New York Times Endorses Lamont
by RonChusidThe editors of the New York Times inserted a bombshell into an article by Adam Nagourney on the Lieberman campaign. As Nagourney writes about the problems with Lieberman’s campaign the editors added this note:
The editorial page of The New York Times on Sunday endorsed Mr. Lamont over Mr. Lieberman, arguing that the senator had offered the nation a “warped version of bipartisanship” in his dealings with Mr. Bush on national security.
Such endorsements are hardly enough to guarantee a victory, but this should put an end to the claims that the move to replace Lieberman with Lamont is a nutty effort from the radical left blogosphere.
Update: The editorial is now posted on line. Here’s a portion:
Mr. Lieberman prides himself on being a legal thinker and a champion of civil liberties. But he appointed himself defender of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the administration’s policy of holding hundreds of foreign citizens in prison without any due process. He seconded Mr. Gonzales’s sneering reference to the “quaint” provisions of the Geneva Conventions. He has shown no interest in prodding his Republican friends into investigating how the administration misled the nation about Iraq’s weapons. There is no use having a senator famous for getting along with Republicans if he never challenges them on issues of profound importance.
If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.
Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponent’s grasp of policy yet. But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman’s legislative record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.
Filed under: Democrats, OP/ED's, Politics | Get Permalink or trackback |
[...] al page of The New York Times on Sunday endorsed Mr. Lamont over Mr. Lieberman, … by Ron Chusid
Write a Comment
Take a m [...]
I don’t know – I’d call this a ‘Holy Cow’ moment with the NY Times endorsement. I think the Times hit the nail right on the head.
Joe must go.
HOLY COW
The wind has definitely changed.
I cannot believe this. WOW oh WOW!!
Nice! The NY Times nailed it. Kudos!
Glad to see the Times got it right. It isn’t just because of his continued support of the Iraq war. There are other Democrats who are still supporters of that disaster. Just because almost all of the “liberal” MSM and talking head morons are too stupid and clueless to understand the real problem with Joe and have, as always, based their “conventional wisdom” on GOP talking points, as they almost always do, doesn’t make it true.
It’s the other things that are much more serious. Joe talks and acts jsut like a right-wing Republican when he tries to repeatedly cover up and spin for this incompetent, corrupt and evil administration. And while doing it he even uses the same words/phrases and attacks against his fellow Democrats and liberals that the GOP does.
It has been obvious for a while that Joe loves the positive attention he gets from the right-wing. From the same scum who detested, attacked him and referred to him as LIEberman for years after Gore picked him as his running mate. If you have ever seen Joe on Faux with Hannity etc you’d puke. It’s a mutual love fest. Joe has become a traitor to his party and liberal ideals and by his support of this Administration and current GOP, therefore a traitor to his country as well.
Don’t feel bad for Joe though. If he loses his Senate seat he can easily get a job on Faux News. Or he can do a Zell and write a Dem trashing book just so Faux, newsmax and other filth will push it to the droolers for him and make him some big bucks.
I should not have also called Joe a traitor to his country. That is a very serious charge and should only be reserved for actual traitors. Joe is just an apologist and appeaser of traitors, which is bad enough…
Real traitors to his country are Bush and others in the GOP who outed a covert CIA agent(and her CIA front company), lied on matters of war, ignored real threats to the nation, repeatedly damaged our national security, destroyed our moral standing in the world, purposely divided the country and repeatedly shredding our constitution. And all for reasons of increasing their personal power, greed and partisan politics…
[...] cess in a breezy 42-minute hearing. New York Times Endorses Lamont Posted by Ron Chusid July 29th, 2006 @ 5:18 pm The edito [...]