Again, David Broder provides us a view of his idea of independent centrism, as he weighs in again in favor of Joe Lieberman in Connecticiut:

The outcome of [the Connecticut] fight is important nationally for the meaning that will be attached. While other states such as Missouri, Tennessee, Ohio and Virginia will decide whether Republicans or Democrats control the Senate, this Connecticut race constitutes perhaps the nation's clearest test on the Iraq war. Lieberman['s] . . . winning and returning to the Senate and its Democratic caucus would slow, if not reverse, growing pressure from the Democrats for an early pullout of U.S. forces. On the other hand, should Lamont repeat his primary win over Lieberman and capture the seat, it would add immeasurably to the momentum of the antiwar forces. He says that he is running in order to end the nightmare of "140,000 of our brave troops stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war."

David Broder's independent centrism call for rubberstamping the Bush/Lieberman Iraq Debacle. He acknowledges that that is what a vote for Lieberman in Connecticut would be. Connecticut voters -- do you support the Iraq Debacle? Because that is what voting for Lieberman means. Broder told you so. As Chris Matthews said:

OK. Just let me say this to Connecticut, if we have a war that keeps going after this election, don't sit back and say, "I did my best." Because the best thing you can do is vote against the war, right? If you're against the war, vote against it. You only get one vote. Shouldn't you vote against it, if you care about it? There's nothing complicated. Use your intelligence and vote your brains.

Libertarian Loretta Nall is running a write-in campaign for Governor of Alabama. She was on Countdown with Keith Olbermann tonight.

Loretta did a great job. Her platform:

• Legalize marijuana
• End the Iraq War
• Don't Comply with the Patriot Act
• Legalize the state's undocumented immigrants

If she loses the race, she'll run for Congress in 2008.

Update: More on the New Jersey decision at the New York Times and Washington Post.

*****

Big Tent Democrat wrote about the decision today by the New Jersey Supreme Court (opinion here, pdf). Several commenters weighed in with where they got married, in a civil ceremony or a religious one.

I got married twice in one weekend. The first ceremony was conducted on Friday by the Mayor at City Hall. The second was a religious ceremony that Sunday, at the home of friends of my parents. (I had cast the marriage date astrologically -- it was the '70's after all -- and it wasn't possible to do a religious ceremony on a Friday night.)

The marriage that was recognized by the state was the civil union on Friday. The religious one made no difference.

Is marriage inextricably intertwined with religion? I'd say no, nor should it be.

How about you? Where did you get married?

Don't forget to check the right side of TalkLeft for recent diaries by readers who also are diarists. You can recommend the diaries if you like them. Remember, just as with comments, recommend the diary based on content, not on point of view or the author.

♦Loserman: I fathered Iraq war, Bush enforces my policy there
By scribe

♦On the NJ Gay Marriage case - briefly
By scribe

♦The End of Empire: Liberalism and the Far Left
By Peaches

♦How Could the Republicans Miss This Anniversary?
By scribe

The replacement ad for this pulled ad, from the RNC, is not going to be run by Tennessee TV stations:

At least two Tennessee stations are refusing to run a new Republican National Committee ad attacking Dem Harold Ford, Jr., saying that they want more factual documentation of the ads from the RNC before running them, a Ford senior adviser, Tom Lee, has told Election Central.

Abortion pills for kids? How do they dream up this stuff? The Party of Hate.

He said it:

John Kerry, who Sullivan supported, isn't for gay marriage: "The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position." Or, as he said on another occasion: ""I'm against gay marriage, . . . Everybody knows that." Are there any Democratic candidates in contested races who are pushing gay rights and gay marriage? I can't think of any. Certainly, as I noted before, Harold Ford isn't among them. And Hillary Clinton isn't beyond reproach: "The executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda gay rights group has described Sen. Hillary Clinton as 'a complete disappointment.' . . . Clinton opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions between members of the same sex. During her husband's administration, she supported the Defense of Marriage Act."

Who am I to argue with the Professor? Maybe he should drop Hostettler a line and straighten him out.

More from the Party of Hate, an ad in an Indiana congressional race:

Pelosi will then put in motion her radical plan to advance the homosexual agenda, led by Barney Frank, reprimanded by the House after paying for sex with a man who ran a gay brothel out of Congressman Frank's home," the narrator says. . . . "I know what you're thinking," the narrator says. "Is this true? Well, do you feel lucky? Go ahead, vote for Brad Ellsworth. Make Nancy Pelosi's day."

Honestly, I don't know how a reasonable intelligent person can be a Republican. I wonder if even Barack Obama can find common ground with Hostettler, the GOP congressman running this ad.

Via atrios, the New Jersey Supreme Court handed down its decision on gay marriage. Quoting the syllabus:

HELD: Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to samesex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.

I got an idea, why don't we call them civil unions.

Greg Sargent writes about a new GOP Corker ad in the Tennessee Senate race:

Okay, so Election Central has just obtained a radio ad which you've got to hear: It actually has what sound like tom-tom drums playing in the background every time the ad talks about Dem Harold Ford, Jr. The ad -- which says it was paid for by the campaign of GOP Senate candidate Bob Corker -- can be heard right here.

I listened and can't say that I am hearing what Greg is hearing. But maybe this copy is not a good one. See why I say so on the flip.

Via Susie at Suburban Guerilla:

In the past, Democrats and other critics of the war who talked about benchmarks and timetables were labeled as defeatists, defeatocrats or people who wanted to cut and run. So why shouldn’t American people conclude that this is nothing from you other than semantic, rhetorical games and all politics two weeks before an election?”

- David Gregory at today’s press conference.

From Mark Schmitt on the Tennessee Senate GOP ads:

[L]ook at the independent ad in question. Then look at Republican Bob Corker’s own ad, here.

The independent ad begins with an African-American woman saying, "Harold Ford looks nice. Isn’t that enough?" The Corker ad begins with an African-American man saying, "Whoo, he looks good on TV!" (Apparently that’s the basis on which black people decide who to vote for. I did not know that.) It ends with someone else saying, "but he looks good on TV."

In between, the two ads have a virtually identical rhythm and look -- very short, person-on-the-street clips, alternating white and black, men and women, in a staccato rhythm, all cheerful and direct. . . . Together . . . these two ads sure look like a well-coordinated attempt to echo a single coherent message: He’s a pretty boy, he’s not from here, has weird values, ("He’s just not right," the independent ad concludes).

It's been a while since we checked in with Schapelle Corby who is doing 20 years in a hellhole of an Indonesian prison.

Schapelle describes her conditions in a new book to be published in two weeks. Australia's Women's Weekly pubished an excerpt today. The article is not online, but quotes from it appear in the news.