By this point, I imagine a lot of people are tired of reading about the Connecticut primary results. Since Maryland voters obviously didn't vote in those contests, I wasn't going to write about it myself - others have shared far keener insights than I ever could.

But I changed my mind last night watching the returns come in.

Briefly, I think a good man and a good Senator has been run out of office by a candidate with little experience in government on a one-issue crusade (not that I question the importance of that one issue). I worry for the country when we lose an elected representative of the Center who tried to practice bipartisanship and responsible government.

But Senator Lieberman's loss is his own fault. He strayed too far from the Center of his own party and into the camp of right-wing extremists under the false hope that the only way to moderate their views was from inside their ever-maddening echo chamber.

Which is basically the point that the New York Times made this morning. Whatever else may be said in the MSM and on the blogs in the coming days and months, and for as much trouble as the Times gets into from time to time, I think they got it right.

Here's a sample:

The defeat of Senator Joseph Lieberman at the hands of a little-known Connecticut businessman is bound to send a message to politicians of both parties that voters are angry and frustrated over the war in Iraq. The primary upset was not, however, a rebellion against the bipartisanship and centrism that Mr. Lieberman said he represented in the Senate. Instead, Connecticut Democrats were reacting to the way those concepts have been perverted by the Bush White House.

And here's the full story.

I hope irate moderates all over the country get to the polls in November, and vote to oust extremism and restore sanity to our government at every level.