New York Times Endorses Lamont - But Probably Too Late
Ned Lamont was supposed to be the Cinderella story of the year for progressive Democrats. His candidacy in the Democratic was originally thought to be little more than a mild diversion from "Joementum", the inevitable force that would easily propel one of the most prominent Senate Democrats back into office for another term. But something happened along the way, and Lamont's tireless ribbing of Lieberman for his pro-war, pro-Bush, pro-Republican stances finally caught on, and in a surprise victory Lamont narrowly edged out the incumbent for the Democratic nomination. Not taking "No" for an answer, Lieberman insisted on running anyway as an independent. Common wisdom would have people believe that in a two-party system such as the US has, the election would come to a race between Ned Lamont and also-ran Alan Schlesinger, who is polling somewhere that easily rounds down to zero.
The icing on the cake for Lamont should be tomorrow's ringing endorsement for him from the New York times, which eloquently states why it makes sense to vote for Lamont this year, but it's not clear Connecticut voters are listening or even care at this point.
Mr. Lieberman, a three-term Democratic senator now running as an independent, talks about the threat of Islamic terrorism. Mr. Lamont, who beat Mr. Lieberman in the Democratic primary, reminds voters what a mess the invasion created. When it comes to the next step, Mr. Lieberman seems to mimic the Bush administrations proposal to stay the course (while no longer mentioning that toxic phrase) with new tactics. Mr. Lamont is close to the Senate Democrats (minus Mr. Lieberman) who demanded a timetable for withdrawal without being too firm on what that ought to entail.
[...]
We wanted to see a capacity for growth and change in Mr. Lieberman. The country is full of Republicans who now realize the Iraq invasion was a disaster, either in its basic concept or in its execution. The most honorable of them are in agony over what has happened. Mr. Lieberman, who had not only continually defended the administrations Iraq policy but also attacked Democrats who criticized the president, had more cause for soul-searching than most.
But instead of re-evaluating his own positions, Mr. Lieberman blamed his constituents for failing to notice that he had offered some negative comments about the conduct of the war, too, mainly when he was running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2004. He did not protest when Dick Cheney said that people who voted for Mr. Lamont were giving comfort to Al Qaeda types. His only reflection seemed devoted to a re-examination of the rules for getting back on the ballot.
Since his primary defeat, Mr. Lieberman has run a well-packaged campaign built around his self-assigned bipartisan image Its not about politics, say his ads. But it is very much about politics from the flood of special interest campaign donations that has been running Mr. Liebermans way to the old Karl Rove lesson that political winners never admit to error.
We are living in perilous times. Being able to work with the opposition party Mr. Liebermans claim to fame is hardly a sign of moral courage when the opposition party controls the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. President Bush did not need Mr. Liebermans persistent support on Iraq when he had the deference of his own party members in Congress. What the country needed and what Connecticut had the right to expect was for Mr. Lieberman to risk some of his bipartisan clout to call attention to the way Iraq was spiraling out of control.
The Times essentially echoes the opinions of most progressive pundits and web commentators on Lieberman, who has become the favorite whipping boy of the left (the video of him being kissed by George W. Bush didn't help). But Connecticut voters apparently aren't paying much attention to those pundits, with the most recent polling results showing Lieberman with what likely amounts to an insurmountable lead this close to election day.
Republican Alan Schlesinger trailed with just 6 percent support, versus 52 percent for Lieberman and 35 percent for Lamont, who has poured $12 million into the campaign.
Even if he isn't a Democrat (in a state that is solidly blue) Lieberman's name recognition, position of prominence and incumbency seem to be big factors in his winning the election anyway. So while the papers and the talking heads may support Lamont, it's looking a lot like Lieberman will be heading back to Washington this year.
Comments
DieWhiteGirls
Madison, WI
July 2005
OCT 29, 2006 10:13 PM
Hunter
SUICIDEGIRL
New York, USA
OCT 29, 2006 11:48 PM
holeshot
West Hartford, CT
November 2005
OCT 30, 2006 02:57 AM
DieWhiteGirls
Madison, WI
July 2005
OCT 30, 2006 09:56 AM
Huzzah
Guilford, CT
October 2006
OCT 30, 2006 10:19 AM
hadees
Austin, TX
December 2003
OCT 30, 2006 10:51 AM
s5
San Francisco, CA
OLD SKOOL
OCT 30, 2006 01:23 PM
s5
San Francisco, CA
OLD SKOOL
OCT 30, 2006 01:25 PM
s5
San Francisco, CA
OLD SKOOL
OCT 30, 2006 01:28 PM
RubberSoul
Los Angeles, CA
February 2003
OCT 30, 2006 02:15 PM
hadees
Austin, TX
December 2003
OCT 30, 2006 02:27 PM