Well, today is a big day. There are dozens of primary races going on in my state, and none are being more carefully followed than that of Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman. So, who do I think will win? I think it is hard to tell at this point. I already covered what I see as their faults in my last election entry, so I won’t go over it again.

Lamont, who enjoyed a 13 point lead the day of my entry, has slipped a little bit in the polls in the last few days. On the other hand, he still had the lead going into the primary, and if you use that as indicator, it seems that Lamont might win.

However, yesterday Lieberman’s campaign website was hacked. Lieberman’s campaign is blaming it on Lamont’s supporters or even Lamont’s campaign itself, but the truth will probably never be known. For all we know, it could be been any of them, or even one of Lieberman’s supporters, knowing the Lamont would be blamed. Will this hurt Lamont? I doubt it. Lamont has already spent months using the anti-war sentiment to rally people to his name, and I don’t see a rather small hacking as affecting this very much. Similar scandals happened in the last Presidental election, with people stealing campaign signs and the such, but I don’t think that did too much to influence the results.

With so much uncertainty in the air, how can we possibly know what will happen? I honestly think it’s a crapshoot at the moment. The question is, will Lamont’s nack for rallying anti-war supporters win him the primary? Or will Lieberman’s years of experience, and still rather Democratic voting record do the trick? Stay tuned to your news stations for the results tonight, or come here as I follow the results as the precincts report in. I’ll offer my predictions as to who might be the winner once I can see some numbers.

Another big democratic primary race is for the Governor of Connecticut. Mayor of Stamford Dan Malloy, and Mayor of New Haven John DeStefano. I don’t know them as well, so I’ll have to reserve my opinions for when the results come in. Regardless of who wins, however, both have a steep uphill race against Governor Jodi Rell, the Republican candidate. She’s popular since she’s basically the anti-Rowland (as far as we know, anyway), helping to clean house in the state government when she assumed her post.

Stay tuned for more as the results come in tonight.

As the democratic primary is approching rather quickly, I thought that it was high time I start an on-going series about this year’s election. I’ll try not to focus too much on the races going on around the nation, but may increase the number of entries around election day.

Obviously, one of the hottest races in this year’s election season is that of the Senatorial fight between the two candidates from my own state of Connecticut: Joseph Lieberman and Ned Lamont.

The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Lamont leading by thirteen points, which isn’t bad at all for a guy nobody knew six months ago. Lamont sure is adamant in his stance about Lieberman’s support for the war, and I don’t believe I’m alone in thinking that this is what’s helping Lamont the most. His other major issues seems to be the energy bill supported by Bush and Cheney, for which Lieberman voted, and universal health care.

However, I think Lamont has a major fault: no matter how many times he says he has a stance on other issues, he really is only focusing on the one issue. He hasn’t said a whole lot about anything else. Most of his campaign (at least, what I’ve seen) has focused on Lieberman’s closeness to the President. While this is all well and good, I want to know what Lamont will do for his constituents. I have only today heard Lamont’s ideas for universal health care, but I’m not sure it is enough. People are clinging to Lamont because they grew weary of the war, and that has certainly helped him.
Continue reading →

I think J.K. Rowling should use that as the name of book seven, in place of “Harry Potter and Whatever This Part Will Be.”

George Bush, the man who seemed like he was going to enjoy a fairly quiet presidency, rocked by the events of 9/11. George Bush, the man who urged that the world rout out the Axis of Evil and other terrorists. George Bush, who led us through wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And George Bush, the decider, deciding on a complete reversal of the course he set in 2001.

As some of you may know, the President, along with Tony Blair, is urging that a U.N. backed peacekeeping force be sent to southern Lebanon, right after a cease-fire is negotiated (1). He also recommended that foreign nations not interfere with this force. Add that to the fact the White House is now supporting Geneva Convention protections for Guantanamo detainees (2), and you can clearly see that something is going on in Washington.

Not that I’m against any of this at all. In fact, I would embrace both measures with open arms, as would I’m sure many people. However, why the complete switch in foreign policy? Back in 2003, the President was pushing for an international force to invade Iraq if they didn’t disarm. He certainly was not backing down from his position then.

Well, as anybody who can read a newspaper would know, the President is increasingly becoming unpopular, even within his own party. Any decision a President makes ultimately creates an image for his party, whether or not the rest of them would act the same way. It’s a waterfall affect; the ill starts at the top, and spreads it way to the bottom. It happened with Clinton, and that’s probably part of the reason Bush won in 2000. So, I think the President is doing this in part to gain back support for the Republicans. They obviously want to stay in control of Congress. I think that if they lose either chamber in November, it will create a ripple effect that could potentially lead to a Democratic victory in 2008.

This is not the first time I’ve noticed this change in attitude. It has been going on for some time, since the start of the current tensions between us and Iran. If you did not notice, the President never ruled out invading Iran, but he never made it clear that the option was on the table. What he did make clear, in his last State of the Union address, was the the Iranians should rise up and combat their own government. Well, that was my interpretation, at least. You can make up your own mind:

And tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our Nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran. — Excerpt, Presidental State of the Union Address, 1/31/06

So, is this reversal of policy a good thing? Undoubtedly, it is the best thing he has done in six years. Is the President doing this for right reason, though? That is an answer that is a little murkier, but I think it may at least be part of the reason. Though he says he does not pay attention to opinion polls, the facts make me wonder otherwise. If it’s not public opinion, then it’s his standing among members of Congress. Something has caused him to change his mind. I do wonder how long it will last. Will the President keep going this course if the Republicans retain control of Congress is November? That remains to be seen, but I think there is a good chance that this would be the case. Even if his party retains control, he would again probably fall out of favor if he shifted course again.

While writing the last paragraph, something I learned in my college course about the Soviet Union came to mind. President Mikhail Gorbachyov also found himself in a similar situation with the party toward the end of his term. In order to appease the masses, he found himself having to switch from being more conservative to more liberal and back several times, since he feared for his position, while not wanting the Soviet Union to fall apart. The U.S. is nowhere near falling apart, but the Republican’s hold on Congress is near the tipping point. Therefore, and on a final note, it will be quite interesting to see what happens after November. Stay tuned to this spot for an update.