The McMahon Campaign’s Statement, since scrubbed, that they were the source of the story
And neither did I when I commented the Times story on Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s statement that he had served in Vietnam, when he actually went through multiple deferments and a stint in the reserves to stay out of the war.
It appears that the paper, and me indirectly, swallowed a piece of opposition research from a political opponent without further checking the story.
Well, the New York Times posted a short clip of his speech where he clearly said that he served in Vietnam.
What they didn’t post was the whole speech, where he leads off with a statement that makes it clear that he is claiming that he simply served during that era, not making a claim of serving in the ‘Nam.
Hell, even Fox News’ Neil Cavuto says that the New York Times did a hack job:
Blumenthal didn’t. As far as I can tell, he quite often made a point of saying he didn’t do the heavy lifting in service, just that he appreciated his Marine Reserves service and really appreciated those who did far more in service. He almost always explained the difference, and almost always cited his gratitude.
What’s more, see the pic, with Republican Senate Linda McMahon’s campaign claiming that the Times swallowed their research lock, stock, and barrel, which falls under the, “What the f%$# were they thinking when they admitted that?” category.
Also, people are not talking with the Connecticut press, and it appears that Blumenthal was generally (an important modifier) clear about his status.
I still think that Blumenthal is dead meat because of this, and that the Dems should nominate someone else (who?) on primary day, though, hopefully, so is Linda McMahon, because they fingered themselves over this, and this is an opening for her Republican primary opponent, Rob Simmons, particularly since there are also credible allegations that she warned a drug (steroid) dealing doctor about a federal investigation.
This will be a crazy race.