During Moynihan’s 1982 reëlection campaign, it was {Tim} Russert who pointed out to reporters inconsistencies in the record of a Republican opponent, Bruce Caputo: Caputo had claimed to be a draftee and an Army lieutenant when, in fact, he had taken a civilian job in the Defense Department as a way to avoid the draft. Caputo’s campaign ran to ground, and the phrase “to be Russerted” entered the lexicon of New York politics. “Get me a Russert,” Gary Hart later demanded of his staff. Lawrence Grossman, the president of NBC News, was so taken by Russert’s grasp of practical politics that he hired him as his assistant; eventually, Russert was appointed chief of the Washington bureau.NPR interviewed the NY Times reporter who wrote the article this morning.
"I don't think fighting with the New York Times will succeed," said longtime Democratic strategist Bob Shrum. "Fighting with the New York Times is like fighting with the ocean. In the end they are going to win. I think he should get up and say something like, 'I obviously did this. I did it inadvertently. Whether you believe me or not, I am deeply and profoundly sorry because I have tremendous respect for those who served in Vietnam even if I opposed the war.'"
"Just because the show is "scripted" doesn't mean it's not vile, tasteless, violent, demeaning to women and fueled by steroids. What's stunning is that Linda McMahon and her staff are unable to explain or defend her involvement in a company which produces this kind of sexually explicit and violent programming, yet they still believe she'd be a fine U.S. Senator."posted by mrgrimm at 11:59 AM on May 18, 2010
I don’t fault anyone for taking advantage of the law. Where I do find fault is among those who say they were avoiding the draft because they were idealistically opposed to the war — when, in fact, they mostly didn't want to make the sacrifice. The problem is that for every person who won a deferment or a spot in a special National Guard unit, someone poorer or less educated, and usually African-American, had to serve.It's a good column, and right.
...
In private conversations with my classmates, I was told over and over that they didn’t want to serve in the military because it would hold up their careers. To the outside world, though, many would proclaim they weren't going because they were opposed to the war and we should end all wars. Eventually they began to believe their "idealism" was superior to that of those who did serve. They said that it was courageous to resist the draft — something that would have been true if they had actually become conscientious objectors and gone to prison.
...
Now that flawed thinking has been carried forward. Many of these men who evaded service but claimed idealism lead our elite institutions. The concept of using legal technicalities to evade responsibility has been carried over to playing with derivatives, or to short-changing shareholders.
In the same 2008 speech in which he misstated his military service, Connecticut Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal also correctly said that he "served in the military, during the Vietnam era."He correctly described his service at the beginning of the same speech that he said he "served in Vietnam," and there is a longer video of the speech that includes his correct description. If the New York Times had the whole video and cherry-picked the "served in Vietnam" quote it'd be quite a hatchet job.
And yet that technically correct description does not contradict the false statement or correct the false impression that he created in his listeners by stating that he served 'in Vietnam.'
With that, Blumenthal settled at least one question: He doesn't appear to be backing down in the Connecticut Senate race.
...
It helps that the evidence isn't exactly conclusive. It turns on the intent of individual words. The Times found one instance of Blumenthal saying he served "in Vietnam." But he also said explicitly in a recent debate that "I did not serve in Vietnam." In another quote, he seemed to include himself among veterans who came back from Vietnam: "When we returned, we saw nothing like this. Let us do better by this generation of men and women." But at a 2008 ceremony for veterans, he said, accurately: "I served during the Vietnam era. I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse."
Blumenthal may not have deliberately made false statements. But the main charge in the Times story—that "he does not volunteer that his service never took him overseas"—is a sin of omission, not commission. Between 1965 and 1970, Blumenthal received at least five deferments and then served six years in the Marine Corps Reserve.
At today's press conference, Blumenthal continued to play word games. He said he "misspoke" when he used the word "in" instead of "during" Vietnam. When a reporter asked him what he meant by "misspoke," Blumenthal's response sounded as if it had been vetted by a team of lawyers, PR reps, crisis communications experts, and lawyers again for good measure: "I was unaware of those misplaced words when they were spoken." Responsibility must be taken, just not in the active voice.
Blumenthal's lying, misspeaking—whatever you want to call it—says as much about the world politicians inhabit as it does about Blumenthal's motivations. Fudging isn't just common—it's necessary.
« Older Sean Stiegemeier decided that he had seen enough t... | Among American Jews today, the... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by enn at 9:25 AM on May 18, 2010 [1 favorite]