However,the question occurs to me..how popular is Mr Bush and the Iraq war among CT's democrats today? In CT's primaries,can one cross over to vote in an "opposing" Party's primary as they can in some states,mine included? If that's the case,that could,IMO,work in Joe's favor.If not,I refer you to the question I posed just above.
It's a socially moderate, fiscally moderate state. A flaming left wing liberal or a right wing firebrand are just not going to displace moderates in leadership of either party here.
So you're suggesting that Joe can withstand a full throttle onslaught by DNC Headquarters,as appears might be happening? Are CT democrats *that* different from those in MA or NY? If so,please explain Chris Dodd?
Connecticut is The Land of Steady Habits, and it's just not the sort of place that is likely to be stampeded to the left or the right by an ad campaign.
Being from CT (as your post seems to suggest) you're in a much better position to know the lay of the land down there.However,I would remind you that an ad campaign (perhaps a *very* well funded one) would be the only weapon in Howie Dean's arsenal.And I'd also encourage you to think back on the last portion of the career of another democRAT "malcontent",Zell Miller.
You asked: "However,the question occurs to me..how popular is Mr Bush and the Iraq war among CT's democrats today?
Connecticut Democrats are conflicted.
The Fairfield County set, where the money is, includes many liberals who oppose the war. But there are also a lot of 9/11 survivors and families of victims here. The only thing that really distinguishes liberal Republican Christopher Shays and his moderate Democrat opponent, Diane Farrel, is that he supports the war and she opposes it, and lately Shays has been moving away from a pro-immigration stance. The race between Shays and Farrell will be very tight, as Shays' races always are. There is a sense here that the war has to be fought, because the enemy is going to keep on attacking us unless we take it overseas to them - this is realistic. But there is also the sense that Bush and the hard-conservative "Texas Team" Republicans are a bunch of bunglers. Republicans here don't like they way that the war has been fought, but that's not the same thing as opposing the war.
You asked:"In CT's primaries,can one cross over to vote in an "opposing" Party's primary as they can in some states,mine included?"
No.
You wrote: "So you're suggesting that Joe can withstand a full throttle onslaught by DNC Headquarters,as appears might be happening?'
Yes, I expect Joe Lieberman will survive the DNC onslaught handily and be the Democratic nominee. From the Connecticut Democrat's perspective, Howard Dean has Tourette's Syndrome. He says stupid and wild things and is an embarrassment. Of course there are hard-core, die-hard, ultra-left liberals and party hacks everywhere, so Lieberman will have to run for the Democratic nomination - it won't be handed to him - but he'll win it. And then he'll probably win re-election handily. The Republicans will probably run a pro-choice liberal, they always do. Given the choice between a pro-choice liberal Republican, which is to say a snake in the grass, and Joe Lieberman, who is aboveboard even when he's wrong, I myself will probably vote for Lieberman if the GOP runs a pro-abortion candidate. I do not vote for pro-abortion Republicans. I am making an exception for Shays because his opponent is pro-choice, and Shays is right on the war. But Lieberman is as right on the war as any Republican, and more right than some, so there is no reason at all, none, for me to reward a pro-abortion Republican with my vote in the case of the Senate.
You wrote: "Are CT democrats *that* different from those in MA or NY? If so,please explain Chris Dodd?"
Yes, they are very different, and Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman are cases in point. I presume you refer to Dodd because he is liberal. Sure, he's liberal. But remember: both of the Connecticut Democratic Senators voted FOR the President's Supreme Court nominees. Sure, they debated, but at the end the CONNECTICUT Democrat Senators voted on the men's abilities. The MASSACHUSSETTS and NEW YORK Democrat Senators were partisan hacks.
Take a look at Kennedy and Clinton. New York and Massachussetts voters are willing to be vassals in political fiefdoms. A Kennedy crashes a car into a barrier at the US Capitol and gets driven home. But a Kennedy (Skakel) can get convicted in Connecticut for killing somebody. Massachussetts is Kennedy country. But the Bushes' home fief was in Connecticut.
Now look at the other Senator in Massachussetts: Kerry is a mega-wealthy liberal establishment guy. New York has a massive Jewish population, and Schumer the media-whore schmuck is certainly representative of the powerful New York City Jewish lobby. That's his base.
But in Connecticut, we have an Orthodox Jewish Senator with no money, and we don't have a Jewish base like New York does. And Chris Dodd? Yes, he's a liberal democrat. But he's just a guy. He's not a gazillionaire. There's no "Dodd dynasty". New Yorkers vote for celebrities when they are not voting ethnic politics. Massachussetts is the personal fief of the Kennedy family. Connecticut? Two nobodies, really. They're liberal Democrats but of the sort who vote for Judge Roberts and Alito. Yes, it is different here. It's a small state with an obscene amount of money. Remember, too: the insurance industry has long been concentrated in Hartford, Connecticut. So, you've got the Fairfield/NYC suburb pole (Fairfield County is different from other commuter towns, because the very wealthiest folks commuting to New York - the people who run many of the biggest enterprises - don't live in New York. They live in Fairfield County, Connecticut), and you have the Hartford insurance industry pole. Huge amounts of finance are done in Connecticut, and a substantial portion of the population works in the financial sector, either in banking, hedge funds or insurance. That makes people financially savvy and very practical.
Just compare New York's politically-motivated income tax system, with all of its complicated carve outs, with Connecticut's simple flat tax on income (the rates are progressive, up to 5%, but there are NO deductions for mortgages, etc.). Connecticut's code is clean and simple, and fair. That's the product of a state that is full of financiers. If this were Texas, of course, the top rate might be 1% instead of 5%, but Connecticut IS a socially liberal place, with a heavy social services infrastructure. People are politically willing to pay for it. But they do so in a straightforward way, with a clean tax code.
A further example of how different Connecticut really is: we have no counties. Oh sure, they're still on the map, but there's no county government AT ALL. There's no county seat, no county commissioner, no sherriffs, nothing. THe political structure of the county in connecticut was completely dissolved. Now, there are only two tiers of government: the state, and the towns. Power from the counties was devolved downward to the town level, and most towns are operated by representative town meetings. It's nothing like the government structure in New York, which is very political and very multitiered. Here, the town controls most things.
Connecticut is very, very different from New York. Most of the folks in Fairfield County are there because they want access to NYC but don't want to live in New York.
In effect, Connecticut is like Luxembourg, a little enclave of peculiarity touched between two large states. The political hero-worship of Clintons and Kennedys such as besets New York and Massachussetts is just part of the landscape here in The Land of Steady Habits.
Let me give an example: the corrupt former Republican Governor, Rowland, was driven out and prosecuted for his corruption (which was small beer stuff). His replacement, Jodi Rell, is a moderate Republican and very popular. She is running against the moderate Democratic mayor of Stanford, a fellow named Malloy. Rell will probably win, but there's not a nickel's worth of difference between them really. Connecticut Republicans and Democrats are mostly financially responsible social liberals. Rich people tend to be that way, and Connecticut is the richest state in the Union. GEICO runs a commercial up here urging people to buy their cheap car insurance because "Connecticut is the wealthiest state in the Union, but is in danger of losing this status." The ad urges the listener "Do your part, Connecticut, and log on to GEICO.com, and let's Keep Connecticut Wealthy."
It's a funny ad.
You could not run that in New York (because it wouldn't be true!) and you couldn't run it up in Massachussetts, because you folks are much more fiancially liberal, and it would not be a selling point up there to amuse people by wealth. Half the folks on my street are Democrats. They're all bankers. They're all social liberals. And they're all fiscal conservatives.
Think Luxembourg, and you understand Connecticut's economy.
And think high finance and insurance, and you understand Connecticut's politics.
Think Stepford Wives, and you understand Connecticut society.