Redstate

...supports energy self-sufficiency for New England!

Drilling rigs in Long Island Sound! Windmill farms off Nantucket! An ethanol refinery for Kennebunkport! Drain the cranberry bogs & plant switchgrass!

You know all those nasty tankers that make the really big oil spills? We wouldn't need quite so many if we had a serious energy policy that encouraged domestic exploration.

Hug a caribou for me, Joe.

Fiats and Renaults in Connecticut.  Conservative Joe comes out swinging on a sure fire issue that nobody matches up to how they live their lives but everybody feels deeply about.  Maybe if we bought our fuel from Little Oil, two rig operations, garage sized refineries, the concerned would move on to other issues, increasing the Taliban fraternity at Yale for example.  What is it that fries the mind when the word Big is put in front of an industry name and why doesn't it work when you put Big in front of Government?  If dafedralguvmint sold fuel we would be dripping molasses into our tanks and paying $6 bucks a gallon for the privilege.

I'm still holding my shares in Patterson-UTI (PTEN) in anticipation for when ANWR drilling finally passes.  Unfortunately, '06 doesn't look good for adding Senate seats.

I live in Connecticut, and there are just as many SUVs here as in Florida or Texas. They get lousy gas mileage, but people who drive them (not me) say they're good at driving through the snow, which can be a definite plus here.

As for energy self-sufficiency, forget it. The state legislature is actually PROUD of having shut down part of the Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant. So if we don't use nukes, we've got to burn something, don't we?

For a relatively rich state, CT is surprisingly blue, but the problem is that lots of people here think that Yalies are actually smarter than other people, and they should be followed.

But maybe there's still hope for this state. George W. Bush was born here, and graduated from Yale, although he probably received his real-world education in Texas.

Connecticut could also elect worse Senators than Joe Lieberman. Who knows--maybe we Republicans should even vote for Lieberman, to keep Lamont out of the Senate.

I think it comes down to whether when one looks at a successful enterprise, one thinks "gee that guy must have cheated someone or just got `lucky'" or one thinks "gee that guy must be really good at what they're doing to become so successful."  For me at least, unless there is some evidence of fraud or that the firm only became successful because of government subsidies (read: corporate welfare) or because they rely on government intervention created barriers to entry to keep out the competition, I don't begrudge them their success.  

The fact that a firm may have benefited from a government policy that applies to all similarly situated entities but is neutral in its application to the market (e.g. public roads, patent protection, etc.) BTW is not a reason to consider their success illegitimate or justify looting by taxation, regulation, or litigation.  

Also it should be noted that there are just as many governmental policies directed at helping the "little guy" (e.g. Small Business Administration, federally subsidized insurance programs, exceptions from many regulations based on the number of employees, zoning ordinances to keep larger firms from competing with established ones, etc.) as there designed to help the "big guy."

FTR: I don't think I've ever uttered the phrase "big government."  It's too much of a cliché like "tax and spend" and has the effect of causing people to ignore the rest of what you have to say.  The debate IMO ought to be about what is the proper role of government in a free society first and then what levels of government ought to be involved in which role.  After that's been decided, we can discuss how "big" each level needs to be to accomplish that task.

When Lieberman was nominated for Vice President in 2000 my wife asked me what I thought of him. My opinion then as now was and is that if I had to choose a liberal Democrat to run the country, it'd be Lieberman. I don't think I could vote for him, but his party does make him look good.

My opinion then as now was and is that if I had to choose a liberal Democrat to run the country, it'd be Lieberman.

And when asked to vote for a Conservative Republican you'd choose..........Rudy Giuliani?

Lieberman is Democrat in name only.  He really is a typical New England Republican.

Look man, I know you don't like Lieberman, but to suggest that a man with a lifetime ACU rating of 17 - and who went "0-for-the-ACU" in 2003 and 2004 - is a typical New England Republican is, well, silly.

Or do you also consider James Langevin (18) and Patches Kennedy (12) to be "typical New England Republicans" as well.

there was a bit of hyperbole but not that much.  

Voting records are not the same as actual views as they can be tainted by party line votes.    

Are you saying that you don't think that Lieberman could switch parties and be considered a moderate?

If I can infer - is your principal problem with Lieberman the same as my principal problem with McCain?  In that, they are both more than willing to toss their Party and their leadership under the bus in a very, very public manner for seemingly no reason at all?

At least McCain gets good press out of it, though.

And no - without at least getting to the right of Linc Chaffee's voting record, Lieberman wouldn't be considered a "moderate" if he switched parties.  If your voting record is to the left if Jeffords, you're not a "moderate".

Ben Campbell was a moderate.

Joe Lieberman is not.

Honestly I have a few problems with Lieberman but primarily it's that he seems to his Party and leadership in front of the bus.  He has been the Republican's best weapon against the Democrats regarding Iraq and it bothers me that he chooses to push his agenda over his party.  Note: I don't care much for McCain doing that either.  

As a general rule if the opposing Party views you favorably and better than the rest of your Party that is a bad sign.

I don't mind Senators voting their conscience.  I do have a problem with Senators admonishing their own for face time especially on contentious issues.

Jeffords was a Republican.   A New England Republican for that matter.  I'm not suggesting that Lieberman would be considered a Moderate Republican.  He would be a Liberal Republican.  But he is hardly a Liberal Democrat.  

But he is hardly a Liberal Democrat.

...we agree - sort of.

Aside from Iraq in particular and the GWOT in general, I'm not aware of another single issue where Lieberman is far, if at all, out of the left's orbit - but to be honest it's not like I've really paid attention since leaving CT for MA in 2000 - I have my own to gas-bags about whom to worry.

That said, it's not as if Iraq/GWOT are small issues.

Cheers.

...now there's a Liberal Democrat fer ya. Maybe he could get a better parking space if he changed his party affiliation to D from S, but that's about the only difference it would make.

The other side of that coin, and the one that should make us all more than a little queasy, is that the difference between being a Liberal Democrat and a Socialist is just semantics.

Patrick Kennedy is labled a Republican on that site.

not always but often enough.  It is possible that the people who would be turned of by the phrases big government and tax and spend would also be turned off by the arguments justifying their use.  They would also be the same people who would not ask or answer the stipulations raised in your last paragraph.   I think that in microcosm the selective use of the word big is a dividing line between political camps, so big business bad, and government never big enough.  Simple yes, but in a society where cell phones are prized more than books you deal in the intellectual coin of the realm.