OP-ED: Why Blumenthal and Not Foley?
by Jonathan Pelto | Aug 29, 2010 3:45am
(8) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Opinion
What is considered news in today’s chaotic world? Consider the case study of Connecticut candidates referencing their war time experience as they seek to build up political support.
Google the words “Blumenthal lies about Vietnam” and “Foley lies about Iraq” and you’ll find a stunning difference in the number of news stories and blog references.
In the case of Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal you’ll find hundreds of news articles that followed a report by the New York Times, including stories in every major newspaper and news outlet in the nation. There are also thousands of blog references, all relating to the controversy surrounding Blumenthal’s comments about his experience during the Vietnam War. On the other hand, the words “Foley lies about Iraq” will get you the original story in the Connecticut Post, a few minor references to that story and a handful of blog posts about what Republican gubernatorial candidate Thomas Foley has said about his time in Iraq.
The difference in the amount and tone of coverage and commentary is a stunning eye-opener about what is considered newsworthy or politically important in today’s world.
As everyone now knows, thanks to the extensive news coverage, on more than one occasion Blumenthal implied or allowed the impression to exist that he served as a U.S. Marine Sergeant in Vietnam (when in fact he served as a Sergeant in the Marine Reserves during the Vietnam era stateside). As it turns out, although his official biography and campaign materials never implied that he did anything other than serve six years as a member of the Marine Reserves, on a few occasions his public speeches to veterans referenced his service in Vietnam. As a response to the controversy, Blumenthal has said that he “misspoke on more than one occasion” and has apologized for his actions.
Meanwhile, Foley’s gubernatorial campaign materials make direct reference to his purported heroic work in war-torn Iraq. His present campaign website says, “Security was tight when Tom arrived, but it significantly deteriorated during the fall of 2003. Travel outside of the Green Zone became more and more risky. Even so, Tom and his team had to travel outside of the Green Zone to conduct their work. Donning bullet proof vests, dodging rockets and mortars, and avoiding IED’s became regular parts of the routine.” The Foley campaign has even designed their campaign website to allow supporters to print out these particular words in case they want to pass them on to voters who might want to know more about Foley before they cast their ballot this fall.
Asked by a reporter whether his appointment as Director of Private Sector Development in Iraq by President George W. Bush was due to the fact that he had raised significant campaign donations for Bush, Foley’s response was “If the administration wanted to reward a friend, it would have come up with something better than seven months of 16-hour days and seven-day workweeks dodging rockets and mortars…”
In June 2004, Foley even received the Department of Defense’s coveted Distinguished Public Service Award for his service to the nation in Iraq.However, the facts surrounding Foley’s experiences in Iraq don’t match up when one examines his own speeches on the subject.
In an April 2004 speech to the EX-IM BANK 2004 ANNUAL CONFERENCE in Washington D. C., only a month before he received the Department of Defense Service Award, Foley said, “When I was in Iraq, I used to go out into Baghdad frequently by myself, and I had no problem walking up and down the streets. I never once ran into a situation that I considered hostile. I did for entertainment carry around a 9-millimeter pistol. It runs in the family. But I never needed it, and it was probably mostly for show.”
More recently, in July 2010, Foley told Connecticut Post reporter Ken Dixon, “I never came under fire that was directed at me,” and “Outside the Green Zone there was never a situation when somebody directly was targeting me or there was a firefight.”
So we have two candidates with two sets of circumstances both relating to whether they have misled voters in an attempt to garner political support. In one case, we have a candidate who is running for the US Senate in Connecticut. His written materials are accurate but his speeches may have misled voters. In the other case, we have a candidate running for governor whose written materials are designed to mislead voters but his speeches may be more accurate.
And so how are these situations handled by the media and commentators?
The Blumenthal story made national headlines. On MSNBC, Chris Matthews said, “The United States Senate cannot take on the morally dead weight of this candidate without honor.” Cokie Roberts of ABC said, “If I were a Democratic strategist, I’d tell him to get out of the race.” Charles Hunt’s commentary in the New York Post concluded “Well, the time now has come for Blumenthal to finally serve his nation honorably. And for real. He should quit the race” And here in Connecticut, the Torrington Register-Citizen said, “And for a state and nation of families whose sons and daughters have risked or given their lives overseas in service to this country, it is unforgivable. Richard Blumenthal should end his candidacy for the U.S. Senate…”
Meanwhile, when it comes to the Foley story we have a Connecticut Post article entitled “Foley’s Iraq experience: What’s fact, what’s fiction?” and then …. Nothing.
No stories about how Foley appears to be using his campaign materials to intentionally and purposely mislead voters by falsifying his experience in Iraq to make him look more courageous. Nothing about his lies in any national newspaper, not even a major follow-up story in Connecticut despite the fact that this candidate want to be Connecticut’s most important and powerful elected official. There hasn’t even been an editorial writer who has called on Foley to explain his transgression, let alone call for him to drop out of the race.
Is the issue that the Blumenthal story first appeared in the New York Times, but the Foley story “only” originated in the Connecticut Post?
Is the substantive difference between appropriate the office of US Senate and governor. Is it our intention to hold a candidate running for the Senate to a different standard than one running for Governor?
Have we decided that misspeaking about one’s experience in Vietnam almost 40 years ago is a more egregious offense than misrepresenting or even lying about one’s action in a present war?
Foley’s campaign materials say he dodged bullets in Iraq and he says that isn’t true.
Meanwhile, since the Iraq War began on March 19, 2003, 4,416 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq and over 100,000 wounded. Of that number at least 30 Connecticut soldiers lost their life in Iraq leaving behind mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, husbands, wives and children.
These where solders who really were dodging bullets and lost their lives as a result.
Yet the man who wants to be our next Governor says we should support him, in part, because he had the courage to go to Iraq and put on a bullet proof vest…and worse, has the audacity to give voters the impression he was in personal danger when it turns that he admits that he “never once ran into a situation that [he] considered hostile.
And the media doesn’t think t his is a story? The editorial writers don’t think it requires commentary?
Well, I for one think it does matter. Blumenthal was skewered for a far less serious transgression while Foley lies about his service in Iraq in a blatant attempt to capitalize on our patriotic feelings.
Embellishing one’s resume is never appropriate, especially for a politician who is trying to earn our trust, but implying that your experience was similar to the men and women who went to Iraq to fight, and even die, is beyond reprehensible.
Foley has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he lacks the integrity to serve as Connecticut’s next governor and the media should be far more attentive to this issue.
Jonathan Pelto served as a member of the House of Representatives from 1984-1993. He was Deputy Majority Leader and member of the Appropriations Committees during the income tax debate of 1991. He presently works as a strategic communications consultant, including work on Kevin Lembo’s campaign for state comptroller.
(8) Comments
posted by: and 1 | August 29, 2010 3:35pm
Jonathan- I believe I understand why Blumenthal and not Foley.
For years now Blumenthal has presented himself as such a good and upstanding politician (of course certain things have been kept under wraps). I remember contacting him on violent video games and him really not wanting to talk about it (my 13 year old son was killed while acting out a violent video game). I remember contacting him regarding a state position which had been created for my union president and him telling me he did not get involved in union issues, then he worked on unionizing the casinos. I remember the Judicial Branch Marshals contacting him on some rather important issues (like van safety and what was happening to all the money as well as some of the corrupt state sheriffs who were now program managers in the branch). I remember him investigating the marshals because they were doing a fund raiser for bullet proof vests (this was for the transport marshals who transport prisoners to court and those same marshals are not allowed to carry a gun (and the branch asking they be investigated and suddenly the same union president who Blumenthal had stated he would assist was now under investigation for trying to protect those who we count on to keep the prisoners from escaping while on the way to court). I remember reading about Andrew Matthews suit against the AG and then hearing the laughter of some attorneys when the AG said he was going to make that whistle blower law stronger (they knew he was being sued and seemed to believe that this advocacy for whistle blowers would go away shortly- which it did).
All this time Richard Blumenthal has stated again and again how he advocates for the consumer (when state employees report the agencies where they work for gross waste of state funds by the agencies, the state employees instead of being protected, are fed to the wolves as his office pretends to investigate). He spoke about video game violence but refused to speak to a mother whose child lost his life to this same type of violence. In 2008 he got up on his soapbox and stated we needed to make whistle blower laws stronger and then did nothing for the next two years.
I would never vote for Foley against Dan Malloy- but to me, Blumenthal has begged for us to pay attention to his short comings and personally I would love to see him held accountable if for nothing else, but the state waste he refuses to address.
posted by: MitchBeck | August 29, 2010 3:58pm
I have read a lot of partisan hack pieces on both sides of th eisle, but this one takes the cake. Would you please do all of us that have genuine interest in evaluating the various campaigns a favor next time and just say upfront that you are a Democratic operative? When I saw at the bottom of your story how you worked on your pal Kevin Lembo’s campaign, I wasn’t at all surprised about the nasty and misleading nature of this piece. You did do me one favor though…next time I see your name attached to something I can save time and not read it.
BTW, Tom Foley WAS in Iraq at the request of the Bush Administration and DID serve his country. Richard Blumenthal conversely said he was in Viet Nam and pretended like he was this big war veteran when he CLEARLY WAS NOT. If you can’t understand the difference between the two, then you REALLY aren’t very bright or you’re just ignoring the facts to write a slam piece for the Malloy campaign. Shame on you either way!
posted by: jonpelto | August 30, 2010 11:51am
@Mitchbeck. I normally don’t respond to comments to my pieces because my goal is to generate discussion about issues and not get into a petty debate about he said, she said. That said (lol), I do want to respond to you comment. I’ve never, ever tried to mislead my readers about who I am or my political background, Having spent 35 actively involved in Connecticut Democratic politics, including 10 years as a Democratic State Legislator and six as Political Director for the Democratic Party, I take my connection to the Democrats very seriously. Kevin is one of many Democratic candidates I’ve helped or supported through the years.
I assure you that my piece was not an attempt to ignore the facts, if anything, it was an attempt to bring the facts to light. (although let me add that I your suggestion that I’m not very bright may be true). Here are the facts – Richard Blumenthal’s official biography or campaign materials is accurate and does not imply in any way that he was a soldier in Vietnam. If you choose to vote against him because of the comments he made a few times in his speeches that is certainly your right. Mr. Foley, on the other hand, says right in his campaign materials that he faced danger in Iraq as he dodged bullets to do the people’s business…and that is – by his own accord – false. The FACT that Mr. Foley continues to include False information in his campaign materials is what I was raising. I think that is wrong. Call it a political slam if you want, but Mr. Foley is still the one who has an issue to address…
posted by: wtfdnucsailor | August 29, 2010 12:41pm
I hope that the mainstream media picks this up and runs with it. The public deserves to know the truth. Was Foley’s time in Iraq a success or a failure? Besides “dodging” or “not dodging bullets” was Foley’s work in Iraq a success or was he awarded the Distinguished Public Service Award for the same reason Paul Bremer got the medal of Freedom? Come on MSM, do some research and let us know.