Bogus Qualifications
Padding a Resume is Still Lying
By Daniel Muniz

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico admitted that a particular personal accomplishment that he has touted for decades never really existed. Until now, he had asserted that he had been a pick of a baseball draft in 1966 by the Kansas City A's.

The Governor who played at Tufts University was a right-handed pitcher (unless that can be proved otherwise) and he did play for an amateur league in Massachusetts. However, his hopes for playing professionally were dashed when he developed arm trouble.

This biographical note had been circulated as fact by numerous national news wires. More than likely it was probably picked by a regional news source a long time ago without being verified and then later picked up again by a national news wire. When other wires saw it, they presumed it was authentic and probably treated it as such.

But how can this fraudulent bio piece go on for decades?

I would be inclined to believe that not too many politicians of either party will question a “free pass” from the media especially if everyone believes it to be true. And the older the fabrication, the less likely that the truth will be exposed especially since the A’s had long since moved from Kansas City, so whatever records, if they still exist, are probably next to impossible to find.

Richardson already has an impressive list of verifiable accomplishments such as being a Congressman and serving as the ambassador to the United Nations. In addition, he has always been eyed by the Democratic Party as a possible Vice-Presidential candidate. So why try to pull a fast one or at the very least, why not let this bio piece die a quiet and obscure death instead of continuing something that can someday be proven false?

It is not like he was going to sway a critical voting bloc by claiming that he was “almost” a professional baseball player even though Richardson resides in a state that does not have a Major League Baseball team. Yes, such accomplishments do add depth to a resume but such a fabrication only helps an unknown candidate instead of a well established party figure like Richardson.

But a situation like this has always puzzled me about Republicans and Democrats.
 

Story Continues Below ê

Today's Top Stories

● Retirement Quiz - The Responsibility of Retirement ● Ban Cell Phones: Do Students Need Phones in Schools? ● Overcrowded Solution - But the Unions Really Hate It ● Victoria’s Secret - Has Sexy Become Too Trashy?

Yesterday's Top Stories

● Bad Example - School Principal Driving Drunk ● Banning Toy Guns - Laws That Go Way Too Far ● Shoplifter Dies - And Parent Files Lawsuit ● Hey S*** Face - Abusive Bill Collectors

I suppose that it is a natural inclination for candidates and elected officeholders, even ones with distinguished careers, to try to pad their own biography even though some people would call it lying. And the risk is just so enormous which why I am often flabbergasted when people actually try it. There is an unforgiving press and an opposition party that would love to humiliate a public figure, especially at the worst possible moment as with the old DWI arrest of George W. Bush during the 2000 presidential election.

The biggest whopper to date has to be when Al Gore insisted that he invented the Internet. I was amazed to see a number of Liberals who tried to actually defend his bogus invention. And Gore didn’t even back down from his claim, until it slowly created a firestorm. Dan Quayle famously retorted:

If Gore invented the Internet, then I invented the spell checker.

But why exaggerate or stretch the truth in the first place? Or better yet, why lie about your biography when it can be proven false?

I remember one time I was brain storming for some ideas for the design and layout of some campaign material with a campaign manager. The candidate had an impressive record as a college professor and as a brigadier general in the Air Force.

During the brainstorming, I explained to the campaign manager that she ought to personally verify “every” single achievement from the candidate. She gave me this deranged look as if I had a horn sticking out of my forehead. I didn’t mean to insult the general’s integrity but I insisted that this stuff had to be double-checked. I then rattled off a list of politicians that I personally knew who got nailed by the media when certain “untruths” were discovered.

Overall, it was natural for the campaign manager to take the candidate’s word for everything he claimed. After all, he did have an incredible background and to this day is still a very good person. However, within the next several days the candidate withdrew from the race because of how state district lines were established (it was still being fought in court so it was really hard to know until the last minute which district you were going to be in).

But alas, there is the problem in of itself. If the top tier of a campaign staff (campaign manager, etc) refuses to be skeptical, then this problem has a tremendous trickle-down effect that becomes virtually impossible to stop. In other words, if the campaign manager and any other senior member of the campaign staff refuses to authenticate this information, then where else within the campaign is there such a mechanism to do this?

As for myself, I have an accounting degree and my years of schooling taught me the accounting principle called professional skepticism. Simply put, it is having a questioning mind and being critical of evidence. You are not necessarily assuming people are dishonest but likewise you do not assume unquestioned honesty. In other words, it is “trust but verify” but doing it in a “professional” mature demeanor.

But as to the reason why a candidate or elected office holder would lie about their achievements, I really don’t have a good solid answer.

There are plenty of decent politicians from both parties who do this but it is not that they are necessarily bad people (contrary to popular belief). Perhaps it is more of being in the heat of the moment. Certain election races have a high-pace dynamic to it with raising money, jockeying for position, dealing with the press, etc. Certain “lesser” details do not have the kind of priority required for critical analysis, so something like this “just” slips by. However, this explanation is totally different than outright lying which is what a lot of politicians do.

I also assume that some politicians simply feel the end justifies the means since they feel that their cause is so noble. But the “good intention” path is one that is wrought with peril.

And then there is the Al Gore variety. Unlike other Republicans, I do not necessarily believe that Al Gore lied about his bogus accomplishments or illusionary background. I just see him as simply being deluded, mostly because he actually believes that he has really accomplished what he has claimed to have done. Again, that is different than someone who is an outright liar.

But the bottom line is that a candidate shouldn’t exaggerate, stretch the truth, or pad his or her qualifications or personal accomplishments. Other people call it lying but regardless of what you may think it is, just don’t do it.

And if you are in the capacity to ask the campaign manager or the candidate himself, then ask for verification. It doesn’t have to be insulting or demeaning. Just ask for it in a professional manner so that it further solidifies the stature and foundation of a campaign. Anything less will lead to a world of surprises.

We want your opinion! Tell us what you thought about this article. Click the Your Feedback menu item to send us your comments.