Blumenthal: "I served in Vietnam"/NYT to Blumenthal: You lie!

[Landslide Lyndon]

My Dem friends, look at the bright side. As someone else mentioned, we have found the early front-runner for this year's George Allen Memorial Award.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Well, he served in the military during the Vietnam war. But just like for Bush, there was no "in Vietnam".

Nice spin.  Please tell me when George Bush ever said he served in Vietnam.

Well, he said that he served in Alabama, which is about as true as saying that he served in Vietnam.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Did Blumenthal explain why he lied five times, or whatever the number is?  Or was it not lying, but just five instances of temporary senile dementia, or is Blumenthal intermittently psycotic and really thought on five different occasions that he did serve in Vietnam? Yes of course, Blumenthal would just say he just "misspoke" (and only five times at that apparently), and leave it at that. But did some reporter or two hound him a bit on this, as to just how he could get so confused if he wasn't affirmatively just lying, and was he just lying?

Blumenthal said he misspoke.  He regrets misspeaking and takes responsibility for it.  He served in the Marine Reserves, but not in Vietnam.  He can't be held responsible for errors in articles that he probably didn't even read.   And he supports veterans.   He really really really supports veterans, which is important when there are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Did I mention he really, really, really supports veterans?
 
That's pretty much the jist of his press conference.

Splendid, but were there any "obnoxious" reporters in the room moved to ask the questions I would have asked, and if so, what was (were)  his answer(s)? 

I think they asked him a bunch of questions but he stayed "on message", as the Washington media would say.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Splendid, but were there any "obnoxious" reporters in the room moved to ask the questions I would have asked, and if so, what was (were)  his answer(s)?  

Obnoxious reporters?  Not really - though it was a bit difficult to hear the questions on the NBC Connecticut feed.  Someone did ask if it was a lie.  He said it wasn't intentional, IIRC.  Video of the whole press conference is available from the Hartford CBS station here.

In what's good news for getting the Blumenthal story off the news, Connecticut Dems were thrown for another loop today when their Supreme Court ruled that the leading candidate for Blumenthal's AG seat, the current Secretary of State, isn't eligible because she wasn't engaged in the active practice of law for at least 10 years.

Actually that might be excellent news for Democrats. It's a common secret that what she really wants is to run against Lieberman in 2012 and now she can pursue it full time while arguing that a technicality kept her out of office.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Actually that might be excellent news for Democrats. It's a common secret that what she really wants is to run against Lieberman in 2012 and now she can pursue it full time while arguing that a technicality kept her out of office.

Not in the short run.  The two stories combined makes Connecticut Democrats look like amateurs and liars.

That being said, I think the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled from the bench.  I hope they provide a written ruling at some point in the future.  I'm worried about them setting a bad precedent where trial lawyers are more equal than others when it comes to active practice.  There's no reason a Connecticut corporate insurance lawyer who never set foot in a courtroom should be disqualified from being AG.  Active practice doesn't mean going to court.   I think the SoS' problem was that she claimed retired status in order not to pay fees when she became SoS.

She can always blame the activist judges.

Anyway, I don't think Connecticut Dems had anything to do with her running for AG. What they really wanted was for her to run for Gov where he posted stronger GE numbers than Lamont and Malloy.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Ok, so it turns out the NYT piece was a load of crap. In the same speech that the NYT makes a big deal about, where he said he served in Vietnam, in the same speech he clarified with "served in the military, during the Vietnam era."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNhzPBn3zP0&feature=player_embedded

I guess after that development Matthews will apologize to Blumenthal, just like he did with Grayson.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Apparently all of the instances where he "misspoke" were when he addressed  veterans groups.
Whenever he talked to other audiences he was much more clear about his record. Coincidence?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Another hole in NYT's article.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0510/Blumenthal_was_on_swim_team.html

[Landslide Lyndon]

Another hole in NYT's article.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0510/Blumenthal_was_on_swim_team.html

I wouldn't exactly call that one a "win."

If your goal is to prove that the NYT posted a Republican hit-piece without checking their facts, how would you call it?

Even though Shays did not talk to Blumenthal, I found his remarks pretty devastating, since he apparently is very familiar with Blumenthal's remarks about the military over time.  So far, Blumenthal has not commented on that. I suspect most voters will conclude that Blumenthal was indeed deliberately gilding the lily, and actually trying to create the impression that he served in Vietnam, trying to choose his words carefully in doing that, but slipped over the edge into actually using words that mean he was actually there, time after time.

Whether the voters factoring this into their voting decision will tank Blumenthal remains to be seen.

That would have been true if Shays could mention when and what exactly Blumenthal said. He is very vague and he never mentions that Blumenthal said that he served in Vietnam.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The latest drip, drip in the ongoing Blumenthal saga can be found  here. There these quotes to savor, and Blumenthal was  moved to apology for it all again.

" 'I wore the uniform in Vietnam,” he said, '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.' ”

" 'We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam.' ”

Does anyone still think that Blumenthal was not deliberately lying, and just accidentally "misspoke?"

Actually both quotes are from last week.