I guess it must be Politicians Behaving Badly Day.
First we have Connecticut Democratic senatorial candidate Richard Blumenthal pretending to be a Vietnam veteran.
Then we have Florida Democratic senatorial candidate Kendrick Meek caught up in some scheme to steer a Cadillac Escalade and $90,000 in cash to his mother.
Finally, we have Republican Rep. Mark Souder of Indiana resigning his seat after it was revealed that he was boinking a staffer he once made an abstinence video with.
Meanwhile, David Vitter and John Ensign are still in the U.S. Senate and no one knows why.
The Blumenthal article is a bit of a fake. Seems as he’s said on many occasions that he never went, and this was a one-off screwup. Reminds me of the hit jobs that the Spite Girls pulled on Al Gore, actually.
The video on the NYT page seems pretty damning. Hard to write this off as a screwup. OTOH, it doesn’t reach nearly to Bush’s lies about his “service”. Too bad he doesn’t have the GOP propaganda corps to doctor the records.
nice try.
Why the snotty-ass comment? He had said many times before that he wasn’t there, he had served as a reserve (which, for the NPR interviewer talking to the press release stenographer, was like pulling teeth to get that fact out there), and the Times copying of a press release from the WWE created a false impression.
Thanks to their work with Al Gore, all their work is suspect.
I don’t mean to be snotty, but you can’t just repeat his talking points and think that solves the problem. When someone says they served in Vietnam and they didn’t serve in Vietnam, that makes them a liar and a jackass.
john cole also says it’s a hit piece, and that the GOP has taken credit
So i wouldn’t be so quick to call Blumenthal a liar. yet.
right. he’s not a liar, he just stood before a room full of vets and said he served in Vietnam when he didn’t.
ouch.
yeah, i checked into it. ouch.
ahem:
“The AP notes that a longer version of the video showing Richard Blumenthal (D) suggesting he served in Vietnam also has him correctly characterizing his service by saying that he “served in the military, during the Vietnam era.””
Indeed they do:
So I’m gonna retract that “ouch” and suggest you retract your statement that “he’s not a liar, he just stood before a room full of vets and said he served in Vietnam when he didn’t” and “When someone says they served in Vietnam and they didn’t serve in Vietnam, that makes them a liar and a jackass” because it’s clear to me at least that the statement in question is taken out of context.
Considering the state, this may be just what Meek needed to shoot into the lead.
I’m not convinced that this democracy thing was such a hot idea. It sure isn’t producing quality political leadership. How about we just open the phone book and select a random cast of citizens to run the show? Things couldn’t turn out much worse…
I’ve been wondering how we’d make do with a lottery system. It couldn’t be worse than what we have now.
Everyone legally eligible to be a president, congressman, or senator is entered in a mandatory lottery for public service. everyone gets one ten-year term: enough to get things done, not long enough to become truly corrupted.
the gig would have to pay well, certainly better than what you make at work: this would incentivize participation.
The question would be what happens after the term is over. The snarkster in me wants to add to the language above about ten-year terms, “but also long enough to make the connections to get a cushy lobbying job.” the realist wants something like the national guard has, a guarantee that you’ll have a job when you come back from your public service.
The whole problem of corporate cash and corruption would be largely moot, since the system would be based on luck of the draw: with no campaign to run, there’s no need for ads. With no corporate backers, the elected aren’t beholden to anyone.
I’ve thought about something like this, too. Why mandatory, though? Seems like a voluntary pool might result in somewhat better quality — at least its members were aware enough about what’s going on to sign up.
Rather than employment I’d just give them a nice pension that they keep as for as long as they avoid all contact with lobbyists and elected officials.
It would also be interesting to reserve 4 Supreme Court seats to the same setup.
OOOOH, I LIKE the pension idea. That works for me.
I say mandatory, because by making it voluntary i can see the potential for gaming the system. Vonnegut observed that in the US system, the only people willing to do what it takes to become a senator or president at psychopaths. Pardon the long quote but it’s worth it:
Thus, if you made the lottery voluntary, many of those same PPs would rush to enter, and skew the results.
the lottery wouldn’t be perfect: every once in awhile, we’d send a moron to DC, but that’s no different than our current system.
man, i REALLY like the pension idea. Huge improvement to the plan.
I don’t see that PPs would overweight the average enough to change the odds significantly. I see more downside in the half of Americans who don’t know nothin.
The lottery idea would have the further benefit of making recalls much more manageable. Just have a vote, and if the incumbent loses, pick another number.
I like the recall idea– win office via lottery, but if you fuck up there’s a recall vote, which if lost is followed by a new drawing. excellent!
not sure if i agree with the point about Americans who don’t know nothin’. we already have those in office: Jim DeMint; Jim Bunning; Ben Nelson; Evan Bayh; etc. That risk wouldn’t change, but the tenure would be reduced to 10 years. And with the recall mechanism, we’d have a rapid way to get rid of them.
another question is whether the congresscritter is eligible to be entered into the lottery again after the ten year term is over. Part of me says no, the other part says there are millions of other names in the drawing, so the chances of a second ten year term are remote at best.
I was just thinking: a good beta test for the lottery idea would be to use it for filling vacated seats instead of elections. It would give us a read on any apparent change in the quality of the office holder.
i’m using this back and forth in a blog, and crediting you accordingly for these ideas.
You kids are always getting on us older folks for our memory lapses. Now get off my lawn.
Just had to pop in to say, Mark Souder – BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/05/turning_into_a_banner_day.php?ref=fpblg
So, when is it ‘appropriate’ to strip search underage girls?
When you’re a pervert.
Re: Blumenthal
The VA has a term called “Vietnam Era Veteran” meaning that if you were on active duty during the Vietnam War you received certain benefits (as I recall they had to do with the Merit Systems Protection Board) versus if you served in a non-war period.
I served my active duty during that war in Fort Dix and Fort Devens in Mass, but I was a Vietnam Era vet.
I haven’t seen the video and don’t know if any of this explains anything.
But since most Republican politicians who were young men back then either got medical’ed because of cysts or because they were in college it’s not a big deal for me.
Actually, I sympathize for guys who go off to war, whether they volunteer or not. I just don’t think that having bullets shot at you necessarily prepares you for political office.