I am somewhat surprised: Did Joe Lieberman not take some positions to the right of Lowell Weicker, at the time the incumbent Republican senator, when he was elected in 1989? So in what ways did he change? What did Connecticut Democrats expect when they chose him to be their senate candidate back then?

On another point: True, Joe Lieberman in normal form is quite s strong sedative, but I just listened to your encounter on the radio show. I could not detect an "explosion" there, but maybe the scales measuring a Lieberman explosion include a lot of subliminal values. All I could detect was a lot of parsing of words and of sanctimonious whining, the true Lieberman he has always been.

Maybe, Connecticut Democrats finally woke up, or maybe eighteen years is too much anyway. I can't vote in your elections but I would have voted against Joe the very first time.

It is true, that Grass's moralizing can be unsufferable - and, yes, I admit to some Schadenfreude here - but the moralizing of his critics is so, too (full disclosure: I am German). Some facts tend to get lost in all this grandstanding: I think it is not trivial that Grass always has said that he had been an ardent Nazi in his youth . What he did, was hiding his having been a member of the Waffen-SS. And he probably did so because admitting of having been a Nazi does not carry that much weight in his public relations as the sting of having been "Waffen-SS". And there is reason to believe that he might not have gained a Nobel prize had the Waffen-SS past been known.

Baby-boomers in Germany have revolutionized German culture in the sixties, particularly in 1968. Yet, I always had trouble in understanding the posthumous anti-fascism so fashionable then - and, apparently still now. There is a whiff of chicken-hawking here. I for one confess, I am not so sure if I - without the hindsight at my disposition - born in 1928, indoctrinated from early childhood on, as a seventeen year-old would not have taken up arms for the Führer gladly. Was it Joachim Fest's character or that of his father that immunized him against Nazi doctrine?

I would also be willing to concede to Grass that his omission of the SS-part in his Nazi biography may have been a venial sin, were it not for his moral posturing. His reactions to the brouhaha created by his revelations were not to his advantage, either.

Yet, omitting facts to bolster one's moral outrage isn't that convincing, either. I am afraid that is what's going on with many of the critics. I salute their moral rectitude - and self-righteousness.

There is a baffling irony in the article. It reads as if GW were just the messenger boy for one Karl Rove: "Bush complained that some prosecutors were not pursuing voter fraud investigations." While I understand the grievances with Karl, hey, the American voters elected (at least the second time) the messenger boy president, for heaven's sake! He is responsible for Rove, or is he? Or can he say: I'm just the messenger boy, the buck stops one higher-up with Karl?

It is a pity that it takes an „old crank“ to put up some innovative ideas in American (and other countries’) politics. Since you cannot win anyway you might as well propose some sensible policies. Unfortunately the opposite seems to be true, too: If you want to win, do not propose sensible policies.

I got interested in Mike Gravel primarily in function of his defeating venerable Ernest Grue¬ning who together with another “old crank”, Wayne Morse of Oregon, had the guts to stand up against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that Gravel was not the rightist I had assumed.

Amongst the sensible proposals the article by Alex Koppelman does not mention is the “Citizen’s Wage” or guaranteed annual income. This proposal suggested by then Senator Gravel is being seriously discussed here in Germany right now, interestingly enough among all political parties. The potential of the Citizen’s Wage has not been discussed in all depth, though. Personally, I think it is an instrument to tap the creative and innovative forces of all sectors of society which I doubt you really can do when fear of economic deprivation is the prime mover for economic activities.

I might add that some ideas and aspects of the National Initiative have been proposed in France by just defeated (not so) socialist candidate Ségolène Royal much to the dismay of the “barons” of her party.

Maybe, maybe, after all, there is a chance that you may propose sensible policies and win someday.