News-Record.com

I am not surprised by the number of Independents in my old home state. Someone has to strike a balance between the old union bosses and the bluebloods of Greenwich. Connecticut voters often still hash out local issues in town hall meetings, one-person-one-vote-one-voice at a time.

My father has rallied his neighbors against corporate and commercial invasion by cheesy convenience stores and cell phone and cable towers. He spurned attempts to gentrify and slap "historical district" status on our town center, which would mean he could, if he asked nicely, change anything on the back of his house (built in 1973!), but nothing "modernist" even there, and nothing significant on the front. He argued he should be able to consider any style of home addition he d-mned-well-pleased, the yuppie bluebloods looked aghast at him and said, "Oh, no, not one of those Picasso-metal-things!"

My father is one of the last great Americans Norman Rockwell would have painted. Those yuppies wanted Disneyfied-Rockwell-land, not the real thing.

Here in the South, I find the independent-thinker is an endangered breed, too.

The Times had this editorial, noting that Lamont is hardly a left-wing radical, but another CT Yankee moderate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/opinion/09wed1.html?ex=1155268800&en=07253c6ed9adcb93&ei=5087%0A

Here's exit polling from Tuesday's Democratic Senate primary, for those interested.

Thanks, Freddy. The NYT edit is interesting. Of course, to the Times editorialists, Lamont is a moderate and Lieberman a right-wing radical.

Lamont certainly does have an old-money prep school background, but that doesn't bind him to the genteel conservatism of the Prescott and George H.W. Bush types.

Thanks, Lex. Not much of a surprise in the results.

It seems there is a good portion of the Dem electorate not opposed to Lieberman's indy run. Given the large number of unaffiliated voters, plus his appeal to moderate Repubs, I'd say Lieberman has a shot in November.

Sen Lieberman does indeed have a shot in November and I believe today's incident in Britain further bolsters the importance of electing individuals who understand the need of a strong stance against terrorism on our soil as well as abroad.

The Senator will probably garner enough votes from the Repubs as well as indies combined with his Democratic loyals to win in November. This may be a local issue peculiar to CT only in some people's, but in light of the prominence that this Senator has taken in the fight against terrorism, all of America needs the Senator from CT to be returned to the Senate.

Doug Clark: "Of course, to the Times editorialists...Lieberman a right-wing radical."

Well, no.

NYT editorial, 7/30/06: "This primary would never have happened absent Iraq...[Lieberman] has voted with his party in opposing the destructive Bush tax cuts, and despite some unappealing rhetoric in the Terri Schiavo case, he has strongly supported a woman's right to choose. He has been one of the Senate's most creative thinkers about the environment and energy conservation.

"But this race is not about résumés. The United States is at a critical point in its history, and Mr. Lieberman has chosen a controversial role to play."

Come on, Ed, leave me a little room for hyperbole.

Not only are all politics local, they are also relative.

Up North, when I went to college in Boston, I was considered quite middle of the road, if not downright, well, right-of-center.

Down South, I am apparently a wild leftist to the majority of voters, but a stick-in-the-mud buttoned-down traditionalist to my college confréres.

The "Truth" of one's positions is always shifting according to one's company. How one believes and acts is always re-interpreted by others, and usually someone else gets to put the labels on. Even the most fundamentalist conservative is bound one day to find he/she disagrees with someone more ensconced in a previous century; and no matter how progressive the politics of another, they will pale beside world-saving protestor.

Doug,

I think that you had it right with your statement about the NY times. It is one of the most left wing MSM in the country. Any slight association of Joe with Bush made him persona non gratis with the party of the far left.

How significant is Joe losing the Democrat primary? He lost by about 10,000 in a Democrat primary in a state with about 1.5 million registered voters, where the majority consider themselves independent. I'd say that Joe still has a reasonable shot in October. Reading some of Lamont's statements, he has a considerable way to go to being able to carry Joe's strap as a U.S. Senator. Joe is a strong social liberal, but he's a foriegn policy hawk of the Scoop Jackson line, and that is a fast vanishing breed in the Democrat Party. No hawks welcome. In fact, Joe may have been the only one.

Now, which Democrat presidential candidate when elected in 2008 will be fully-suited to lead this country through some perilous and dangerous times? Which one will we feel confidence in keeping us safe? John Kerry? Hillary Clinton? Al Gore? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? Russ Feingold? Howard Dean?

By the same token, which fine Republican will be fit to carry on the dictatorial style of Bush and disregrad law with fiats delcaring he won't implement parts of bills even as he signs them? Or set up illegal torture chambers? Or spy into every cranny of our private lives? Or ...well, you get the picture?

McCain, the very man Bush and Rove shot down with rumors and innuendo, pitching him as too hot-headed?

Guiliani, whose record in New York, pre-911, was dotted with police brutality and cultural know-nothingism?

Brownback, the Religious Right brownnose?

I know: Bill Frist, Doctor extraordinaire of the "Terry Schiavo is going to be fine, I can tell from the video" fiasco?

Freddy,

What rights or liberties have you lost as an American citizen as a result of any actions taken by George Bush?

The right not to have my private communications tapped. The right not to have the government snooping through my library book choices. The right to a speedy trial if held for questioning, even if I am an American citizen, and the right to be at least formally charged if I am to be held for years on end.

Bush has published more caveats on bills he signed than all the other presidents in our history combined. He basically says, "I am signing this as law, but have no plans to enforce it, follow it, or direct funding to it."

Freddy, are you a terrorist? If not, then no one is "tapping" any of your communications.
Are you a terrorist? If not, then no one is looking at your library records.
Are you a terrorist currently in the custody of the US government? If you were, you'd have been fully informed that your incarceration is not the same as someone charged with a criminal act.

Wiretaps have to be conducted legally with safeguards to ensure that ordinary people aren't wrongly targeted.

As for library records, my view is that if you use the PUBLIC library, your records are PUBLIC. What's the big deal if someone finds out what books you check out? Anyway, I seriously doubt if this authority is used a whole lot.

In fact, it has happened in Connecticut, coincidentally.

If one reads about Islam, should the government kep tabs on one?

If one reads Greg Palast, for example, who uncovers all kinds of dirt about the rigged election of Bush in 2000 and 2004, should the administration get to know that?

What about books on chemical things that might be, say, mixed and such, for purposes of legitimate demolition? Or poisons for use to avert poisoning? Can't you see how even just showing curiosity or needing legitimate information could easily be misconstrued (or construed for political purposes) and lead to further invasions and investigations?