Decision ‘08

Shock Of The Day: The Times Endorses Lamont (Again)

Gail Collins is nothing if not consistent: she’s consistently wrong, but she’s consistent. Only the editorial page of the NY Times could write the following:

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.

…and see it is an arguement to vote for Lamont. Or how about this:

He [Lieberman] and Mr. Bush are still on the very same page, encouraging the American people to believe that there is a happy ending for American involvement in Iraq, and that all it takes is the perseverance to keep marching toward the end of the rainbow.

I could just as easily rewrite that paragraph to say that Lieberman believes, along with Bush, that we ought to try to win in Iraq instead of whining about how badly we misjudged things. The conclusion is classic Collins:

Ned Lamont has run a far less polished campaign than Mr. Lieberman, but the more we see of him, the more impressed we are by his intelligence and his growing sophistication about the issues facing the nation. He is very much in the Connecticut mold of basically moderate, principled politicians, and his willingness to take on Mr. Lieberman when no one else dared to do it showed real courage and conviction. He would make a good senator. More important, he has the capacity to continually become a better one. We endorse Ned Lamont for Senate.

Translation: you can vote for the real Senator, or roll the dice and take a chance on a neophyte who is ‘growing’ in his understanding of the issues (never mind that he has NOT shown such growth; indeed, his campaign seems to have regressed). No wonder no one takes the Times editorial board seriously anymore…

3 Responses to “Shock Of The Day: The Times Endorses Lamont (Again)”

1 Fred Says:
October 29th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
This endorsement is as surprising as the sun coming up in the east. The NYT editorial policy for the last 40 years has been to endorse every Democrat but one. And that one invariably is running in a meaningless up-state race. For those who don’t know better, or preferred not to know better, it’s important to project an aura of independent judgement.
2 peter Says:
October 29th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Actually the Times endorsed Giuliani and Bloomberg, both of whom are Republicans.
3 Mark Says:
October 29th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Fred, that’s better than the local ‘alternative’ rag the Austin Chronicle. Every year, they pretend to hold objective editorial meetings with the candidates. Every year they endorse only Democrats. And if a race should NOT have a Democratic candidate, as some down-ballot races don’t…they withhold endorsements. And then they agonize (in print) over why they didn’t just make a blanket endorsement of a straight Democratic ticket!!!!