October 29, 2006

"We wanted to see a capacity for growth and change in Mr. Lieberman."

The NYT endorses Ned Lamont.


LoafingOaf said...

They're impressed by Ned Lamont's "sophistication"? Scary.

I'm impressed by Connecticut's sophisticated voters, who saw the purge of Lieberman for what it was are are sticking by him as an independant.

I love the way the NY Times doesn't think it's even possible for an honorable person to disagree with them and DNC talking points on Iraq.

amba said...


Derve said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
AJ Lynch said...

What a great country- I just gained an hour- how about you guys? But I digress.

Lieberman's upcoming victory should send a big frigging bright and loud signal to the political class and the MSM..that is that Americans simply want and will vote for steady, moderate, smart and reasonable people in Congress!

Do you think the MSM will get that message? Not likely when you read this NYT endorsement. And Lieberman's victory should offer a big, bright, loud and out in the open clue to the 2008 pack of wanabees.

Derve said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave said...

Lamont is a victim of guilty wealthy white man syndrome. It's endemic here in the northeast.

tjl said...


Amba, are you expressing disgusted surprise, or giving the code letters for the Nantucket airport?

The NYT's endorsement hardly comes as a shock. Lamont accurately reflects the political views of the NYT editorial board. Lamont, as a Kossite trust-fund baby, also belongs to the NYT editors' legacy-leftist demographic. It's a perfect match.

JSF said...

I remember during the primaries all the anti-semetic posts and remarks by the netroots of the DNC (i.e DailyKos and Firedoglake). I remember how NO democrat stood up and did not say it was wrong -- How Lieberman should have been fought on the issues, not make it personal. Now, the NYT steps in and endorses the tactics of the netroots. God help the modern Democrat party. If they get the majority, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid will make Israel the new Czechoslovakia in the War on Terror. Thank you New York Times

Derve said...

there are others who think like the NTY, and believe Mr. Lieberman's (sorry about the previous smelling -- there's a meme, i before e) leadership career is over, whether or not he is re-elected with Republican support.

Hope that doesn't make me an anti-Semite worthy of banning, just because Mr. L. is Jewish.

PatCA said...

That editorial sounds like it was written by The Church Lady.

AJ Lynch said...

Your wishful thinking won't make it come true. And you are wrong cause you still think it's all about combat between the two dominant parties. That legislative model is becoming extinct.

For example, the blogosphere prodded reps from both parties to enact the Pork database that anyone could view on the internets. That is evidence of the new legislative model which will address and fix the big issues in this country like Medicare and social security. And only honorable reps like a Lieberman will be responsive to that kind of model and that will help them get re-elected.

So I suggest you get off your party identification and get with the newer tactic of issue identification. Or you will be left further behind. Which in your case is currently about 15,000 miles.

Paul from Georgia said...

Let's wait and see if the Democrats in the Senate need Lieberman's vote to be the majority before we talk about his power or lack thereof.

Gerry said...

"Y'all put down the NYT as dishonorable when they report facts, and express opinions you don't like."

Speaking just for myself, the Washington Post often expresses opinions I do not like.

I think the New York Times is a joke, and that several of their journalistic decisions over the past few years have been detrimental to the interests of the United States and borderline criminal.

I do not feel the same way about the Washington Post.

I am not sure how your theory about the attitude of Times' critics such as me squares with this, so perhaps you can explain.

And, if in case your expanded theory will have something to do with a claim that I hate the Times because it is effective, I assure you that I find the Times quite effective at motivating Republicans to vote.

JorgXMcKie said...

I think I've seen some growth in Nattering Neddy. He's gone from a geek to a dweeb, maybe.

JSF said...

But Derve, do you accept putting Lieberman in blackface (i.e. Firedoglake), calling him all slanderous names for Jews (i'm not going to repeat them here, but I read them on DU and DailyKos), we Republicans have to apologize for all manner of Repuublicans (I.e. Ann Coulter, etc). I have yet to see one Democrat, candidate or individual acknowledge the anti-semitism against Sen. Lieberman. Will you be the first?

Ann Althouse said...

Blogger is having trouble today. The front page won't update. Here's a new post you might want to read and comment on. It will eventually show up on the front page.

Right now, I think, a million bloggers are obsessively republishing, overtaxing the system, so it's going to be hard for it to recover... on a Sunday. Maybe Daylight readjustment confused things.

Fenrisulven said...

What Gerry said. And I don't understand why Ann continues to follow that treasonous rag. Her call, her right, I just don't get it.

And even if we lose both houses, it will be some consolation to see the Kos candidate lose so badly to Joe.

I wish there were still more liberals like Joe. We could scrap all day and then meet afterwards for drinks. I disagree with more than half of what Joe beleives, but I know he places the good of the nation over his party.

Menlo Bob said...

Change and growth. Hasn't that been the issue with the business side of the NYT?

Doyle said...

Ann is getting really good at selecting the quote from an offending piece that most clearly conveys her contempt.

The line is a little bit goofy, but at least the NYT editirial board actually expressed an opinion as opposed to just hinting at one.

Zach said...

Two months ago, Connecticut’s Democratic voters sent Mr. Lieberman what should have been a jarring wake-up call when they rejected him for Mr. Lamont, a relative newcomer. We have been waiting to see what lessons the state’s best-known politician took from his defeat..."

He had a prohibitive lead in the general election polling the very next day.

Maybe that's why they went with the metaphor of a wakeup call. It's a message with no content, just like narrowly losing a primary and simultaneously leading the same opponent in the general election.

Fenrisulven said...

Maybe that's why they went with the metaphor of a wakeup call. It's a message with no content,

Yah, I love the way they try to spin it as a shot across his bow, instead of a failed purge. Joe hasn't changed his positions because of this. He's said that he'll forgive but not forget.

Simon said...

It's a desparate last-gasp attempt to resuscitate a dead horse that's only getting deader.

Bruce Hayden said...

Actually, I think that
Sen. Lieberman has grown up a bit. Before the 2000 election, he had a reputation for being true to his convictions and a fairly straight talker and doer. But that was somewhat tarnished by the requirement that he toe the line in his run for the Vice Presidency. Subjects like School Choice got put on a back burner, and, his previous liberally unpopular stands were mostly reconciled with liberal orthodoxy.

To some extent, the rejection by the Democratic party has seemed to act as a liberating force on the Senator. Running as an independant is allowing him to vote and act on his conscience. (And, no, I don't expect him to go over to the Republicans in very many areas - in most areas, he is still quite "progressive").

Simon said...

Zach said...
"Maybe that's why they went with the metaphor of a wakeup call. It's a message with no content..."

Rather like the Democrats' "it's time for a change" mantra. That phrase is singularly useless; "it's time for a change" said the sausage, as it lept from the frying pan into the fire.

Old Dad said...

A question for Dems, re: Lamont.

The point of politics is to win elections. The incumbent was a shoe in, so what happens? The national party undercuts the shoe in for a nobody who will get his ass kicked next Tuesday. As an added bonus, they blow a ton of money and credibility. Why?

If there ever was an election cycle where the Dems should have kicked hell out of the Republicans, this is it, but you guys have managed to make a horse race out of it.

I will say this, though. The Dems have fielded some very good Congressional candidates, moderates--not nut rooty in the least.

Derve said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Simon said...

Old Dad said...
"The point of politics is to win elections. The incumbent was a shoe in, so what happens? The national party undercuts the shoe in for a nobody who will get his ass kicked next Tuesday. As an added bonus, they blow a ton of money and credibility. Why?"

I'm not a Dem, but I think the answer is pretty clear. You might ask the Republican Party why it was so eager to displace Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island, and turn what looks likely to be a wash-out into a landslide. It's much the same reason: the middle ground is rapidly becoming extinct, and to the nutroots, if you're not bitterly against the war, then you might as well be a Republican. They sincerely believe that now is the time for a purge, and as Chafee will tell you, there's some in the GOP who feel the same. There are some folks who would rather lose Maine and Rhode Island than nominate Snowe and Chafee. So it isn't just a Democratic tendancy, both parties share it, it's just that the Dems are drunk on it and the GOP's just a little tipsy.

Old Dad said...


That makes good sense. It's almost always bad to let your party be hijacked by the extreme. Landlsides come from coalitions that can include moderates. Reagan was a genius at building just such a coalition--one that we modern Republicans have just about wrecked.

On the bright side, I think this years midterm might be a very good correction, with both sides moderating to a degree.

What's really needed is dynamic leadership. Unfotunately, the best and brightest steer clear, understandably, from the moral and intellectual pygmies currently running the country from both sides of the aisle.

Brent said...

As I posted almost a year ago, the New York Times has not endorsed a Republican candidate for President since the 1920's.

They have never endorsed a Republican candidate who is pro-life. Tell me who the single issue partisans are now.

The New York Times, in its editorial positions, is radical left - not moderate or even close to center-left. The last time I made that statement to friends, I unloaded a list of 20 positions that the Times has taken in editorials in just the last 4 years that aren't even close to center-left. Everyone of my friends, even Pelosi and Lamont supporters, had no choice but to agree.

Happy to list on request, by the way.

Again - don't be fooled by the elegant old-school Roman typeface - the New York Times is historically leftist - not left.

The Times is a disease stain on American society, a damage to the national fabric - that's the rest of the country called the United States, for those of you who submitted your brain and ability to think for yourself to the gray lady years ago. The Times is dangerous to our national conversation because it has convinced multitudes of intellectually lazy and just plain issue-stupid people of all educational and income levels that the Times plays it straight when it comes to news.

"The Times plays it straight in delivering the news" has replaced "the check is in the mail" as the most common lie of our time.

MadisonMan said...

Why should the NYTimes endorse a candidate in Connecticut? It's like the Chicago Tribune endorsing Herb Kohl -- who cares what those FIBs think?

I notice the State Journal split its ticket -- Doyle for Governor, because the state is better off than when he was elected, and Magnum for US House.

The Exalted said...

The Times is a disease stain on American society, a damage to the national fabric - that's the rest of the country called the United States, for those of you who submitted your brain and ability to think for yourself to the gray lady years ago.

the only radical here is you buddy.

Ann Althouse said...

Madison Man: Most of Connecticut is closer to NYC than most of New York. It's a definite tri-state area, and I'm sure it's been part of the local delivery area for many years.

Dave said...

On the question of why the NYT endorses a Connecticut Senator:

1) Its demographic skews toward people who have second homes many of which homes are in CT.

2) Its readership includes many people who live in CT, either in those aforementioned second homes, or in their primary home.

3) It counts among its readers many Jews who share an affinity for Lieberman, even if he does not represent them.

Etc., etc.

Hence the Times' endorsement of a candidate for Senate in CT.

gj said...

JSF, I am a Jew, I read DailyKos every day, and I never saw anyone there say anything antisemitic about Lieberman.

Now maybe if you think "idiot" is antisemitic, you might have a different opinion. But if you are going to accuse the left blogosphere of antisemitism, you should at least back it up with some links. As it stands, it's slander and nothing else.

And please don't patronise us with links to obscure comments by trolls deep inside discussions. You can find anything you want in unmoderated forums on both the left and the right.

Simon said...

Re Brent's comment, I cannot help but find it funny when anyone in America talks about "the hard left" / "radical left," or the "hard right" / "radical right." These are terms that a sense of perspective make impossible to take seriously; anyone who has become even passingly familiar with European or British politics will tell you that one of the most striking things about America is the almost complete absence of what in those countries are very properly called by those terms.

No one outside the far fringes of the American left, and certainly not the New York Times, is advocating nationalization of the commanding heights of industry and public utilities, which is the default position of the majority of the majority of the European left. No one is suggesting putting a statue of Karl Marx atop the capitol dome. No one on the right is advocating the wholesale deportation of an entire race (in candid moments, most Democrats will admit that they understand the illegal immigration issue has nothing to do with race, but it's just too much of a political open goal for them to pass up). American politics is strongly distinguished from European politics by how close to the center even the far banks of the mainstream are. Even Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich, arguably closest to the hard left that we see in Congress, are very much moderates by the standards of the pre-Blair Labor Party.

The New York Times is very much the liberal propaganda outlet, and it gets more and more intellectually and morally discredited with each passing month (for example, their abrupt mea culpa regarding the NSA program's outing). Is it shamelessly biased towards the left? Sure. But to compare it with the Pravda of old, the Morning Star or Socialist Worker, as the as "hard left" takes an extraordinary act of relativism, and I think detracts from the very legitimate criticisms that CAN be broached against the New York Times.

Garage Mahal said...

The New York Times is very much the liberal propaganda outlet, and it gets more and more intellectually and morally discredited with each passing month

Simon, you really had me, then you closed with this. [above]

The Times certainly wasn't a liberal propaganda outlet in the run up to the Iraq war -- they were printing the Judy Miller/Chalabi fairy tales as fast as Chalabi could whip out his palms. And I seem to remember plenty of Cabinet members on the Sunday morning talk shows literally holding up these Times headlines.

Simon said...

In other words, you agreed with everything I said, right up until I said something you disagreed with me on. I didn't "have" you at the end any more than I "had" you at the beginning.

Garage Mahal said...

I think you made my point for me. When do you disagree with The Times? When it doesn't go your way? Is their business section a liberal propaganda outlet? Travel?

Brent said...


You made me remember a couple of Travel articles from the New York Times that somehow managed to fit in a disparaging remark about the Bush administration, as well as one article praising the "Clinton economy" and the resulting travel opportunities. The Travel Section!

I will begin looking them up in the morning on my Times Select.
The Business section is often said to be tilting left in it's reporting - it's obvious that they worship the spirit of Galbraith!
Garage, do tell me how the Book Review is full of balance, rarely calling upon conservatives to review liberal authors, while almost always using liberals to review conservative authors. And boy, how the Book Review runs to print reviews of conservative tomes that are on its Best Seller lists - Not!

Barak Obama's Book is out this week and already reviewed. Bill O'Reilly's latest has been out 5 weeks, topped the list and hasn't been reviewed yet, nor is it likely to be. That's balance! Of course, Bill O' Reilly has been mentioned in 6 books by liberal authors that have been reviewed, with none of the 6 selling anywhere near O'Reilly's numbers. No bias there!
And Garage, the Sunday Magazine - now there's a sanctuary of straight-down-the-middle reporting!
But please, PLEASE, Mr. Mahal, do answer on how the Times Arts Section is so very balanced with its lack of political partisan posturing! Good Luck!

Garage Buddy - you gave me the biggest laugh of the day. Thank you!

P.S. I'm not even a fan of Bill O'Reilly.

Brent said...

Oh, and Garage my friend, if you intend to point out any Times article that you think might be "conservatively" slanted, do be prepared for a "10-to-one liberal slant article" response for each piece of "evidence".

Armed and ready.

OhioAnne said...

Among my Democratic friends, John McCain is most oftened named as the Republican they would consider voting for - among my Republican friends Joe Lieberman is the Democratic name most mentioned.

I can only speak for my immediate circle of friends but, generally, they are pretty disgusted with Congress as a whole and uninspired by any name being being mentioned for 2008.

A third party run by either one with the support of the other may just surprise both the Democrats and Republicans in 2008.

Simon said...

Garage Mahal said...
"Simon, I think you made my point for me. When do you disagree with The Times? When it doesn't go your way? Is their business section a liberal propaganda outlet? Travel?"

Well, as Brent has already pointed out, the business section is indeed business viewed through a liberal prism. (I'm not imaginative enough to suggest how the travel section could display a partisan bent, but I'm sure that, if it served their purpose, they'd manage to find a way).

I don't know if their Supreme Court coverage is the worst example, or if I'm just conversant enough with what's actually happening in that arena that I notice it more (it's the same thing with NPR's court reporting - Nina Totenberg does more to damage NPR's credibility for me than anything else they air).

Let me answer your question this way: you're asking when I disagree with the NYT, but the point is really that I don't trust the NYT, and so I do not look to it, either for news or for analysis. It is absolutley no different to FoxNews, IMO. Is it capable of printing something I agree with? Sure; if they say that a square has four sides, I'm not going to say that they're biased towards a liberal conception of geometry, but that isn't the point. If the Wall Street Journal runs a story, I may or may not agree with their analysis, and I might choose to look more closely at the factual record, but at the most basic level, I trust the WSJ to accurately state the facts, and I don't trust the New York Times to report the facts straight. It's one thing to disagree with a paper's editorial stance, and people can read a paper without agreeing with its editorial stance. But you can't take a newspaper seriously if, at bottom, you just don't trust them to report the facts straight. The NYT is the shield and sword of the liberal agenda; its writing and selection of stories reflects that agenda, and when certain facts make it harder for them to slant it one way, I think they have shown a marked tendancy to just throw the inconvenient ones overboard.

Dave said...

Simon's comments about the NYT are quite interesting and likely correct. For what it's worth I don't think even New Yorkers rely on the Times for serious business news analysis.

Mike said...

I learned how dishonest the NYT is when I started comparing their news articles with politial events I had witnessed myself on C-Span.

Simon said...

Mike -
I had a similar experience regarding Nina Totenberg earlier this year. I'd watch the Alito hearings during the day, and then, while driving home, hear Totenberg offer up a report on the hearings which simply did not reflect the hearing that I watched. At the most charitable, she failed to adequately guard against summarization becoming misrepresenation. Who knows, perhaps it wasn't deliberate, but it was intriguing how consistently the slips always seemed to cast the worst possible light on Alito.

Will this tendancy stop just because the transcripts are now available with inappropriate dispatch? Well, did the easy availability of slip opinions through the internet put a stop to it? Did the availability of CSPAN put a stop to mischaracterization of Congressional procedings (including Supreme Court nomination hearings)?

pst314 said...

"Growth and change" is quintessentially smarmy liberal-speak for "you gotta agree with me."

pst314 said...

My favorite example of the New York Times' liberal bias was the adulatory profile of some unrepentant 60's terrorists which appeared in the Sunday magazine section 2 days before 9/11.

pst314 said...

"No one is suggesting putting a statue of Karl Marx atop the capitol dome."

Some Marxists do run for office every year, and some get elected. And I am personally aquainted with a Democratic Party activist in Wisconsin who is a red-diaper baby.