May 17 2010
Dems Can Kiss Connecticut Senate Seat Goodbye
I hate liars. We all know politician shave the truth a lot, but out-and-out lying is just plain insulting to the voters’ intelligence. We see it all the time in DC now, open lies about policies and results and the future. And then there is the gross out-and-out about being a hero of some kind, which is what the Democrat cruising to election in Connecticut to fill Chris Dodd’s (D) seat just did:
At a ceremony honoring veterans and senior citizens who sent presents to soldiers overseas, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut rose and spoke of an earlier time in his life.
“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,†Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.â€
There was one problem: Mr. Blumenthal, a Democrat now running for the United States Senate, never served in Vietnam.
The NY Times, to their limited credit, broke this story. For once they did not white wash it or cover it up. As the son of a World War II Navy veteran and the proud father of a US Marine (both of which volunteered to defend this nation) I cannot put in words the disgust I have for this cretin in Connecticut. All I know is this charlatan was cruising to election after it was Chris Dodd would easily lose his bid for reelection this year. I guess I have more faith in the self respect and pride of Connecticut voters to believe any but a few delusional and gullible few would ever vote for this liar.
If would lie to the voters about this, he would lie to the voters about anything. And the voters know it.
Update: Seems this ‘bombshell’ story is really hitting the fan. I wonder if this was an effort to detonate this issue early in the election cycle in hopes it would dissipate by November and the public could be lulled back into a stupor. This is not the year of lulling the public into a stupor, so if that was the plan it was a really, really dumb one. Allahpundit notes something about his GOP challenger:
Update: It gets worse for Blumenthal. Meet his likely Republican challenger, Rob Simmons:
Rob’s public service career began when he enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1965 as a Private, and spent 19 months in Vietnam where he earned two Bronze Star Medals. Rob continued his military service in the U.S. Army Reserve as a Military Intelligence Officer, retiring as a Colonel in 2003 with over 37 years of active and reserve service.
Ouch!
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by AJ Strata. AJ Strata said: new: Dems Can Kiss Connecticut Senate Seat Goodbye http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/13350 […]
Hey AJ,
I’m also the son of a WWII navy vet! My dad was a radioman on board a PBY Catalina flying boat (and later on the Navy version of the B-24, the Privateer). Imagine sending morse code while the plane is heaving over the pacific. He later went on to a 40 year career as a superb naval electronics tech. He was also a HAM radio operator and could fix ANYTHING with wires. I have fond memories in my childhood of him finding broken radios and TVs and fixing them for next to nothing! And he always made a point to make it to his squadron reunions.
I also agree, AJ, that Blumenthal is toast…
AJ,
You give too much credit to the idiots of Con who continued to elect Dodd for ages…
ok i hate a liar too. Now, on that hook, may I please do a wee bit of hijacking of this thread? The hook is lies. We know that BO and our AG and others are either ignorant or lying about AZ1070.
I have a subtle question about what AZ1070 does. Please hear me out. I don’t know who else I can ask but you people here!
I thought the AZ law simply ALLOWED the AZ police to contact the federal authorities if a person didn’t have a driver’s license or other ID on him when otherwise (legitimately) stopped or detained for a crime or suspicion thereof. But the author of the law tonight on TV made it seem different: that the AZ law REQUIRES AZ police to contact the federal authorities. I.e., the law PREVENTS a cop from overlooking a federal infraction.
Is it that it ALLOWS the cops to call the feds (unlike in LA where “Special Order 40” forbids the cops to call the feds even when they know they have an illegal alien) or is it that it REQUIRES the cops to call the feds, i.e., removes their discretion to fail to cooperate in the enforcement of the federal immigration law?
I think now that it is the latter: the law requires the police to enforce the law.
Sorry to have hijacked the thread, but this is the place with the clearest, communicating people that I know. Can anyone clarify? Is there a lawyer in the house? Also, what do lines 37-38-39 mean?
thx. 🙂 see, the comment is about lies. We should insist on (and help people to) telling the truth.
archtop,
my old man volunteered before he was 18, served on a battleship (Texas) and cruiser (Cleveland). He was in the North Atlantic at first, then supported the invasion of Africa before being shipped to the South Pacific. That generation really was the greatest outside our founding fathers.
Whomever,
I have not read the law but you cannot, in reality, force a policeman to enforce the law. They have a lot of discretion in many matters. They are not required in AZ to follow up on the immigration status if they do not feel there is probable cause – which is their escape hatch.
USS Texas? It’s been on display next to the San Jacinto monument and we’ve visited it several times when I was a young kid.
My dad was in the Navy but never did combat but surely understood the founding principles far better than most of us! He was the first one to tell us that Social Security is one of the biggest Ponzi schemes ever concieved in history.
And last weekend the topic of social security reform came up in our family gatherings. We agreed that while social security needs to be completely repealed, this is not a viable solution as we would see the Greek riots here on US soil. We also discussed ways to reform SS. No good solution but the Americans have to understand, first, that SS needs to be reformed and secondly, they have to sacrifice.
None but a few are willing to sacrifice.
Unfortunately, in today’s local newspapers, I see that a congressional report came out recently saying that tweaking SS is all that is needed. No major overhaul is needed.
Good grief!
The Texas – awesome! Very rare nowadays to find someone who actually served on her. I’ve toured her too, Lurker, awesome ship. She’s coming up on her 100th anniversary in 2012, which is a mark that *very* few ships have ever made. There’s a plan (it needs funding) to put her on display in a permanent drydock now since after 100 years in the water, the hull is dangerously thin and probably cannot be repaired anymore.
And Archtop – your father sounds a lot like my Uncle. He started in on electronics during Vietnam, and ended up retiring as a Master Tech Seargant on an RC-100. (a cousin of mine also retired from that position just last year)
He told me an interesting story about KAL-007 once, from a surveillance spooks pov. Can’t be confirmed, but it explained a lot that doesn’t make sense any other way.
make that RC-135 – I mixed up my numbers in my memory. And archtop, thanks for the note about Privateer – I know most of the WW2 planes, but I hadn’t heard of that one! Got to see one of the last flying B-24’s just last year, that was a treat.
>I have not read the law but you cannot, in reality, force a
>policeman to enforce the law.
There is a major reason why the Lefties are going nuts about local cops enforcing immigration laws.
A retired Dallas PD cop is a starbucks coffee drinking buddy of mine.
He told me that between his rookie year in 1962 and 1973 — when the Dallas PD knuckled under to Chamber of Commerce & Catholic Chuch political pressure — he was catching and deporting 13 illegal aliens a week.
That was 13 illegals a week times 52 weeks times 11 years = 7,436 illegal alien deportations by one Dallas cop.
Now that the Mexican Zeta’s and their druggie competators are shooting at Arizona county sherriff helicopters with crew served automatic weapons. There is no hiding the need for local law men to start doing what my drinking buddy did and enforce immigration laws.
You have to drain the pool of illegal aliens that the violent druggies hide in to regain civic order.
AJ: no, watch the interview which I just found and re-watched: http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/what-does-arizonas-immigration-law-actually-say/
The co-author of 1070 says the law says the police “cannot turn a blind eye” – and this is the very issue Greta was grilling him on: prevents vs. requires. and it seems to be that it REQUIRES the police to call ICE, i.e., removes their discretion.
so the law is really very narrow and specific on this: and it regulates the police, not the people! Well other parts of the law regulate the people, but this, the controversial part, regulates the police.
Whomever,
As I said, practically speaking there is no way to force the police to investigate unless they believe there is probable cause. You can read that all day long, but a good chunk of my family is in law enforcement and the reality is it is up to the discretion of the officer on the scene as to how far they take it.
Trent,
No argument. I was only noting it is really up to the officer on the scene as to how far to take the matter at hand.
In Los Angeles there is “Special Order 40” which actually DISALLOWS the police from contacting INS when they KNOW the person is illegal. I thought originally that AZ 1070 was overriding that kind of proscription. But it appears from the interview with the co-author of 1070 http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/what-does-arizonas-immigration-law-actually-say/ that the AZ law actually REQUIRES the officers to contact INS. This minute point is precisely what Greta was trying to illuminate (but she and the author did not fully connect on it). I re-read the law last night after hearing it, but could not discern ….
It is an odd but interesting distinction. AJ and Trent, if you watch the interview you will see this distinction. I know in general that the police are granted discretion. It’s important for all of us to understand EXACTLY what it prescribes and proscribes.
I wish I could say I agree that this will cost the Dems the seat but I’m not sure it will. I speak from experience having watched NJ Senator Bob “The Torch” Toricelli drop out of the 2002 race under a cloud of corruption accusations. Even though he dropped out past the filing deadline, the NJ courts (definitely sympathetic to Democrats) allowed the Dems to substitute the ossified Frank Lautenberg for Torricelli in apparent contradiction to state election law. Lautenberg of course won, and began dozing thru a second term in 2008. Given Connecticuit’s blue-state pedigree and the manipulative abilities of the Party of Corruption and their Mediacrat fellow travellers, I would not count this as a loss for them yet.
Just watched the Blumenthal press conference, now we know that “Misspoke” is what ‘deliberate lying’ is now called.
How in the hell those actual veterans of foreign wars can support a lying ‘draft dodger’ is beyond me…
“Friend of Angelo” Dodd just came out to tell us what an Honorable Man Dick Blumenthal is.
Of course, we need to remember that for Democrats who hate and despise the military, this is actually a Resume Enhancer – what a relief to know that the candidate *wasn’t* one of the hated criminal oppressors after all!!!
To a Democrat, lying shamelessly is far easier to forgive than the sin of actually loving this country and faithfully serving it.
I served in WWI, yes I recall flying back from Europe after slogging the muddy fields of France. So many of my buddies did not come back. I recall the welcome we recieved when we came back to the States, oops! that was a movie I saw. Sorry I misspoke. Vote for me!
>In Los Angeles there is “Special Order 40″ which actually
>DISALLOWS the police from contacting INS when they KNOW
>the person is illegal. I thought originally that AZ 1070 was
>overriding that kind of proscription. But it appears from the
>interview with the co-author of 1070
>http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/what-does-arizonas-
>immigration-law-actually-say/ that the AZ law actually
>REQUIRES the officers to contact INS.
Whomever,
Your point being?
It is a prosecutable feloney for Texas cops too knowingly not enforce the law.
Local Texas D.A.’s don’t often prosecute under it, but the law is there.
There will be more shoes to drop. I don’t understand politicians. This is not 1998 or 2008, this is 2010. You can’t have a news conference like that and expect people to buy it.
I have to agree with AJ on this one. You can kiss the CT Senate seat goodbye.