The Times’ Endorsement Of Lamont Is Up…
…if you care to read it. Basically, it’s a poorly written screed that spends hundreds of words saying one thing: we don’t like George Bush, and since he’s not running, Joe Lieberman is his proxy. Do I lie?
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.
What of the man the Times is backing? This is what the endorsement says about Ned Lamont, in its entirety:
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.
Well, that’s certainly a ringing endorsement.
Wow…the Democratic Party is about to throw one of its finest members overboard, and the Times endorses his opponent by basically saying he seems like a decent guy, but he doesn’t know squat about policy.
The Times and the progressives deserve one another. What a fiasco…maybe they can hire Billmon to do military analysis for them…
Actually Mark, if you go to that website you turned me on to, Progressive Punch at
http://www.progressivepunch.org/
and choose the “select by score” option for the Senate, it’ll give you a list of the Senators in the order that PP scored them. Leiberman comes in at #39. Only six non-Republicans – Jim Jeffords and five Democrats – ranked lower. And only one of those six -Thomas R. Carper of Delaware (no, I never heard of him either) – was from a blue state.
Correction ^^: Jeffords is also from a blue state.
What I should have said was that only one of the Democrats is from a blue state.
I can’t bring myself to read the whole thing so my comment applies only to that portion of the endorsement that appears here.
Apparently it couldn’t be that Joe Lieberman actually believed in his support of the President and his policies, and that that is what motivated his behavior. No, it seems that unless Joe stood up and opposed the President in support of what the Times’ writer believes, then he is just a political coward.
Bah.
The editorial is focused on issues of executive power, NSA spying, detention, torture, etc. And I fully agree with its analysis, particularly quote you chose to highlight:
That’s exactly how I feel. I feel Lieberman has severely undermined opposition to the very worst aspect of the Bush presidency. And that’s the most important issue this country faces at the moment IMO. If you believe that, why shouldn’t you endorse Lamont?
“I feel Lieberman has severely undermined opposition to the very worst aspect of the Bush presidency…”
Really? Do you actually mean to suggest that one Senator has all of that power and influence? That’s not only fatuous, but hyperbolic in the extreme. I don’t seem to recall the “Saint Cindy and Her 1000 Day Vigil at Bush’s Ranch” being harmed in any respect last Summer, nor of a curtailment of the constant coverage being given to anti – war protests that usually number in the hundreds – but of course, that’s doesn’t count in your worldview here. Then we have the constant revelations of “secret prisons” and “secret spy programs” broadcast ad nauseum…the list is indeed endless of the nefarious and evil aspects of Bush’s Presidency that we’re subjected to on a daily basis.
Time’s up – please detail how Joe has severely curtailed opposition to this President’s policies during wartime. I’ll expect a full and detailed accounting of said restrictions, as well as cites to demonstrate your claims. If not, then you’re just bloviating in the wind, pardner.
Anonymous, it doesn’t bother you at all that the Times endorses Lamont and can literally find nothing good to say about him except he seems smart and moderate? Are we talking about a City Council race or the U.S. Senate?
Anonymous, it doesn’t bother you at all that the Times endorses Lamont and can literally find nothing good to say about him except he seems smart and moderate? Are we talking about a City Council race or the U.S. Senate?
MarK, elections present you with a binary choice. From my perspective, Lieberman is dead wrong about the most important issues of the day. I don’t know much about Lamont, but how much do you ever know about a new candidate? Should incumbants just be automatically re-elected because we know them better? Lamont’s stated positions on these issues are much closer to mine, and much closer to most people in Connecticut. Why isn’t that enough to justify voting for him?
Oh please. Lieberman is one of the most most well-known figures in the Democratic party, a party that is currently totally out of power. When he writes an op-ed in the WSJ suggesting that it’s bad for the country to be critical of the president, that undermines the Democrat party. When he goes on the Sean Hannity show and yucks it up with that dispicable mouth-breather, that undermines the Democratic party. That’s not hyperbolic. I’m not saying he’s single-handedly wrecking the country or anything. Just that he often engages in behavior that is gratuitously unhelpful to his parties interests.
But Anonymous, I’m not talking about your support, I’m talking about the Times‘ endorsement. Going by that piece, and that is, after all, the whole point of this post, you wouldn’t even know what Lamont’s position is – on ANYTHING!
Wait a minute, we know full well what Lamont’s entire reason for being is at this point – he’s not Lieberman. Now you’ve gotta admit, that’s a pretty compelling reason for the Times to support their cipher, yes? After all, how can you go against Punch’s wisdom and greatness?
“When he writes an op-ed in the WSJ suggesting that it’s bad for the country to be critical of the president, that undermines the Democrat party.”
Oh, please – such Chicken Little behavior only exists if said party has folk such as Pelosi, Reid and Dean to represent it. A stong party with the innate self – confidence of it’s core values and mission should be able to tolerate dissent from within it’s own ranks. The GOP has their own members who espouse extremist views, yet somehow when those views are aired publicly you don’t hear caterwauling from their supporters about “undermining the party.”
Your hero from the recent past, Bill Clinton, evidently does not agree at all with your sentiment. In fact, he’s directly repudiating it. Will you now denounce him as “undermining the party?” How about the Times? Why all the silence from the leading lights of the Left on Clinton? Should the Three Stooges who run your party denounce him now? Can’t have it both ways here – either Lieberman’s a traitor and Clinton’s his enabler, or neither.
You’re either lying or you’re not paying attention. (see, eg: the shrieking over Specter when he said an anti-Roe judge may not make it past committee; the gang of 14; and Graham’s objectively pro-terrorist stance on refusing to support the military tribunals)
If Clinton had said that criticism of Bush undermines the country, then yes, Clinton would be denounced.
“Lamont’s stated positions on these issues are much closer to mine, and much closer to most people in Connecticut.”
Much closer to the views of other DEMOCRATS in Connecticut, true. Closer to the views of all Connecticut voters? Well, you won’t find out the answer to that question until November, and the fact that Democrats are willing to risk an otherwise perfectly safe Senate seat to find out is telling.
Sean P: What exactly does it tell you? That they might lose a vote that was sometimes there for them but one that is in no way interested in holding the administration to task no matter what it does?
I think “sometimes there for them” is a little disingenuous, given Lieberman’s voting record. That said, I don’t know what the right is so worked up about. I happen to like Lieberman and I think he’s an asset to his country, but I’ll survive without him. On top of that, Ned Lamont is clearly a pin-headed idiot. Did you watch the debate? He has the intellectual subtlety of a sledgehammer and the political qualifications to match. A Lamont win is so unbelieveably good for the GOP that I can’t imagine why a Republican would want to oppose it.
AnonaLib grasps the nettle: elections, like wars, offer a binary choice. In this instance it is really Lose/Lose for the Dems and that makes me smile but at least there is some rationality at play here. If Lamont can creep past 50%, good for him. Lieberman has been a marginal asset in the GWOT and that is as much as any Democrat outside of the armed forces has, or can be, given the realities of their coalition; but that ain’t much. I’ll little miss Joe on ANY vote (he hasn’t been a reliable hawk on funding etc, has he?) and if he is removed it will give the Dems a bit less purchase on the inevitable, desperate struggle to steel the credit for the ultimate victory in Iraq. Kerry, however, will provide his usual spectacle.