The New York Times Endorses Ned Lamont…
…and throws Joe Lieberman in front of the bus on the way. It’s really quite a piece of work, if you take the time to read the whole thing. It’s late, so I’m not going to go through all of the things The Times cites as evidence against Lieberman at the time of this writing. Perhaps I’ll update this post tomorrow. But, in the meantime, I’ll just say that every specific charge The Times makes seems like a reach with some instances that can not be described in any other way than incredibly petty.
And this lack of substantive reasons shows when The Times immediately informs us that “this race is not about résumés.” Really? No kidding. It can’t be about resumes because Lamont’s political experience is, at best, measly. And that’s probably why The Times spends a total of 34 of 924 words of the editorial actually talking about Lamont. And the best they can conjure up is that he “seems smart and moderate” [my emphasis] and has “showed spine” to challenge Lieberman even though he “does not have his opponent’s grasp of policy yet.” Wow! That really sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.
No, this editorial is not about Lamont. And it isn’t even about “Mr. Lieberman’s legislative record,” as The Times wisely informs us. That would be just plain silly. This is about Lieberman falling “in love with his image as the nation’s moral compass” and “his warped version of bipartisanship.” It’s about civility. And Joe Lieberman, unlike many of his Democratic colleagues, has refused to sink to the rhetorical lows that have come to define his party epitomized by DNC leader Howard “I hate Republicans” Dean. Perhaps had Lieberman just called the President a war-monger or compared America’s treatment of detainees to that of the Nazis, Soviets, Pol Pot or others, he wouldn’t find himself in this predicament.
BY THE WAY: My utmost respect to anyone that can explain the rationale of the following also from The Times editorial: “…and despite some unappealing rhetoric in the Terri Schiavo case, he has strongly supported a woman’s right to choose.”
UPDATE: The Washington Post likes Lieberman’s “warped version of bipartisanship.”