Quotes of the day: Bob Herbert finds Hoosiers don't like the GOP but still aren't wild about the Dems (Plus: The N.J. Supremes say a mouthful)

"I voted for Bush twice. Now I just want him gone."
--Lucy McKee, 40, a part-time supermarket clerk

"What's happening now is frightening to me. The war. The deficit. The cronyism. I'm the kind of Republican who signed on for balanced budgets, minimal government and letting people go about their lives. I feel like somebody has thrown away that playbook."
--Jeri Niazi, 60, a University of Notre Dame security monitor and "lifelong registered Republican"

Both quoted by Bob Herbert in his NYT column today from South Bend, Indiana, "Fed Up With Everybody"

After quoting Ms. Niazi, Herbert continues*:

Ms. Niazi said she is pro-business but she "never dreamed" that corporate interests would achieve the kind of overwhelming and corrosive influence on the federal government that they have under President Bush.

"They are cleaning up," she said, "while people here are having a tough time making ends meet."

The overwhelming sense I took away from interviews with voters in and around South Bend was a feeling of disillusionment with government. Republicans and Democrats spoke sourly about the Bush administration, but no one expected dramatic changes if the Democrats gained control of one or both houses of Congress. "People say the Democrats are weak, and frankly, I think they are," said Vernon DeWitt, who recently moved to Mishawaka from St. Louis. "I'm fed up with everybody."

The big issue here, as in most of the country, is Iraq, which will have claimed close to 3,000 American lives by the end of this year, and which has lasted almost as long as the U.S. involvement in World War II.

"The war creates stress on the electorate," said Congressman [Chris] Chocola [left--the Republican incumbent in Indiana's 2nd Congressional District, locked in a fierce reelection battle]. "I think it wears people's patience. They don't see a clear light at the end of the tunnel. They see every night on the news the bad things going on, and they almost never see any of the good things going on."

It's understood that this is a very tough political environment for Republicans. People want change. But the lack of great enthusiasm for the Democrats is an indication that the system itself is not working well, and that would be a problem more serious than even Iraq.

There are only two major parties. Where do troubled voters turn if the country is in a serious fix and neither party is seen as having an adequate solution?

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
*As always with hostage-held NYT columnists, the full text of the Herbert column will be appended in a comment.


ALSO TALKING--The N.J. Supreme Court Says a Mouthful

"We have decided that our State Constitution guarantees that every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples through civil marriage must be made available to committed same-sex couples."
--Justice Barry T. Albin, in yesterday's majority opinion of the New Jersey Supreme Court

It's true that, as Howie reported yesterday, the New Jersey Supreme Court by a 4-3 majority stopped short of ruling that the state's constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage, pointedly leaving that decision to the state legislature. But is it possible not to be astonished that on the crucial issue as enunciated above by Justice Albin, there was no dissent on the court? In effect, the vote for this groudbreaking ruling was a unanimous 7-0. The dissenters all wanted to go farther and articulate a right to same-sex marriage.

Justice Albin, an appointee of then-Gov. James McGreevey, seems to have understood the historical significance of the court's ruling. He prefaced the point I've quoted by saying, "Our decision today significantly advances the civil rights of gays and lesbians." Yes, it does.

In the most-quoted part of his opinion. Justice Albin wrote: "Now the Legislature must determine whether to alter the long accepted definition of marriage. The great engine for social change in this country has always been the democratic process. Although courts can ensure equal treatment, they cannot guarantee social acceptance, which must come through the evolving ethos of a maturing society."

This doesn't strike me as unreasonable. At the same time, the court made clear that it's interested in legal reality, not symbolism, giving the state legislature 180 days to come up with legislation that provides same-sex couples with "every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples."

As it happens, contrary to widespread expectation, the imminent age-mandated retirement of Chief Justice Deborah Poritz, an appointee of then-Gov. Christie Todd Whitman, seems not to have figured seriously in the decision-making process. Justice Poritz in fact was among the three justices who would have insisted on a universal right to "marriage."

If this turns out to be the last major ruling of "her" court, even though Justice Poritz was on the nominal losing side, an effectively unanimous decision striking such an important blow for basic human rights seems to me a legacy in which she can take pride.