Despite Vietnam Flap, Blumenthal Still Has Wide Lead in Senate Race

Despite misstating his military service, Richard Blumenthal has a 25-point lead among Connecticut voters in the upcoming Senate race, according to a Quinnipiac poll. Recently, the New York Times reported that Blumenthal falsely stated that he had served in Vietnam. Following this report, other news sources uncovered other moments when Blumenthal misrepresented his military service. On several other occasions, however, Blumenthal accurately stated that he did not serve in Vietnam. Sometimes, he even gave conflicting accounts during the same speech.

Despite the controversy, Connecticut voters still support Blumenthal. In addition to showing a huge lead for Blumenthal, the poll also reveals that 57% of voters describe the Vietnam story as "not too important" or "not important at all." I predicted this outcome when the New York Times story first broke. My experience with Connecticut voters leads me to conclude that they are generally unmoved by gotcha politics.

Now, New York Times In Flap Over Blumenthal's Vietnam Comments

How quickly things can change. Earlier this week, the New York Times ran a bombshell article, which revealed that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has misstated his military record. During a filmed presentation (and on other ocassions), Blumenthal said that he served in Vietnam, but he never did.

The article created quite a stir. Democratic politicians, however, continue to support Blumenthal, and the controversy might not cost him the upcoming senate election.

The New York Times, however, is now receiving criticism. Apparently, the New York Times failed to disclose potentially exculpatory statements by Blumenthal from the same taped speech in which he falsely stated that he served in Vietnam. During the taped speech, Blumental said that he served during Vietnam in the Marine Corp. reserves; later, however, he referenced his service in Vietnam. The New York Times only presented the most damaging statement.

It is unclear why Blumenthal would make potentially contradictory statements during the same speech (perhaps he truly misspoke). It is equally baffling that the New York Times would eliminate such an important part of the speech.

The New York Times, however, has defended its failure to present the entire context, stating that the earlier portion of the speech is not necessarily exculpatory ("during" does not exclude "in"). To some extent, this is true, but readers should have had the opportunity to evaluate the entire context of the story -- not simply the most damning parts.

Blumenthal In Flap Over Vietnam Deceit, But Will It Hurt Him?

Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut Attorney General and Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, got into a bit of hot water today. The New York Times revealed that Blumenthal has repeatedly said that he served in Vietnam. Blumenthal, however, never served in Vietnam, and he apparently benefited from calculated efforts to avoid deployment. Additional media accounts, however, show Blumenthal on several other occasions being honest about his past military service, including the fact that he did not serve in Vietnam.

Although this story has occupied a lot of space in the media today, it is unclear whether it will cost Blumenthal the race. Connecticut voters seem to shrug off these things -- even though a colleague of mine close to politics in the state said that corruption and lying are two different things. Nonetheless, I am not sure if voters will parse the difference, particularly in light of the documented instances when Blumenthal admitted that he never served in Vietnam and the full support he has received from other Democrats. Greg Sargent seems to agree: The Plum Line - Richard Blumenthal will survive.

Update: The New Haven Register has already published an editorial that defends Blumenthal.

Michael Moore to Connecticut Voters: Recall Lieberman or Face Boycott (LOL)

Michael Moore has issued an ultimatum for Connecticut voters: Recall Senator Joe Lieberman or face a boycott of the Nutmeg State. Interesting.

Moore is upset with Lieberman because he is, in part, responsible for the watered-down version of healthcare reform currently pending in the Senate. Moore blames Connecticut voters for empowering Lieberman, and he wants them to rectify the situation:

People of Connecticut: What have u done 2 this country? We hold u responsible. Start recall of Lieberman 2day or we'll boycott your state.

Two things strike me as problematic with Moore's position. FIRST, the Constitution does not provide for the "recall" of members of Congress. Accordingly, the substance of his demand is illegal. SECOND, boycotting Connecticut does not seem like an awesome economic threat. Aside from October leaf-touring season, Connecticut is not a major tourist destination. And in December, most of the trees in Connecticut are completely naked. Moore needs to go back to the drawing board!

Here Comes the Groom: Same-Sex Marriages Will Soon Begin in Connecticut

Although the Connecticut legislature voted to recognize civil unions in 2006, the Connecticut Supreme Court recently held that the prohibition of same-sex violated the state constitution. Given the politics of Connecticut, I do not expect a successful drive to amend the constitution. According to the latest news from the Nutmeg State, gay marriages will occur as early as November 12, when the lower court will enter a final injunction ordering the state to permit same-sex marriage.

Doctor, Pass the Bong! States Continue to Consider Medical Pot Laws Despite Federal Ban

In 2005, the Supreme Court held that Congress had the authority to regulate the possession of "homegrown" marijuana, even when consumed for medicinal purposes. The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 bans the possession, distribution and manufacture of several categories of "controlled substances," including marijuana. Congress has refused to exempt "medicinal marijuana" from coverage under the statute, despite a growing movement in states and in Congress to legalize the usage of pot to treat a variety of illnesses (wink).

The liberals on the Supreme Court, joined by Justice Scalia, disagreed with the view that homegrown and consumed marijuana fell outside of Congress' regulatory authority because it lacked a sufficient nexus to "commerce." The case, Gonzales v. Raich, required the Court to consider the extent of the "Commerce Power," contained in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the constitution.

Although the Commerce Clause receives very little attention (certainly not as much focus as abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, and other hot-button issues) in popular constitutional law debates, it is a very important dimension of the regulatory state, and it receives tremendous amounts of analysis from legal and political experts. Historically, the Court has viewed the Commerce Power in liberal and conservative terms, depending upon its ideological composition and the economic and political conditions facing the country at the time. Accordingly, when businesses were expanding during the age of industrialization and in the subsequent consolidation of industry, the Court, stacked with "laissez faire" jurists, viewed the Commerce Power in conservative terms and routinely invalidated laws regulating the economy and labor. But during the Great Depression and after FDR engineered his infamous court-packing plan, the Court shifted dramatically to a more liberal view, and, for a period of almost 60 years, declined to find any law unconstitutional on commerce clause grounds. Things changed in 1995 during the Rehnquist Court. Beginning with the case U.S. v Lopez, the Court would again closely scrutinize federal laws enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause. And since the return of the conservative treatment of the Commerce Clause, the Court has struck down several popularly favored laws, such as a ban on guns in schools (in Lopez) and a provision of the Violence Against Women's Act that gave victims of gender-motivated violence a federal right to sue their offenders.

When the medicinal marijuana case came to the Court, many constitutional law experts argued that under prevailing conservative doctrine, the Court would necessarily reject the federal government's effort to regulate homegrown and consumed marijuana, which has a most tenuous connection to commerce. Nevertheless, the Court went against the current of conservative caselaw and held that Congress indeed possesses the authority to prohibit homegrown pot.

The Court justified its ruling on the fact that the federal ban on marijuana is part of a much larger and extensive federal statute that prohibits the interstate and international trafficking of drugs -- which indisputably relate to "commerce." Also, the Court held (in what I consider a stretch even for me as a liberal) that the use of homegrown pot affects the broader market for marijuana because it impacts the price structure for the substance and because Congress would face difficulty distinguishing homegrown from commercially obtained pot. Responding to the former argument in his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas probably displayed his most effective and humorous logic as a member of the Court when he asserted that the majority's view would permit Congress to regulate "quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States" because they impact the market for quilts, clothes, and dining outside of the home.

If one considers the political reasons for the ruling, however, the fears Thomas raises in his dissent might lose their force. The liberals, for example, likely sided with the federal government in order to resurrect the liberal aspects of the Court's Commerce Clause doctrine. The only explanation I can offer for Scalia's departure from his normal pattern of voting against Congress, especially in cases involving individual rights, and for tossing aside his own conservative views of the Commerce Power and federalism is the following: Justice simply hates pot! Seriously, he does a very poor job distinguishing this case from others in which he has agreed with the conservative view of the Commerce Power.

Despite the Court giving Congress the green light for punishing medicinal usage of pot, states continue to debate and pass such measures. In November, for example, voters in Michigan will consider enacting such a provision. Last year, Connecticut passed similar legislation, but Governor Jodi Rell vetoed it.

Although the Court has concluded the Congress can prohibit the use of homegrown marijuana, it has not addressed the question of whether banning its usage for medical purposes infringes an individual rights to control one's health care decisions. The Raich case presented such an issue, but the Court declined to reach it because the lower court focused on the Commerce Clause question exclusively. Later, on remand, the liberal Ninth Circuit rejected such an argument.

Also, while many states prohibit marijuana under their own laws, states cannot enforce federal drug laws and have no obligation to design their own laws to conform with the federal prohibition (a California appeals court recently accepted this view that seems fairly uncomplicated under current doctrine). Accordingly, persons in states that permit the medical use marijuana would only face prosecution if federal authorities decided to pursue a case against them (which rarely happens with small users, rather than large distributors). These facts probably explain why voters continue to demand the enactment of such laws, despite a federal prohibition.