30 Jul 2006 08:57:26
Dave Hazelwood
"Judas Joe" Lieberman takes a hit !

The New York Times is set to include an editorial endorsing challenger
Ned Lamont over incumbent Joe Lieberman for Connecticut's Democratic
primary race for the Senate, RAW STORY has found.

An article also slated for Sunday's paper called "After sluggish
start, Lieberman heeded warnings of trouble" written by Adam Nagourney
mentions the endorsement in a bracketed sentence five paragraphs in.

"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," the article reads.

Some bloggers later noticed that the Nagourney article gained an
additional paragraph this time marked with "round brackets" instead of
"square" on its second Website page.

"The Times has endorsed Mr. Lieberman for the United States Senate
only once in his four campaigns," the article reads. "A 1988 editorial
endorsed the incumbent, Lowell Weicker. In 1994, The Times endorsed
Mr. Lieberman. In 2000, The Times endorsed the Gore-Lieberman
presidential ticket but made no endorsement in the Senate race in

It is unknown whether the bylined reporter Nagourney wrote the
bracketed lines, or the New York Times editors.

Excerpts from Times endorsement:

The race has taken on a national character. 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. Lamont backers — most of
whom seem more passionate about being Lieberman opponents — say that
as one of the staunchest supporters of the Iraq war, Mr. Lieberman has
betrayed his party by cozying up to President Bush.


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.

Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and
moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other
Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponent’s grasp of
policy yet. But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman’s legislative
record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of
bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an
excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the
Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.