New York Times endorses Lamont over Lieberman

[kpete]

New York Times endorses Lamont over Lieberman

RAW STORY
Published: Saturday July 29, 2006

Sunday's edition of The New York Times is set to include an editorial endorsing challenger Ned Lamont over incumbent Joe Lieberman for Connecticut's Democratic primary race for the Senate, RAW STORY has found.

An article also slated for Sunday's paper called "After sluggish start, Lieberman heeded warnings of trouble" mentions the endorsement.

The New York Times, in an editorial published 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. The price of Mr. Lieberman’s slow start was on display on Friday, 11 days before the Aug. 8 primary. Mr. Lieberman, reshuffling his schedule after Democrats warned him that he was still not campaigning with enough urgency, set off on a 10-day bus tour across the state, with a sharp new message.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/nyregion/30lieberman.html?ei=5094&en=1bb97e944bd182b3&hp=&ex=1154232000&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1154194914-rEtBzC18e+BmsNlrhPStqA

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/New_York_Times_endorses_Lamont_over_0729.html
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/jul/29/times_endorses_lamont

[SammyBlue]

1. The NYT was part of the Iraq War rooting and trumping up section

They still carry Bush's water and polish his axe handles. Jesus Christ, what a schizophrenic bunch of panderers.

[stepnw1f]

2. The Fact They Didn't Pick Lieberman Gives Me Hope

because Leibermann sure "still carry Bush's water and polish his axe handles."

[Phredicles]

3. "what a schizophrenic bunch of panderers."

Right. But this should tell us which way the wind's blowing.

I couldn't be happier. Nominating Lieberman was our man Al's greatest blunder: Not only did it fuel Nader's spoiler act, but it gave Lieberman a completely underserved level of prominence within the party.

I guess Joe'll be starting his new career as cohost of Fox's "Hannity & Lieberman" in January.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. "Hannity & Lieberman"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[babylonsister]

11. Welcome to DU, Phredicles! nt

[liberalhistorian]

13. HaNUTty and Loserman,

that's perfect!!!!!!

[glitch]

20. Completely agree and welcome to DU! nt

[newyawker99]

22. Hi Phredicles!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Eric J in MN]

7. During the leadup to the Iraq War, the NY Times'

...front-page had misleading pro-war stories by Judith Miller about Iraq's wmd.

However, the editorials were anti-war.

[calico1]

9. The NYTimes has always been

schizophrenic like this.

[karynnj]

16. True - and it was a similar pattern in 2004

In the news section, Elizabeth Brumiller was a Bush groupie and Adam Nougorney didn't seem to find one thing he like about Kerry.

But the editorial board endorsed Kerry for both the primary (when he was in reality a shoo-in and in the general election).

This is a very significant endorsement as it may shake some who were reluctant to leave a longterm encumbent for someone new.

[fujiyama]

25. There is a distinction

that gets lost on many on both the left and the right regarding the NYT. I'm not at all surprised their main editorial decided to endorse Lamont.

Their editorial section has always leaned left and was opposed to the war as well. The "news" section OTOH has been somewhat schizophrenic and featured the likes of hacks like Judith Miller and Elizabethe Bumilier. I agree that its news section has carried Bush's water for a long time, including his war. I suppose this is their way of "balance".

The WAPO has definetely veered right though. I believe their editorial section did endorse the war and they feature a few more RW columnits in their op-ed section. The NYT has only one consistantly RW columnist in David Brooks though Friedman does defend the war as well, but is generally critical of the administration on many other issues.

[Clarkie1]

4. Cool. nt.

[oberliner]

5. I predict Lamont takes the nomination

Very curious to see what will happen in a 3 way race.

[Eric J in MN]

8. I hope you're right, but

...I'm pessimistic that Bill Clinton's support will let Lieberman win by a razor-thin margin.

I've donated to Lamont multiple times, including recently, in spite of my pessimism.

[calico1]

18. It's damn hot here in CT.

You had to have an invitation to get in the theater to see the Clinton-Lieberman show. This week most people have been worrying about how to stay cool. A number of people have lost power. The ad that Lieberman has on TV now is a clip from the Clinton appearance. Its not a specially made ad with Clinton supporting him. I think Clinton will maybe get some people to the polls who hadn't thought about going. But he won't change any minds as far as people who have already decided to vote for Lamont. In the news after his appearance they interviewed an elderly Black woman who was all giddy and excited to see Clinton. The reporter asked her "Are you voting for Lieberman?" She said "Hell, NO! I just came to see Clinton."

I don't know. With all that is happening in the ME I think some people might vote for Joe because of that issue alone. But you also have to keep in mind that this is a primary, not a general election. I think that the side most motivated and that can get more voters to the polls will win.

[Phredicles]

29. Clinton's support,...

...from what I'm hearing, may actually damage the guy by reminding voters what a snotbag Joe was to him (while holding the current office-holder to account would be "divisive", according to Lieberman). Cetainly it sounds like that's the way coverage in CT is making it look.

[TahitiNut]

10. That's a very significant endorsement in the northeast.

It seems to indicate that the NYT knows which way the wind is blowing. I wonder how they'll come out when and if Joe runs as an independent.

To call what Joe's done a “warped version of bipartisanship” is apt, even though understated.

[cali]

12. Baloney

NYT editorials are not predicated on the wind.

[TahitiNut]

15. Well, gee ... if you say so, it must be true.

:eyes: :eyes:

[Eric J in MN]

14. Why would anyone who supports Lamont in the primary...

...support Lieberman over Lamont if Lamont wins the primary?

[TahitiNut]

17. I wasn't suggesting they'd support Lieberman as an independent.

I was merely wondering how they'd editorialize such a choice by Lieberman when and if it came to pass. (In fact, that's what I said.)

[CTyankee]

23. I was wondering if the Times was going to endorse in the primary

and only endorse in the general. This is good news. However, an endorsement by the NYT doesn't win elections. Lots of voters in CT don't read the Times, and I would bet that in the eastern part of CT that's even more true.

I'm very glad and can't wait to get my paper in the morning!

[calico1]

24. But on the other hand, the Eastern part of the

state is the least populated. If you divide the State by districts you will see that the 2nd district is just about the whole Eastern part of the State if you were to draw a line down the middle. I do read the Times because I am a NY native. But I think its most important that the people in the more populated districts go out and vote!

[CTyankee]

27. OH, I hope so Calico!

From your mouth to God's ear, as the saying goes!

Let us all hope that the Times endorsement has a beneficial effect. I'm going to call again next week for Ned. I'll report back whatever I find!

[MrsT]

19. Great!

:kick:

[bobbolink]

21. Wonderful news! Thanks, kpete!

:toast:

:bounce:

[flyarm]

26. wooooo hoooo!! yipeeee..looks like

little lord pissy pants and his buddy have pissed off NYT enough!!

woooooooooo hooooooooo:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

fly

[Nutmegger]

28. Yeah this is a good thing

though my love for the NYT has diminished.

[kpete]

30. Sunday NYT Editorial

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/opinion/30sun1.html