Here's the New York Times Lamont Endorsement

[Tom Rinaldo]

Here is the allowable snip plus the link:

Editorial
A Senate Race in Connecticut

Published: July 30, 2006

"...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.

•

On the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Lieberman has left it to Republicans like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to investigate the administration’s actions. In 2004, Mr. Lieberman praised Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for expressing regret about Abu Ghraib, then added: “I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized.” To suggest even rhetorically that the American military could be held to the same standard of behavior as terrorists is outrageous, and a good example of how avidly the senator has adopted the Bush spin and helped the administration avoid accounting for Abu Ghraib.

Mr. Lieberman prides himself on being a legal thinker and a champion of civil liberties. But he appointed himself defender of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the administration’s policy of holding hundreds of foreign citizens in prison without any due process. He seconded Mr. Gonzales’s sneering reference to the “quaint” provisions of the Geneva Conventions. He has shown no interest in prodding his Republican friends into investigating how the administration misled the nation about Iraq’s weapons. There is no use having a senator famous for getting along with Republicans if he never challenges them on issues of profound importance.

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."

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

[panader0]

1. Great editorial. It should be required reading in Conn.

[existentialist]

2. Nice to see not only this endorsement,

but also that the New York Times seems to be coming to reality too.

[gristy]

3. Excellent

A very nice thing to see. Very detailed. Very good.

[Eric J in MN]

4. To send a postcard to friends and relatvies in Connecticut...

...for Ned Lamont, click below:
http://www.familyfriendsandneighbors.net/

[Eric J in MN]

5. re opposing Bush "does not require shrillness "

I only wish there were 100 Senators shrilly opposing Bush's policies of war, torture, and kangaroo courts.

[Senator]

11. Exactly, stopping neofascism DEMANDS both shrillness and absolutism

The Times should have been screaming "Absolutely NO War Crimes" as shrill as they could.

And since no less an authority than the (formerly) supreme court has now adjudicated the matter, they need to be screaming;

"Impeachment and Prosecution (if necessary at the Hague) for Absolutely Everyone Involved"

Their failure to do so betrays their own "warped" view of reality.

--

[Eric J in MN]

12. AAR: "White House Seeks Protection from War Crimes Act"

From
http://www.airamerica.com/node/2394

"The Bush administration, through Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, is pushing GOP lawmakers to draft specific 'protections' to shield American soldiers from prosecution under the 1996 War Crimes Act. The Act, which was pushed through at the time by the Republican-controlled Congress, criminalizes violations of the Geneva Conventions, and holds out the possibility of the death penalty for any soldier who causes the death of a detainee in U.S. custody."

It's one despicable thing after another with the Bush Administration. The worst people in America are setting policy for America.

[aquart]

21. What's "neo" about this fascism?

Seems pretty classic old school to me.

[Senator]

23. They've managed to drop the goose-stepping

And limited the scapegoats to generally foreign bogey-men.

All in all, a slightly kinder, gentler fascism.

--

[immoderate]

25. Mussolini style fascism, without the economic recovery!

--IMM

[itzamirakul]

6. K& R! I am delighted that the NYT is backing Lamont.

Lieberman is not going to suffer. He will get a fabulous job with one of the private companies that lobby for zillions of dollars, get an enormous salary, a lot of perks and get to hobnob with the same crowd as before. So folks need to stop with the Pity Party for a man who has served himself well and served the country also during his time in office. As with all things, sometimes a change is impossible to escape and for Lieberman, that time for change is now. He's got to suck it up and move on with his life.

[Eric J in MN]

7. The primary is "a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship,

...in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction..."

Great line.

[Nutmegger]

8. Good read.

This is a pleasant surprise if you know what I mean.

[Eric J in MN]

9. We have a chance, again.

Things looked grim with Bill Clinton in tv commercials and robocalls for Lieberman, but we might win.

Every Ned Lamont supporter with friends or relatives in Connecticut who support him should contact them while the polls are open on August 8 to ask if they've voted.

[Kahuna]

10. This editorial is smoking. It hits on all the problems with Lieberman...

He has been an enabler and has become catty and arrogant in the process.

[w4rma]

13. Wow, that was actually accurate. (nt)

[Truthiness Inspector]

14. Cool

He supports Israel too, with a comprehensive plan laid out. I read that earlier this week.

[ralps]

15. Woohoo!!!! Great Article, I hope some of the undecided voters in CT

read this. :hi: :loveya: :hug: :pals: :woohoo:

[Laurab]

16. Very good editorial

and the logic is hard to argue. K & R!

[Eric J in MN]

17. There are parts where I would have gone further.

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

Ideally, all one hundred Senators would be fighting for democracy against Bush's kangaroo courts and indefinite imprisonment with everything they've got.

[Marlie]

18. McLaughlin group tonight - all four panelists think Joe will win

God, I hope these in the bubble journalists or whatever you call them, are so
wrong. It was unanimous - all four, even Eleanor Clift, the staunch democrat
agreed Joe would win. So depressing, just hated seeing this because I've been
so encouraged about Lamont. Again, hope they just don't get it or the passion
we feel.

[Eric J in MN]

19. The Bill Clinton edorsement of Lieberman will hurt us.

I hope Ned Lamont can still pull it off.

The NY Times endorsement will help us.

[Olney Blue]

27. WaPo endorsed Lieberman today. Not surprised.

[Eric J in MN]

29. The Washigton Post praises Lieberman for bringing us the...

Dept of Homeland Security.

After the horrible job they did in Katrina, and the ridiculous allocation of funds which doesn't consider NY as big a terrorist target, having helped pass the DHS bill is nothing to be proud of.

The Hartford Courant praised Lieberman for DHS, too, in their endorsement.

[Eric J in MN]

20. kick

kick

[Cha]

22. I'm betting a lot

of Connecticutians read the NYT for breakfast on Sunday morn.

THis is amazing..the NYT feels like I do on the senator turned slime provocateur.

Just in time for the August 8th primary and Ned Lamont.

But, then lie-man always has an ace in the hole doesn't he?

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. A kick for Sunday reading n/t

[The Count]

26. "Terrorists didn't apologize - Rummy is better than OBL" Nice one, Joe!

Excellent endorsement. The two local papers in CT endorsed W's stooge though.

[Eric J in MN]

28. What are the 2? Hartford Courant and ...?

NT