally reformed welfare the law was called 'The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996'. Take the new healthcare reform bill, it has the good intention of covering the poor with health insurance, but instead of making insurance more affordable it offers subsidies from the govt. to help pay for it. Now poor people will be dependent on the federal govt. forever for their health insurance. As for public schools, we can agree that a good education is the key to climbing out of poverty, but liberals won't give vouchers a chance when the public schools are in a shambles. They just protect their turf & to heck with the poor kids in dangerous, underperforming schools. Chris Christy asked the school union to pay for only 1.5% of their healthcare costs, but the union balked and demonized him saying he is against public education. I don't know about you, but I pay a lot more than 1.5% for my health care. It just doesn't make sense to me. Please explain how any of this helps the poor out of their situation. I am all ears:)— NEPhilly
- related fake news SUB-ROSA NEWS BLUMENTHAL TO RETURN NOBEL PRIZE Connecticut Attorney General and author Richard Blumenthal announced today that he would be returning his 2008 Nobel Prize for Literature. It had been won for his acclaimed best-selling novel, "From Here to Hanoi", a gritty tale of life in the jungle and on the streets of Saigon during the Viet Nam war. Unfortunately, said Mr Blumenthal, some misplaced words and passages had given the impression that he had been heavily involved in fighting in that war. This was not the case and Mr. Blumenthal took full responsibility for the mistakes. He added that he would now be devoting full time to public service, working to ensure honesty and transparency in government. homer www.altara.blogspot.com— homerh
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
