Sure blew it on two things in the last 24 hours- the Blumenthal piece is pretty clearly a political hit, with the GOP even taking credit. Did he blur the lines- sure, but he has also unequivocably stated he did not serve in Viet Nam, and the Times piece certainly did not leave that impression.
Second, it is pretty clear the “indefinite detention” ruling yesterday is nothing like what it was reported to be. Citizen Alan and others in the comments set me straight.
I was way wrong on both of those.
mr. whipple
This is one of the reasons I love your blogging.
NobodySpecial
This has been another edition of Things You’ll Never See On A Right Wing Blog.
Today’s edition has been brought to you by the Tunch Foundation. Making sure there’s enough of Tunch for everyone since 2004.
cleek
you and everyone else.
i haven’t read any temperate readings of the SC ruling (yet), and everybody is jumping to the same conclusion you did w/r/t Blumenthal. when they had the author of the piece on NPR this AM, the NPR woman had to work to get the author to mention that he was in the service during the war, and they never hinted at Blumenthal’s disclaimers.
our media is shit.
Ailuridae
@mr. whipple:
Yep
Comrade Darkness
humbling humanity is humbling
FormerSwingVoter
It’s remarkable how much blatant misinformation is out there in our “news” media. I can’t blame you for reading something in a supposed source of news and then expecting it to have some basis in reality.
I’m reminded of the whole “we’re stopping the missile defense shield in Eastern Europe because of Russia” bit. We scrapped plans for a long-range defense system and replaced them with a short-to-medium-range defense system (since it would actually shoot down the missiles Iran is working on, rather than the missiles we thought they were working on five years ago). But nothing anywhere in the news even mentioned this – it was all about whether this was a huge concession to the Russians for no reason or not. It’s probably worth noting that this change came on the unanimous recommendation of the Joint Chiefs, which was never mentioned once by anyone ever despite being right there in the White House’s statement.
The fact is, we now need to fact-check the things we see in objective reporting the same way we would any op-ed or blog post. Traditional news is dying for a reason – no accountability and a complete lack of respect for the facts and their viewers.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
@cleek:
That the NPR stenographer actually “worked” in itself is shocking. I expect the asteroid to hit any moment wiping out 90% of life on the planet.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
And this is why I hate the “Greenwald is an ass” or “Sullivan is blind” comments. They’ll always come back to bite.
Now, McMegan and everyone at the Weekly Standard, they’re fair game.
Violet
I heard the Blumenthal issue in the “headlines” section of the Today Show this morning. Wasn’t watching – it was on in another room.
Confident people can admit when they were wrong. Well done, Mr. Cole.
Ash Can
And I went along with the Blumenthal crap too. When demo woman posted in the other thread that the article was fed to the NYT by the opposition candidate and basically reprinted in toto, I thought, no, they couldn’t possibly stoop that low, could they?
As God is my witness, I’ll never take the New York Times at their word again.
schrodinger's cat
Its ok we understand, you were disoriented due to all the blood loss, you had a hard day yesterday. A day at the vet’s with Tunch is no picnic. We can has a Tunch update? Has he forgiven you?
Dr. Squid
@Ash Can:
Al Gore can tell you that “improving” quotes is what they do.
Citizen Alan
Holy crap, I got a shout-out! I nearly pee’d my pants a little at that.:)
stuckinred
“Like it did when I served in Vietnam.”
FlipYrWhig
I went from not understanding why people were all worked up to… having no fucking idea why people were all worked up.
Why were people saying that Blumenthal’s statements along the lines of “served in the Vietnam era” were themselves shady? That’s what you’re supposed to say, right, when you did your duties somewhere other than Vietnam itself?
Seems to me Blumenthal can easily say–because it’s probably true–that he has taken an interest in veterans issues EVEN THOUGH HE WASN’T IN COMBAT because he has always known there but for the grace of God go he. He knows that returning vets from Vietnam had trouble AND EMPATHIZED WITH THEM; he wasn’t one, but he felt he could put himself in their shoes.
Non-story and bunch of nonsense.
Steve
John, don’t be so quick to apologize on the S Ct ruling regarding extended detention. With due respect to other commenters, “clear and convincing evidence” is not the highest standard of proof we have in our judicial system. It is the highest standard of proof we have in our civil judicial system. The standard in criminal justice is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” while most civil cases adhere to a “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
An easy way to think of this is as follows: if someone rear ends your car and you sue them for negligence (a civil tort), the standard is preponderance of the evidence. If the jury (or judge, in some cases) thinks the evidence favors you 51-49, you win.
If, on the other hand, you are being tried for a crime, the state must prove its allegations against you beyond a reasonable doubt. Judges instruct juries on what that means, but it is a lot more than 51% – more like 99% certainty that you did it is required to convict you (ostensibly – I do recognize the many shortcomings of our legal system, both criminal and civil). Why the difference? At least in part it is because a civil conviction leads to a money judgment against you while a criminal conviction deprives you of your liberty. Our system is intended to make it harder for you to lose your freedom due to a miscarriage of justice.
“Clear and convincing” is somewhere in the middle, say around 70-75% certainty that you did it.
Why does this matter? Here’s why: the federal/state authorities are required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of a violent sexual crime and imprison them (i.e., the evidence is 99% against the accused), but this statute allows the same authorities to meet a much lower standard to keep the same person in prison for the same offense beyond the end of his term. Ignoring for a moment the question of just what the hell interest the fed has in state criminal actions, how is this any different than the Bush administration’s other, serial degradations of Constitutional protection afforded to individuals? And don’t tell me it is different because these guys are bad guys – that’s the same neocon logic that has been applied to “terrorists” like Jose Padilla and justly scorned in these pages.
Maude
The media is becoming so like a soap oprey that they are not even getting the basic facts right.
The oil well story is a case in point.
They needed to explain the complications of trying to kill the well.
It has been nothing but no matter what Obama does, it isn’t enough and Chicken Little was right after all.
The reporting is lousy and people are getting false impressions which usually aren’t corrected.
Lazy ignorant self satisfied louts.
It’s getting scary.
stuckinred
@FlipYrWhig: Watch the video I posted above and tell me what he said.
MikeJ
@Steve: It’s a civil level of proof because it’s a civil case, not a criminal case. States have always been able to start civil commitment proceedings for individuals who have not committed a crime but pose a threat to themselves or others. Those people are given mental health treatment.
If they want to declare these individuals insane and then treat them, I’ve no problem with that. Is that what they’re doing, or just keeping them in prison?
wrb
To me it has seemed that the Times had been exceptionally bad lately.
The one-two of the article and editorial claiming that Obama’s “slow response” to the spill had made it worse was particularly egregious. It took maybe an hour for TPM to put up a timeline that showed this to be untrue.
None the less the “even the liberal” Times pieces get reposted every day on right-wing blogs.
Doesn’t the Times have the resources to construct a timeline before spouting crap?
Kevin Phillips Bong
Examining new facts and changing your viewpoint to include those facts? What a DFH.
Dr. Squid
@stuckinred:
Given all the other times he said the opposite, I’m more willing to chalk this up to you being a whiny punk.
Brian J
@wrb:
It did.
Pococurante
You’re a good man Charlie Brown.
Brien Jackson
Fixed.
Brien Jackson
Which is relevant because the ruling dealt with a policy of civil committment.
cmorenc
@Steve
The HUGE problem with your point is that “clear and convincing” has been the standard for civil commitment proceedings for DECADES, and the practice of instituting post-criminal incarceration civil commitment proceedings for some people with alleged mental disorders who also purportedly pose a danger to others has been well-established practice for DECADES.
Point is, yesterday’s SCOTUS decision did NOT CHANGE constitutional law from what it’s been for decades in the areas you cite, other than to uphold the FEDERAL government’s power to create its own civil commitment system on top of the states, but subject to identical constitutional law restrictions as already existed for the states.
If there’s anything troubling about long-established civil commitment practice, it’s the malleable flexibility of the range of mental disorders which are considered sufficient to satisfy that prong of the civil commitment test, as well as the flexibility of what facts, and how recent (or old) the facts supporting the “dangerousness” requirement need to be in order to satisfy the “clear and convincing” threshhold for proving dangerousness. Just like any good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich before a grand jury, any good psychiatrist can cobble up a case for mental illness as needed in the circumstances, limited mainly by their own profesional integrity. The typical tactic for proving dangerousness constitutes: a) some dangerous act or acts, which if long enough in the past (such as a sex crime someone was convicted of years ago) is supplemented by: b) testimony from hospital or prison technicians, guards, nurses, doctors, etc as to less dramatic but inferential things they have more recently witnessed the patient/inmate do or say that purportedly indicate continuing dangerousness.
ksmiami
John Cole- Giving more people a reason to tune out the MSM everyday
Joey Maloney
@Steve:
Agree. I’m not buying this either. I can’t see how this isn’t ex post facto, adding to punishment after sentencing. Calling it “preventive detention” or “treatment” is bullshit. It’s like Lincoln, or Mark Twain, or some random loser on the internet once said: How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.
Joey +5 Erev Shavuot
stuckinred
@Dr. Squid: Who the fuck do you think you are talking to asshole? I posted a video with him saying what he said. You don’t think he knew what he was saying huh? Some Marine.
Steve
@MikeJ – My objection is that, unlike commitment proceedings that originate in a civil court, this is a case of the government waving a magic wand and saying -poof- now this criminal case is a civil one, with a lower standard of proof and the same result, continued incarceration. As of 2007, 2700 people were being held in extended confinement for “treatment” but only 250 had been released since the first state law passed in 1990. The number of people being held in extended confinement has increased considerably since then, but the rate of release continues to be very low. How do you “cure” someone of being a dangerous scumbag? This is a lifetime prison sentence for most of these guys. I don’t object to the life sentence, I object to the imposition of a life sentence via an administrative process that adheres to a lower standard of proof than is normally required.
terry chay
@stuckinred: At a conference seminar, I once said I invented the internet. I was confusing pronouns. I quickly apologized.
That was a very embarrassing moment.
But they’ll never let me forget that. (reload often.)
Saying “Vietnam era” 100 times makes it very likely you’ll say “Vietnam” (no era) once. As for macaca… well you’d be hard pressed to say it more than once and that one time, you’ll be telling people about George Allen.
eemom
@stuckinred:
Please do not insult other commenters.
— The Lurking Mod
(just in case you were feeling homesick…. : ) )
Brian J
@stuckinred:
This is what I don’t understand. He hasn’t based his entire career on a made up record. He’s said he did not serve more times than he said he did serve, but he still said the latter a couple of times, with no apparent effort to correct the record. Did he feel that it wasn’t necessary to correct his verbal gaffe, for whatever reason, good or bad? If so, what was that reason?
And yes, it’s a “hit,” just like any other damaging information is. But the article isn’t making claims up out of thin air. It’s arguing a case based on the facts on the information available. Take a look at this paragraph, from the original article:
Is that not true? I don’t know if it is, because I don’t like in Connecticut and don’t follow its politics closely, but nobody has argued against this point. And if it’s true, and he’s used language so carefully in some cases but not here, don’t we deserve some sort of explanation of why this is the case?
Brian J
@terry chay:
Again, it’s not unexpected that someone might speak incorrectly about something, but why didn’t he immediately try to clarify what he was saying?
stuckinred
@eemom: OH NO! I guess you mean don’t swear at other’s since it’s ok to call people whiny punks huh?
cmorenc
To illustrate further that a person facing civil commitment faces vastly more forbidding practical problems than constitutional ones in defending themselves against civil commitment, here’s a classic psychiatric-expert testimony paradigm I saw played out endless times when I worked in civil commitment hearings:
– If the patient denied they suffered from a mental disorder, the psychiatrist would testify that indicated that the patient “lacked insight into their condition, which is a classic symptom of [fill in your mental illness here]. This “lack of insight” was often used to buttress proof of both mental illness and sometimes dangerousness.
– If OTOH the patient acknoledged that they suffered from a mental disorder, the psychiatrist would testify that was proof that the patient recognized they had a condition for which psychiatric treatment was warranted. This acknowledgement was used to buttress proof of both mental illness and sometimes dangerousness as well (absent involuntary commitment).
Although there was quite often much truth to this paradigm with some patients, nevertheless what was astounding was how often and uncritically judges would swallow this rationale in the vast majority of cases. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. It often took a psychiatrist with enough integrity to testify about their own uncertainties about an individual to “win” such a case, or else there were a few who even the judges recognized were incompetent, arrogant quacks and took with huge grains of salt. But most of them, judges took their expert word at face value.
Hunter Gathers
@stuckinred: The only person allowed to lie about their military record is Captain Texas.
stuckinred
@eemom: @Brian J: Because he was clearly pandering and thought he’d get away with it.
stuckinred
@Hunter Gathers: I made that point earlier and was poo-pooed.
stuckinred
@terry chay: I’m sorry, I want one Vietnam Vet or Vietnam Era Vet on this blog to tell me that that is a “mistake”. It’s like calling yourself a “combat vet” when you are not. I am not. According to the VA, DOD and Pat Lang I am but I would NEVER refer to myself that way.
Brian J
@stuckinred:
That seems to be the case, unfortunately.
Elizabelle
wrt Blumenthal: I think it’s possible that listeners took “Vietnam era service” for “he was in combat.” Blumenthal himself may not have been eager to make a clear distinction.
But once numerous stories appeared in print in reputable papers (the Hartford Courant) asserting you’d served “in” Vietnam, it was imperative to correct the record with a graciously worded letter.
That he didn’t is the problem for me. (If he did, and the Times neglected to confirm that..)
And yes, the timing on this is odd and suggests “political smear, late in the game.”
But this looks like a major character flaw.
Remember Admiral Boorda’s suicide, when he was alleged to have worn medals not awarded. An overreaction, but some veterans take this very seriously.
Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac
@cmorenc: A real Life Catch 22. Amazing.
stuckinred
@Elizabelle Boodra wore a Bronze Star with a V device that indicated combat. The story goes that he was actually ordered to wear it but, when confronted, killed himself.
Mnemosyne
@Elizabelle:
Since the Times seems to have written a story based on research straight from Blumenthal’s opponent without actually doing their own research, I don’t know that I would give them that benefit of the doubt.
Hunter Gathers
@stuckinred: This will go away in about 24 hours. McMahon’s staff dropped the ball by backing away from the article, scrubbing it from their website, mere hours after claiming credit for it. Which is very curious. If they don’t push it, it won’t become a long term problem.
Brian J
@Mnemosyne:
What gives you the idea that it did no research? The paper has specifically stated it did, initiating FOIA requests to confirm a time line of his service.
@Hunter Gathers:
Have they made specific comments about it, or simply stopped mentioning it?
eemom
@stuckinred:
No, dude, I was just joking. I always hated that prissy-ass, selectively enforced “don’t insult” policy over at you-know-where.
stuckinred
@Hunter Gathers: Isn’t that like the judge telling the jury to disregard that last remark?
stuckinred
@eemom: Cool! I thought I was unearthed!
yoodow
@stuckinred: Looks like you are stuck in more than just red. Give it a rest will ya?
Hunter Gathers
@Brian J: @stuckinred:
I couldn’t possibly explain it correctly , but Sargent‘s pretty much on top of it.
cmorenc
@Steve:
Have you actually READ THE CASE (U.S. v Comstock) to see what the actual issues and actual legal rulings were? If so, you’d discover that:
– the issues you think were decided in this case (constitutinality of post-incarceration civil commitment) were actually already long-ago decided in previous cases, such as Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) and Kansas v. Crane (2002).
– the federal statute in question represents no departure from long-conventional requirements for civilly committing allegedly mentally ill prision inmates at the conclusion of their prison sentence, since it requires three things:
1) that the individual has previously engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation;
2) currently suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder;
3) as a result of that mental illness, abnormality, or disorder, is sexually dangerous to others, in that he would have serious difficulty refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.
The statute also provides that the state can, at the conclusion of the inmate’s sentence, certify that the individual meets the above requirements in order to put an automatic stay on release of the individual, pending a hearing at which the government must prove its claims. This is little different from the way civil commitment already worked, including post-prison civil commitments, where it is perfectly legal to hold a person for evaluation for a certain limited time period pending hearing.
But the real point is, all the horses you claim were set loose by this ruling were long ago let out of the constitutional barn door and have long romped out in the fields. The only new issue this case settled was whether the federal government had the power to get into the civil commitment hearing business, or whether this was exclusively a state power beyond the range of the federal government’s “necessary and proper” powers.
Yes, you can legitimately worry about the sorts of issues about proof and indefinite de facto detention you cited, I’ll agree. My job for awhile was to try to defend these sorts of folks and cases against involuntary civil commitment, so I know intimately how the law worked out at ground-level in this regard. But this particular case represents little to no change from long-established constitutional law in the area, contrary to the dramatic – seeming press announcements. I too fear where the likes of Scalia and Thomas would take this area if given the right opportunity – but this wasn’t that case.
Elizabelle
@Mnemosyne:
Yeah, I am wondering if there are examples of timely corrections that Blumenthal can provide. (And why they weren’t provided when Times interviewed him for story, or shortly thereafter.)
re Boorda ordered to wear medals: don’t know. But it was such a sad case, because Boorda was apparently a good guy who looked out for his sailors.
Brian J
@Hunter Gathers:
Good link, thanks.
Maybe it won’t end up being as damaging as I worried, but like Sargent said, he still has some explaining to do.
wrb
I have a bit of discomfort with how some seem to be willing to be played.
“It is a hit but now let’s react exactly as the hitter hoped. JERK MY STRING HARDER PLEASE!”
Is it really big deal? Sure, if he’d maintained the falsehood over years. But one statement that differed from his other statements? Don’t his many public statements asserting that he did not serve constitute the correction some think has been lacking?
JGabriel
John, not to be too nit-picky about it, but you should probably add upates to each of those posts, just so people who find them in later archive searches, and don’t read the comments, don’t get the wrong information, or use the posts to create the wrong impression (“Even the liberal John Cole says …”).
.
Hunter Gathers
@Brian J: No long term damage. McMahon’s reluctance to make this a issue will allow it to fade. I would like to go on the record and call McMahon’s staff stupid and timid. On it’s face, this should hurt him at least a little (only Captain Texas is immune), but McMahon’s staff’s lack of spine is almost shameful. I though GOPers always went for the kill.
JGabriel
@NobodySpecial:
To be fair, I actually got a right wing blog to add a correction once. It was back when Teddy Kennedy died, and they were pushing the story that he liked Chappaquiddick jokes. They didn’t actually retract, but they did note that the source was unreliable and probably not a close friend of Kennedy’s, as they had been reporting.
So, it may be vanishingly rare, but it’s not a “never”.
And, yes, I was shocked to hell by it too. I was just making a snarky remark, but it provoked one of their regular commenters to research it, which led to the correction.
.
Chuck Butcher
I’ve watched that video of Bluementhal several times and I’ll be damned if I can figure out a way to make that a “mis-spoke” sort of moment.
Brian J
@Hunter Gathers:
I hope you’re right. I’ve gone back and forth on whether this should be a game changer in terms of the establishment supporting him many times over the last day. My opinion, of course, has no influence at all, but I’d still like to be able to stomach seeing someone speaking for our party.
Keith G
John’s mea culpa was clear, no bull shit.
Sully, not so much.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/the-cocoons-we-live-in.html#more
stuckinred
@yoodow: Here’s what you do, you see my post, don’t read it. Otherwise fuck off.
stuckinred
@Elizabelle: Here’s the wiki entry, it wasn’t a bronze star and Zumwalt said he was authorized, he didn’t order him to wear it. My bad
Hunter Gathers
@Brian J: If it were me, I’d beat him to political death with it. And I wouldn’t back down right way like McMahon’s staff did. If you’re going to knife somebody, don’t pull it back the instant you break the skin. Her staff created the wedge, now they refuse to use it. Pathetic. These people have no balls. If she gets the GOP nomination, he’ll win.
Nick
McMahon definitely did not leak the Times the news. Blumenthal’s military service has been a quiet issue among the NY media for a while, years even. When I was working for another NY paper (not gonna say which), they had the news. The media was preparing to use it against Dick when he ran against Lieberman.
The Grand Panjandrum
Time to hit the showers Cole. Game over. Rahm’s waiting.
maus
@cleek:
I find with glee that nobody is buying iPad subscriptions. I can’t wait for great ad campaigns looking for journalistic welfare in lieu of actual, factual reporting.
stuckinred
Blumenthal Presser Live
Midnight Marauder
@Nick:
Well, if this is the story the NY media has been sitting on for years, then they need to seriously revamp their Hatchet Job Department, because this is kind of a fucking joke. And it’s kind of crazy to say the McMahon campaign didn’t “leak” this story to the Times, or provide a huge oppo dump, when this was posted on her campaign site this morning:
Not to mention this other nugget from Greg Sargent:
I also have a hard time believing the charges that this guy is some kind of egregious panderer or was trying to perpetrate some kind of great fraud about his service, when he explicitly stated during a televised debate two months ago, “Although I did not serve in Vietnam…”
This strikes me as being a very dubious “scandal.”
stuckinred
Oh boy, he’s got all these Patriot Guard assholes up there with him.
ItAintEazy
Actually, there is good reason to object to the Supreme Court ruling. If you say that the ruling only affects those guilty of violent sexual assaults and child molestations, then the case of one of the defendants, Graydon Comstock, will prove you dead wrong on that account.
Comstock was actually serving a three-year sentence for receiving child pornography. Then Gonzo while he was acting as the Attorney General had him certified as a “sexually dangerous person” and there went his rights.
While I’m not arguing that he committed a victimless crime by any means, I doubt anyone would say that he committed any violent sex acts to warrant his indefinite detention.
Of course there’s no political harm in politicians and judges running wild over child-porn collectors, and they are an easy target for those who want to boost their “tough on crime” brownie points because people like me who in any way defend those who enjoy child pornography are shitbuckets of the worse kind.
And of course, there is absolutely no slippery slope that will result from this ruling.
stuckinred
He didn’t mean “in Vietnam” he meant “during Vietnam”
Ed Marshall
I don’t know how the fuck you say that on accident but it’s bullshit one way or another. No one has ever found a single arrest or complaint about anyone spitting on soldiers returning from Vietnam. He didn’t just make up his fantasy war, he bitched about fantasy hippies.
Midnight Marauder
@stuckinred:
I’m not sure if that was directed at my comment, but no, that is not what he meant. The New York Times was only able to find one instance of him specifically saying he “served in Vietnam.” The man was clearly in the military during Vietnam. That’s not a misstatement; it’s a fact.
Now we can discuss the magnitude and significance of that service, but you can’t really dispute the point that he was in the service during Vietnam.
stuckinred
@Midnight Marauder: No, I was just quoting what he said at the presser.
JZ
So what if the article was the result of oppo research? Reporters write perfectly legitimate stories based on tips by people with all kinds of agendas. Is the article true? If so, who cares how it came to the attention of the writer? I’m still not convinced Blumenthal didn’t willfully lie about his record. I’m waiting to hear his version of the events, but since his campaign isn’t disputing any particular allegations, I’m still leaning towards him being slimy toast.
stuckinred
@JZ: The presser is over, he was firm to the point of being aggressive that it was a mistake in a body of work that has been directed at helping vets. He said he got in the USMC Reserves by picking up the phone, that there was no problem getting in like there was with other services. He had a slew of Vets in jar head gear and at least two bikers. I greatly dislike the Patriot Guard dudes but overall it was an ok performance. I think he probably does try to help vets and makes sure that is part of his resume.
Steve
@cmorenc – You make a great point that I am fighting a battle that was decided in earlier cases. My original comment was intended to take up the idea that “clear and convincing” is the “highest standard in our judicial system” and I did a poor job of confining my subsequent comments to the case in question.
Midnight Marauder
@JZ:
What are you talking about? They are completely rejecting the characterization from the NYT/McMahon campaign that his statements were nefarious attempts to mislead people, and instead, are regrettable screw-ups (that Blumenthal will be the first to admit were mistakes) that don’t take anything away from his long record of standing up for veterans. I would characterize that as pretty aggressively disputing the point.
You are calling this a “perfectly legitimate story.” I think there’s enough evidence already that the NYT’s approach to this issue was by no means even-handed. For crying out loud, we’re talking about someone who said this on March 1 of this year:
and this back in 2003:
This just does not strike me as someone who was trying to put one over on everyone regarding his military history.
stuckinred
@Midnight Marauder: Let’s ask him how he feels about the VVAW.
Libby
Stuckinred, got distracted and missed your response earlier. You’re right, using “old men” was sexist but I plead old age. I didn’t know any women who were in the service when I listened to war stories as a kid. Should have said old veterans. But I stand by the statement that they tend to embellish their stories. As I might add, does everyone sometimes, even if they’re not war stories. We all have selective memories to some extent, or at least remember things differently than they actually happened.
In any event, I am now hearing that Blumenthal wasn’t as misleading about his service as the NYT piece implied so I’m holding any further judgment on his honesty. Last headline I saw said Dems are sticking by him.
Brian J
@Hunter Gathers:
I can only hope. Like I said before, my mind isn’t made up on this. It’s not as if he had an entire facade that he created in order to mislead people, but still, it looks as if he does have a little explaining to do. And yet, despite all of this, I’d want him in the Senate versus any of the clowns the Republicans would nominate, hands down.
stuckinred
@Libby: I have a great friend that was a nurse in Quin Nhon doing really awful medevac work. When we all get together the stories are pretty fast moving and , I suspect, for every embellishment she has a story that does not need to be told.
North Dallas Thirty
Which is, of course, why the Times included the very quote you cite in their own article.
What the Times did that was unthinkable was to point out the number of times that this Obama puppet clearly lied about his service record as opposed to the number of times he actually told the truth.
And really, “misspoke”? Isn’t it amusing how leftist Obama Party members never tell lies, they always “misspeak”? Furthermore, isn’t it interesting how these Obama Party puppets determine whether or not statements are truthful or factual based solely on party affiliation?
FlipYrWhig
You know, I think it’s a bit hard to thread the needle for these guys who were reservists during Vietnam. They know, as did we all, that a lot of people did a lot of string-pulling to get those spots. But _today’s_ reservists aren’t getting out of anything. So I’d expect as a Vietnam-era reservist you have to be careful to say that you’re proud to have done that much–so as not to make the now-offensive suggestion that being a reservist is somehow cushy–but also not to say that you were all hardcore either. And I’m sure he feels at some level both lucky and _guilty_ that he got out of the worst of it, which is probably why he wants to do nice things for veterans, to make good; and to throw a little flourish in there from time to time about how he did _some_ of what they did, thinking of himself as part of the “we,” hardly strikes me as a grievous political sin.
Steve
This all seems like a particularly egregious example of the Cult of the Offhand Comment. When the guy has said many times that he didn’t go to Vietnam – including a televised debate just a couple months ago – people really want to try to make one statement in one video into “fabricating a service record”?
One of the big reasons our country is in such a mess is that we choose our elected leaders based on bullshit like this.
Midnight Marauder
@North Dallas Thirty:
What is this? The Glenn Greenwald Hour?
stuckinred
@North Dallas Thirty: Leftist my ass, surrounded by jar heads and Patriot Guard and bitching about how unfair vets are treated. Fucking teabag material if I every saw it.
Tazistan Jen
@Ed Marshall:
I don’t give that much credence unless there is video or a transcript confirming it. People’s memory isn’t that accurate, even when they sincerely think they remember.
North Dallas Thirty
@stuckinred:
Which only adds to the irony, given his association with and full support and endorsement of the party whose sole mantra was the mistreatment of Vietnam vets (see Hanoi Jane for examples) and who to this day attacks them as “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”.
When Blumenthal denounces that, then he can speak. But for now, he’s just another typical Obama Party sellout.
PanAmerican
@Hunter Gathers:
Meh. There is no traction to be had here. Strictly amateur hour.
But she’s self funding and a pseuo-celeb.
zzzzzzzzz
did we mention she is self funded?
In the run up to 2008, Booman drew an analogy for the VN stuff to the GOP waving the bloody shirt post Civil War. At some point the majority of the electorate wasn’t even born then and/or just doesn’t give a flying fuck.
JGabriel
@North Dallas Thirty:
Ooh, wounding words, coming from a Fox Party propaganda sympathizer.
.
Pb
Hey, it could have been “We have learned something very important–since the days that I served–in Vietnam”. Or, we could concede that the man might have fucked up a word in a speech and instead look at the larger point he was making. Or we could–what’s that, there’s a sale on torches and pitchforks? Oh I’m so there.
tomvox1
@Ed Marshall:
I agree with your outrage if Blumenthal said that but this is just weird–check out Risley’s statement today:
http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2010/05/richard-blumenthal-holds-press.html
I don’t know how she could say the “Blumenthal said he returned from Vietnam/couldn’t wear his uniform” thing and say this also? Misquote in the NYT story? Fabrication? Nice but senile lady? Confusing to say the least…
lawguy
@North Dallas Thirty: What are you talking about? If your allegations were true they happened over 35 years ago. But they aren’t true, so they make even less sense.
On a side note I served in Southeast Asia but not Vietnam, I wonder if I have ever failed to make that point crystal clear each and every time when talking about that period of my life?
Oh, yes I am a democrat have been since before I took my little south sea excursion.
burnspbesq
@Steve:
This. After reading the opinions, I have reluctantly concluded that the necessary and proper clause analysis in the majority opinion is supported by precedent.
I continue to believe that the statute in question is horrible policy.
There are many things that Congress has the power to do, but shouldn’t.
SiubhanDuinne
@cmorenc:
It’s hardly on the same level of awfultude as your example, but the psychiatric Catch-22 reminds me of the old joke about patients showing up at the shrink’s office for their appointment:
If they arrive early, they’re ANXIOUS.
If they arrive late, they’re HOSTILE.
If they arrive right on time, they’re COMPULSIVE.
Or, as we say down heah in the South — Cain’t win fer losin’.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Anybody else have Chris Matthews on in the background? He’s basically calling Blumenthal the world’s biggest liar. For whatever that’s worth.
Keith G
To me Blumenthal seemed sincere and believable. Add that to a previous upright rep and I hope he can survive.
Keith G
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
Heh. Didn’t Tweety have his own military moment a few months ago?
Zuzu's Petals
@Joey Maloney:
Actually, the USSC held back in 1997 that state law authorizing such post-prison civil commitments was not an ex post facto law at all:
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@Keith G:
Let Me Finish and Matthews calls him “morally dead weight” and “without honor.” I don’t really have an opinion on Blumenthal but if Matthews is truly as outraged as he seems and Blumenthal gets elected anyway then maybe Matthews will have to move to another country to calm his nerves.
stuckinred
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):Remember that Tweety had the Swiftboat fuckers on as much as possible.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@stuckinred:
I don’t pay real close attention to him because he’s obnoxious, annoying, and prone to outbursts that are as phony as the breasts on Miss USA. But if the pols truly do follow MSNBC and the other 24 hour news networks as closely as reported then this is doing real damage.
Zuzu's Petals
@Hunter Gathers:
This is the one I thought the most outrageous. But since he was a bright red wingnut it fell off the radar pretty fast:
FlipYrWhig
I truly don’t understand the hyperventilating about Blumenthal. It’s almost as though people only read headlines! Matthews is a freakshow with unresolved daddy/mommy issues, so this is right up his alley. But otherwise level-headed people like Nate Silver are acting all emopants too. Who gives a shit? And can we please finally get over who did what in or during Vietnam?
stuckinred
@FlipYrWhig: Not on your life.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Ed Schultz and Bill Press are blowing Taps over Blumenthal right now.
Keith G
@FlipYrWhig:
Steve Benen is not hyperventilating.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_05/023864.php
FlipYrWhig
@stuckinred: He said he was “in” Vietnam. That’s not true. He also has said he was _not_ in Vietnam. That is true. Between those two things, it’s pretty hard to build a case that he “lies about Vietnam.” So, in other words, fuck it. I predict this is going to be like the once-hot topic of whether Obama was ever _in_ Rev. Wright’s church when he said inflammatory things. It’s nothing. Frankly, I have a hard time coming up with a reason why anyone younger than 60 would even _consider_ caring about this.
Chuck Butcher
I don’t know what was going on in Blumenthal’s mind and I don’t know if he actually meant to say something different and let empathy drag his words someplace else. I have not a clue but those words are not going away and that could suck badly.
FlipYrWhig can’t figure out why anybody under 60 would care … it is a few years younger than that and they’re regular voters so that demographic matters. Military people (serving or having served) will not like it a bit. Plenty of folks don’t like demonstrable lies.
A clip of those words with “No He Didn’t” under it will hurt like hell and get played and played.
Xenos
@FlipYrWhig: No one under 50 cares about it. It just looks like another Boomer purity fest. Most people under 50 are tired of hearing about it and desperately want to move on.
And Matthews is the worst… listening to him and Odonnell talk about how Clinton is a draft dodger and never mention Cheney or W… disgusting.
stuckinred
@Xenos: Most people under 50 couldn’t pour piss out of a boot.
“God damn you Walter! You fuckin’ asshole! Everything’s a fuckin’ travesty with you, man! And what was all that shit about Vietnam? What the FUCK, has anything got to do with Vietnam? What the fuck are you talking about? “
stuckinred
This is not the Nam, there are rules!
FlipYrWhig
We live in a world where there are fewer and fewer politicians with a personal connection to the Vietnam-era military. Blumenthal _fucking has one_. I seriously can’t believe this bullshit. And I want the white people’s 1960s to be gone from politics. It can’t happen too soon. All it does is give puffy jackoffs like Chris Matthews an opportunity to masturbate to the military masculinity _they never had_.
eastriver
Eh. You blow some. You suck some. It all cums out in the end.
kay
@FlipYrWhig:
People know him there. I just don’t think they’re going to discard decades of respect and trust based on two misleading statements.
I think accrued credibility matters. He’s earned a good reputation. I think the pundits are wrong.
Joey Maloney
@Zuzu’s Petals:
I remember. They were wrong then, too.