NY TIMES Endorses Lamont !

[mefoolonhill]

The endorsement will be in tomorrow's edition of the paper. Here's what we have thus far-

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/jul/29/times_endorses_lamont

[Demeter]

1. I Like The Blogger Who Said: "He's Been A Terrible Democrat"

not just a terrible Senator, but a terrible Democrat.

[saigon68]

4. HE IS BUSH'S POODLE

[ktowntennesseedem]

40. He's been a great senator...

for those who thing * has been a great president.

Too bad about the gay marriage thing--they make such a cute couple.

[bemildred]

2. Put a fork in him. nt

[IndianaGreen]

10. Let me help you with that fork. Hello, Marshall Wittman, where are you?

I'll bet the DLC just took a collective dump!

[bemildred]

11. I would really like it if we could throw a few more of these weasels out.

That is the only way we will get their attention I think.
They have to be taught to obey.

[IndianaGreen]

12. Lieberman joining the GOP in opposing both Democratic Iraq resolutions

on troop withdrawals really took the cake for it put Lieberman way to the right of Hillary Clinton, and clearly on the Republican camp.

[bemildred]

13. War brings out the real political alignments in this country.

The war-party against everybody else. It's refreshing in a way, after the thin gruel we are fed as political "debate" most of the time, a charade played by ignorant and corrupt suit-droids intent only on their own enrichment.

[MaryRN]

16. Agree...and not to mention running as an Independent vs. his own party!

[Guaranteed]

23. They'll start shaping up after this is over. nt

[Joe Bacon]

42. Don't forget Kondracke, Kaus and the NEW REPUBLICAN and the DLC!

oh, they deserve to get the fork treatment, too!

[SOS]

50. Wittman is spending his Sunday at Wal-Mart

purchasing "Office Space for Rent" signs.

[Breeze54]

3. Thanks for the tip!

:)

[hang a left]

5. whoa!!

[MrsT]

6. Great!

:kick:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. could the grey lady be waking up at last?

her self-imposed comatose condition was getting on my nerves.

[n2doc]

8. maybe. but there was another sickening article today

discussing how Joementum "woke up" too late to the the fact that there was a serious campaign against him. The article itself is pure tripe, and Lamont is only described as having "negative" positions.

[Joe Bacon]

52. Writen by the liar of liars Ad Nags

No doubt Ad Nags is crying in his Maypo as his beloved Senator Vanilla Ice is going down to total humiliation.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Democratic Establishment sees the handwriting on the wall

and they want to position themselves with the winner of the primary. I hope Lieberman refrains from running as an independent, if for no other reason but to salvage something out of his reputation.

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 President Bush on national security.

Ouch!

[chimpymustgo]

14. Woo hoo!! Still, I don't trust that trollop the Gray Lady has become...

But, hey...maybe she is just scrambling to get on the bandwagon.

[calico1]

15. I suspect that if he loses the primay

he will be getting a phone call from Bill Clinton as well as other prominent members of the Party. In the end, they care about the party, not individual people. Clinton's support came with the condition that he would withdraw his support if Lieberman loses and support Lamont, and that he expected that Lieberman not run as an Independent (according to the local news). Whether Lieberman listens or not is another matte.

[kaygore]

19. Joe, like Bush, will make promises but he won't keep them. How dumb

is Clinton, anyway!

[NewJeffCT]

43. I hope that is true

I've said it before on here, but while I was leaning Lamont from the beginning (I went to his announcement that he was entering the race at State House Square in Hartford) - but, until Lieberman refused to rule out an independent run, I was not 100% Lamont.

I'm hoping he gets calls from the Clintons and a few others (like Chris Dodd) that he should sit this one out.

[IndianaGreen]

17. NY Times Editorial: A Senate Race in Connecticut

A Senate Race in Connecticut

Published: July 30, 2006

The United States is at a critical point in its history, and Mr. Lieberman has chosen a controversial role to play. The voters in Connecticut will have to judge whether it is the right one.

As Mr. Lieberman sees it, this is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party — his moderate fair-mindedness against a partisan radicalism that alienates most Americans. “What kind of Democratic Party are we going to have?” he asked in an interview with New York magazine. “You’ve got to agree 100 percent, or you’re not a good Democrat?”

That’s far from the issue. Mr. Lieberman is not just a senator who works well with members of the other party. And there is a reason that while other Democrats supported the war, he has become the only target. In his effort to appear above the partisan fray, he has become one of the Bush administration’s most useful allies as the president tries to turn the war on terror into an excuse for radical changes in how this country operates.

Citing national security, Mr. Bush continually tries to undermine restraints on the executive branch: the system of checks and balances, international accords on the treatment of prisoners, the nation’s longtime principles of justice. His administration has depicted any questions or criticism of his policies as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. And Mr. Lieberman has helped that effort. He once denounced Democrats who were “more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq” than on supporting the war’s progress.

At this moment, with a Republican president intent on drastically expanding his powers with the support of the Republican House and Senate, it is critical that the minority party serve as a responsible, but vigorous, watchdog. That does not require shrillness or absolutism. But this is no time for a man with Mr. Lieberman’s ability to command Republicans’ attention to become their enabler, and embrace a role as the president’s defender.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/opinion/30sun1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[kaygore]

18. It's not JUST about the war, Joe! You may say you are for

the environment and a woman's right to choose, but you supported the nominations of two supreme court judges who will not only take away these rights but also kill the Constitution.

Joe, you have aided and abetted EVIL and those Democrats who are trying to help you beat Lamont, such as Boxer and Bill Clinton, have lost their moral authority by doing so.

Joe, if you are defeated, then all Democrats who ignore their base, who sell out to lobbyists, whose arrogance put them above the law and whose greed and hubris enable them to turn their backs on this nation and its people...these Democrats may actually sit up and take notice.

Joe, Joe, Joe...it's time to go.

And, Joe, it's not about Iraq...or THE kiss. It's about putting the good of the people of Connecticut and the nation above the the power and the money.

Joe, Joe, Joe...it's time to go!

[iamjoy]

44. Don't Knock Boxer & Clinton For This

policy is to support incumbents.

We can knock Boxer & Clinton if Lamont wins & they continue to support Lieberman.

[ronnykmarshall]

59. Hillary said she will support the democratic nominee.

[kaygore]

20. This thread needs 5 more recommended votes to be on the greatest page-VOTE

[kaygore]

21. Great article about this at (see URL below)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/nyregion/30lieberman.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3

[Guaranteed]

22. NO MORE FREE RIDES!!

DO YOUR DAMNED JOBS!!

[tinfoilinfor2005]

24. Even though I read your headline

my mouth still dropped open after reading this amazing article and coming to the final line: "The New York Times endorses Ned Lamont."



:wow: :wow: :wow:

[Robeson]

25. OMG!!! NOOOOOO!!!!!.....

....:sarcasm:

[threadkillaz]

26. Lamont today

Tasini tomorrow.

http://tasinifornewyork.org/






No Status Quo 06

[Barkley]

27. NYT: Lieberman a“warped version of bipartisanship”, Judith Miller a warped

version of journalism.

The Times has got a lot of nerve arguing that the senator had offered the nation a “warped version of bipartisanship” in his dealings with President Bush on national security.

[cgrindley]

37. What are you talking about?

Lieberman's so-called bipartisanship is outright betrayal of core democratic values. If he had any integrity at all, he'd resign his senate seat immediately and move to a red state. He's no democrat.

The NYT staunchly defends the rights of Americans. And as there *isn't* a war on terror, but a war on the rights and freedoms of millions of Americans, the NYT is living up to its obligation to castigate the fascists who would destroy the nation.

[Barkley]

54. This is what I am talking about!

"The Source of the Trouble"

The editor’s note was correct: The Judy Miller problem is complicated. That is, the very qualities that endeared Miller to her editors at the New York Times—her ambition, her aggressiveness, her cultivation of sources by any means necessary, her hunger to be first—were the same ones that allowed her to get the WMD story so wrong.

For the past year, the Times has done much to correct that coverage, publishing a series of stories calling Chalabi’s credibility into question. But never once in the course of its coverage—or in any public comments from its editors—did the Times acknowledge Chalabi’s central role in some of its biggest scoops, scoops that not only garnered attention but that the administration specifically cited to buttress its case for war.

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/

[ryanmuegge]

28. It's highly probable that Joe is going to lose

We'll see if Lamont is giong to be any different. Sure, tough, opportunistic (Lieberman's unrepentant support of the "Bush Doctrine" makes him a pretty easy target) campaign talk is one thing, but voting records are what matter. Lieberman is shit...obviously, a Bush poodle. Time will tell if Lamont is significantly different; his big business background makes me suspicious.

Like him or not(and I sure as fuck don't), though, I respect Lieberman for having the balls to still admit that he supports the POLICY and VISION behind war in Iraq. At least he's somewhat honest. Even the Republicans are now criticizing the war and the "execution," (which is a fucking copout position to take) while they support the actual policy 100%. I'm sure many Democrats, too, support the policy 100%. As far as I'm concerned, only Russ Feingold doesn't support the policy. Again, voting records are what matter. Please, don't give me the fucking bullshit about "legislators were tricked and fooled by cooked intelligence"; they knew as well as anybody that there were no WMD. Lieberman, being a member of the faux-opposition party (in reality, avid defenders of the status-quo), could have very easily been opportunistic and decried the war, but he didn't.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

29. Lamont should refuse.

The old snubber.

[yurbud]

30. When will Joe bow out and take his job as a lobbyist? Though he is too

smarmy to even be palatable as that.

[Hardrada]

31. He already is a lobbyist

for a foreign power.

[yurbud]

32. that's pretty bad, coming from his wife

[vssmith]

35. Joe is a Zionist?

;-)

[Ken Burch]

53. We don't need that kind of talk

Leave the "divided loyalties" smears to the Far Right. They've got no place in THIS party.

[depakid]

41. Fox "news" commentator?

He'd do better dismantling the Democratic party in that venue.

His wife already has a K Street job....

[yurbud]

51. 'you know, Sean, I AM ashamed of my former party protesting...

President Bush running for a third term. We can easily amend the Constitution after he wins, and unfortunately, you're right, it may be time for more of them to go to Dr. Dobson's re-education camp.'

[MarkDevin]

33. Goddamn that liberal media!

:evilgrin:

[Lilith Velkor]

57. ANTI-SEMITES!!111

:silly:

[MarkDevin]

34. I'll bet Lamont does cartwheels when he sees today's Times!

As for Lieberman.... I'm guessing *his* reaction will entail the phrase, "teflon brick." :bouce:

[Joe Chi Minh]

36. "Mr Lieberman's friends see it as an attempt by hysterical

antiwar bloggers to oust a giant of the Senate for the crime of bipartisanship."

Date rape is an ugly thing. The Republicans got that right.

[Ken Burch]

38. Careful, Times...

Benchley will find you, wherever you are...

[liberalmike27]

39. My View is That

If democrats don't start pulling the "soul-tug-of-war" from the other end, and try to drag our country back to good-sense-land, then it's not going to matter, as we are going to continue losing the war, and the political spectrum is going to keep moving to the right, as John Dean, and Keven Phillips, both true conservatives before this administration, point out.

Lieberman's defeat, or challenge, no matter how it turns out, is an example to all Democrats. Fight to protect us from globalization, fight to stay out of unjust wars for the purpose of profiteering, fight for our rights and freedoms, or there is nothing to fight for anyway. Fight Nazism. It's kind of ironic that Lieberman is the one cozying up to these fascists, isn't it.

[TrueFunkSoldier]

45. It's the irony of ALL ironies...

Only 6 years ago, many of you were outraged that LIEberman wasn't our V.P. Oh what a difference a few years make. As a Nader supporter in 2000 (from a very blue state, I might add), I was made to feel horrible for supporting a third-party candidate and possibility affecting the outcome of a 'stolen' election. Just think: if the SCOTUS had allowed the vote count to continue, Gore became president and LIEberman became our V.P., 911 happened, would LIEberman still be the turncoat that he is now? I'm willing to admit that I was wrong for supporting Nader in 2000, but one of the reasons why I did was because Gore chose LIEberman. Now, the REAL LIEberman has been revealed. I'm not going to say 'I told you so,' but it is the irony of all ironies...

[pokercat999]

46. Not really, history is full of examples of the oppressed

working for and taking the side of the oppressors. Think Indian scouts for the US Army in the 1800's west and a few Jews in Nazi Germany. I'm sure there are examples of this in every fascist takeover. So the Lieberman/Neo-Con marriage isn't hard to believe, understanding it, that the hard part.

[loyalsister]

47. Easier than at first glance

I think that like others, they tricked Lieberman's sense of patriotism and appeal to his extremism on the morality front.
Remember he called for a Clinton censorship.

The NYT mentions that he enables Bush militarism, but didn't mention how he enables the religious right. He has been in favor of the faith based initiatives and quite frequently delves into issues of personal morality.

I have always been disgusted by that, I have blamed all of the Democrats who were whose nationalism got the best of them when they were presented with lies.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
- Sinclair Lewis

[NewJeffCT]

49. just about every war & conflict has them

Heck, the Byzantines used to employ Turkish mercenaries to fight against their fellow Turkish Muslims back in the middle ages. And, against other Byzantines (hence the word "byzantine" came into existence to describe something insanely complicated and hard to understand)

In the first crusade, the Christians siege of Jerusalem was successful because the Christians bribed a Muslim captain responsible for guarding a section of the wall.

The Norwegians have a word "quisling" that means traitor because of Vidkun Quisling in WW2 practically turning the country over to the Nazis...

[Arugula Latte]

48. This line makes my blood boil:

"...it is critical that the minority party serve as a responsible, but vigorous, watchdog."

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHH!!! Hey, New York Times! It is critical that THE MEDIA also serve as a responsible but vigorous watchdog! You know, like have someone other than Judith Miller take stenography for the Bush administration! :banghead:

Okay, sorry. I had to let that out ...

Don't get me wrong -- I'm glad the Times is endorsing Lamont, but it's ironic they're pointing their finger at Traitor Joe when they and the Wash. Post failed miserably in being a watchdog for the public when it comes to this evil administration.

[Cha]

55. The nyt definetly

dropped the ball like a hot potato more than ONCE!

[cyclezealot]

56. What bothers me about Liebermann

Besides his moral crusades, lousy judicial votes, and support for the war.
Condoning or ignoring the fact Bush lied to the American people to start his war and even worse manipulated the intelligence to get us into his personal war.
Even Kerry has made some noise about being lied to . It might be acceptable to say, ok we are there now. How do we extraticate ourselves from a messy situation.
But, to not resent all the war fabrication. I can't accept that . Even war supporters should see the evil in making the CIA a political arm of Neocons', instead of professional intelligence collection. Liebermann seems to have no qualms about secrecy in government an executive who can ignore our laws.

[hedgehog]

58. Great, now when will they notice Tasini in their own state!

[goforit]

60. Whoo Hoo! Calling an ALERT! ALL CT. citizens bring camera when vote

is drawn.
The only way Looserman will win is with a steal!!!