Approval from moderates and conservatives, as the NY Times has endorsed Lamont. And why?
Because he has the capacity to grow. Having watched Lamont a bit, it makes me wonder if they haven't confused him with a house plant of some kind.
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.
More important, he has the capacity to continually become a better one.
But the anti-war Times couldn't leave it at an endorsement of Lamont, no, they had to take their shots at Lieberman by invoking Karl Rove. The far Left's obsession with Rove is amazing.
Since his primary defeat, Mr. Lieberman has run a well-packaged campaign built around his self-assigned bipartisan image — “It’s not about politics,” say his ads. But it is very much about politics — from the flood of special interest campaign donations that has been running Mr. Lieberman’s way to the old Karl Rove lesson that political winners never admit to error.
What the Times endorsement most displays is immaturity and a failure to understand leadership. They fault Lieberman for it being easy to hang with Bush, after all, the Republicans have the White House and the Congress. But that's a disingenuous slap at Lieberman who has been mostly consistent in his bi-partisan approach throughout his political career.
At a time when many feel we need more bi-partisan co-operation in Washington, the Times elects to endorse the candidate most incapable of showing any at all. They reveal themselves as having more in common with the moonbat-iest of Lefty blogs than the average American and Connecticut citizen, most of whom support Joe.
Their failure to understand leadership during a time of war shouldn't be surprising as they absolutely lack the ability to understand and accept the unfortunate need to go to war under any circumstance. It really shouldn't be a surprise that tactics, as opposed to strategy, have always been shifting in Iraq, as in most every war. But that isn't enough for the New York Times. They'd support leaders who are hand wringers - constantly moping about in public admitting every slight or significant mistake. Jimmy Carter tried it, as did Johnson before he opted to not even run for a second term. And that's precisely the model of leadership the Times adores - weak, one that will not work.
Sadly, the Times would rather have their ideology re-affirmed by weak leadership that would and will always lose a war. So, it should be no surprise that one of the weakest of today's remaining large newspapers would support the weakest candidate of the three.
No surprise. NYT endorsed Lamont in the primary. Sulzberger IV feels a kinship with Lamont IV. They know how to treat those poor dregs who work for them.
Posted by: don surber | Sunday, October 29, 2006 at 01:53 AM