Lying, in fact, is the best-case scenario. What happened is that Dick Blumenthal, when asked point-blank whether he supported cap-and-trade, told a constituent 'no.' Surprisingly unambiguously, as the video below shows:
Note the 'cap-and-trade is dead' bit: it'll be important later.
This is no doubt a bit of a surprise for people following along, given that Blumenthal was already trying to explain away his support for the infamous HR 2454 cap and trade House bill last year: his campaign is already angrily trying to argue that support for this should not be categorized (as the Linda McMahon campaign happily did) as support for an 'energy tax' (even though that's pretty much what cap-and-trade is). Even if you do accept that argument of Blumenthal's, he is on the record as being a cap-and-trade supporter: specifically, HR 2454. Blumenthal specifically wrote to the same Senate that he's now trying to join, calling for that legislation to be passed. This is a matter of objective reality.
So, what's going on?
Well, one of three things. One, Dick Blumenthal's too dumb to realize that there's a difference between claiming that there's a difference between cap-and-trade and an energy tax, and claiming that he never supported cap-and-trade in the first place. Two, Dick Blumenthal's too dumb to realize that every conservative/Republican political activist in the United States of America now has a video camera. Then there's three: when Blumenthal implied that 'cap-and-trade is dead' was his reason for no longer supporting the legislation, he meant it. Which would mean that he never supported cap-and-trade in the first place; Dick Blumenthal was just pandering to Connecticut voters by telling them what he thought that they wanted to hear.
Honestly? If I were a progressive, I think that I would prefer either answer #1 or #2. Because then at least I wouldn't be the one being lied to.
PS: Linda McMahon for Senate. My party's candidate for CT-SEN doesn't lie to me.
Crossposted to Moe Lane.