Blumenthal took PAC money despite claims to have refused it

posted at 10:12 am on August 23, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

When Richard Blumenthal jumped into the vacuum left by Chris Dodd’s sudden urge to retire from the Senate, most analysts wrote off the Connecticut race as a preordained hold for Democrats.  After all, the Attorney General was a tremendously popular politician, long considered ripe for the national stage, and Blumenthal faced only a former Congressman and two political neophytes as potential candidates.  A funny thing has happened on the way to the electoral forum, however — Blumenthal has been exposed not once but several times as dishonest.  In the latest scandal, his claims to have rejected PAC money has been shown false by the Linda McMahon campaign:

Richard Blumenthal’s words are haunting him again. Already forced to apologize for saying he had served “in” Vietnam in the Marine Reserve rather than stateside, the state attorney general’s campaign for U.S. Senate is now being challenged to explain his assertion that he had “never taken PAC money” and has “rejected all special interest money.”

Federal records show that he has accepted $480,000 in political action committee money since he made that claim in January. Moreover, his Republican opponent, former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon, points to nearly $17,000 Blumenthal received as a state legislative candidate in the 1980s — a figure Blumenthal’s campaign does not dispute.

If the money amounted to just a few thousand dollars, perhaps Blumenthal could be forgiven; after all, not every donation over the transom gets the candidate’s attention in a campaign.  No one raises $480,000 in seven months without knowing where it originated, however, not unless the candidate is a complete empty suit acting as a puppet for his handlers.  In fact, no one raises that kind of money from any sector without actively campaigning for it.

Why did Blumenthal make that claim?  He wanted to show that he could beat McMahon and her self-funded campaign without selling out:

Blumenthal was then asked how tough the race would be — and how expensive.

“I’ve never taken PAC money, and I have rejected all special interest money because I have stood strong and taken legal action against many of those special interests,” he responded.

When pressed again on how much the race might cost, Blumenthal said it was too early to tell but said he was going to run a “very grass-roots campaign” and seek fundraising “from ordinary citizens.”

Blumenthal’s campaign said that he didn’t lie about this, and that he was talking about his previous runs for AG.  The context of the interview, however, was on the Senate race, for which Blumenthal had announced his candidacy the day before.  And the point that Blumenthal was making was to differentiate himself as a candidate for this race, not for the races he had already won.

Would MSNBC have had Blumenthal on a live interview to give a historical perspective on long-past races for state office in Connecticut?  Hardly.  Blumenthal was campaigning for this office, not reliving his glory days, and everyone knows it.

This race was Blumenthal’s to lose.  So far, he’s doing a great job of it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

He won’t lose.

mankai on August 23, 2010 at 10:15 AM

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. For him to lose this race would be a bigger shock than Coakley losing in Massachusetts.

dczombie on August 23, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Anyone who votes for this guy is a complete idiot.

He has no integrity, Zero. The guy has been caught lying twice now.

How many other things is he lying about, that we don’t know about?

And if he gets elected as a liar, what’s to stop him?

Do yourself a favor Democrats. If you can’t vote for his opponent, just stay home and do something more productive than cast a ballot for this jackass.

Like watch Sesame Street.

NoDonkey on August 23, 2010 at 10:19 AM

and I have rejected all special interest money

Each and every donation to a campaign is special interest money. And there is nothing wrong with that. Different individuals & groups are going to back different candidates to further different policies. It’s called Democracy, which I guess is an offensive subject to the Fascist-Democrats.

I’ve got no problem with individuals, or corporations or unions (just not with mandatory dues) supporting various candidates. Just make the donations known up front. I merely want to know who is buying which candidates.

rbj on August 23, 2010 at 10:19 AM

But he says it’s “not a lie”. you know. In the “lie” sense.

tree hugging sister on August 23, 2010 at 10:19 AM

It doesn’t matter, win or lose, it does matter that we bring the lying to the forefront and expose these guys. He may win, but others lose votes because of him.
The democrats are shown to be “dirty” this campaign, and in any given district or state they may win, but it taints the whole, and in a close race, this hurts them nationally.

right2bright on August 23, 2010 at 10:21 AM

There’s an old saying in the wrestling & carny world…”You can’t work a worker.”

fusionaddict on August 23, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. For him to lose this race would be a bigger shock than Coakley losing in Massachusetts.

dczombie on August 23, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Losing may be a stretch, but this one even being competitive has to scare the living crap out of the Dems.

Blumenthal was up something like 65-35 at one point and it’s now dropping back into competitive territory. That means the national Dems will have to pour money into this race to save his bacon that would otherwise go to getting Alexi Giannoulias elected in Illinois or helping out Patty Murray in Washington state.

teke184 on August 23, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Anyone who votes for this guy is a complete idiot.

NoDonkey on August 23, 2010 at 10:19 AM

So you’re familiar with Connecticut voters and predict his victory, I see.

John Deaux on August 23, 2010 at 10:22 AM

But he says it’s “not a lie”. you know. In the “lie” sense.

tree hugging sister on August 23, 2010 at 10:19 AM

You mean like inartful wording?

a capella on August 23, 2010 at 10:27 AM

Why would lying change anything for blue state voters! If the lying about his military service did not sink him then these voters won’t give a hoot about this lie. Heck, how does Crist still have supporters, some purportedly conservative ones as well. That man is one lie after another!

bluemarlin on August 23, 2010 at 10:31 AM

But it wasn’t PAC PAC money.

BobMbx on August 23, 2010 at 10:31 AM

It’s real easy for Democrats and Republicans to sneer at McMahon, but this is the second big Blumenthal lie her campaign has exposed. McMahon has successful business experience in an industry with mass appeal. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, her opponents mock and underestimate her at their own peril.

Terrie on August 23, 2010 at 10:32 AM

I drove through Connecticut four times in the last 10 days. I saw several McMahon bumper stickers, and not a single Blumenthal sticker. Even saw a few McMahon yard signs visible from the highway. I don’t think the state is that heavily Democratic that anyone with a D next to his name will win. McMahon is running a very smart campaign and Blumenthal isn’t.

rockmom on August 23, 2010 at 10:33 AM

If this guy has made nearly a half million $$ in 7 mos for his campaign, I have no problem with that. However, if he said that he didn’t take any special interest money from PACs, and now has that kind of heavy change on hand—then that’s a huge problem. He says he served “in” Vietnam, and didn’t. Now he says he didn’t take PAC cash, and did. Blumenthal has a problem with the truth—he’s been shown to be a liar in two really large things now–this Vietnam service issue alone is enormous and now $480 grand of money who’s origin he denies accepting….. stupefying.

Connecticut, please, do the right thing in November. There are no perfect candidates, but this guy is at rock bottom and he is digging.

ted c on August 23, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Missplaced words funds

/Blumenthal

ted c on August 23, 2010 at 10:36 AM

Could it be possible? Do I dare dream that the Republicans retake the Senate? I hope that McMahon get on top of this and puts Blumenthal in a figure-four leg lock on all his lies.

scrubjay on August 23, 2010 at 10:38 AM

Like those politicians who believe in a “living” constitution, where words can mean anything said politicians want them to mean, Blumenthal has “living” campaign announcements, where words like “taken” and “rejected” can be stretched with UNBELIEVABLE flexibility.

olesparkie on August 23, 2010 at 10:39 AM

Another LIAR. What’s new?

Ricohoc on August 23, 2010 at 10:41 AM

You mean like inartful wording?

a capella

Not exactly. It’s more in the “Expect the Voter to Vulcan Mind Meld” sense.

Blumenthal’s campaign insists he did not lie — as McMahon says — when he said in an interview on MSNBC the day after he announced he was running for the seat of retiring Sen. Chris Dodd that he had never taken PAC money.

His campaign says he was referring only to his 20 years as attorney general.

So see? The VOTER was supposed to KNOW Tricky Dick was referring to something else, not NOW, duh!

Specifics, schemifics!

tree hugging sister on August 23, 2010 at 10:41 AM

But he says it’s “not a lie”. you know. In the “lie” sense.

tree hugging sister on August 23, 2010 at 10:19 AM

It’s not a lie lie.

/Whoopi

fossten on August 23, 2010 at 10:42 AM

he’s a DEMOCRAT politician…a LIAR…and a total DICKWAD.

I find no conflict in terms or surprise factor here. Thus he seems destined to be installed to replace a known crook…and follow in his footsteps.

Justrand on August 23, 2010 at 10:45 AM

At this point they could have nominated Obama for this office and they’d still vote for the Democrat…

…zing!

Asher on August 23, 2010 at 10:47 AM

John Deaux on August 23, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Sigh.

It’s not just that he lies, either.

He lies about things he should know, people can and will check on. Reserve status? PAC contributions? Those can be checked.

And then when caught in a lie, he denies he’s been caught.

Why do voters allow people like this influence over their lives?

NoDonkey on August 23, 2010 at 10:47 AM

Words just don’t mean anything to libtards. Yet they latch on to any stray comment from a conservative and then use it as a drum beat.

Mojave Mark on August 23, 2010 at 10:48 AM

The people of CT deserve this asshat. If you’re willing to vote for a guy who has shown himself to be a constant liar, unworthy of trust in even the basic issues, then you deserve a liar in congress. Idiotic when people cling to an ideology so strongly, they’d willingly vote for a scam artist than the other “guy.”

TheBlueSite on August 23, 2010 at 10:52 AM

In the latest scandal, his claims to have rejected PAC money has been shown false by the Linda McMahon campaign:

I know very little about Linda McMahon’s political views, but I love her will to fight. She has spunk. I like it.

conservative pilgrim on August 23, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Gee, it would seem that a lying, corrupt, no morals democrat lib would be a certain win. Now all we need to find out is if he’s cheated on his taxes. If he has he’ll be sitting in that senate seat for sure.

Wills on August 23, 2010 at 11:07 AM

But it wasn’t PAC PAC money.

BobMbx on August 23, 2010 at 10:31 AM

heh

It’s not like he is going to be doing his own thinking, if he is elected

entagor on August 23, 2010 at 11:12 AM

$480,000 isn’t real money to a dem anyway.

Kissmygrits on August 23, 2010 at 11:15 AM

They are inherently good liars. As they were from the beginning.

Gen 4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?

True_King on August 23, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Tense is everything here. “have” indicates action covering all times in the past, up to and including the present. “had” would have been more honest, indicating action completed in the past and not continuing into the present.

unclesmrgol on August 23, 2010 at 11:25 AM

The guy has been caught lying twice now.

NoDonkey on August 23, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Uh the actual lie count is about 6 times now. He was caught “enhancing” his war time serivce more than a few times over the years, the Hartford Courant
did an article on it a few months ago.

Johnnyreb on August 23, 2010 at 11:29 AM

He says he served “in” Vietnam, and didn’t. Now he says he didn’t take PAC cash, and did. Blumenthal has a problem with the truth—he’s been shown to be a liar in two really large things now–this Vietnam service issue alone is enormous and now $480 grand of money who’s origin he denies accepting….. stupefying.

Connecticut, please, do the right thing in November. There are no perfect candidates, but this guy is at rock bottom and he is digging.

ted c on August 23, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Blumenthal resembles Al Gore version 2000. Gore was leading in the polls, then he started making up stories to his own glory, like inventing the Internet and his mom singing a union song as a lullaby, written when Gore was 27 years old. When these were uncovered to be lies, Gore started slipping in the polls.

Blumenthal has also been caught in two lies, one about his “service in Vietnam” and another about “not taking PAC money”. Most CT voters couldn’t care less whether Blumenthal actually served in Vietnam–there have been peacenik demonstrators on lots of street corners holding signs against the war in Iraq for years. But for an Attorney General, who is supposed to enforce laws on other people, to be caught lying could lead lots of voters to mistrust Blumenthal.

I drove through Connecticut four times in the last 10 days. I saw several McMahon bumper stickers, and not a single Blumenthal sticker. Even saw a few McMahon yard signs visible from the highway. I don’t think the state is that heavily Democratic that anyone with a D next to his name will win. McMahon is running a very smart campaign and Blumenthal isn’t.

rockmom on August 23, 2010 at 10:33 AM

McMahon IS running a smart campaign, and has been blanketing the state with ads for months–not only on TV, but also with mailers. I get about three mailers a week from her campaign, many of them 4 to 8 pages which fold out showing photos of ordinary-looking people with quotes either praising McMahon or bashing her opponents (Blumenthal now, Simmons and Schiff during the primaries).

It’s still an uphill battle in deep-blue CT, but there are lots of Indies who could be won over.

Steve Z on August 23, 2010 at 11:38 AM

If Blumenthal had just gone on vacation for three months, just found himself a nice ski slope in New Zealand or something, he’d have won this going away.

Instead, he has to keep opening his mouth, and for an attorney with thirty years in public life he’s shown a remarkable appetite for shoe leather in this campaign.

JEM on August 23, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Democrats lie, Blumenthal is a Democrat, so what’s the problem with connecting the dots.

“D” means lies …

tarpon on August 23, 2010 at 11:59 AM

That’s not PAC money PAC money.

KeepOhioRed on August 23, 2010 at 12:03 PM

So, Mr. Blumenthal, what’s it like to have less integrity than someone in the professional wrestling business?

DamnCat on August 23, 2010 at 12:06 PM

“Why it was just like that time at Thermopylae, when me and my 299 buddies were looking at nothing but Persians, ‘far as the eye could see…”

Noocyte on August 23, 2010 at 12:23 PM

All of Blumenthal’s lies should be equal to a dozen “Macacas”.

In a sane world, he wouldn’t have a prayer of running for the Senate, much less leading the race.

Who can believe anything Blumenthal promises anymore?

But of course, the MSM don’t give a damn. The way I see it, any relationship between Democrat lawmakers and the concept of ethics is entirely accidental.

Edouard on August 23, 2010 at 12:29 PM

It seems to me that $17,000 is not negligible for a state legislative candidate.

burt on August 23, 2010 at 1:21 PM

If a Republican candidate had these honesty “problems” they would be so destroyed by the media, they couldnt win and might have dropped out before the primary.

alecj on August 23, 2010 at 1:24 PM

The guy is BOTH a lawyer and a politician…..
Yet people are surprised that he is a liar.

When he tells the whole truth and no9thing but the truth, (If it ever happens) well, THAT will be something worthy of being reported.

LegendHasIt on August 23, 2010 at 1:35 PM

Dick Blumenthal: Political Action Committee? What’s a Political Action Committee?

JohnGalt23 on August 23, 2010 at 1:51 PM

A lot of WWE’s on air talent leans conservative as well.

ynot4tony2 on August 23, 2010 at 2:06 PM

I’ve already put in for Nov 3 as a day off. I’m really looking forward to following the election returns all night on November 2.

disa on August 23, 2010 at 2:12 PM

disa on August 23, 2010 at 2:12 PM

I’ve already put in for Nov 3 as a day off. I’m really looking forward to following the election returns all night on November 2.

Sounds like a good idea. Hopefully I’ll have a job before then so I, too, can take the day off.

ynot4tony2 on August 23, 2010 at 4:42 PM

It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘lie’ is

/Bill Clinton on Dec 23, 2007

P. Monk on August 23, 2010 at 8:17 PM