The NYT, Lieberman, Lamont.

Hey folks,

Happy Monday morning. May I remind you,

89. Journalists do not take part in politics. While staff members are entitled to vote and to register in party primaries, they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of our news operations. In particular, they may not campaign for, demonstrate for, or endorse candidates, ballot causes or efforts to enact legislation. They may not wear campaign buttons or themselves display any other insignia of partisan politics. NYT ethics policy.

Even though they have this "ethics" policy, and truly want you to believe that they are neutral and independent, they show their true selves on a daily bases. This Sunday is no different. Yesterday, the NYT said,

"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."

They also said that, Lieberman's efforts "to appear above the partisan fray" have turned him into one of the administration's most useful allies. They are supporting Lamont who the most recent Quinnipiac Poll this month shows him with a slight lead over Lieberman, 51 to 47 percent among likely voters in the Aug. 8 primary. The survey's sampling error margin is plus or minus 4 percentage points, so still anyone’s game.

LOL, we know you can’t have that, can you? You cannot agree with this President and expect that the NTY will back you. That just will not happen. But others ARE endorsing Lieberman, even those that usually do not endorse anyone. Could it be they want to distance themselves as far from the NYT as they can?

The Hartford Courant, who said that it does not usually endorse candidates in primaries, but did so now because the race has drawn national attention and is a "defining moment" in the debate about the war on terrorism. Of course they also do not want to be seen as the NYT. They wrote,

"Mr. Lieberman's history of enthusiasm for military interventions overseas is an anomaly in a man famous for mediating among warring factions in Washington. But to dismiss this moderate, a vanishing breed in a Congress sundered by extremism on both sides, for dissenting on a single issue would be a terrible waste. And a mistake."

The Connecticut Post on Sunday also backed Lieberman. It wrote,

"There have been many times when we've disagreed with the senator, but his overall record is commendable and the record of a fighter who has been there for Connecticut in the areas of defense contracts, the environment, education, health care, civil rights and transportation."

So you see, even though the Currant and the Post are Liberal papers, they are not members of the LWL. The NYTs on the other hand, spend a lot of time and money to try to convince you that they are not what they show themselves to be on a daily bases, a member and tool of the Left Wing Looneys.

I have talked about this before. This is absolutely amazing to me that the LWL and the NYT would throw a die-hard party member like Lieberman under the bus, just because he agreed with the President on ONE issue.


I like Lieberman, I do not always agree with him, but I like him. All this stuff going on? It all may be good for him in the end. He may truly be one who could rise up and get more votes as an Independent, and may actually win. This would be a positive move for those who hate party politics, and are looking for something new. It could also be a sign to both parties, STOP PLAYING GAMES...
Peter