(H/T Instapundit) The Connecticut Mirror went with the wrong title with this article by choosing “Once again, Blumenthal appears to misstate his history.” Admittedly, the story itself – that Senator Dick Blumenthal is reprising his unfortunately-successful electoral strategy of lying about his Vietnam service by inflating his role in Roe vs. Wade – is newsworthy. Not surprising in the slightest, and certainly not a new low for the freshman Senator from Connecticut – but newsworthy. But it still shouldn’t have been the title.
The title should have been “Blumenthal Chief of Staff threatens website.”
Laurie Rubiner, Blumenthal’s chief of staff, echoed that argument[*] and warned against writing such an “incendiary” story.
“This is a very unfair route you are going down,” she said. “We’ll remember this.”
Now, I don’t know what Laurie’s job history is, and I frankly don’t feel like looking it up – but this was a rookie mistake**. A stupid rookie mistake, and one that reflects badly on her boss. You see, it works like this: once your boss gets caught doing something bad – even if it didn’t stop him or her from being elected – that means that anything that he or she does that even looks like the original bad act is fair game. Cheat on your wife and get caught, you get to field questions about new allegations of adultery for the rest of your career. Plagiarize a speech, get used to having your future speeches gone through with a fine-tooth comb. Lie about your service in Vietnam, expect that people will double-check your personal narrative from then on out. This is the way it is: if folks don’t like it, there’s a fairly obvious and easy way to avoid the problem.
And if Laurie – or Dick – can’t handle that, then perhaps this ‘politics’ thing really isn’t for them in the first place. At least, not on the national level.
*For those wondering, the ‘argument’ is actually a variant of the standard ‘Vietnam era‘ spin adapted to Roe vs. Wade. Ironically, this represents a half-step up for the Senator.
**It’s also passive-aggressive, in a manner that must be actively embarrassing to bare-knuckle brawling Chiefs of Staffs everywhere. If you’re going to threaten a reporter’s access, Laurie, elementary protocol and courtesy dictates that you accompany it with a stylized representation of your ability – nay, eagerness – to track the reporter back to his home and stalk/kill/consume his household pets. That you did not do this is evidenced by the fact that the reporter reported the threat. Hint: that means that the reporter is not scared of you.