Our Choices

For Governor

Twenty years ago, when M. Jodi Rell ran for the General Assembly in the 107th District in Brookfield, no one, least of all the candidate herself, would have thought she was on a trajectory for the governor’s office. Ten years later, as a respected veteran member of the state House, she was tapped to be John Rowland’s lieutenant governor, in part, no doubt, because she had no apparent ambition for the state’s highest office. So when she was sworn into the state’s top job on July 1, 2004, after John Rowland resigned in disgrace, Connecticut found it had one of the rarest of state leaders — a governor who had traveled from obscurity to high political office without calculation or the guile of ambition.

Mrs Rell’s impeccable credentials and unquestioned integrity were just what Connecticut needed after the scandals of the Rowland administration, and she further reassured a state wary of self-serving politicians by reorganizing the state Ethics Commission and pushing for campaign finance reform. Even after 28 months of hardball governing with an entrenched Democratic majority in the Legislature, Mrs Rell is still widely admired and trusted.

The governor has been criticized for her lack of bold, state-transforming initiatives, but her commitment to a comprehensive upgrade of the public transportation system, early childhood education, and an energy policy favoring biofuel production shows both vision and pragmatism as Connecticut sets course for the future. M. Jodi Rell is the right person to lead the state for the next four years.

For US Senator

The war in Iraq made this year’s race for US Senator a horse race. Democrats imposed a stiff penalty on incumbent Senator Joseph Lieberman for his support of the Bush Administration in the war by nominating political newcomer Ned Lamont to bear the party’s standard this year. Most Americans now believe sending troops to Iraq was a mistake, and 60 percent agree with Mr Lamont that the United States should set a timetable for troop withdrawals. While Mr Lieberman may be out of step with voters on the prosecution of the war and the need to extract Americans troops in the near, rather than distant, future, we believe there are reasons why he should and will be returned for a fourth term in the US Senate that transcend his unpopular stance on the war.

Mr Lieberman’s enduring appeal to Connecticut’s electorate lies in his refusal to be pigeonholed, declining the politically safe accommodations in the ideological dovecotes of Democrats or Republicans. He stands somewhere in-between, engaging all comers in dialogue on national issues. We disagree with his stubborn insistence that the decision to go to war in Iraq and our subsequent conduct of that war have been in the best interests of America. He occupies, however, a place in the center of the national debate on a full range of other important issues — not on the extreme margins where the polarizing tenure of the Bush Administration has left too many Republicans and Democrats. Beyond his opinions about the war, Mr Lieberman represents most Americans in his stand for a strong and engaged foreign policy, expanded health care for all Americans, and protection of our country’s environment and natural resources.

We hope that moderate Senators in the mold of Joe Lieberman, on both sides of the aisle, will become the navigators for a new US Senate that recaptures its influence over the direction of our nation, which now seems so far adrift.

For Congress

Much has been made in recent weeks of how the Democrats and Republicans in Congress have been running against and away from President Bush in this election campaign because of his low approval ratings. What our US Representatives seem to forget is that the President is running a full ten points ahead of them in public opinion polls. An AP/AOL poll conducted last week found that just 25 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is doing its job. Our elected representatives in Washington seem attentive and engaged — just not with their constituents.

We have seen ample evidence this year of how money buys access and action in the Congress, and while Connecticut’s elected representatives have been, for the most part, scrupulous in reporting their finances and following the letter of the law, most voters believe, with cause, that big money gets big attention on Capitol Hill. We would like to see a Congress, and especially the “people’s house,” the House of Representatives, where citizens once again hold the reins of power.

Democrat Chris Murphy has campaigned in the Fifth District as a reformer committed to once again creating a space between lobbyists and legislators for ordinary citizens, and he is addressing a growing desire for universal health care that stresses prevention and affordability. He wants not only for Congress to improve its own standing with its constituents but also the standing of our country in the world, not through fear, torture, and ultimatum, but through leadership, competitive drive, and the compelling example of a free and open society.

Republican Nancy Johnson has been in Congress for 12 terms. Since 1989, health, insurance, and drug industry and professional groups have invested heavily (nearly $5 million) in her tenure — $739,000 from the pharmaceutical industry alone. Are we surprised that her vaunted role in the Medicare prescription drug bill included support for provisions that specifically preclude Medicare from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices for beneficiaries?

Let us hope this now represents the old way of doing things in Congress. We support Chris Murphy’s bid to be part of a new Congress that wins the approval of more than just one in four Americans.