After Sluggish Start, Lieberman Heeded Warnings of Trouble (NY Times will endorse Ned Lamont)

The New York Times ^ | 7/29/06 | Adam Nagourney

[DuxFan4ever]

arguing that the senator had offered the nation a “warped version of bipartisanship” in his dealings with President Bush on national security

Whatever happened to politics ends at the nations shore?

[GeronL]

The CRIMES circulation will dip farther as they move leftward outside of the realm of 'decent' liberals and becomes nothing more than a printed edition of DU.

[AdvisorB]

The Times supporting the communist candidate? Naaahhhhhhh!

[npg]

I hope Joe runs as an Independent and either wins or splits the vote and puts a Republican in

After how he has been treated in this deal, I doubt he would care.

Interesting how Maverick Republicans are celebrated but Dems who break from caucas are ripped for it.

[new yorker 77]

THE PRO-TERRORIST PAPER for
THE PRO-TERRORIST CANDIDATE for
THE PRO-TERRORIST VOTER

[headstamp]

"But Mr. Lieberman’s decline is about more than the war. It is the culmination of problems of a politician who, if well liked, has been a step to the right of his own party."


They've got to be kidding with this statement. It's illustrative of how far to the left the party has gone when they state and think this about a Liberal Democrat who just happens to support the war on terror generally.

I'm more than curious as to how much Lieberman decides to stick to his principles or morf into a raving "Algore" to save his butt. From the Gore/Lieberman campaign experience, I don't hold out much hope.

[WOSG]

[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.]

WOW. JUST WOW. NYTimes is gone full-tilt Moonbat!

I see Bill Clinton stumped for Joememtum last week... interesting.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

To modern Democrats, it's Power Uber Alles.

[sanjacjake]

9/11..cancelled all the old cliches...stops at shore,
Geneva Convention (?), United Nations..as protectors,
etc.etc.....then after a while..forget 9/11..lets get
the money....forget energy and our dependence on the
Arabs who want to kill us....forget the babies who have
never had a chance (abortion),,,all the above is where
the ...moveon. org -crowd is and has been...media still
belittling Bush..but he is only one with guts to stand
up to the chaos, Democrats...etc,... Jake

[Gay State Conservative]

To modern Democrats, it's Power Uber Alles.

You mean Surrender Uber Allies,don't you?

[FreeRep]

It is interesting how the media, Hollywood, MoveOn.org (Soros), academia, du & kos spinmeisters and the intelligentsia on the left are organized to bring down their own former democratic vice-presidential candidate. Eating their own. Seems like there is cannibalism going on in the neo-democratic party. Stalinism is alive and well!

[AlexandriaDuke]

Watching the Hannitites and Neocons lionize Lieberman is sad/funny.

Lieberman is a far left New England socialist. Just because he throws a rhetorical bone to insecure conservatives about "family values" or the war, he'll NEVER buck his party.

Trust me. I remember going through this exact thing with Pat Moynihan in the 80s.

[Zack Nguyen]

I have recently read about Pat Moynihan's endorsement of Mrs. Clinton. For all his well-placed disdain for her and her husband, for all his (accurate) understanding of issues like partial-birth abortion, in the end all of his principles counted for less than they should have. He voted against conviction of Clinton, as I recall, and of course endorsed Hillary Clinton just to remain at the center of power I suppose.

[Alexander Rubin]

He's not a socialist, and he's not far left (although, he is on some particular social issues), but he is a hardcore liberal and that is not going to change.

Despite that, I think he's a good man, who's only doing what he thinks is right. The fact that I think he's very wrong is not really that relevant. ;)

But, yeah, your call about him never bucking the Democratic party? Spot on. He's not a Republican, not even close to being a RINO, let alone a real conservative and he is a dyed blue in the wool liberal, through and through.

[Sabramerican]

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

WOW.

I am not easily shocked these day when the NY Times goes off the deep end- but I admit that THIS is shocking.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Lieberman is a far left New England socialist. Just because he throws a rhetorical bone to insecure conservatives about "family values" or the war, he'll NEVER buck his party."

I have to disagree with you. Lieberman is the true meaning of a liberal. Everyone to the left of him are outright Marxists but are too cowardly to come out and say so.

[uncbob]

Trust me. I remember going through this exact thing with Pat Moynihan in the 80s.

Yep you nailed it

Two of a kind

Moyniham was nothing but a big egotistical GASBAG of BS

[kjo]

Yes, I am surprised too. It seems the NYTs now follows periodicals like the VILLAGE VOICE and THE NATION into the oblivion of anti-American socialism.

What has happened to this once great newspaper?

[Alexander Rubin]

Hah! I'm not the only one who sees that. Great minds think alike, FRiend.