Why I Will Vote for Richard Blumenthal

The nation’s political reporters have turned an eye toward Connecticut today, to criticize Richard Blumenthal for saying he served “in Vietnam” when he did not. Fair enough. That warrants criticism. But for me, the larger question remains the same: Is Richard Blumenthal the best candidate to serve the interests of Connecticut’s citizens in the US Senate? I say “absolutely.” His decades of service and record of accomplishment on our behalf far, far, far outweigh the foolish statements he has made about his military service. And, looking forward, the likelihood that he will continue to represent the interests of the people of Connecticut and be a vocal and effective advocate for you and me is near 100%.

The New York Times printed a story today detailing Mr. Blumenthal’s military record and some statements he made at ceremonies and appearances throughout his years of public service. Go read it.

The allegations of wrongdoing reported by the Times are:

• Saying he served “in Vietnam” once in 2008 (In many reports, I’ve seen references to “a few occasions” but can’t find another citation)
• Using the word “we” when referring to veterans returning from Vietnam
• Getting deferments while in college, before enlisting in the Marine Corps Reserves
• Using “ambiguous language” in reference to his service
• Not correcting stories in the press, like:
  • Newspapers mischaracterizing his service
  • Newspapers reporting that he was on (or captain of) the Harvard swim team, which he was not

The online version of the Times piece includes embedded video of that 2008 appearance in Norwalk where Blumenthal states that he served “in Vietnam.” It’s in the context of expressing his commitment to protecting veterans’ rights and ensuring their proper treatment, but that part isn’t making news. It does not embed this video, nor any video of the hundreds of other appearances Blumenthal has ever made in which he states his record accurately:

I won’t rebut each allegation made in the Times. That’s not the point of this post; instead, I am saying “OK, so who has been the better elected official and who will be the better US Senator?” However, on one point, I have to object to the Times article. I personally think it’s ridiculous to hold a candidate or elected official responsible for the sloppy reporting of newspapers.  This example from the Times article makes the point:

At a 2008 ceremony in front of the Veterans War Memorial Building in Shelton, he praised the audience for paying tribute to troops fighting abroad, noting that America had not always done so.

“I served during the Vietnam era,” he said. “I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse.”

[snip]

The Shelton Weekly reported on May 23, 2008, that Mr. Blumenthal “was met with applause when he spoke about his experience as a Marine sergeant in Vietnam.”

Blumenthal said he served “during the Vietnam era” and remembered the abuse soldiers and Marines endured. The reporter for the now-defunct Shelton Weekly reported that he was in Vietnam. Whose error is that? Seems obvious to me.

Now that I’ve gotten that objection out of the way, the Times piece does raise serious a serious charge: did Blumenthal lie about his record in one or several appearances over the years? Yes, and I see no reason to call it anything other than a lie on those occasions. But did he routinely try to deceive voters and present himself as something he isn’t? Absolutely not.  I suppose voters will ultimately decide. But what I’ve seen in these appearances and from the record of achievement that he’s put together in the offices he’s held, he presents himself as a tireless advocate for the people who elect him. And he is.

Want evidence? I offer a few of Richard Blumenthal’s accomplishments. A few. There are many, many more.

As US Attorney for Connecticut in the 1970′s:

• Successfully prosecuted major cases involving drug trafficking, organized crime, white collar crime, civil rights violations, consumer fraud, and environmental wrongdoing.

As volunteer counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in the 1980′s:

• Saved the life of an innocent, wrongly convicted death row inmate, who came within hours of execution.

As Attorney General of CT, from 1990 to today:

• Helped lead the national fight against Big Tobacco to stop deceptive marketing aimed at children.
• Forced reforms in the health insurance industry to assure critical health care coverage and lower pharmaceutical drug prices.
• Argued before the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Connecticut’s sex offender registry.
• Brought legal action against the federal government for failing to follow or enforce environmental laws and energy statutes.
• Sued (with other Attorneys General) subprime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial, arguing that consumers had been victimized by the mortgage giant’s deceptive and unfair practices.

He also served in the Connecticut House of Representatives and State Senate from 1983 – 1990.

If this campaign is about what the candidates have done and what they are likely to do for the people of Connecticut, there is no contest.  Richard Blumenthal has earned my vote on both counts.  If it’s about character and character only, I’d still take Blumenthal (with the one to five lies) instead a woman who has earned hundreds of millions of dollars debasing the culture and promoting violence and misogyny.

Blumenthal is legendary among Connecticut Democrats for attending every picnic, ceremony, awards banquet, cookout, campaign rally or ice cream social in the state while compiling the sort of achievements listed above (which were taken from his official bio). He’s probably made two hundred public appearances a year for twenty years (I am making that number up, for the record, but suffice it to say, he speaks publicly all the time). If you really think that saying “in” instead of “during” one to five times is a disqualifier — that such an action negates the day-in-day-out hours upon hours upon hours of dedicated work for the voters whose trust he again seeks — then you’re not considering the full scope of his credentials and you’re not taking the full measure of the candidate.

What has changed from yesterday to today?  Dick Blumenthal went from some sort of sure thing to a flawed candidate.  But who wants to step up and say that the CEO of a wrestling entertainment company is the better candidate, the one more worthy of our trust and the one who has done done more with her life to help you and your neighbors?  She will be the nominee of the Republican party facing off against the best Attorney General this state has seen in decades, albeit one who lied one to five times about where he served as a Marine. Their nominee has done nothing of substance.  If Rob Simmons pulls off some sort of miracle and wins the GOP nomination, the arguments change, but the bottom line remains the same. I will be voting for the man whose entire life has been an example of substantive public service and commitment to the people who elect him: Richard Blumenthal.